Summary: (1) Reckless and irresponsible conduct of CDA (2) Responsibilities of Public Authorities in contesting court matters (3) Sufficient cause in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC read with Article 164 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S.152 & O.XX, R.3-Wrong mentioning of property owner’s name in the judgement, grievance of-Clerical mistake in the judgment, correction of-Amendment in judgment-Scope-Brief facts were that the respondents instituted a suit for declaration and partition against the petitioners, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, but upon remand by the High Court, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal; in that judgment, the Appellate Court inadvertently mentioned-BK-instead of-AK-as owner of the disputed property, whereupon the error was corrected under Section 152, C.P.C.; the petitioners’/defendants’ challenge to that correction failed before the Revisional Court and the High Court, leading to the filing of the present petition-The issue requiring determination was-whether substitution of the correct name in the judgment was a permissible clerical correction under Section 152, C.P.C. or an impermissible alteration of the judgment?-Held: It was not disputed that while recording findings on certain issues, the Appellate Court in advertently mentioned the name of the father of the party instead of the party himself, despite the pleadings, evidence, and the rest of the judgment consistently identifying the correct person-AK-as the owner of the disputed property-The correction made by the Appellate Court did not introduce any new relief, alter the substantive findings, or re-open the merits of the case-It merely brought the judgment in conformity with the manifest intention of the Court as discernible from the record as a whole-Such a correction squarely fell within the ambit of an-error arising from accidental slip or omission-as contemplated by Section 152, C.P.C.-No illegality, irregularity, jurisdictional defect, or misreading of law was found in the impugned judgment of the High Court-Leave was refused and petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S.152 & O.XX, R.3-Clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgment, amendment of-Correction of accidental slip-Scope-A combined reading of Section 152, C.P.C. and Order XX, Rule 3, C.P.C. makes it manifest that although a judgment, once signed, attains finality, the legislature itself has carved out a specific exception enabling correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions-The scope of Section 152, C.P.C. are no longer res integra-The power conferred under Section 152 may be exercised-at any time-and even suo motu-However, such power, though wide, is discretionary and must be exercised having regard to the circumstances of each case, particularly where third-party rights may not be affected. Mst. Farosha v. Fazal Gul and others PLD 1983 SC 220 and Baqar v. Muhammad Rafique and others 2003 SCMR 1401 rel. Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and others 1989 MLD 3215 ref.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 14.10.2022 passed in C.R. No. 1281-P of 2019 by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.152 & O.XX, R.3---Wrong mentioning of property owner’s name in the judgement, grievance of---Clerical mistake in the judgment, correction of---Amendment in judgment---Scope---Brief facts were that the respondents instituted a suit for declaration and partition against the petitioners, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, but upon remand by the High Court, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal; in that judgment, the Appellate Court inadvertently mentioned “BK” instead of “AK” as owner of the disputed property, whereupon the error was corrected under Section 152, C.P.C.; the petitioners’/defendants’ challenge to that correction failed before the Revisional Court and the High Court, leading to the filing of the present petition---The issue requiring determination was “whether substitution of the correct name in the judgment was a permissible clerical correction under Section 152, C.P.C. or an impermissible alteration of the judgment?”---Held: It was not disputed that while recording findings on certain issues, the Appellate Court in advertently mentioned the name of the father of the party instead of the party himself, despite the pleadings, evidence, and the rest of the judgment consistently identifying the correct person “AK” as the owner of the disputed property---The correction made by the Appellate Court did not introduce any new relief, alter the substantive findings, or re-open the merits of the case---It merely brought the judgment in conformity with the manifest intention of the Court as discernible from the record as a whole---Such a correction squarely fell within the ambit of an “error arising from accidental slip or omission” as contemplated by Section 152, C.P.C.---No illegality, irregularity, jurisdictional defect, or misreading of law was found in the impugned judgment of the High Court---Leave was refused and petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.152 & O.XX, R.3---Clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgment, amendment of---Correction of accidental slip---Scope---A combined reading of Section 152, C.P.C. and Order XX, Rule 3, C.P.C. makes it manifest that although a judgment, once signed, attains finality, the legislature itself has carved out a specific exception enabling correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions---The scope of Section 152, C.P.C. are no longer res integra---The power conferred under Section 152 may be exercised “at any time” and even suo motu---However, such power, though wide, is discretionary and must be exercised having regard to the circumstances of each case, particularly where third-party rights may not be affected. Mst. Farosha v. Fazal Gul and others PLD 1983 SC 220 and Baqar v. Muhammad Rafique and others 2003 SCMR 1401 rel. Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and others 1989 MLD 3215 ref. Shah Khawar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Muhammad Taif Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 11 and 12. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 2026.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act (XLII of 2012)--- ----Ss. 24, 56, 60 & 62---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Proceedings by Punjab Revenue Authority, assailing of---Alternative remedy for service provider, availability of---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, invoking of---Scope---Petitioners (engaged in the business relating to selling of food items) filed constitutional petition being aggrieved of the proceedings conducted by the Punjab Revenue (authority/respondent) under S. 56 of the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 (‘the Act, 2012’)---Validity---Section 56 of the Act, 2012 bestows power upon the officers authorized by the authority to have access to premises, stocks, accounts and records of a registered person or a person liable for registration or whose business activities are covered under the Act, 2012 to ascertain the correct quantum of Punjab Sales Tax payable by the petitioners; Show-Cause Notices under S. 24 of the Act, 2012 were also issued to the petitioners---Section 60 of the Act, 2012 provides the power of adjudication in respect of certain cases of contravention or violation including tax fraud under the Act, 2012 or the Rules---Furthermore, S. 62 vests power of revision upon the authority---Therefore, the petitioners had alternate and efficacious remedies provided under the Act, 2012 ; in presence thereof invoking the constitutional jurisdiction would amount to stifling the normal course of law---Jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution is neither unbridled nor unrestricted, instead it is an extraordinary jurisdiction to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances---Wherever an efficacious and adequate remedy is available to a person invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, it exercises restraint unless some compelling circumstances exist for invocation of such jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Syed Masood Ali v. Mst. Feroza Begum and another PLD 2025 SC 339; Muhammad Safeer and others v. Muhammad Azam and others PLD 2024 SC 838; Special Secretary-II (Law and Order), Home and Tribal Affairs Department. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others v. Fayyaz Dawar 2023 SCMR 1442 and Mian Azam Waheed and 2 others v. The Collector of Customs 2023 SCMR 1247 ref. Hafiz Muhammad Idrees and Hassan Askari Kazmi for Petitioner.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: A photocopy of the judgment without any stamp or mark of copying agency upon the same showing the source from which the same was obtained or copied does not have presumption of genuineness or authenticity attached to it. 40C.O. (Commercial) 5990/19 Addl.Registrar of Companies Vs Ms Mubarak Textile Mills Ltd & others Mr. Justice Shahid Karim 20- 01- 2026 2026 LHC 1097

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)- -Ss. 42 & 54-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 72, 117 & 120-Suit for declaration and injunction-Document, proof of-Onus to prove-Respondents / plaintiffs claimed to be owners in possession of suit land purchased from an earlier allottee and alleged that subsequently the land could not be allotted to appellants / defendants by Settlement authorities-Suit filed by respondents / plaintiffs was decreed by Trial Court in their favour but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit-High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court passed in favour of respondents / plaintiffs-Validity-Respondents / plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and possession-Such relief could not be granted unless respondents / plaintiffs had discharged burden of proving primary transaction, namely prior allotment, proving conferment of proprietary rights upon the earlier allottee by brining on record any document in such respect-When foundational document was not produced, respondents /plaintiffs could not succeed merely on the basis of mutation entries or oral assertions-Courts were under a solemn obligation to jealously guard public property and to ensure that entries in revenue record, alleged allotments, or fiscal mutations would not become instruments for unlawful deprivation of State land through defective proof, procedural laxity or collusive conduct-Supreme Court set aside judgment and decree passed by High Court and restored that of Lower Appellate Court, consequently, suit filed by respondents / plaintiffs stood dismissed-Appeal was allowed. Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar 2022 SCMR 1054; Mst. Farrukh Jabin v. Maqbool Hussain through Legal Representatives and others PLD 2004 SC 499; Ashiq Hussain Shah v. Province of Punjab through Collector District, Attock and others 2003 SCMR 1840; Muhammad Din v. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others 2022 SCMR 1481; Nausher v. Province of Punjab through District Collector, Khanewal and another PLD 2022 SC 699; Qazi Mumtaz Hussain and others v. Government of Sindh through Secretary Revenue and others 2025 SCMR 939; Mir Mujib-Ur-Rehman Muhammad Hassani v. Returning Officer and others PLD 2020 SC 718 and Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Limited PLD 2018 SC 828 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)- -Art. 72-Documentary evidence-Proof-Reference in cross-examination-When a document which is the foundation of claim of a party is never produced in evidence, such document remains wholly unproved and mere reference (to it) during cross-examination cannot substitute the strict proof required by law. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)- -Art. 72-Documentary evidence-Exhibit during evidence-Effect-Documentary material cannot be treated as legally proved merely because it has been exhibited, particularly where mode of proof remains defective. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S.9-Civil Court-Jurisdiction-Statutory authorities-Determination of factual controversy-Scope-Civil courts are not to conduct a fresh trial to re-determine factual controversies already adjudicated by statutory authorities, unless order assailed is shown to be without lawful authority or is based on no evidence or suffers from jurisdictional defect or is a result of mala fide. (e) Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)- -S. 172-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199-Orders passed by revenue authorities-Remedy-Bar to jurisdiction of Civil Courts-Effect-Proper recourse ordinarily is to assail final order of competent revenue authority by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, rather than embarking upon a parallel and protracted civil trial.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending