Summary: i. Where a decree has been passed with respect to a particular subject matter (plot), then any subsequent suit with respect to the same subject matter (plot) would not be maintainable unless and until the earlier decree is set aside through filing of a 12(2) petition. ii. Where a plaint filed by a party has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and when that order has attained finality, then any subsequent suit with respect to the same subject matter and on the same cause of action would not be maintainable. iii. Where a party had filed successive suits with respect to a particular subject matter, and when such facts have not been disclosed in the contents of the suit last in the chain, then such lastly filed suit would not be maintainable even for the concealment of such facts qua the filing of the earlier suits. iv. A party to the suit is required to include all reliefs and claims with respect to a subject matter and against a person or set of persons in a suit and as such, if any relief or claim is omitted, then such party would not be entitled to bring a subsequent suit with respect to the omitted claim/relief. v. A suit for declaration and a suit for specific performance could not be filed simultaneously as both these kinds of suits are mutually irreconcilable, as a suit for declaration could only be filed for declaring pre-existing rights which have been denied by a party, and the same could not be filed for creating a right, whereas a suit for specific performance is filed to seek direction from the Court to ask a party to perform his part of obligation.

Summary: Crl Appeal against conviction in FIR No. 817/2023 dated 27.12.2023 U/s 302, 201, 34 PPC P.S. Bara Kahu, Islamabad

Summary: A Hajj Group Operator files this writ against its blacklisting by Hajj Authorities.

Summary: Section 26 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 (West Pakistan Ordinance VI of 1960) restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts solely in matters arising under the Ordinance. It does not, however, preclude the civil courts from exercising jurisdiction in cases where deprivation of title is alleged on the ground of fraud; such disputes, by virtue of Section 9 CPC, fall within the exclusive and ultimate jurisdiction of the civil courts. 82Execution Application 1-25 BOP VS M/S AGRI INTERNATIONAL ETC Mr. Justice Abid Hussain Chattha 09- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 7720

Summary: Inter alia, following question requires determination: Whether a wife pursuing claims for dower, dowry articles and maintenance, who appears before the Court without counsel of her choice or any independent advice and withdraws her suit, can later seek to recall that statement on the ground of fraud, undue influence keeping in view the fact that sanctity is attached to the judicial proceedings? Held: Statements recorded by the litigants are generally given full weight because same are presumed to reflect the free and voluntary will of the party making them before the Courts. However, this principle is not an unbending rule of thumb. The Court must examine the attending circumstances to determine whether the act was truly voluntary and free from undue influence or fraud. Further held that in a dispute whenever a statement is to be recorded by a vulnerable litigant, like females in a family matter, the Court must take all necessary steps to ensure that the statement is fully understood by the maker; the statement should be recorded in a language which the party comprehends; particularly, if the maker is illiterate, the Presiding Officer must ensure that she is accompanied by her kin, who is literate, having no adverse interest, and understands the statement she makes and it should be read over to her by the Presiding Officer of the Court, who should specifically question such vulnerable party to ascertain that she understands the contents and implications of the statement, and that it is being made voluntarily, without any inducement, undue influence, or coercion, and that she has the independent advice from counsel of her choice. Such procedural safeguards are essential to uphold the principles of natural justice and to ensure that the sanctity of the judicial proceedings is preserved while protecting the substantive rights of vulnerable parties as required under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. 81Civil Revision 237987/18 Muhammad Arshad Mehmood etc Vs Muhammad Bashir etc Mr. Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan 10- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 7797

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The pivotal question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence recorded in the earlier suit for jactitation of marriage could legally be pressed into service against the present petitioner, who was neither a party to those proceedings nor afforded any opportunity of cross-examination. In this regard, relevant is Article

Summary: i) -----9(1)3-C----Posession of narcotic substance----Reparaisal of evidence---Failure of prosecution to prove the safe custody of sample parcels and remaining case property from the place of recovery to the police station, the secure transmission of the sample parcels to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore and the proper deposit of the remaining case property in the Saddar Malkhana is fatal to the prosecution. ii) The statements of key witnesses of the case were not recorded by the Investigating officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. despite the fact that doing so was a mandatory requirement of law. In numerious judgments of the apex court of the country it was held that when statement of material witness under section 161 Cr.P.C. is not recorded during investigation, his testimony is to be evaluated with extreme caution, as the possibility of improvements, afterthoughts or deliberate additions cannot be ruled out. iii) More so, the statement of one witness under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded with considerable and unexplained delay, makes the prosecution case doubtful. Such a lapse in investigation constitutes a substantial flaw, generating reasonable doubt in the prsoecution's case and it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of every such doubt must go to the accused. Appeal against convition was allowed, in circumstances. 78Writ Petition- Civil Proceedings- Civil Suit 3950-21 RAZIA BIBI VS A.D.J. ETC Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran 10-12- 2025 2025 LHC 7931

Summary: Wife got recorded FIR under section 376 PPC against the husband to exert pressure to settle matrimonial dispute which is not warranted by law. Moreover, ocular account is not synchronized with the medical evidence. Pre-arrest bail confirmed. 77Jail Appeal 43161/23 Ashfaq alias Saleem Vs The State Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem 10- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 7909

Summary: Inter alia following question of law has been put forth for opinion of this Court: i. Whether an order passed under Section 54 of the Act, by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, or his delegate (such as respondent No.7), which has not been challenged in appeal, under the Act, operates so as to bind the Civil Courts and preclude them from examining the validity of an alleged agreement to sell? Held that this Court is of the opinion that Sections 27 and 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 ("the Act") operate in complementary fashion: Section 27 governs internal transfers of a co-operative society after the death of a member, and Section 54 prescribes the procedure for resolving disputes, inter alia, between the members, claimants, or the society itself. The proviso to Section 54 functions as a check on the Registrar's power (purportedly delegated to respondent No.7 in the present case): where complicated questions of law and fact are involved, the Registrar is to consider suspension and allow a Civil Court to determine those issues. The nomination under Section 27 facilitates administrative transfer or payment but does not vest ownership in the nominee to the prejudice of heirs. The statutory scheme, therefore, ensures that an officer of the Punjab Co- operatives Department?whether Registrar or his delegatee like respondent No.7 should not adjudicate contested title that requires plenary evidentiary probe by a Civil Court. Further held that an order passed under Section 54 of the Act, by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, or his delegate (such as respondent No.7), which has not been challenged in appeal, under the Act, may bind the co-operative society insofar as the said society acted under Section 27(3) in good faith; but it cannot, on the material before the Courts below as also this Court, be treated as an unimpeachable determination of the title of the petitioner. 76Crl. Misc. 68529/25 Awon Muhammad Vs The State etc. Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem 10- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 8016