Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a retired captain, challenged the Revised Leave Rules of 1980 under Shariat Petition No.14/I of 1997, claiming that the rules were contrary to the Injunctions of Islam. He argued that various leave rules, such as earning and accumulation of leave, leave preparatory to retirement (LPR), and encashment of refused leave, were inequitable, violated Islamic teachings, and went against fair play. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Revised Leave Rules of 1980, including rules on leave accumulation, LPR, and encashment, are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the rules limiting the number of days of leave that could be availed and encashed are against equity and fairness. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition, reasoning: The rules governing leave, including accumulation and encashment limits, are in line with public service requirements and are not in violation of Islamic teachings. Leave management is a crucial component of the service system that balances public interest and the rights of employees. The petitioner’s plea to remove limits on leave accumulation and encashment would undermine the purpose of leave, which is intended to provide employees with rest and work-life balance, not to create a financial bonus. The petitioner did not provide any specific Islamic texts that would justify changing the leave rules, nor did he maintain sufficient interest in the case, as he was absent from several hearings. No evidence was provided that the rules violated fundamental rights, and they were designed to ensure a balance between public service requirements and employee welfare. ----Citations/Precedents: Section-18 of the Civil Servant Act 1973: Provides that leave is subject to the exigencies of service and the discretion of the competent authority. Fundamental Rule-67: States that leave cannot be claimed as a right, and authorities may refuse or revoke leave if necessary for public service.

Summary: (a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) – S. 122: Gift – Validity – Requirement of Delivery of Possession – Effect of Non-Delivery of Possession A registered gift-deed was executed by the donor in favor of one of his sons, transferring his entire share in the land. The remaining sons challenged the gift-deed, alleging that it was inoperative as possession was not delivered. Evidence revealed that all brothers were in possession of the suit land during their father’s lifetime and had made constructions on it. The donee himself admitted in cross-examination that all the brothers were in possession of the land and that the property had been privately arranged by their father. Since the delivery of possession is a crucial requirement for the validity of a gift under Muhammadan Law, the courts held that the gift-deed was ineffective to the extent of ¾ of the land. ----Cited Cases: AIR 1922 Lah. 295 AIR 1927 Bom. 384 AIR 1926 Mad. 6 (b) Limitation Act – Art. 91: Suit for Declaration – Applicability of Limitation – Reconstruction of Record The appellants contended that the respondents' suit was time-barred and that the record reconstruction was not requested by them. However, the original suit was filed in 1985, well within the limitation period, and the objection regarding non-reconstruction of the record was ignored by both courts, implicitly admitting the validity of the reconstructed record. The courts found that Article 91 of the Limitation Act did not apply, as the suit was instituted in a timely manner and continued without interruption despite the destruction of records. ----Cited Cases: 1997 MLD 2867 2001 CLC 1115 PLD 2007 Lah. 83 (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – S. 100: Findings of Fact by Lower Courts – Interference by High Court The respondents argued that the findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts should not be disturbed under Section 100, C.P.C. as no substantial question of law arose. The High Court upheld this view, affirming that both lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence, and their findings did not warrant interference. (d) Administration of Justice: Misreading and Non-Reading of Evidence – Effect The appellant claimed that both lower courts had misread and ignored evidence, failing to frame proper issues. However, the High Court found that all material witnesses from both sides had admitted the factual position regarding possession. The documentary evidence and cross-examinations supported the conclusion that the gift-deed was ineffective to the extent of ¾ of the land. The court held that no misreading or non-reading of evidence had occurred to justify interference in the appellate judgment. (e) Disposition: Appeal Dismissed The High Court upheld the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Rawalakot, concluding that no legal interference was required. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending