Summary: The following legal questions arise for determination by this Court: i. Whether a single application, under Sections 8 & 20 of the Act, was maintainable for disputes under two separate agreements, each having an independent arbitration clause? ii. Whether the respondent prematurely invoked Section 8, without first exhausting the procedure outlined in the agreements? iii. Whether the arbitration clauses in both agreements fell within the scope of Section 9, rather than Section 8 of the Act? 692First Appeal Against Order- First Appeal Against Order (F.A.O) under Special Laws 121-14 CH.MUHAMMAD NISAR ETC VS WAQAR ALI KHAN ETC Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf 25- 02- 2025 2025 LHC 669

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (On appeal against the judgments dated 01.02.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Murder References Nos. 36 of 2014, 105 of 2009 and Crl.A. No. 10-J of 2014 and Crl.As. Nos. 14-J, 81 and 96 of 2009). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Multiple murders---Phenomena of substitution---Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court for qatl-i-amdof five persons and were sentenced to death---Validity---Presence of complainant and other eyewitnesses at the scene of crime on the day of incident remained undisputed---Accused persons failed to provide any plausible reason for their alleged false implication in the case while allowing actual perpetrators to escape justice---Accused persons committed a brutal and ruthless act by murdering five members of same family over a land dispute---Crime was premeditated and carried out in cold blood---Supreme Court declined to commute death sentence to life imprisonment as accused persons were not so entitled due to severity and deliberate nature of offense---Appeal was dismissed. Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad 2024 SCMR 51; Khadim Hussain v. The State 2010 SCMR 1090; Muhammad Afzal v. The State 2017 SCMR 1645; Munir Ahmad v. The State 2019 SCMR 79; Muhammad Makki v. The State 2021 SCMR 1672; Sardar alias Sadaruddin v. The State Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-26 of 2019; Amanullah Khan v. The State 2023 SCMR 527; Muhammad Abbas v. The State 2023 SCMR 487; Nasir Ahmed v. The State 2023 SCMR 478; Muhammad Usama v. The State 2022 SCMR 2143; Muhammad Ali v. The State 2022 SCMR 2024; Makeen Ullah v. The State 2017 SCMR 1662; Mst Razia alias JIA v. The State 2009 SCMR 14; Liaquat Ali v. The State 2009 SCMR 91; Dilbar Masih v. The State 2006 SCMR 1801; Kausar Irshad v. The State 1998 SCMR 1148; Taj Muhammad v. The State 1990 SCMR 416; Khairu and another v. The State 1981 SCMR 1136; Haji v. The State 2010 SCMR 650; Nasir Ahmed v. The State 2023 SCMR 478 and Muhammad Hayat and another v. The State 2021 SCMR 92 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Motive---Scope---Motive holds even greater value in cases of direct evidence, and hits the last hammer in support of the prosecution at its conclusion. Maqbool Ahmed Case 1992 SCMR 2279 rel. Basharatullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Rai Akhtar Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Sheikh Ahsan-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant (in Crl. A. 229 of 2021) and Nemo (in Crl. A. 230 of 2021). Assistance by Muhammad Subhan Malik (Judicial Law Clerk). Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: (Against order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 431 of 2004). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.39, 42 & 54---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882),S. 52---Suit for cancellation of document, declaration and injunction---Lis pendens, doctrine of---Applicability---Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed made in favour of defendant and Trial Court cancelled the same---During the pendency of trial, petitioner/subsequent purchaser, purchased disputed property from defendant---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction maintained the judgment passed in favour of respondents / plaintiffs---Validity---In the second round of litigation an issue was specifically framed as to whether defendant was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the agreement---Such issue was contested, and decided against defendant, which finding was upheld by Lower Appellate Court---Once the issue was decided it had shut the door to the claimed interest (i.e., title) of petitioner/subsequent purchaser---To accept petitioner/subsequent purchaser as an assignee of an interest on the basis of sale to him would in effect recognize the creation of assignments in what could be (effectively) an endless chain, with each link being a attenuated claim than the one before it---Finding that defendant was not a bona fide purchaser without notice, had set up an insuperable barrier which petitioner/subsequent purchaser could not surmount---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Surraya Begum and others v. Suban Begum and others 1992 SCMR 652 ref. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: (On appeal against the order dated 14.06.2011 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Crl. A. No. 825 of 2010 and M. R. No. 31 of 2010). (a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----Ss. 7 (a) & 7(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302 (b)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Jail appeal---Condonation of delay---Jail appeal was barred by 2511 days---Supreme Court condoned the delay as reasons mentioned in application seeking condonation of delay were valid and sufficient for the purpose---Application was allowed. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----Ss. 7 (a) & 7(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302 (b)---Qatl-i-amd and abduction for ransom---Re-appraisal of evidence---Voice recognition, reliance on---Blind murder---Benefit of doubt---Accused persons were convicted and sentenced to death for allegedly abducting a minor child for ransom whose dead body was recovered later on---Held, that alleged murder remained unwitnessed and at some subsequent stage accused persons had been implicated on the basis of suspicion---Claim of complainant in respect of recognizing voice of one accused during ransom demand made over telephone, particularly in high stakes scenarios, was fraught with significant risks of error, bias and misinterpretation---Voice recognition, unlike fingerprints or DNA evidence, lacked standardized scientific framework for verification---Telephone calls, especially those made under duress, could suffer from poor audio quality, background noise or distortions, making it difficult to accurately identify the speaker---In absence of additional corroborative evidence (e.g., call records, witness testimony, or forensic analysis), relying solely on voice recognition was inherently unreliable---There was no evidence of recovery and discovery, legally incriminating in nature to connect necks of accused with crime in question---Retracted confession could not be made basis for conviction and that too on a capital charge entailing death penalty---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to both the accused persons and acquitted them of the charge, as prosecution failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal was allowed. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Retracted confession---Effect---Retracted confession, especially when it stands as the sole basis for conviction, raises significant legal, ethical and practical concerns---When coupled with dismissal of oral evidence furnished by complainant, relying on a retracted confession to secure a conviction becomes even more precarious. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Kausar Ali Shah, Additional Advocate General for the State. Nemo for Complainant. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in W.P. No. 1806 of 2013). (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 10A---Civil service---Disciplinary proceedings---Due process---Affected civil servants must be granted a fair hearing, and disciplinary proceedings must adhere to legal requirements---Due process ensures that no officer is unjustly penalized without being given an opportunity to present their defense---Courts must exercise judicial restraint and avoid undue interference with executive discretion---Judicial review is necessary to prevent abuse of power---Courts must respect autonomy of Executive branch in managing its employees---Judicial intervention should be limited to cases involving clear illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide intent---Courts must balance individual rights with the larger public interest. (b) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)--- ----Ss. 5 & 13(5)(ii), second proviso---Disciplinary proceedings---Major penalty, imposing of---Absence without leave---Principle of proportionality---Applicability---Punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon civil servant who remained absent from service for 48 days, without leave---Validity---Authority of competent authority in imposing any of the three major penalties is not restricted under second proviso to section 13(5)(ii) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, even where period of absence from duty is less than one year---Where competent authority elects to impose a major penalty in cases of absence from duty for less than a year, it must do so in accordance with the principle of proportionality---Civil servant remained absent from duty for a total of 48 days and imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement failed to meet test of proportionality---Neither the punishment established rational nexus between misconduct and severity of penalty nor it considered less restrictive alternatives---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court to the extent of the penalty imposed---Supreme Court directed that reinstatement of civil servant would be subject to a fresh determination by competent authority---Supreme Court directed competent authority to revisit case of civil servant and impose a penalty commensurate with the gravity of misconduct---Appeal was allowed. Sunni Ittehad Council v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 2025 SC 67; East and West Steamship v. Pakistan PLD 1958 SC 41; Pramath Nath v. Kamir Mondal PLD 1965 SC 434; Hamdard Dawakhana v. C.I.T PLD 1980 SC 84; Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh 1982 SCMR 582; K.E.S.C. Progressive Workers' Union v. K.E.S.C Labour Union 1991 SCMR 888; Nawaz Bibi v. Allah Ditta 1998 SCMR 2381; N S Bindra, Interpretation of Statutes Lexis Nexis, 13th Edition, 2022; De Smith's Judicial Review Sweet and Maxwell, 8th Edition, 2018; Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board PLD 2019 SC 189; Muhammad Iqbal Khan Noori v. NAB PLD 2021 SC 916 and Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803 rel. Haseeb Shakoor Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Haroon Irshad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14.05.2024, passed in Writ Petition No. 17731 of 2024). (a) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)--- ----S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10A---Rent proceedings---Due process and fair trial---Scope---Rent Tribunal adjudicates upon civil rights and obligations in eviction proceedings, and parties thereto are entitled to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution. Khadim Mohy-Ud-Din v. Rehmat Ali Nagra PLD 1965 SC 459 and Shahid Raza v. Fauzia Shaheen 2003 MLD 1215 rel. (b) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)--- ----Ss. 15 & 17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 79---Ejectment of tenant---Document---Proof---Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Applicability---Rent Tribunal dismissed ejectment application for failure of landlord to prove rent deed according to the provisions of Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Lower Appellate Court allowed appeal filed by landlord and passed eviction order but High Court maintained the order of Rent Tribunal---Validity---Distinction must be drawn between invoking and applying general principles of law of evidence codified in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and any special provisions enacted therein---While adjudicating upon civil rights and obligations in eviction proceedings, Rent Tribunal should invoke and apply only those general principles of law of evidence codified in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that are necessary to give effect to fundamental rights of parties under Article 10A of the Constitution---Rent Tribunal need not apply all principles or any special provisions enacted in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Such distinction is rooted in summary nature of rent proceedings, which are designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and without procedural formalities of regular civil trials---General principles of evidence, such as burden of proof, relevance of evidence, and right to cross-examine, must nevertheless apply to safeguard Constitutional right to a fair trial---Lower Appellate Court rightly accepted eviction petition filed by landlord---Rent Tribunal legally erred in law by dismissing the petition, and High Court similarly erred in restoring its decision---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court and upheld that of Lower Appellate Court, whereby respondent/tenant was evicted from the premises---Appeal was allowed. Khadim Mohy-Ud-Din v. Rehmat Ali Nagra PLD 1965 SC 459 and Shahid Raza v. Fauzia Shaheen 2003 MLD 1215; Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2007 SC 45; Ahmad Ali v. Nasar-Ud-Din PLD 2009 SC 453; Jehangir Rustom v. State Bank of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1296 and F.K. Irani and Co. v. Begum Feroze 1996 SCMR 1178 rel. (c) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)--- ----S. 15---Landlord and tenant---Proof---In absence of any evidence to the contrary, owner of a property, by virtue of his title, is presumed to be landlord---Person in possession is presumed to be tenant of that property. Ch. Muhammad Masood Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Malik Ijaz Hussain Gorcha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (through video link, Lahore Registry). Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (Special Judge (Rent) and Additional District Judge) Pro forma Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)--- Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Safe custody of the recovered contraband not proved---Prosecution case was that accused were found transporting 330 kilograms charas concealed in the tank of a truck---Complainant testified at trial that after arrest and seizure, he brought the case property duly sealed to Customs Officer, showed the sample parcels to his superiors after de-sealing the same, whereafter those samples were separated as per their brands---Such fact alone was sufficient to draw an inference of tampering with the case property---Glance of record reflected that the case property was deposited by the Investigating Officer at chemical laboratory with a delay of two days---Neither the in-charge of warehouse was examined, nor Form 22.70 of Register No.XIX, required under Police Rules, 1934, was produced, to suggest its safe custody and safe transmission for chemical analysis--- Complainant further testified that the memo of arrest and seizure, being backbone of the case was authored by a clerk---Admittedly, said clerk too had not been examined---Record revealed that no incriminating evidence had been brought on the record against appellant AW, except mere allegation of being owner of truck; however, such fact had categorically been denied by him in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Zahir Shah v. The State 2019 SCMR 2004; Javed Iqbal v. The State 2023 SCMR 139; Asif Ali and another v. The State 2024 SCMR 1408; Muhammad Hazir v. The State 2023 SCMR 986 and Qaiser Khan v. The State 2021 SCMR 363 rel. Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro and Abdul Baqi Jan Kakar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. D-50 of 2024). Asif Hussain Chandio, Law Officer of Customs for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. D-50 of 2024). Mehboob Ali for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. D-51 of 2024). Asif Hussain Chandio, Law Officer of Customs for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. D-51 of 2024). Date of hearing: 13th February, 2025.

Summary: Oaths Act (X of 1873)--- ----Ss. 8 & 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 163---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 8, 12 & 42---Suit for possession, specific performance of agreement to sell and declaration---Special oath, administering of---Stage of suit-- -Proceedings for setting aside ex-parte decree---Suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was decreed ex-parte and appellants/defendants during proceedings to set aside ex-parte decree offered for special oath---Trial Court dismissed application for setting aside of decree and on the basis of special oath decided the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff---Validity---Offer of special oath was triggered when application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte order was fixed for evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, while partial evidence of appellants/defendants in such regard had already been recorded---It was at such stage when the offer was made---If at all special oath could have been offered, it could only be to the extent of deciding pending application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C.---Procedure required in terms of Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 read with sections 8 and 9 of Oaths Act, 1873 did not contemplate a decision of dispute which had already been rendered ex-parte---Decision on oath is one of the prescribed ways of disposal but at the same time Courts are bound to handle such cases with great care---Ex-parte judgment and decree was a past and closed transaction and it could only be opened once application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. could have been allowed and not otherwise---Corpus before Trial Court was a miscellaneous application and not the main suit---Judge in Chambers of High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction exceeded its jurisdiction, when Lower Appellate Court had exercised its jurisdiction properly---Revisional Court misread powers conveyed to the attorney which had not enabled the attorney to propose offer on a special oath---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court and restored that of Lower Appellate Court, which was incorrectly set aside---Appeal was allowed. Muhammad Ali v. Muhammad Aslam and others PLD 1990 SC 841 rel. Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. No. 550-L of 2009). Nemo for the Applicant (in C.M.A. No. 2063-L of 2016). Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Arbitration--- ----Procedure---Object, purpose and scope---Arbitration is fundamentally a contractual arrangement and the parties must be held to their bargain---Parties cannot be allowed to circumvent procedure for arbitration provided in arbitration clause---Procedure for appointment of arbitrator, as provided in arbitration agreement, must be given effect. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 8(1) & (2)---Arbitrator, appointment of---Procedure---Provision of S. 8(1) of Arbitration Act, 1940 empowers a party to serve a notice on other party to concur in appointment of arbitrator etc., where arbitration agreement provides reference to one or more arbitrators appointed by consent of parties and parties do not, after differences have arisen, concur in appointment or appointments---If appointment is not made within fifteen clear days after service of such notice, then under S. 8(2) of Arbitration Act, 1940 Court may, on application of the party which had given notice and after giving the other parties an opportunity of being heard, appoint arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may be. (c) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 8, 9 & 20---Arbitration---Procedure to be followed---Two arbitration agreements---Respondent invoked arbitration clause before Trial Court and sought appointment of arbitrator; the application was dismissed for parties to first proceed as per agreement---Lower Appellate Court set aside order of Trial Court and directed appointment of arbitrator---Validity---Both the agreements between parties required two arbitrators, followed by an umpire if needed---Correct legal provision to invoke was S. 9 and not S. 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Lower Appellate Court directed Trial Court to appoint arbitrator without first determining whether two steps procedures envisaged under arbitration clauses agreed between parties had been exhausted and it also failed to address issue of whether application under Ss. 8 and 20 of Arbitration Act 1940 was maintainable for two separate agreements, which was erroneous, making its decision legally unsustainable---Application of respondent under Ss. 8 and 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 was not maintainable as it covered two separate agreements, and arbitration mechanism in both the agreements was not exhausted by respondent, rendering the application premature---High Court set aside judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court as disputes between the parties fell under S. 9, rather than S. 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940 and the parties were at liberty to invoke arbitration clauses in letter and spirit---Revision was allowed accordingly. Messrs Ganapati Technology Services (Pvt.) Ltd v. The State Fisheries Development AIRONLINE 2021 CAL 120; Orient Power Company (Private) Limited through Authorized Officer v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through Managing Director 2021 SCMR 1728; Sezai Turkes Feyzi Akkaya Construction Company, Lahore through Project Director v. M/s. Crescent, Services, Lahore and another 1997 SCMR 1928; M/s. Duro Felguera, S.A v. M/s. Gangavaram Port Limited AIR 2017 SC 5070; Libra Automotives Private Limited v. BMW India Private Limited and another 2019 (176) DRJ 976; Olympus Superstructures (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Meena Vijay Khetan and others AIR 1999 SC 2102; DLF Home Developers Limited v. Rajapura Homes Private Limited and another AIRONLINE 2021 SC 759; Subal Chandra Bhur v. MD. Ibrahim and another AIR 1943 Cal. 484 and Better Engineered Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Balochistan Development Authority, Quetta through Chairman and another PLD 2023 Isl. 105 rel. Abid Minhas for Petitioner. Proceeded against ex-parte vide order, dated 16-12-2024. Syed Shahab Qutab, Amicus Curiae. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.