Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)- -S. 13(1) [as amended by Civil Servants (Amendment) Ordinance (XXIV of 2001)]-Civil Service Regulations (CSR), Regln. 418-Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4-Pensionary benefits-Length of service-Delay in claiming pensionary benefits-Effect-Civil servant was aggrieved of denial of pensionary benefits to him due to belated application-Validity-Pensionary benefits after retirement devolve upon a civil servant soon after his/her resignation followed by its acceptance-Formal application is only required to keep the record streamlined-Delay of any kind to claim pensionary benefits should not be counted as to one of the disentitlements, especially for pensionary claims-Neither the principle of laches applied (as indeed no one else had any claim over the money) nor any provision of Limitation Act, 1908 would come as an obstacle to decline claim of pensionary benefits-If a government servant resigns from an appointment to take up another appointment in which there is a provision for counting of past service, then period served can be taken into account subject to reservation identified in Regulation 418(a) of Civil Service Regulations (CSR)-Supreme Court set aside the judgment of Service Tribunal and order passed by authorities who failed to understand the spirit of Regulation 418 of Civil Service Regulation (CSR) and also that the belated application to claim pensionary benefits was not a disentitlement-Appeal was allowed. Secretary, Government of Punjab, Finance Department v. Ismail Tayer 2015 PLC (C.S.) 296; I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Punjab 1991 SCMR 1041; Chief Engineer, Hydel (North) and Project Director, WAPDA v. Zafarullah Shah 2003 SCMR 684 and Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Mubarak PLD 1990 SC 346 rel.

Summary: (Against order dated 03.07.2024 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No.61(P) CS of 2023). Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)--- ----S. 13(1) [as amended by Civil Servants (Amendment) Ordinance (XXIV of 2001)]---Civil Service Regulations (CSR), Regln. 418---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4---Pensionary benefits---Length of service---Delay in claiming pensionary benefits---Effect---Civil servant was aggrieved of denial of pensionary benefits to him due to belated application---Validity---Pensionary benefits after retirement devolve upon a civil servant soon after his/her resignation followed by its acceptance---Formal application is only required to keep the record streamlined---Delay of any kind to claim pensionary benefits should not be counted as to one of the disentitlements, especially for pensionary claims---Neither the principle of laches applied (as indeed no one else had any claim over the money) nor any provision of Limitation Act, 1908 would come as an obstacle to decline claim of pensionary benefits---If a government servant resigns from an appointment to take up another appointment in which there is a provision for counting of past service, then period served can be taken into account subject to reservation identified in Regulation 418(a) of Civil Service Regulations (CSR)---Supreme Court set aside the judgment of Service Tribunal and order passed by authorities who failed to understand the spirit of Regulation 418 of Civil Service Regulation (CSR) and also that the belated application to claim pensionary benefits was not a disentitlement---Appeal was allowed. Secretary, Government of Punjab, Finance Department v. Ismail Tayer 2015 PLC (C.S.) 296; I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Punjab 1991 SCMR 1041; Chief Engineer, Hydel (North) and Project Director, WAPDA v. Zafarullah Shah 2003 SCMR 684 and Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Mubarak PLD 1990 SC 346 rel. Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Rashideen Nawaz Qasoori, Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan, M. Saeed Anwar, Assistant Account Officer and Abdul Rehman, APS for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th January, 2026.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- Ghulam Abbas and others v. Mohammad Shafi through LRs and others 2016 SCMR 1403; Azhar Hayat v. Karachi Port Trust through Chairman and others 2016 SCMR 1916; Muhammad Yar (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Amin (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 464; Malik Shahid Mehmood v. Malik Afzal Mehmood and others 2011 SCMR 551; Ch. Ghulam Rasool v. Mrs. Nusrat Rasool and 4 others PLD 2008 SC 146; Mrs. Akram Yaseen and others v. Asif Yaseen and others 2013 SCMR 1099 and Muhammad Saeed Bacha and another v. Late Badshah Amir and others 2011 SCMR 345 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O.XXIII, R.1-Withdrawal of suit-Filing of fresh suit on same cause of action-Permission, non-seeking of-Subsequent suit, maintainability of-Scope-Where the withdrawal order is passed in the presence of the parties and remained unchallenged despite the availability of adequate statutory remedies the party having acquiesced in the said order and allowing it to attain finality, cannot be permitted to question its legal consequences or to re-characterize an unconditional withdrawal as a conditional one-The law does not countenance such an approach.

Summary: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)- -S.4-Superior right of pre-emption-Term ‘waiver’-Applicability-Respondent / pre-emptor was son of vendor who had claimed possession of suit land through exercise of superior right of pre-emption-Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court and High Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent / pre-emptor-Validity-Respondent / pre-emptor was not only aware of sale transaction but remained present at the time of execution and registration of sale deed-Despite such knowledge, respondent / pre-emptor neither objected to the sale nor asserted his right of pre-emption-Respondent / pre-emptor allowed transaction to be completed and vendees to act upon it, thereby inducting a legitimate expectation that the sale would not be disturbed-High Court while dismissing second appeal, failed to properly appreciate the cumulative effect of respondent’s/pre-emptor’s conduct and treated his presence in isolation ignoring that waiver was to be inferred from totality of circumstances and not from a single fact viewed in vacuum-Supreme Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by High Court and Lower Appellate Court as the same were result of misreading of evidence and misapplication of law-Appeal was allowed. Said Kamal's case PLD 1986 SC 360; Sardar Ali's case PLD 1988 SC 287; Black's Law Dictionary; Abdul Hameed and others v. Muzamil Haq and others 2005 SCMR 895; Hassan Din and others v. Manzoor Hussain and others 2010 SCMR 810; Naseer Ahmed v. Arshad Ahmad PLD 1984 SC 403 and Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 ref.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 07.10.2025 passed in C.R. No. 80-P of 2017 by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXIII, R.1---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.14---Civil suit challenging registered lease deed --- Suit withdrawn “as withdrawn” simpliciter ---No liberty/permission sought/granted to instituted fresh suit---Effect---Subsequent suit on same cause of action---Permissibility---Limitation---Exclusion of time spent before wrong forum---Scope--- Briefly, the petitioners’ (through their late father) filed a civil suit before seeking declaration, perpetual injunction and, in the alternative, possession regarding the shop in question, claiming leasehold rights and challenging a registered lease deed executed in favour of respondent No.1; the suit was decreed and the respondent’s appeal was dismissed, but in civil revision the High Court set aside the concurrent judgments and dismissed the suit, leading to the filing of present petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, whereby, the Supreme Court considered maintainability of the suit in view of the earlier civil suit (on the same cause and lease deed) which was withdrawn without permission to file a fresh suit---Held: The application seeking withdrawal of the earlier suit was completely silent as to any condition, reservation, or liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action ---A withdrawal founded upon a private arrangement which neither received judicial recognition nor was reflected in the order of the Court could not, in law, be treated as anything other than a withdrawal simpliciter---Such an unconditional withdrawal squarely attracted the bar contained in Order XXIII, Rule 1(3), C.P.C., thereby precluding the institution of a subsequent suit in respect of the same subject-matter---With respect to the issue of limitation the petitioners had neither pleaded nor established any factual or legal basis to attract the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908---There was no assertion, much less proof, that the earlier proceedings were prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith before a Court lacking jurisdiction or suffering from any defect of a like nature---Consequently, the challenge laid to the registered lease deed, after the lapse of several years, was manifestly beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was, therefore, hopelessly time-barred---Withdrawal of the earlier suit without permission to institute a fresh suit operated as a complete bar under Order XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C.---The subsequent suit was not only barred by law but also by limitation---The failure of the petitioners to challenge the withdrawal order further estopped them from re-agitating the same cause of action---Leave was refused and present petition being devoid of merit was dismissed. Ghulam Abbas and others v. Mohammad Shafi through LRs and others 2016 SCMR 1403; Azhar Hayat v. Karachi Port Trust through Chairman and others 2016 SCMR 1916; Muhammad Yar (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Amin (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 464; Malik Shahid Mehmood v. Malik Afzal Mehmood and others 2011 SCMR 551; Ch. Ghulam Rasool v. Mrs. Nusrat Rasool and 4 others PLD 2008 SC 146; Mrs. Akram Yaseen and others v. Asif Yaseen and others 2013 SCMR 1099 and Muhammad Saeed Bacha and another v. Late Badshah Amir and others 2011 SCMR 345 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXIII, R.1---Withdrawal of suit---Filing of fresh suit on same cause of action---Permission, non-seeking of---Subsequent suit, maintainability of---Scope---Where the withdrawal order is passed in the presence of the parties and remained unchallenged despite the availability of adequate statutory remedies the party having acquiesced in the said order and allowing it to attain finality, cannot be permitted to question its legal consequences or to re-characterize an unconditional withdrawal as a conditional one---The law does not countenance such an approach. Hassan Ullah Khan Afridi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th January, 2026.

Summary: (Against judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 passed in R.S.A. No. 107 of 2000 by Lahore High Court, Lahore). Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--- ----S.4---Superior right of pre-emption---Term ‘waiver’---Applicability---Respondent / pre-emptor was son of vendor who had claimed possession of suit land through exercise of superior right of pre-emption---Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court and High Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent / pre-emptor---Validity---Respondent / pre-emptor was not only aware of sale transaction but remained present at the time of execution and registration of sale deed---Despite such knowledge, respondent / pre-emptor neither objected to the sale nor asserted his right of pre-emption---Respondent / pre-emptor allowed transaction to be completed and vendees to act upon it, thereby inducting a legitimate expectation that the sale would not be disturbed---High Court while dismissing second appeal, failed to properly appreciate the cumulative effect of respondent’s/pre-emptor’s conduct and treated his presence in isolation ignoring that waiver was to be inferred from totality of circumstances and not from a single fact viewed in vacuum---Supreme Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by High Court and Lower Appellate Court as the same were result of misreading of evidence and misapplication of law---Appeal was allowed. Said Kamal's case PLD 1986 SC 360; Sardar Ali's case PLD 1988 SC 287; Black's Law Dictionary; Abdul Hameed and others v. Muzamil Haq and others 2005 SCMR 895; Hassan Din and others v. Manzoor Hussain and others 2010 SCMR 810; Naseer Ahmed v. Arshad Ahmad PLD 1984 SC 403 and Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 ref. Sheikh Naveed Shehryar and Sh. Usman Karim Ud Din, Advocates Supreme Court for Appellants. Imran Humayun Cheema and Khawaja Waseem Abbas, Advocates Supreme Court for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th January, 2026.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Powers of Appellate Court to reframe issues at appellate stage discussed. 56Family 64981/25 Harris Rasheed & 1 Other Vs Guardian Judge Lahore etc Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad 24-12- 2025 2025 LHC 8203