Summary: Summary pending

Summary: C.P.L.A. No. 1106 of 2024 (Against judgment dated 04.12.2023 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in W.P. No. 4688-P of 2018 with C.M. No..2331-P of 2018). AND C.M.A. No. 3330 of 2024 (Stay application). Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5---Suit for recovery of dower---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Substituting findings of facts---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Petitioner was father of respondent's deceased husband, who sought transfer of house in lieu of her dower amount---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court but High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction decreed the suit in favour of respondent---Validity---High Court had identified evidence that had not been read by two Courts below while dismissing suit of respondent---This might well have been enough reason for interference with concurrent findings of two Courts below but having done that, High Court could not have substituted its own findings for those of two Courts below by decreeing suit of respondent---High C ourt in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction could not arrogate to itself the powers of a Family Court and issue decrees---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court by which it had set aside concurrent judgments passed by Family Court and Lower Appellate Court---Supreme Court remanded the matter to Family Court for a decision afresh on the basis of material on record and observations made by High Court in its judgment---Appeal was allowed. Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1964 SC 260; Nawaza v. The Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1970 SC 39; Shabbir Hussain v. Muhammad Afzal 1972 SCMR 47 and Muhammad Younus Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1993 SCMR 619 rel. Syed Azmat Ali Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Post- arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry--- Accused not nominated in original crime report---Conflicting versions of prosecution---Allegation against the petitioner/ accused was that he along with his co-accused murdered the father of the complainant by inflicting firearm injuries---Held: Petitioner is not nominated in the FIR and the same is lodged by the complainant against two accused persons by naming them, along with two unidentified individuals--- However, during the course of investigation, it came to light that the occurrence in question allegedly occurred at the instigation of the nominated accused persons, who are said to have hired the services of the petitioner and another accused person to commit the offence---Notably, the petitioner is the real brother of one of the nominated accused persons---Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the case under S.54, Cr.P.C. and sent to judicial lock up for test identification parade, which was later conducted---Pertinently, the original crime report did not attribute any specific injury inflicted upon the deceased to the unknown accused persons, however, during the said identification parade, the petitioner was surprisingly identified by the complainant and the eye-witness with the role of having fired gunshots at the deceased---Thus, the prosecution's case against the petitioner appeared to be based on two conflicting versions, one presented in the crime report and the other emerging from the investigation conducted by the investigating agency---Case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---The guilt of the petitioner and recovery of weapon of offence on his pointing out would be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Bail was granted to petitioner, in circumstances. Mujahid Hussain and another v. The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab Lahore and aother 2024 SCMR 800 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898 )--- ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-e-amd, abetment, common intention---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Accused not nominated in original crime report---Rule of consistency---Allegation against the petitioner/ accused was that he along with his co-accused murdered the father of the complainant by inflicting firearm injuries---Held: Record reflects that two nominated accused persons had already been granted post-arrest bail by the High Court and apparently said order had not been challenged by the complainant---Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest; he is no more required by the investigating agency for the purpose of further investigation---No useful purpose would be served while keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period---Granting bail to an accused person does not amount to his acquittal, rather his custody is handed over from State to the surety, who takes the responsibility to produce the accused before the Trial Court---Bail was granted to petitioner, in circumstances. Barrister Danyal Ijaz Chadhar for Petitioner. M. Atif Rao, DDPP with Iftikhar SI along with record for the State. Order Ali Zia Bajwa, J .--- Through this petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No.83/2024, dated 04.02.2024, offences under Sections 302, 109 and 34 P.P.C registered with Police Station Ahmednagar, District Wazirabad. 2. The specific allegation against the petitioner, as stated in the crime report, is that on 04.02.2024 at 6:30 a.m., he, along with his co-accused, while armed with firearms and acting in furtherance of their common intention, committed Qatl-i-Amd of Rukhsar Ahmad, the father of the complainant, by inflicting firearm injuries. 3. Arguments heard and the record perused. 4. It has been straightaway observed by this Court that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR and the same is lodged by the complainant against two named accused persons i.c. Ali Salman and Tahir Iqbal., along with two unidentified individuals. However, during the course of investigation, it came to light that the occurrence in question was allegedly occurred at the instigation of the nominated accused persons, who are said to have hired the services of the petitioner and one Hamza Jutt to commit the offence. It has further been noticed that the petitioner is the real brother of one of the nominated accused, namely Ali Salman. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the case under Section 54 Cr.P.C. and sent to judicial lock up for test identification parade, which was conducted on 30.03.2024. Notably, the original crime report did not attribute any specific injury inflicted upon the deceased to the unknown accused persons. However, during the said identification parade, the petitioner was surprisingly identified by the complainant and the eye-witness with the role of having fired gunshots at the deceased. 5. In view of the above, the prosecution's case against the petitioner appears to be based on two conflicting versions, one presented in the crime report, and the other emerging from the investigation conducted by the investigating agency. Further reliance can also be placed on the latest dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Mujahid Hussain and another versus The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab, Lahore and another" (2024 SCMR 800). All the above narrated facts make the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The guilt of the petitioner and recovery of weapon of offence on his pointing out would be determined by the trial court after recording of evidence. 6. The record reflects that Tahir Iqbal and Ali Salman, nominated accused were granted post-arrest bail by this Court vide consolidated order dated 03.12.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 53146-B of 2024, and apparently such order has not been challenged by the complainant. 7. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. He is no more required to the investigating agency for the purpose of further investigation. No useful purpose would be served while keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. Granting bail to an accused person does not amount to his acquittal, rather his custody is handed over from State to the surety, who takes the responsibility to produce that accused before the trial court. 8. Resultantly, the instant bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. MQ/U-4/L Bail granted.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.2(12), 11, O.XX, R. 12 & O. XLI, R.27---Suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit---Mesne profit, determination and award of---Res judicata, applicability of---Production of additional evidence at appellate stage---Validity---Respondents, being owner of suit property on the strength of registered sale deeds, filed suit for possession and mesne profit by alleging that present petitioners had illegally and unlawfully occupied their property---The suit of the respondents after recording of evidence was decreed by the Trial Court and the said decree was maintained by the appellate court and the High Court by dismissing their appeal and civil revision respectively---Trial Court while granting decree in favour of respondents refused the plea to the extent of mesne profit, whereas, appellate court while allowing cross objections of respondents awarded mesne profit to the respondents---Through the present petition before the Supreme Court merits of the case were not argued on behalf of the petitioners, instead three points were raised; i.e. (i) Mesne profit, (ii) Res judicata; (iii) Refusal of additional documents by appellate court---This simply meant that ownership of respondents was out of question and possession of petitioners over the suit property was established to be illegal and unlawful---Question requiring consideration by the Supreme Court was as to "when ownership and the possession of the suit property by respondents went un-rebutted, what legal strength and force would have been left in such points?---Held: With regards to the grant of mesne profit, no hard and fast mechanism/rules could be made and the criteria for determining the quantum of mesne profit was subject to inquiry if the Trial Court so directed---The quantum of award of mesne profit would depend on case to case basis---With regards to the contention that Single Judge of High Court in Chambers did not give any findings despite taking a specific ground in civil revision, same was misconceived, as at the time of hearing what was argued before the court was reproduced in the impugned order which meant that this plea was not argued before the court at the time of hearing---Moreover, petitioners did not even take any specific ground qua mesne profit in the present petition before the Supreme Court which amounted to an acceptance of all findings on the said question by the petitioners-- -With regards to applicability of section 11, C.P.C., petitioners did not place any material before the court in support of that argument so it could not be proved that there had been a previous decided matter between the parties qua the suit property---With respect to production of additional evidence at appellate stage, the perusal of application reflected that no particulars and details of documents to be produced as additional evidence had been given by the petitioners---Moreover, it has been settled law that production of additional evidence cannot be claimed as a matter of right and mere vague application would not suffice the purpose of an application under Rule 27 of Order XLI, C.P.C., therefore, such contention of the petitioners had no force either---Petitioners failed to establish their nexus with the suit property- --Present petition was meritless and same was dismissed and leave refused. (b) Pleadings--- ----A party cannot be allowed to argue a new ground, which is not raised in the memo of petition, unless specifically permitted by court to argue. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts.117 & 120---Plea---Scope---Merely alleging a specific plea cannot legally be considered as sufficient unless proved on the record. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLI, R.27---Production of additional evidence at appellate stage-- -Scope---It cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is for the court to decide whether any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable the court to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause and also when the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit such additional evidence and for allowing such evidence to be recorded, the court has to record reasons for such permission. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLI, R.27---Appellate Court---Deciding application for additional evidence before deciding the appeal, requirement of---Exception---Appellate court would be duty bound to decide the said application one way or the other but in case if it fails to do so, in peculiar circumstances of a case, no fruitful purpose would be achieved by sending the case back to appellate court for decision of that application by setting aside all the judgments and decrees especially when a party has failed to prove any nexus with the suit property and justify its possession over it. Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 & O. VII, R. 11---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 120---Suit for declaration, correction of area, along with mandatory and permanent injunction---Limitation---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Suit was barred by time hence relief of correction of area was denied---Petitioners claimed ownership of suit property measuring 1885 sq.ft. but alleged that the official records wrongly recorded it as 315 square feet since 1973---Their applications for correction before the respondent authorities in 2021 were unsuccessful, leading them to file a civil suit, which was dismissed on account of an earlier similar suit which was also dismissed under O. VII R. 11, C.P.C.---Held: Petitioners themselves admitted that the allegedly incorrect area of the suit property was first recorded in the year 1973 and then again and again until 2011---However, the petitioners did not pursue any remedy whatsoever until the year 2021, for more or less ten years from the last entry in the record---Under Art. 120 of Limitation Act, 1908 the limitation period to institute a suit for declaration was six years which in the present case had elapsed long before the suit was instituted (even if the same was considered from the year 2011 when the last entry was made)---The contents of the plaint clearly showed that a suit was barred by time---There was no benefit in letting the suit proceed to trial---In the present case, for example, it was striking that (allegedly) the area of the suit property was reduced in the record from 1885 sq. ft. to 315 sq. ft. (by almost 80%) but none of the parties concerned came forward timely to seek relief---The suit of the petitioners was stillborn from its inception---It is settled law that stillborn suit must be buried immediately without a formal ceremony---Therefore, both Courts below were right in passing their respective decisions---Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint ---Contents of the plaint, consideration of---Scope---For the purposes of R. 11 of O. VII of C.P.C. the law dictates that only the contents of the plaint or any other admitted facts may be considered and that the contents of the plaint be presumed as true and no allegation countering the facts of the plaint may be entertained---Thus, if a perusal of the facts pleaded in the plaint in a suit shows ex facie that the suit is covered by any of the conditions provided in R. 11 of O. VII of C.P.C. then the suit must fail at its inception and the plaint must be rejected. Ali Sher v. Fakhre Alam Shah 2009 YLR 1748 and Messrs Mengal Corporation v. Messrs DDG Hansa PLD 1992 Karachi 75 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Suit being barred by limitation---Limitation being a mixed question of law and facts---Principles--- Determinative factors---Scope---Limitation being a mixed question of law and facts is not a hard-and-fast principle and its application ultimately comes down to the facts and circumstances surrounding every case on its own sight---The issue of limitation varies from being a pure issue of law to being a mixed issue of law and fact on a case to case basis---Where there is controversy surrounding limitation, it becomes a mixed issue to be resolved only after evidence, however, where dates and circumstances relevant for computing limitation are apparent from the plaint itself it become a pure legal issue which may be summarily decided under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. (d) Limitation--- ----Principles---The law of limitation is not merely a formal law but must be observed strictly to ensure a conducive functioning of the judicial system in the interest of public policy---Limitation does not kill an existing right of a party---However, it does prevent a party from seeking judicial relief to enforce that right on the account of that party's own negligence and laxity---It is a rudimentary principle that the law favours only the vigilant and not the indolent, therefore, if a party demonstrates indolence in having its rights enforced, then the law of limitation kicks in and would undoubtedly prevent that party from seeking relief for a delayed grievance. Kamran Qureshi for Applicant No. 3 for himself and as the Attorney of the remaining Applicants. Muhammad Yousif Rahopoto, Additional Advocate General Sindh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) **Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908)** ----S. 17—Agreement to sell—Unregistered document—Evidentiary value—The appellant sought specific performance of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 28-08-1997 in respect of land situated at Mozia Lamnian, District Hattian Bala—Held, that an unregistered agreement purporting to create or declare an interest in immovable property exceeding Rs. 100 in value carries no legal effect under S. 17 of the Registration Act—Failure to produce the scribe or otherwise prove due execution further weakened the claim—Mere averments in pleadings, unsubstantiated by evidence, cannot form basis for a decree for specific performance—Suit was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and the finding affirmed by the First Appellate Court. (b) **Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)** ----S. 100—Second appeal—Scope—Interference with concurrent findings of fact—High Court’s jurisdiction under S. 100 C.P.C. is confined to substantial questions of law—Where concurrent findings of the courts below are based on proper appraisal of evidence and disclose neither misreading nor non-reading, no interference is warranted—Appellant failed to demonstrate that any material issue of law was left undecided or that there existed any procedural defect amounting to miscarriage of justice—Consequently, second appeal incompetent and liable to dismissal. (c) **Evidence Act (I of 1872)** ----Civil litigation—Burden of proof—Doctrine of preponderance of probabilities—Party asserting ownership through agreement to sell bears burden to prove execution, consideration and readiness to perform—In absence of credible documentary or oral evidence, burden not discharged—Findings of trial and appellate courts based on sound reasoning cannot be disturbed. **Held:** No misreading or non-reading of evidence was shown; concurrent judgments were consistent with law and evidence; unregistered agreement to sell was void of legal effect; and the appeal under S. 100 C.P.C. was bereft of merit. **Cited Cases:** PLD 1998 Lah 444; PLD 1996 Kar 475; 2012 CLC 1726; 2003 MLD 131; 2006 SCR 94; 2006 SCR 414; 2007 SCR 125; Nazir Begum v. Mohammad Ayub 1993 SCR 321; Karam Dad v. Barkat Jan 2002 SCR 155; Mohammad Irshad Khan v. Mst. Hanifa Begum 2006 SCR 358. **Disposition:** Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Summary: A criminal appeal filed by the state against the acquittal of Aftab Khan and others in a murder case. The court upheld the trial court's judgment, which acquitted the accused due to lack of confidence-inspiring evidence. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony, but the court found it unreliable due to contradictions and inconsistencies. The Forensic Science Laboratory report also contradicted the ocular evidence, stating that all crime empties were fired from the same pistol. The court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, citing the principle that a single doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused person. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden, and the accused`s acquittal carried a double presumption of innocence.

Summary: Court has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of Israr-ud- Din for murdering Muhammad Kamal. The murder occurred in the court premises of the Assistant Commissioner in Samarbagh, and the motive was a dispute over Mst. Sunbal, the appellant`s ex-wife. The court relied on eyewitness testimony from Amjad Ali, Imdad Khan, and Muhammad Sattar, as well as forensic evidence, including a positive FSL report linking the crime empty to the pistol recovered from the appellant`s possession. The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the appellant`s appeal, upholding the trial court`s judgment. Additionally, the court dismissed a connected appeal against acquittal, upholding the acquittal of co-accused Abdul Wahab and Adnan-ud-Din.

Summary: The case involved the murder of Mst. Mohsin Zahida, the wife of the accused, Gul Zarin. Police investigated the case and recovered the dead body of the deceased on the pointation of the accused. The prosecution`s evidence included the recovery of the dead body, blood-stained earth, and a crime empty from the spot, as well as a positive FSL report linking the crime empty to the weapon of offence. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the State filed an appeal against the acquittal. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the accused`s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary: Constitutional Petition Held: The scope of section 12(2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is inherently limited to civil Court Judgments, decrees and orders and cannot be invoked in relation to instruments, transactions, or proceedings falling outside the domain of civil Court jurisdiction, unless expressly provided otherwise by law.