Summary: Background: The appellant filed a suit for declaration-cum-perpetual injunction concerning land comprising survey Nos. 243 and 685, measuring 206 kanal, situated at Tarolla, Village Dahwara, Tehsil and District Bhimber. The Senior Civil Judge, Bhimber, rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, on June 20, 2017. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the District Judge, Bhimber, was dismissed on August 21, 2017, and the second appeal to the High Court also failed. The appellant then filed this appeal with the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, by the trial court was appropriate. 2- Whether the civil courts have jurisdiction over disputes concerning Shamilat deh land. 3- Whether the lower courts properly applied judicial mind in their decisions. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that the trial court's order was not a judicial order and that the appellate courts unjustifiably upheld this order. The reasons given by the High Court were deemed to pre-judge the matter, especially concerning factual aspects that require proof, such as which party is in possession of the suit property. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that for rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, the main consideration should be the contents of the plaint and not the defense's version. The Court noted that landowners are entitled to retain possession of Shamilat deh land subject to partition. The appellant sought protection of his possession in the Shamilat deh land and did not seek to restrain revenue courts from conducting partition proceedings nor claim a decree of title. Thus, the Court found that the rejection of the plaint was unwarranted. ----Citations/Precedents: Rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, must consider the plaint's contents. Landowners' rights to retain possession of Shamilat deh land.

Summary: The case involved the adjudication of a Civil Revision related to the allotment of a plot (No. 47 Block-Z, measuring 7 Marla) reserved for the defense/armed forces. The plot was allotted to Mr. Manzoor Hussain, an army veteran, with conditions specified in the allotment letter. The allottee, passed away on 19.02.2007, and the respondents, legal heirs of the allottee, filed a suit for a Mandatory Injunction on 18.03.1997, claiming that despite approaching the petitioner (No.2) for completion of formalities, no progress was made. The suit was decreed, and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed, leading to the current Civil Revision. The petitioner argued that the allottee had not fulfilled the formalities and conditions, leading to the cancellation of the allotment, and no obligation can be claimed through a mandatory injunction. The respondents argued that once an allotment is made, it cannot be canceled subsequently, creating vested and enforceable rights in favor of the allottee. The court noted that the allottee never appeared as a witness, and the assertions about approaching the petitioner for formalities were unproven hearsay evidence. The court examined the allotment letter's conditions, deeming them as conditions precedent, and concludes that the respondents failed to provide strong evidence of the petitioners' continuing obligation. The court, therefore, allowed the Civil Revision, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, and dismissing the suit of the respondents.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss.39, 42 & 54---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.172(1)---Suit for cancellation of document,declaration and injunction--- Ownerless property---Plaintiffs/petitioners claimed to beowners in possession of suit property purchased by their predecessor-in-interest beforeIndependence from a hindu owner---Suit was partially decreed in favour ofplaintiff/petitioner and appeal was dismissed by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Whereabouts of hindu owner were not known while neither plaintiff/petitioner nordefendants/respondents were having any entitlement either to retain possession or to seekdeclaration in any manner---Share of hindu (evacuee) owner was proved to be ownerless thusprovision of Art.172 of the Constitution would come into play--- Neither of the parties washaving any right or entitlement in disputed property and no one else known to Court washaving any right or entitlement therein, except its recorded owner---Property in questionstood escheated to the State under Art.172 of the Constitution---High Court directed DeputyCommissioner to initiate proceedings for taking steps for escheatment the hindu's property---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VII, R.11---Suit for declaration and injunction---"Rejection" and "dismissal" of plaint---Distinction---Trial Court dismissed the suit on application filed by defendant under O.VIIR.11, C.P.C.---Validity---Words 'rejection of plaint' mentioned in O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. meantthat if ingredients in O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. were available in plaint, the Court had jurisdictionand power to reject the plaint---"Dismissal of suit" connoted that it was a final determinationof controversy between the parties and Trial Court could dismiss the suit only after holdinginquiry and recording of evidence---Rejection of plaint provided or opened door for plaintiffsto fresh suit but in case of dismissal of suit no fresh suit could be filed and only statutoryremedy was available against dismissal order---High Court modified order passed by TrialCourt as one passed under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. and plaint was rejected---Revision wasdismissed accordingly.

Summary: Background:Syed Mazhar Hussain Kazmi, the petitioner/plaintiff, filed a civil revision petition against the judgment/order dated 10-07-2019 passed by the District Judge Gilgit, which dismissed his civil appeal. The appeal was against the judgment/order dated 30-05-2019 passed by the trial court, which rejected the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC for temporary injunction. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents/defendants from constructing a Government Girls Higher Secondary School on his land.----Issues:Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction.Whether the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.Whether the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ali Baig presided over the case and dismissed the revision petition. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a prima facie case in his favor for granting a temporary injunction. It reasoned that the land was required for the up-gradation of a Girls High School to a Higher Secondary School level, and the government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Therefore, restraining the government from acquiring the land was not permissible. The court also noted that the petitioner would be compensated for the land. Since no material irregularity or illegality was found in the judgments of the lower courts, the revision petition was dismissed.-----Citations/Precedents:Land Acquisition Act 1894Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPCSection 52 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894

Summary: The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreements related to a piece of land, and an application for an order restraining the respondents from various actions. The judgment discussed the background of the case, including the agreements, applications filed by the petitioner, and the orders of the lower courts. The crucial point of contention revolved around the encashment of post-dated cheques provided by the petitioner to the respondents. The petitioner's plea for an injunction against the encashment of cheques was partially granted by the trial court, and the appellate court directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for the cheque amounts. The judgment analyzed the facts, including the compromise agreement (Ex.C.1), and concluded that the appellate court's decision to impose conditions, including the furnishing of a bank guarantee, was fair and just. The court noted that the petitioner, having admitted certain transactions with third parties and entering into a compromise with the respondents, cannot avoid the performance of the commitment to pay the balance amount through post-dated cheques. It emphasized the importance of balancing the rights of both parties and protecting their interests. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the appellate court's order was fair, reasonable, and justifiable under the circumstances, finding no error of law or jurisdiction in its decision.

Summary: (a) Inheritance-------Co-sharer, rights of---Principle---Co-sharership is result of devolution of inheritance, cosharer becomes co-sharer the moment inheritance opens---Even mutation of entries or sharein moveable property is also not necessary.2004 SCMR 392 rel.(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------S. 383---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Successioncertificate, revision of---Suit for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts---Compensation---Widow contracting second marriage---Husband of widow was policeconstable who died in bomb blast and Government announced compensation package andother facilities to bereaved family---Deceased was issueless, therefore, succession certificatewas issued in favour of widow and parents of the deceased---Parents of deceased assailedsuccession certificate in favour of widow on the plea that she had contracted second marriageand got revised succession certificate issued in their favour---Civil suit filed by parents ofwidow was decreed in their favour---Validity---Widow could not be deprived of her share inview of first succession certificate issued by Trial Court as on such date she was widow ofthe deceased; her second marriage could not operate retrospectively but Trial Court withoutconsidering such aspect of matter passed decree in favor of parents of deceased which couldnot be sustained except share of salary she received during subsistence of second marriage---Deceased was issueless and parents of deceased who were living with deceased and weredependents were included in the family---Revised succession certificate was issued by TrialCourt with consent of both the parties and thereafter, separate certificate was issuedrespectively---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside judgment passed byTrial court but maintained order regarding salary of deceased received by widow to extent ofher share during subsistence of second marriage---Appeal was allowed accordingly.PLD 1991 SC 731; PLD 2010 Kar. 153; PLD 2019 Sindh 1 and PLD 2013 Pesh. 1 ref.

Summary: Background:Imtiaz Ali (appellant/plaintiff), a government contractor, filed Civil Suit No.08/2016 seeking recovery of Rs. 321,511/- from the Fisheries Department of Gilgit-Baltistan. The appellant supplied firewood to the department for the years 2011-2013 but did not receive payment. He sought a temporary injunction to prevent the department from making payments under the budget head "Hot and Cold" to any other person until his dues were cleared. The Senior Civil Judge Gilgit dismissed the application for temporary injunction on 25-03-2016, prompting Imtiaz Ali to appeal the decision.Issues:Whether the trial court erred in refusing the temporary injunction.Whether the appellant is entitled to recover Rs. 321,511/- from the respondents.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Temporary Injunction: The court held that the appellant would be entitled to recover the cash amount from the respondents if successful in the suit. Therefore, no irreparable loss would be incurred by the appellant, and the balance of convenience favored refusal of the temporary injunction. Granting the injunction would adversely affect the internal management of the respondents, especially when they claimed full payment of bills in their written statement.Entitlement to Recovery: The court did not directly address the recovery entitlement but emphasized the need for a speedy trial to resolve the payment issue.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Senior Civil Judge Gilgit dated 25-03-2016 was upheld. The court found no error in the trial court's decision to refuse the temporary injunction, emphasizing that the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm and that the respondents' internal management should not be disrupted.

Summary: PLJ 2019 AJK 58 ---Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 52, Order XXIX, Rules 1 & 2 ---Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 - Article 17(2)(A) ---Registration Act - Section 17 ----Legal Issues: --Validity of Will and Registration Requirements - The appellants challenged the authenticity of a will presented by the respondents, arguing it was improperly attested by a Notary Public who lacked authorization in 1978 and that it was unregistered, failing the compulsory registration requirement under Section 17 of the Registration Act for wills involving immovable property over Rs. 100. --Principle of Res Judicata and Fraudulent Documents - The appellants argued that the case could not be bound by res judicata, as the decree was based on a fraudulent document. The court emphasized that fraudulent decrees lack finality and can be set aside. --Non-Production of Key Witnesses and Evidence Gaps - The respondents failed to produce essential witnesses, including the author and a marginal witness of the will, undermining its credibility. ----Ruling: The court accepted the appeal, finding the will unreliable due to its lack of proper attestation, registration, and sufficient supporting evidence. The previous judgments by the trial and appellate courts were deemed contrary to law. ----Cited Precedents: 1989 CLC 198, 2003 SCR 298, 2003 SCR 22 ----Judgment Result: Appeal accepted. -----Background: This appeal was filed against the judgments by the District Judge and Civil Judge, Bagh, which had dismissed a suit concerning disputed land ownership. The appellants’ father and grandfather challenged the validity of a 1978 will that allegedly transferred ownership of the disputed property to the respondents. The appellants argued that the will was fraudulent, unregistered, and improperly attested, with claims that the Notary Public’s attestation was invalid as no notary ordinance existed in Azad Jammu & Kashmir in 1978. -----Issues: 1- Whether the will, allegedly transferring property ownership to the respondents, was valid and properly attested. -----2- Whether the decree obtained based on this will is void due to fraud and lack of registration. -----3- Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies given the alleged fraud. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court allowed the appeal, finding the will invalid for the following reasons: The will lacked proper attestation, as the Notary Public in 1978 was unauthorized in Azad Jammu & Kashmir, rendering the attestation void. The will was unregistered, violating Section 17 of the Registration Act, which requires registration for wills involving immovable property valued over Rs.100. Fraud was evident, as the will’s authenticity was unproven by the respondents, who failed to produce key witnesses or the document’s author. The court determined that fraud nullifies any resulting decrees and, therefore, res judicata does not apply. Both lower court judgments were set aside, and the appellants' suit was decreed in their favor. -----Citations/Precedents: 1989 CLC 198 – Fraud invalidates the legal foundation of a document. PLD 1973 Peshawar 63 – Unregistered deeds create no legal right. AIR 2013 SC 3568 – Fraud and justice cannot coexist. PLD 1981 AJK 54 – Concurrent findings based on misreading or fraud are open to review.

Summary: Specific Relief Act. Section 42 and 56. Anti-Injunction Suit concept - can only be granted in rare exceptional cases- grant of such an Injunction amounts to transgressing norms of Judicial restraint.