Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 57C.O. (Commercial) 6859/25 Waqar ud Din Vs United Industries Limited etc Mr. Justice Shahid Karim 24- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 7979

Summary: Punjab Land Use (Classification, Reclassification and Redevelopment) Rules, 2009 [since repealed]--- ----Rr.60, 65(2), 67(1) & 67(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.24---Constitutional petition---Demand of payment of conversion fee, challenge to---Properties of petitioners facing/abutting roads notified as “List-A”---Effect---Plea that it confers automatic conversion thus demand for conversion fee was unjustified---Legality---Facts: The petitioners owned/occupied properties stated to be facing or abutting roads notified as “List-A” under notification dated 30.06.2011 (issued under the Punjab Land Use (Classification, Reclassification and Redevelopment) Rules, 2009, later substituted by the 2020 Rules), whereby, future commercial activity was made permissible by virtue of that very notification, therefore they agitated that they were not liable to pay the conversion fee; through filing of present constitutional petition they challenged the municipal/local government demand requiring payment of conversion/commercialization fee for using (or intending to use) those properties for commercial purposes---Issue: “Whether a commercialization/conversion fee can be charged on a property abutting a notified List-A road?”---Held: Claim of absolute privilege to make use of the properties for commercial purposes without payment of conversion fee was not spelled out from the notification dated 30.06.2011---Properties, abutting / facing list-A category roads, were declared eligible for potential commercial use not per se by virtue of declaration but subject to payment of conversion fee---Pertinent question was “whether mere declaration, through notification, changed the legal character of the properties in question”; No; mere declaration of notified roads did not alter the legal character of each property specifically but it simply defined the eligibility benchmark, vis-à-vis properties qualified for carrying commercial activity subject to the payment of conversion fee---In essence, declaration of roads in list-A for future commercial use removed planning prohibitions and restrictions, that previously existed in the context of commercial use of properties and subjected it to payment of conversion fee---Land use conversion from one category to another was in the nature of an invitation by the administration to those persons, ready and willing to apply for seeking permission to convert legal status / character of their properties, subject to payment of conversion fee---Petitioners misjudged the scope and effect of the notification, which was merely an enabling step and not a self-executing commercialization order qua any specific property---No vested right was available to the petitioners to seek excuse from payment of conversion fee---Obligation of payment of conversion price was inconsonance with the mandate of property rights guaranteed in terms of Art.24 of the Constitution---Mere zoning or re-zoning of roads did not per seen title petitioners to benefit from the declaration without meeting the conditions---Challenge thrown to the order and demand for payment of conversion fee was rejected---Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ali Siddiqui, Nauman Aftab and Fatima Safeer for Petitioner. Tariq Murtaza Khan Malezai along with Muhammad Iqbal, Chief Officer Municipal Committee, Multan and Masroor Haider Usman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th November, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Notifying any road for future commercial use is an enabling step and not a self-executing commercialization order with respect to change in the legal character of the property. 60Writ Petition- Immigration- Passport 13357-25 FARHAN ALI VS FOP ETC Mr. Justice Asim Hafeez 23- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 7936

Summary: Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)--- ----S.26---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.53---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction--- Consolidation proceedings--- Civil Court, jurisdiction of--- Principle--- Fraud--- Complicated question of law and fact--- Petitioner / plaintiff assailed mutation in question but suit and appeal were concurrently dismissed by two Courts below on the ground of bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Courts against consolidation proceedings--- Validity--- Without any proof showing that change in subsequent record of rights was result of consolidation proceedings or any lawful order passed thereunder, it could not be presumed that such change occurred due to consolidation--- Courts decide cases on the basis of proof and not on presumption--- Findings of both the Courts below upon section 26 of Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 were based upon presumptions and conjectures and were not tenable in the eyes of law--- Complicated questions of law and fact, particularly involving allegations of fraud, necessarily require recording and appreciation of evidence fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Court--- Fraud can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and not by revenue authorities exercising summary jurisdiction--- Fraud and mala fides vitiate all proceedings and cannot be protected by any statutory bar--- High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and the matter was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh on question of jurisdiction--- Revision was allowed in circumstances. Misri through Legal Heirs and others v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1997 SCMR 338; Muhammad Nawaz v. Malik Ghulam Sarwar and others 2005 MLD 1023; Ellahi Bakhsh and others v. Ahmad Bakhsh and 12 others 2006 MLD 279; Muhammad Hayat and 38 others v. Abdul Rahim and 24 others 2001 MLD 1524; Himat alias Allah Deya v. Rehmat 2004 YLR 2992; Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447; Mr. Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi PLD 1965 SC 698; Hamid Husain v. Government of West Pakistan and others 1974 SCMR 356; Muhammad and 19 others v. Muhammad Hayat and 8 others 2006 CLC 907; Nemat Ali and another v. Malik Habib Ullah and others 2004 SCMR 604; Brig. (R) Masood Salam through Legal Heirs v. Sohail Ahmad and others PLD 2020 Lahore 478 and Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs 1992 SCMR 2334 rel. Ch. Riaz Hussain for Petitioners. Ch. Manzoor Ahmad Shakir for Respondents Nos. 2 to 11. Hussain Ibrahim Muhammad, Asst. Advocate General for Respondents Nos. 28 to 31. Proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 16.06.2023 for Respondents. Nos. 1 (1 to 8) and 12 to 27. Date of hearing: 10th December, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ----Ss.6 & 7---Arbitration Act, 1996 (United Kingdom), Ss.30, 32 & 70---Foreign arbitral awards---Recognition and enforcement---Arbitration governed by English law---Awards passed by Refined Sugar Association (London)---Jurisdiction and competency of Refined Sugar Association to act as arbitral forum, challenge to---Scope---Facts: The applicant filed two applications before the High Court, seeking recognition, enforcement, and decree of two foreign arbitral awards passed by the Refined Sugar Association of London (RSA), under S.6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011---Parties had entered into respective contracts dated 13.04.2006 which expressly incorporated RSA terms/rules and provided for arbitration under English law, disputes thereafter arose and were referred to RSA arbitration resulting in the said awards, and the respondents’ objection raised before the Court was that RSA was not competent to act as arbitrator (with a further challenge touching the award on merits)---Issue: Whether, in view of the arbitration clause/contractual incorporation of RSA rules and the limited grounds available under the 2011 Act read with Article V of the New York Convention, the foreign arbitral awards were liable to be recognized, made rule of Court, and enforced as decrees in Pakistan, or refused on any permissible ground (including alleged lack of arbitral jurisdiction/competence)?”---Held: Admittedly, the agreements were subject to the RSA Rules and Rule 26thereof specified that the arbitration was to be conducted by RSA, however, notwithstanding the same and without the same ever having been controverted by the respondents, it was patently clear that the objection as to arbitrator had been escalated by the respondents and the same had been duly adjudicated per S.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (UK)---Tribunal was empowered to rule upon its jurisdiction, subject to the right of appeal---The Arbitration Act, 1996 (UK) provided for exercise of the right of appeal; as seen in inter alia in Ss. 32 & 70 thereof, however, admittedly, no challenge to the tribunal’s ruling on its jurisdiction (and / or merit) was preferred by any respondent within the pale of limitation and / or at any time thereafter, therefore, High Court found the respondents’ objection to be dissonant with the law---Respondents had not even attempted to displace and / or distinguish the findings in favor of jurisdiction rendered by the tribunal---The Convention, implemented in Pakistan by the Act, contained no ground as to the invalidity of a foreign award or its being against the law of the contracting states, to refuse its recognition and enforcement and thus left no room for the courts of a contracting state to enter into the exercise of examining the merits of a foreign award on the points of facts or law---No case arose to afford any actionable credence to the assertions escalated on behalf of the respondents in such regard---No infirmity with the agreements and / or the awards could be identified, within the mandate of Article V of the Convention---The respective foreign arbitral awards were recognized as binding and enforceable against the respective respondents, hence made rule of Court---Applications filed per Section 6 of the Act, 2011 were allowed, in circumstances. Taisei Corporation v. A.M. Construction Company (Private) Limited 2024 SCMR 640 rel. TASCO v. Franzen Landbouw C.V. HCA 115 of 2025 and MANU/SC/0655/2013 ref. (b) Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act (XVII of 2011)--- ----Ss.6 & 7---Foreign arbitral awards---Recognition and enforcement---Duty of courts---Pro-enforcement regime viz. foreign arbitral awards---Scope---The law requires the court to recognize and enforce an award in the same manner as a judgment or order of a court in Pakistan, unless precluded per S.7 of the Act, 2011---The recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall not be refused except in accordance with Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 ('the New York Convention')---Court is required to support not supplant the arbitral process and its discretion is precluded to interfere in the merits of a case on points off act or law---Court should circumscribe opposition within the remit of Article V of the New York Convention, while emphasizing that the stipulations may be read as permissive and not mandatory. Taisei Corporation v. A.M. Construction Company (Private) Limited 2024 SCMR 640 rel. Muhammad Ali Akhtar for Applicants. M. Salim Thepdawala for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th December, 2025.

Summary: (a) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009) --- ----Ss.2(b), 15, 19 & 22---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Ejectment proceedings---Rejection of leave to contest, challenge to---Dispute regarding arrears/security requiring oral evidence---Effect---Final order, meaning of---Eviction order alone without deciding security/arrears adjustment not a “final order”---Briefly, the petitioner was a tenant of respondent No.1 under a rent agreement for five years at Rs.13,000/- per month with 10% annual increase, with security paid in advance; the landlord filed ejectment under S.19, Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 on grounds including expiry of tenancy and rent default, and although the tenant sought leave to contest asserting Rs.3,75,000/- security was agreed to be adjusted in rent (with Rs.1,95,000/- still outstanding), the Rent Tribunal refused leave and ordered eviction, which was upheld in appeal, leading to the filing of present constitutional petition by the tenant---Held: Upon examination of leave to contest it clearly evinced that in the light of its averments, it was disclosing sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence---In terms of S.2(b) of the Act, 2009, Rent Tribunal was obliged to pass an order with respect to dispute relating to security as well as arrears of rent, as canvassed in the ejectment application and application for leave to contest so as to culminate the proceedings---In view of clear and unequivocal mandate of law, the Special Judge (Rent) had abdicated its jurisdiction which was not permissible--- The observations, so recorded, by the Rent Tribunal itself reflected that the Special Judge (Rent) did not conclude the proceedings and the order, so passed, was not final---Leave to contest filed by the petitioner was accepted---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Haji Muhammad Latif v. Muhammad Sharif 2021 SCMR 1430 rel. Zaheer Ahmad Babar v. Additional District Judge Lahore and 2 others 2015 YLR 1617 ref. (b) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009) --- ----Ss.22 & 25---Eviction proceedings---Leave to contest---Preconditions---Scope---An application before the Rent Tribunal can only be contested by a respondent while moving an application for leave to contest in terms thereof within ten days of first appearance before the Rent Tribunal---Leave to contest can only be allowed to a respondent if his application discloses sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence---Subsection (6) of S.22 of the Act, 2009 ordains that if the leave to contest is refused or the respondent has failed to file application for leave to contest within the stipulated time, the Rent Tribunal shall pass the final order---On the other hand, S.25 of the Act, 2009 caters the situation if the leave to contest is allowed to the respondent---Like Subsection (6) of S.22, Subsection (5) of S.25 of the Act, 2009 also find mention the term “final order”. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Concurrent findings, interference in---Scope---There is no cavil that in ordinary course, High Court exercises restraint to ponder upon the issue concurrently resolved by the courts below but this cannot be treated as an inflexible rule---Being the Constitutional Court, it is obligatory for the High Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution to save abuse of process of law and curb patent illegality, if committed by the lower Courts in the process of administration of justice---Writ of certiorari, no doubt, is of limited scope but when it is apparent on the record that the courts below, while forming their concurrent view, have committed patent illegality, High Court cannot shut its eyes and let the wrong to perpetuate. Agha Muhammad Ali Khan for Petitioner. Rana Zahid Ali for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 17th December, 2025. (b) "final order" means a final order passed by a Rent Tribunal culminating the proceedings including an order in respect of adjustment of pagri, advance rent, security, arrears of rent, compensation or costs but shall not include an order passed in an execution proceedings;

Summary: In terms of Section 2(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, Rent Tribunal was obliged to pass an order with respect to dispute relating to security as well as arrears of rent, as canvassed in the ejectment application and application for leave to contest so as to culminate the proceedings. 68Civil Revision- Civil Revision (Against Decree) u/s. 115, C.P.C. 990-14 GHULAM SHABBIR ETC. VS BARKAT ALI ETC. Mr. Justice Ch. Sultan Mahmood 16- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 8294