Summary: It is a settled principle that substance must prevail over form. The true legal nature of an order is determined by its practical effect, not merely the language used. If an observation alters the mode of enforcement or imposes new obligations, it should be regarded as a modification of the decree, regardless of whether the term "modification" is expressly used. By adding this verification step, the appellate court had changed the rights and obligations arising out from the decree, thereby modifying its scope, extent and enforceability. In view of the above settled principles, when applied to the context of peculiar facts of this case, the appellate court's observations, which had materially modified the judgment of the trial court and introduced a mechanism for determination of factum of encroachment and enforcement thereof, which for all intent and purposes is modification of the judgment of the trial court and be read as part and parcel thereof. The decree-holder's right to immediate execution, granted by the trial court, has been made contingent upon the condition introduced. The crux of these judgments enunciates that the appellate court was fully competent to independently re-evaluate both the legal and factual aspects of the case. It must not merely adopt the trial court's reasoning, but instead apply its own judicious mind to ensure that the decree of the trial court reflects a just and fair outcome. When the appellate court finds that the trial court's order requires adjustment, it has the authority to modify the decree to better align with the principles of justice. Since it has been established that the appellate court modified the judgment of the trial court, so the executing court being the subordinate court was to execute the judgment of the appellate court because the order of the learned civil court merged into the order of the appellate court under the doctrine of "merger" as elaborated by Supreme Court of Pakistan in a well-known case of Sahabzadi MAHARUNISA and another vs. Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN and another (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 358) as under: - "5. From the ratio of the case law cited above (from both jurisdictions), it is clear that the doctrine of merger has been duly applied to the reversal and modification cases and also to all those cases in which the judgment etc. of a lower forum has been affirmed in appeal or revision by a higher forum(s) (Note: though there are certain exceptions to this rule which shall be specified in the concluding part of this opinion). We may like to add here that the rule of merger shall also extend to the writ jurisdiction of the learned High Court(s) where the decisions of the lower fora, such as Tribunals and Special Courts etc. when challenged have been affirmed by the court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction."

Summary: Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Writ Petition --- Section 5-7 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 and policy decision---The Chairman, PCBL is not vested with any exclusive power to alienate the properties, assets of the Board through any private treaty or understanding and any alienation of the property/ asserts of the Board by the Chairman in contravention of the above law as well as the policy decision, that has no binding force and same does not create any right enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Writ Petition dismissed with heavy cost. 636Service Appeal 6-22 Dr. Syed Ali Vs. Registrar, Lahore High Court Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi 14- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 2177

Summary: If prosecution has produced two eyewitnesses and given-up 3rd eyewitness, whose evidence was of same category/nature and not of higher efficacy like injured, then he cannot be summoned as Court Witness; however, accused can produce him as his Defence Witness, if he opts so. 635Regulatory Authorities 1149349.14800-

Summary: Effect of non-production of complaint bearer in a case under Control of Narcotic Substances Act (CNSA), 1997 634Crl. Revision 74970/24 Ghulam Murtaza Vs A.S.J Faisalabad etc Mr. Justice Farooq Haider 17- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 1023 PLJ 2025 Cr.C 422 (Lahore High Court, Lahore)

Summary: When medical evidence totally negates ocular account then it makes the prosecution story improbable on the one hand, whereas on the other hand also reflects that actual facts have been suppressed or at least not known to the prosecution. 633Crl. Appeal- Against Conviction- CNSA 664-24 MST. BISMA VS STATE Mr. Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa 17- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 1029 2026 YLR 217 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Summary: Section 114(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 explicitly grants a taxpayer the right to revise a return within 60 days of its filing if any omission or wrong statement is discovered. This provision confers a substantive right upon taxpayers to correct errors or omissions in their returns without penalty provided the revised return is filed within the stipulated time. The proviso to Section 114(6) further clarifies that no approval from the Commissioner is required if the revised return is filed within the 60-days period. This underscores the legislative intent to provide taxpayers with a clear opportunity to rectify mistakes within the specified timeframe. In the instant case, the respondents' actions in issuing the impugned notices before the lapse of the 60-days period depicts misuse of authority under Section 177(1) of the Ordinance on the pretext of filing NIL return of income. The statutory framework of the Ordinance envisions a harmonious balance between the taxpayer's right to revise a return and the tax authorities' power to conduct audits. By prematurely initiating audit proceedings, the respondents disrupted this balance and rendered the petitioner's right under Section 114(6) ineffective. This is also clear violation of the principles of fairness and due process. 632Crl. Appeal 9553/21 M. Ali Yasir Vs The State etc The Chief Justice 17- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 1081 PLJ 2025 Cr.C 432 (Lahore High Court, Lahore), 2025 PCr.LJ 1051 (Lahore)

Summary: Scope of obligation incurred under bank guarantees. 631Tax (Writ) 81167/24 Ms Al-Qadir Seed Corporation (Pvt) Ltd through Imran Akram Vs Federation of Pakistan etc. Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran 17- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 1188 2025 PTD 717 (Lahore High Court), PLJ 2025 Lahore 576 (Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi)

Summary: 630Regular First Appeal- Regular First Appeal (R.F.A.) (Final Decree)- Suit for Recovery 249-23 M/S PAKSITAN RAILWAY ADVISORY VS AL BARKA BANK Mr. Justice Asim Hafeez 17- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 2051

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: It is a settled principle that substance must prevail over form. The true legal nature of an order is determined by its practical effect, not merely the language used. If an observation alters the mode of enforcement or imposes new obligations, it should be regarded as a modification of the decree, regardless of whether the term "modification" is expressly used. By adding this verification step, the appellate court had changed the rights and obligations arising out from the decree, thereby modifying its scope, extent and enforceability. In view of the above settled principles, when applied to the context of peculiar facts of this case, the appellate court's observations, which had materially modified the judgment of the trial court and introduced a mechanism for determination of factum of encroachment and enforcement thereof, which for all intent and purposes is modification of the judgment of the trial court and be read as part and parcel thereof. The decree- holder's right to immediate execution, granted by the trial court, has been made contingent upon the condition introduced. The crux of these judgments enunciates that the appellate court was fully competent to independently re-evaluate both the legal and factual aspects of the case. It must not merely adopt the trial court's reasoning, but instead apply its own judicious mind to ensure that the decree of the trial court reflects a just and fair outcome. When the appellate court finds that the trial court's order requires adjustment, it has the authority to modify the decree to better align with the principles of justice. Since it has been established that the appellate court modified the judgment of the trial court, so the executing court being the subordinate court was to execute the judgment of the appellate court because the order of the learned civil court merged into the order of the appellate court under the doctrine of "merger" as elaborated by Supreme Court of Pakistan in a well- known case of Sahabzadi MAHARUNISA and another vs. Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN and another (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 358) as under: - "5. From the ratio of the case law cited above (from both jurisdictions), it is clear that the doctrine of merger has been duly applied to the reversal and modification cases and also to all those cases in which the judgment etc. of a lower forum has been affirmed in appeal or revision by a higher forum(s) (Note: though there are certain exceptions to this rule which shall be specified in the concluding part of this opinion). We may like to add here that the rule of merger shall also extend to the writ jurisdiction of the learned High Court(s) where the decisions of the lower fora, such as Tribunals and Special Courts etc. when challenged have been affirmed by the court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction." 628Family 63942/24 Rasheed Ahmad Vs ADJ Pakpattan etc. Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad 17- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 2559 2025 MLD 1156 (Lahore)