Summary: Extension of stay beyond statutory period is based on the principle "actus curiae neminem gravabit" i.e. the act of Court shall prejudice no one. To determine the cause of delay application for extension shall be moved before Commissioner (Appeals).

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a medical professional, filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated January 29, 2021. The petition involved various respondents, including the Secretary Health of the Azad Government, the Director General Health, and other related health and administrative officials. The petitioner sought interim relief pending the appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petition for leave to appeal should be granted. 2- Whether interim relief should be provided to the petitioner pending the outcome of the appeal. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: At the outset of the hearing, the petitioner's counsel chose not to press the petition for leave to appeal or the application for interim relief. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed both the petition for leave to appeal and the application for interim relief, based on the petitioner’s withdrawal.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 75 & O. XXVI, R. 1---Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunctions---Local Commission, appointment of---Case at initial stage---Dispute to the extent of onlypossession as owners---Authenticity/genuineness of mutation entries---District Court inrevisional jurisdiction set aside order of Trial Court for appointment of Commission---Validity---Neither issues were framed nor the parties had led any evidence---At such initialstage, the authenticity/genuineness of the mutation entries of respondents could only bedetermined/ established before the Civil Court through full-fledged inquiry/scrutiny, that tooafter providing the full opportunity of hearing to both the parties before the Trial Court---Atsuch initial stage the genuineness/ authenticity could not be determined through theappointment of the local commission---No bar on filing a second application for appointmentof local commission---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.9 & O. XXVI, R.9---Jurisdiction---Demarcation of suit property---Scope---Civil Courtcould resolve the controversy by adopting any means, and there was no restriction imposedupon the exercise of powers under O. XXVI, R. 9 of C.P.C. to get the disputed landdemarcated as to whether the same would fall within the specific Khasra number withspecific boundary limits/dimensions.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 75 & O. XXVI, R. 1---Local Commission, report of---Scope---Report of Commissionwas not exclusive and was always subject to the objection of the parties, and the Court wasnot bound to straightaway accept/reject the same, but the Court would evaluate the objectionof the parties---Even if the report was accepted, it would not amount to evidence, but wouldonly help the Court in reaching to a conclusion.(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Ss. 9, 75 & O. XXVI, Rr. 1 & 9---Jurisdiction---Phrase 'local investigation'---Localdispute of encroachment---Scope---Term 'local investigation' indicated certain special powers available to Civil Court to collect information, inquire into the matter, recordevidence, in order to formulate its opinion to get the issue resolved in its true perspective aswithout appointment of Local Commission the Court could not have a clear view and the justdecision could not be achieved especially when the matter related to a local dispute regardingencroachment which would otherwise require the probe on site and as such there was nodirect evidence regarding the identification/nature of the site.

Summary: PLJ 2021 Peshawar (Note) 115 Present Ahmad Ali J KABAL KHAN and 12 others - - Petitioners versus RAHMANZAY and others - - Respondents CR No 303 - P of 2019 decided on 4102019 Specific Relief Act 1877 (I of 1877) - - - - - - Ss 12 42 54 - - Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S 115 - - Suit for declaration specific performance and permanent injunction - - DismissedAppeal - - Dismissed - - Oral agreement - - Competency of suit - - Oral sale was not supported by witnesses - - Witnesses were not identified parada nashin lady - - Failing of petitioners to established oral sale and payment of sale transaction concurrent findings of facts - - Challenge to - - Suit for declaration is not competent because very foundation of suit ie oral agreement of years 1982 has been expired and cannot operate any legal binding - - Witnesses produced in support of oral sale were not able to state exact date and time of alleged oral sale - - Identity of Mst Bacha Zarina has not been established during evidence - - None of witnesses claimed that he by himself had counted currency notes - - Persons before whom alleged payment was made did not make any effort to verify her identity through any means - - Petitioners have failed to establish oral sale payment of sale transaction and identity of parda observing lady - - Counsel for petitioners has not been able to point out any error in concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Courts - - There is no misreading and non - reading of record and law nor there is an error in exercise of jurisdiction by Courts below - - Decrees of concurrence passed by two Courts below about dismissal of petitioners suit are quite justified and clearly unexceptionable - - Revision petition dismissed [Para 5 6 7 17 18] A B C D E I J 2019 SCMR 880 2018 SCMR 2080 and PLD 2019 SC 677 ref Execution of sale - deed - - - - - - Duty of Vendee - - Sale deed executed by Pardanashin lady it is prime duty of vendee to prove that lady fully comprehended terms and conditions of sale transaction thus was in knowledge of transfer of her ownership rights [Para 8] F Requirement of law - - - - - - Beneficiary is bound under law to bring on record all available evidence to show that onus of proof was placed on him was fully discharged as required by law [Para 8] G Transfer of Property Act 1882 (IV of 1882) - - - - - - S 9 - - Transfer of immovable property - - Where writing is not expressly required by law a transfer of immovable property can be made without writing [Para 10] H Mr Tilla Muhammad Advocate for PetitionersJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: Muhammad Mansha filed a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction. Some respondents submitted consenting written statements, while others contested the suit. During the proceedings, respondent No. 10, who had previously submitted a consenting written statement, filed an application to summon the petitioner. The petitioner's argument centered on the inadequacy of the verification process, claiming that he was not familiar with the contents of the suit filed on his behalf. Additionally, the petitioner invoked relevant clauses from Chapter I, Part-C of Volume 1 of the High Court Rules and Orders, particularly emphasizing the requirement for proper verification, especially in land suits. Furthermore, the petitioner's reliance extended to Rule 2 of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which outlines the oral examination of parties or companions during court proceedings. This rule was relevant to the petitioner's contention regarding his lack of involvement in the suit's preparation and his subsequent unfamiliarity with its contents. However, the courts dismissed the petitioner's claims, emphasizing that the flawed verification process and the petitioner's disassociation from the suit's contents undermined its validity.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of right of easement and perpetual injunction concerning land in Nai Abadi Penyam Kalyal, Tehsil and District Mirpur. Alongside the suit, the petitioner sought interim relief. The trial court initially granted interim relief subject to objections from the defendants. Subsequently, a local commission was appointed, whose report led to the vacation of the stay order by the trial court. This decision was challenged and led to multiple appeals and remands between the trial court, the District Judge, and the Additional District Judge, ultimately culminating in the High Court's decision to remand the case to the Additional District Judge for a fresh decision on merits. ----Issues: 1- Whether the report of the local commission was ambiguous and against the terms of reference set by the trial court. 2- Whether the High Court's decision to remand the case to the Additional District Judge for a fresh decision was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Local Commission's Report Ambiguity: The petitioner argued that the local commission's report was ambiguous and did not adhere to the terms of reference laid out by the trial court. The petitioner contended that this report should not have been considered by the High Court. --High Court's Remand Justification: The High Court decided to remand the case to the Additional District Judge for a fresh decision on merits, prompting the petitioner to challenge this decision. The petitioner argued that the report dated January 28, 2020, was rightly ignored by the lower courts as it did not accurately reflect the facts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, indicating that the legal question of whether the remand in this case was desirable requires resolution in a regular appeal. The petitioner was directed to deposit security of Rs. 1000/- within one week, failing which the leave granting order would automatically be deemed rescinded. The case was to be completed and placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of the bench and approval for fixing the appeal in the next tour.

Summary: Background: Two suits for perpetual injunction were filed by a mosque committee against several individuals. The plaintiff sought to protect the land allocated for a mosque from being fraudulently reduced and transferred to an educational institution. The land in question had been de-awarded from WAPDA and included in village Bandral, with an approved waqfnama from the Municipal Corporation stating its dedication to the mosque. However, certain individuals allegedly manipulated this agreement, reducing the land allocated for the mosque and transferring the remaining land to the education department. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court could decide the case based solely on the report of the local commission without recording further evidence. 2- Whether the judgment and decree recorded by the District Judge Mirpur in a previous case regarding possession over the land should impact the current proceedings. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir found that the question of whether the suits could be decided based solely on the commission's report without further evidence was a significant legal issue. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to address this issue. The court directed the petitioner to deposit a security amount and mandated the case be placed before the Chief Justice for further proceedings. ----Citations/Precedents: Raja Ali Shah vs. Messrs Essem Hotel Limited and others [2007 SCMR 741] Ch. Maqbool Ahmed vs. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal [2017 SCR 1653]

Summary: (b) Balochistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976-------Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 247 (as omitted by 25th Constitutional Amendment Act,2018)---Suit for declaration and injunction---Shariat Court---Jurisdiction---Defendant wasaggrieved of concurrent judgments and decrees passed in favour of plaintiff by Trial Courtand Lower Appellate Court constituted under Balochistan Civil Disputes (ShariatApplication) Regulation, 1976---Validity---Provisions of Balochistan Civil Disputes (ShariatApplication) Regulation, 1976, was promulgated and was extended to tribal area ofBalochistan by exercising powers conferred under Art. 247 of the Constitution, which was nomore part of the Constitution in view of 25th Constitutional amendment---After newlyemerged situation, tribal areas were no more in existence---Neither powers conferred uponthe President of Pakistan, in respect of Federally Administered Tribal Areas nor uponGovernor of Balochistan in respect of Provincially Administered Tribal Areas were availableand such powers could not be exercised anymore---For merged areas High Court had alreadyordered that all litigations pending before Trial Courts and appeals/revisions pending beforeLower Appellate Courts exercising jurisdiction under Balochistan Civil Disputes (ShariatApplication) Regulation, 1976, stood transferred to ordinary civil Courts constituted underBalochistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962---High Court set aside judgment and decree passedby Lower Appellate Court which was no more in existence and had become functus officioand case was remanded for decision of appeal afresh---Revision was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Temporary injunction---Scope---Petitioner/plaintiff soughtrestraining order against the respondents/defendants contending that he was owner-inpossession of the suit-property after purchasing it from the previous owner---Respondentscontended that the previous owner had occupied the area of rainy drain for which matter wasreferred to the concerned Tehsildar---Held, that injunction was not to be granted only on thebasis that prima-facie case existed in favour of the plaintiff---Courts were required to takeinto consideration whether the question of balance of convenience or irreparable loss, to theparty seeking such relief, co-existed or not---For grant or refusal of the injunction , pleadingdocuments and supporting evidence was to be examined and the assessment was to be madetentatively , however, where complicated question about merit of the case required framingof issues and evidence was involved, then the injunction order was not to be issued---In thepresent case, report of the concerned Tehsildar (Revenue Officer) revealed that property-inquestion was acquired by the Irrigation Department in the year 1991; award was passed andamount was also paid---Said property was not incorporated in the revenue record in the nameof Provincial Government i.e. Irrigation Department--- Petitioner/plaintiff had failed to makeout a prima facie arguable case for grant of injunction in his favour and balance ofconvenience also did not lie in his favour---No illegality or infirmity was found in impugnedorders passed by both the Courts below---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.Marghub Siddiqi v. Hamid Ahmed Khan and 2 others 1974 SCMR 519 ref.

Summary: The case involved an appellant whose plot was cancelled due to default in payments. The appellant filed a suit for declaration, specific performance, and mandatory injunction, claiming readiness to fulfill the contract while asserting that the respondent failed in necessary development. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court accepted the respondent's appeal. The appellant argued timely payments, while the respondent contended the cancellation was justified. The court, after examining evidence, found the default in payments established. It emphasized that time was of the essence based on the agreement's terms. The court also addressed legal principles related to specific performance and upheld the appellate court's decision, dismissing the appeal.