Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Ocular Testimony – Reliability of Chance Witnesses – Burden of Explanation: Where eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased and admitted to being non-residents of the place of occurrence, the Court held them to be chance witnesses and found their presence at the scene to be unsubstantiated. Their failure to produce prescriptions or independent evidence regarding the reason for being at the spot cast serious doubts on the veracity of their accounts. → Rel: Muhammad Rafiq v. State (2014 SCMR 1698); Usman alias Kaloo v. State (2017 SCMR 622); Nasrullah alias Nasro v. State (2017 SCMR 724) (b) Medical Evidence – Conflict with Ocular Testimony – Inconsistencies: Postmortem revealed eight firearm entry wounds, contradicting the witnesses’ claim of 5–6 shots. The lack of blackening on six of the wounds conflicted with the stated firing distance (5–6 feet). The Court found the contradiction between medical and ocular evidence irreconcilable, rendering the ocular testimony unreliable. → Rel: Muhammad Ashraf v. State (2012 SCMR 419); Amin Ali v. State (2011 SCMR 323); Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Asif (2007 SCMR 1812); Mian Sohail Ahmed v. State (2019 SCMR 956) (c) Postmortem Delay – Adverse Inference: Postmortem was conducted approximately seven hours after the incident, with no plausible explanation offered. The delay raised suspicion of post-incident deliberation and tailoring of prosecution’s version. → Rel: Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. State (2019 SCMR 1068); Khalid alias Khalidi v. State (2012 SCMR 327) (d) Failure to Associate Independent Witnesses – Section 103, Cr.P.C. The alleged recovery of the weapon (Pistol P-2) from the accused was not witnessed by any independent resident of the locality, violating mandatory provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C. This omission rendered the recovery legally insignificant. → Rel: Muhammad Ismail v. State (2017 SCMR 898); Muhammad Amin v. State (2019 SCMR 2057) (e) Motive – Absence of Independent Proof: Prosecution alleged enmity based on the deceased’s suspected involvement in an encounter leading to the death of the accused’s brother. However, no complaint or evidence substantiated this claim. Motive remained unproved. → Rel: Muhammad Javed v. State (2016 SCMR 2021) (f) Failure to Produce Inhabitants of the Locality – Adverse Presumption: Despite the incident occurring in a populated area, no nearby shopkeepers or residents were produced as witnesses. The Court held this failure to attract an adverse presumption under Article 129(g), QSO 1984. → Rel: Nadeem alias Nanha v. State (2010 SCMR 949) (g) First Information Report (FIR) – Contradictory Timing – Delay in Complaint: Though prosecution claimed prompt reporting, the medical officer noted the body was received at 10:30 PM, casting doubt on the claim that the FIR was recorded around 5:10 PM. This discrepancy weakened the spontaneity and credibility of the complaint. → Rel: Abdul Jabbar alias Jabbari v. State (2017 SCMR 1155) ---Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 34-J of 2023 allowed. Conviction and death sentence of Muhammad Abid set aside. Murder Reference No. 01 of 2023 answered in negative; death sentence not confirmed. Muhammad Abid acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 – S. 14(3), Order I Rule 10 CPC – Impleadment of grandfather in maintenance suit – Financial incapacity of father – Maintainability of appeal against order impleading grandfather – Scope and permissibility ––– Petitioner (mother) filed suit for recovery of maintenance from respondent No.4 (father) who, by his own admission, was unemployed and unable to provide maintenance to his two minor daughters—Petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead respondent No.3 (paternal grandfather), citing his substantial wealth and financial capacity—Learned Family Court allowed the application, but the Appellate Court reversed the order, holding that grandfather cannot be impleaded unless father's incapacity is proven—Held, the appellate order was unsustainable—Where a father is unable to fulfill legal obligation of maintenance, grandfather is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings—Obligation of grandfather flows from Islamic jurisprudence and confirmed by precedent—Appellate Court’s view requiring prior adjudication of father's incapacity before impleadment creates undue hardship and multiplicity of litigation—High Court allowed writ petition and restored the Family Court's order. ----Cited Cases: Bashir Ahmad v. ADJ, Hafizabad, PLD 2024 SC 67 Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara, 2023 SCMR 413 Farzana Rasool v. Dr. Muhammad Bashir, 2011 SCMR 1361 (b) Family Law – Maintenance – Impleadment of grandfather – Welfare of minor children – Procedural technicalities must not defeat substantive justice: ––– The Court emphasized that in family litigation, particularly those involving minor children, the welfare of the child is paramount—Where evidence on record shows father is financially incapable and grandfather is financially sound, impleading grandfather is necessary for complete adjudication—Strict procedural bars must not hinder substantive justice or result in hardship to minors—Courts must facilitate, not obstruct, child-rights driven litigation. Held: Procedural convenience must favor women and children where statute allows flexibility. Cited Case: Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara, 2023 SCMR 413 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 10 – Nature of order on impleadment application – Final or interlocutory – Appealability: ––– Held, an order allowing or refusing impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC is a final order with respect to rights of a party to participate in proceedings—Such orders are appealable and not merely interlocutory—Appellate jurisdiction was properly invoked by respondents, but High Court found appellate court’s reasoning flawed and against settled law. (d) Family Law – Grandfather’s obligation to maintain grandchildren – Conditions and legal framework: ––– Grandfather’s obligation arises if: (i) the father is financially incapable, and (ii) the grandfather is financially sound—If both conditions are met, the grandfather becomes legally responsible—This right must be proven in court, and grandfather given fair opportunity to rebut such claim—Decree passed against father cannot be executed against grandfather unless he was made a party—Hence, impleadment is necessary for future enforcement of maintenance decrees. Cited Case: Bashir Ahmad v. ADJ, Hafizabad, PLD 2024 SC 67 ----Disposition: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned judgment dated 09.01.2025 by the Appellate Court set aside – Family Court’s order dated 07.10.2024 restored – Paternal grandfather impleaded as defendant in maintenance proceedings.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XXXVII, R. 4—Ex parte judgment and decree—Application to set aside—Summary suit—Special procedure—Scope—Appellant assailed dismissal of application under O. XXXVII, R. 4, C.P.C. seeking to set aside ex parte decree passed in a summary suit for recovery based on a cheque—Appellant claimed lack of proper service and alleged concealment of facts by Respondent—Held, summary suits under O. XXXVII, C.P.C. follow a special procedure requiring the defendant to file an application for leave to defend alongside the application to set aside ex parte decree—Appellant neither challenged order for ex parte proceedings nor filed leave to defend—Service was duly effected through substituted modes including newspaper publication—Delay in filing application and absence of leave to defend rendered application defective—No special or exceptional circumstances shown—Trial Court rightly dismissed application—Impugned order upheld. Cited Case: Muhammad Mansab v. Muhammad Hanif 2025 SCMR 60 (b) Summary Suits—Nature and scope: ----Requirement of leave to defend—Filing of application—Mandatory procedural safeguard—Appellant failed to file leave to appear and defend suit as required under O. XXXVII, C.P.C.—Held, Rule 4 envisages relief only in rare and exceptional cases—Ordinary excuses such as being abroad, service on alternate address, or pending documentation do not suffice—Delay or negligence on part of defendant cannot be condoned in summary proceedings without a valid explanation supported by documents—Relief under O. XXXVII, R. 4 not available in absence of strict compliance with procedure. (c) Limitation Act, 1908: ----Summary suits—Delay in filing application to set aside ex parte decree—Consequences—Appellant filed application beyond limitation period without plausible justification—Held, delay fatal in absence of leave to defend or any sufficient cause—Mere assertion of being abroad or ignorance of proceedings insufficient—Equity and justice must align with statutory framework to avoid misuse of process and frustration of summary remedy intended by legislature. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed; impugned order refusing to set aside ex parte decree upheld.

Summary: Order XXI rule 97 98 99 199 & 101 CPC. There is no cavil with the proposition that where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed from immoveable property by the decree holder he may make an application to the Court complaining o[ such dispossession. The term 'any person' used in Order XXI Rule 99 CPC means a stranger to the suit who was not impleaded in the original suit. Once an application under Order XXI Rule 99 is filed it is incumbent upon the executing court to consider all for and against claims including the right title and interest of the parties under Order XXI Rule 101 which bars a separate suit by mandating the execution court to decide such a dispute.

Summary: Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)----S. 12---Specific performance---Non-deposit of balance sale consideration---Misrepresentation by vendor---Effect---Scope of court’s discretion---Petitioner’s suit for specific performance was dismissed for failure to deposit balance sale consideration despite court orders---Agreement to sell was executed solely by respondent No.1, who falsely claimed to act on behalf of his wife (respondent No.2), the co-owner---Trial Court and Appellate Court dismissed the suit for non-compliance with deposit orders---Held, where a vendor misrepresents his authority to sell co-owned property and pending litigation obstructs title transfer, court must evaluate circumstances before directing deposit of sale consideration---Requirement to deposit must not be applied mechanically---In present case, petitioner’s reluctance to deposit was justified due to third-party litigation, ex parte conduct of vendor, and misrepresentation regarding co-owner’s consent---Failure to deposit in such context does not warrant dismissal of suit---Trial Court's direction failed to adhere to binding precedent requiring two clear opportunities with specific penal consequences---Impugned orders found violative of fair trial principles.Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Erroneous dismissal of suit---Non-adherence to binding precedent---Interference by revisional court---Held, trial and appellate courts failed to comply with the procedural safeguards laid down in PLD 2022 Lahore 372 (Irfan Rasheed case), which mandates two distinct opportunities for deposit of balance consideration with specific penal warning---Appellate Court further erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without appreciating petitioner’s contentions or factual complexities---Revisional jurisdiction rightly exercised to remedy procedural miscarriage and ensure substantial justice.Contract---Reciprocal obligations and fair trial----Doctrine of reciprocal performance---Fraud and misrepresentation---Judicial approach in specific performance cases---Court emphasized that where one party fails to perform or creates legal impediments (such as absence of authority or litigation), the other party’s obligation to perform (including deposit) may be deferred---Reliance placed on principle “fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant” (fraud and justice never dwell together)---Held, doctrine of fairness requires judicial discretion to be exercised equitably---Petitioner was not afforded fair opportunity to comply under modified directions.Key Precedents Discussed:Hamood Mehmood v. Mst. Shabana Ishaque (2017 SCMR 2022)Muhammad Asif Awan v. Dawood Khan (2021 SCMR 1270)Meer Gul v. Raja Zafar Mahmood (2024 SCMR 1496)Irfan Rasheed v. Muhammad Muazim (PLD 2022 Lahore 372)Muhammad Jahan Zaib Khan v. Muhammad Rafique Khan (2021 PLC (CS) 1435)Disposition:Petition allowed; orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court set aside; suit restored with direction to petitioner to deposit balance consideration within one month, failing which dismissal shall stand reinstated.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: As per the legislative intent, in the event of a procedural gap in the Trade Organizations Act 2013, the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 2017 will apply by default, ensuring a comprehensive and cohesive regulatory framework.

Summary: Section 215 of the Contract Act, 1872 equips the principal with a right to repudiate the transaction when agent deals on his own account, in the business of the agency without principal's consent.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending