Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 21(b)----Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Contracts not specifically enforceable---Joint khata---Pendency of a suit for partition qua property---Failure to prove identification of the property in dispute with reasonable certainty---Effect---Trial Court refused to grant decree of specific performance, however, decreed the suit with regard to return of the earnest money, which decision was upheld by the appellate Court---Validity---Suit property was unidentifiable from the contents of the agreement to sell and entitlement of specific portion was yet to be decided after partition---Particulars with regard to identity of the suit property in the agreement lacked certainty and it could not be identified with reasonable certainty, thus, said agreement was not enforceable in view of the principle enshrined under S. 21 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and a decree for specific performance could not be issued----Findings of the courts below on the question of facts and law being based upon proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced in the suit, were not liable to be reviewed or substituted by High Court while exercising jurisdiction under S. 115 C.P.C---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Hameed Ullah and 9 others v. Headmistress, Government Girls School, Chokara, District Kark and 5 others 1997 SCMR 855 and Malik Tanveer Ali and another v. Sardar Ali Imam 2010 YLR 1799 rel. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 12 & 21(g)----Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Contract involving performance of continuous duty extending over a period longer than three years---Enforceablity---Where under a contract the obligation is cast upon a person to perform continuously particular duty for a period longer than three years from the date of the agreement, the same cannot be specifically enforced. Mian Muhammad Saleem and others v. Mst. Hameeda Begum and others 1987 SCMR 624; Mst. Saeeda Akhtar and others v. Lal Din and others PLD 1981 Lah. 623 and Fida Hussain v. Jalal Khan 2022 CLC 1339 rel. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17, 71, 72 & 79---Specific performance of agreement to sell---Burden of proof---Scope---Execution of two agreements to sell qua same transaction---Fulfilment of requirement of production of two attesting witnesses in the first agreement to sell---Failure of the petitioner to produce one of the marginal witnesses in the second agreement to sell---Effect---Although the petitioner failed to produce second marginal witness of the 2nd agreement to sell, but as the said agreement was executed in pursuance of previous/1st agreement to sell, which was duly proved and the execution of 2nd agreement to sell was not specifically denied by the respondent and it remained un-rebutted, therefore, it could be used in evidence. (d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17, 71, 72 & 79---Specific performance of agreement to sell---Burden of proof---Scope--- Scribe of a document to be attesting witness---Determination---Non-fulfilment of requirement of production of two attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell---Effect---Scriber of a document can only be a competent witness if he has put his signature as an attesting witness of the document and not otherwise---Name of scriber was written as scriber, who did not sign the agreement as an attesting witness rather put his signature as Wasiqa Nafees, thus, he could not be qualified as a marginal witness. Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others PLD 2011 SC 241 rel. (e) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17, 71, 72 & 79---S pecific performance of agreement to sell---Burden of proof---Scope--- Non-fulfilment of requirement of production of two attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell---Effect---Plea of one of the attesting witnesses living abroad---Legality---So long as the attesting witnesses are alive, capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of Court, no document can be used in evidence without the evidence of such attesting witnesses---If execution of a document is specifically denied the best course is to call the attesting witnesses to prove the execution---Non-compliance of said requirement will render the document inadmissible in evidence---Neither due process of law was adopted to procure attendance of the second marginal witness, nor any evidence was produced to establish that he was residing abroad---Petitioner while seeking performance of agreement to sell failed to comply with the stringent condition mentioned in the Art. 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Khudadad v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah alias S. Inam Hussain and others 2022 SCMR 933 rel. (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court has a narrow and limited scope to interfere in the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below while exercising powers under S.115, C.P.C---Such power has been entrusted and assigned to the Court in order to secure effective exercise of its superintendence, which cannot be invoked against conclusion of law and fact which does not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Court but it is confined to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the case, or the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or contrary to the law---Interference in the revisional jurisdiction can be made only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is found to be perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to law. Shabbir Ahmad Awan for Petitioner. Mirza Muhammad Asif Nadeem for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th March, 2025.

Summary: Femoral artery is the major blood vessel located in thigh starting from groin and going to knee, it supplies oxygen-rich blood to the lower parts of the body and damage to it can cause lower limb ischemia leading to amputation of limb, compartment syndrome as well as death due to blood loss, hence if firearm injury has been caused at thigh, then prima facie section: 324 PPC is attracted.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Witness before whom accused makes extra judicial confession, if does not react after hearing the confession, then it raises eyebrows regarding his conduct as well as testimony and in such circumstances story of the prosecution comprising of circumstantial evidence cannot find any buyer; when there is no substantial evidence, then DNA report is of no help being corroboratory piece of evidence, because when there is nothing to be corroborated, then corroboratory piece of evidence loses its efficacy.

Summary: This case presents an intriguing question of whether the competent authority, which initially disagreed with the recommendation of removal from service proposed by the Inquiry Officer and imposed a lesser penalty (demotion), can later on, upon remand of the matter by the Appellate Authority and after holding de-novo inquiry, inflict a more severe punishment (of removal from service). Held: Once a particular penalty of demotion had been imposed by the Competent Authority, and the petitioner had assailed the said findings before the appellate forum, which remanded the matter for de-novo inquiry, the imposition of harsher punishment by the Competent Authority, during post remand proceedings, on the basis of same set of allegations and charges runs contrary to the principle of fairness. Had the petitioner not preferred an appeal, his punishment would have remained demotion. It is untenable and unjust to penalize an individual for exercising his legal right to prefer an appeal by subjecting him to a harsher penalty, on the same set of allegations.

Summary: Pre-emption Demands Precision, Slightest Lapse Shatters the Claim. Ratio Decidendi: In suits for pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1991, the right to claim pre-emption is strictly regulated by statutory formalities, and any deviation from the prescribed mode?particularly in relation to the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad?is fatal to the plaintiff?s claim. The right of pre-emption is not a natural right but a statutory one, enforceable only upon strict compliance with Section 13 of the Act. The pre-emptor must make the jumping demand (Talb-i-Muwathibat) immediately upon receiving knowledge of the sale and must subsequently perform Talb-i-Ishhad through witnesses within the stipulated timeframe, clearly pleading the dates and names of attesting witnesses in the plaint. In this case, the respondent/plaintiff failed to establish the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat in a timely manner. His own statement and that of his witnesses revealed inconsistencies and post-facto knowledge of the sale, negating any immediate demand. Furthermore, the pleadings did not mention the date of Talb-i-Ishhad or the names of witnesses, which are essential ingredients to support the claim. The evidence led was vague, unsubstantiated, and materially deficient?failing to meet the statutory requirement of proving service on all vendees, especially the minors among them. The alleged hand-written notices and failure to produce original documents further cast doubt on the authenticity of the demand process. The Lahore High Court held that since the plaintiff had not fulfilled the necessary prerequisites of the Talbs in letter and spirit, the essential legal foundation for exercising the right of pre-emption was absent. The omission was not curable, and the concurrent findings of the appellate court in favor of the pre-emptor were reversed. Thus, the revision was allowed, and the suit stood dismissed. The case reinforces the jurisprudential position that pre-emption is strictissimi juris, and courts are not empowered to relax statutory obligations, no matter how sympathetic the claimant?s circumstances may appear.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Femoral artery is the major blood vessel located in thigh starting from groin and going to knee, it supplies oxygen-rich blood to the lower parts of the body and damage to it can cause lower limb ischemia leading to amputation of limb, compartment syndrome as well as death due to blood loss, hence if firearm injury has been caused at thigh, then prima facie section: 324 PPC is attracted. 646Misc. Writ 14946/25 Ejaz Ahmad Vs ADJ Ferozewala District Sheikhupura etc. Mr. Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabir 12- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 2082