Summary: (a) Review Petition – Delay of 204 days – No sufficient cause – Petition dismissed with costs: Where a petition for review is filed with an unexplained and unjustified delay, and the application for condonation of delay fails to establish “sufficient cause,” the Court is not obliged to entertain the review petition. —Held: The review petition, filed 204 days late, was dismissed as hopelessly time-barred and devoid of merit. [Cited: Syed Asif Raza v. PIA (PLD 2001 SC 182)] (b) Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 – Section 3(2) – Maintainability of intra-court appeal: An intra-court appeal before a High Court is not maintainable if the law governing the original proceedings provides for an alternate remedy of appeal, revision, or review. The availability of such remedy—irrespective of whether it was availed—is sufficient to bar the ICA. —Held: High Court rightly dismissed ICA; impugned order by Supreme Court upholding that dismissal required no review. (c) Abuse of process – Frivolous litigation by public bodies – Costs imposed: Frivolous and vexatious litigation by statutory bodies, especially without legal merit and with the intent of evading administrative accountability, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. —Held: Filing of meritless petitions by public functionaries erodes judicial integrity and drains state resources. Exemplary costs of Rs. 100,000 imposed on the petitioner institution. [Cited: Javed Hameed v. Aman Ullah (2024 SCMR 89); Lutfullah Virk v. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh (PLD 2024 SC 887); Zakir Mehmood v. Secretary, MoD (2023 SCMR 960)] (d) Public sector litigation – Constitutional obligations and fiduciary role: Public functionaries litigate as custodians of law, not private adversaries. Petitions filed for bureaucratic self-preservation or fear of accountability reflect risk-averse governance and must be discouraged. —Held: Responsible litigation by state institutions is a constitutional obligation under Articles 4, 9, 10-A, and 14 of the Constitution. (e) Institutional accountability – Directions issued: —Direction issued: Internal inquiry to be conducted to identify officials responsible for filing frivolous petition. —Direction issued: Copy of order to be circulated to all Ministries and legal departments via Ministry of Law and Office of Attorney General. —Direction issued: Legal wings of public institutions to implement mechanisms curbing wasteful litigation and promoting merit-based decision-making. ----Disposition: Review petition dismissed as frivolous and time-barred. Exemplary costs of Rs. 100,000 imposed, to be deposited in a charitable institution under the Thirteenth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within 15 days. Non-compliance to attract further judicial action.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 188; Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, R.1; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 76--- Review jurisdiction—Scope and limitations—Principles governing maintainability of review petitions—Held, power of review under Art.188 of the Constitution is circumscribed by statutory rules and limited to instances where an error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated or where new and material evidence is discovered that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence—Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided through conscious and deliberate adjudication—Mechanical repetition of arguments or mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of a judgment is not a ground for review—Advocates must certify review applications based on demonstrable errors, failing which they may face disciplinary action—Court denounced the growing trend of frivolous and vexatious review applications as a misuse of judicial resources and a violation of the finality of judgments. Director Education Officer (Female) Charsadda v. Sonia Begum 2023 SCMR 217 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s MSC Switzerland Geneva 2023 SCMR 1011 Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major (R) Muzaffar Khan Malik PLD 2021 SC 715 (b) Review Jurisdiction—Standards for Grant: ----Misconstruction of law, misreading of evidence, and non-consideration of vital pleas—When review lies--- Principles laid down—(i) Review lies where mistake or error is self-evident and materially impacts outcome; (ii) orders made on erroneous assumptions of fact or overlooking settled law are reviewable; (iii) misreading of evidence or non-consideration of relevant arguments may amount to error on record; (iv) no review lies where conscious decision is taken on fact or law; (v) rehearing of decided case is impermissible; (vi) error must be visible without elaborate reasoning; (vii) review lies if manifest wrong has occurred requiring rectification for justice—Courts must avoid converting review into an appeal—Judges of apex Court bear solemn duty to correct such errors, where pointed out. Wali Jan v. Government of KPK 2022 PLC(CS) 336 Sarhad Development Authority NWFP v. Nawab Ali Khan 2020 SCMR 265 (c) Legal Ethics—Frivolous Litigation—Advocate Responsibility--- Abuse of review process—Warning against mechanical filing of review petitions—Held, review petitions filed without valid grounds or merely to prolong litigation waste judicial time and resources—Advocates issuing certificates without proper basis may be subject to disciplinary action under the Supreme Court Rules—Review is a narrow remedy not to be employed as a fallback for failed litigants—Judiciary urged to exercise restraint and maintain sanctity of final judgments. ----Disposition: Review petitions dismissed with costs for lack of merit and failure to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 188 Scope of review jurisdiction—Reiteration of settled principles—Grounds for review—Distinction from appeal—Frivolous litigation—Costs. Petitioners sought review of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment reported as Director Education Officer (Female), Charsadda v. Sonia Begum and others (2023 SCMR 217), wherein appointments of Primary School Teachers (PSTs) were upheld based on valid domicile certificates, despite discrepancies in CNIC addresses—Court reaffirmed that, under S.3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors and Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011, domicile certificates, and not CNIC addresses, determine eligibility—Petitioners attempted to reargue already adjudicated matters without demonstrating any mistake apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence—Court held that under Art.188 of the Constitution, read with O.XXVI R.1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and O.XLVII R.1, C.P.C., review jurisdiction is limited and not to be confused with appellate power—Review may be granted only in cases of a self-evident error or newly discovered material—Petitioners' arguments were found to be reiterative and conclusively decided—Review petitions dismissed. ----Cited Cases: • Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. President of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 119 • M/s Habib and Co. v. Muslim Commercial Bank PLD 2020 SC 227 • Engineers Study Forum v. Federation of Pakistan 2016 SCMR 1961 • Govt. of Punjab v. Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq PLD 2016 SC 421 • Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue) BOR 2010 SCMR 1049 (b) Administration of Justice: ----Judicial process—Frivolous and vexatious litigation—Impact on system—Pending caseload—Deterrence through cost imposition. Court highlighted the systemic burden posed by frivolous litigation, noting that over 56,000 cases were pending before the Supreme Court, including 2,628 review petitions—Petitions that merely rehash previously decided points waste judicial time, delay resolution of genuine disputes, and undermine public trust in the judiciary—Court emphasized that abuse of process must be discouraged through imposition of costs under O.XXVIII, R.3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980—Such measures serve as necessary deterrents and help preserve access to justice for bona fide litigants—Court relied on jurisprudence supporting the principle that costs can be imposed for meritless or dilatory conduct. ----Cited Cases: • Inter Quest Informatics Services v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2025 SCMR 257 • Mukhtar Mai v. Abdul Khaliq 2019 SCMR 1302 • Jamshoro Joint Venture v. Khawaja Muhammad Asif 2014 SCMR 1858 • Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp. 496 U.S. 384 (1990) • Cropper v. Smith (1884) 25 Ch D 700 • British Columbia v. Okanagan Indian Band [2003] SCC 71 ----Disposition: Review petitions dismissed as frivolous, meritless, and an abuse of process. Court reiterated the narrow scope of review jurisdiction and ordered the imposition of costs as a deterrent to frivolous litigation.

Summary: '' 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.'' ------ (a) Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Private Treaty for Public Property---Writ petition—Maintainability—Petitioners challenged the dismissal of their claim to purchase shops through private treaty from Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation (PCBL)—Held, PCBL properties are public assets and must be alienated in accordance with the prescribed legal framework—Chairman PCBL had no unilateral authority to sell properties through private negotiations—No provision in the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, authorizes such transactions—Private agreements without public auction are susceptible to fraud, favoritism, and corruption—Reliance placed on Capital Development Authority v. Ahmed Murtaza (2023 SCMR 61).(b) Public Property – Sale Through Auction – Legal Procedure Mandatory---Public property—Legal framework for disposal—PCBL advertised an auction for shops but failed to receive bids—Petitioners did not participate in auction and instead sought to purchase via private negotiation—Held, sale of public property must follow due process, ensuring transparency and equal opportunity—No legal right accrues to petitioners merely on the basis of negotiations or partial payments—Attempted acquisition through under-the-table settlement is illegal and void.(c) Fraudulent and Collusive Transactions – Effect on Contractual Rights---Fraudulent and collusive agreements—Petitioners deposited a nominal amount claiming right to purchase—No documentary evidence or board approval for sale—Held, fraud vitiates all transactions—An agreement against public policy is void and unenforceable—Even if a Chairman unlawfully makes an offer, the act remains illegal—A fraudulent foundation of ownership claim automatically collapses—Reliance placed on Province of Punjab v. Zulfiqar Ali (2024 SCMR 22).(d) Contract Law – Absence of a Legally Binding Agreement---Absence of contract—No evidence of acceptance by PCBL or board approval—Petitioners' claim based on an alleged offer from the Chairman—Held, a unilateral deposit of funds does not create enforceable contractual rights—No agreement meeting legal formalities was concluded—Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce an illegal or non-existent contract.(e) Cost for Frivolous Litigation Against Public Institution---Frivolous litigation—Petitioners engaged in protracted litigation since 2002 without legal entitlement—Held, misuse of judicial process warrants imposition of costs—Petitioners burdened with PKR 1,000,000 as special costs, recoverable as arrears of land revenue—Reliance placed on Javed Hameed v. Aman Ullah (2024 SCMR 89).---- Disposition:W.P. No. 14800/2010 & W.P. No. 14799/2010 dismissed – No legal right accrued to petitioners.Special costs of PKR 1,000,000 imposed for frivolous litigation.Observations are limited to this petition and shall not affect future proceedings.

Summary: (a) Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, S. 54 Cooperative Housing Societies—Merger with DHA—Rights of allottees Respondent No. 3, an allottee of a residential plot under the Local Government and Rural Development Employees Cooperative Housing Society, was wrongfully deprived of his allotment before the society's merger with the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). The Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the Secretary, Cooperative Societies, restored the allottee's membership and directed the society to either refund his paid amount or provide an alternate plot. Post-merger, DHA was obligated to honor the rights of allottees as per the merger agreement. The Lahore High Court and Supreme Court upheld the orders, emphasizing DHA's responsibility under clauses 5 and 11 of the agreement, which clearly stipulated that DHA must resolve all issues of the society's allottees and provide possession of plots as per their membership rights. (b) Merger Agreements—Liabilities of the succeeding entity The Court held that post-merger, DHA was bound by the agreement to accept all liabilities and address the grievances of allottees. The actions of the Cooperative Society in canceling allotments without lawful authority were declared invalid. The merger agreement explicitly stated that DHA must handle pending cases and fulfill its obligations to the members of the society. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2) Frivolous litigation—Abuse of process of law In C.P.L.A. No. 1563-L/2018, the petitioner attempted to relitigate the same issues by filing miscellaneous applications under section 12(2), CPC, which the Court deemed frivolous and meritless. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the Court criticized the misuse of judicial process to prolong a straightforward case. The allottee was granted liberty to pursue legal action for damages caused by unnecessary litigation. Disposition: C.P.L.A. No. 1378-L/2013: Petition dismissed, leave refused, and the earlier decisions upheld. DHA directed to fulfill its obligations under the merger agreement. C.P.L.A. No. 1563-L/2018: Petition dismissed with costs for lack of merit and abuse of process.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 200, 202, 203 & 204---Direct complaint---Scrutiny of allegations before issuance of process---Safeguards against frivolous and vexatious complaints---Petitioner filed a direct complaint under S. 200 Cr.P.C. against 56 police officials and private persons, alleging unlawful trespass, abduction, and theft---Trial court took cognizance and issued bailable warrants but failed to scrutinize the allegations effectively---High Court set aside the order, holding that the complaint was a retaliatory measure against an earlier FIR lodged against the petitioner---Held, trial courts must carefully evaluate complaints under Ss. 202 & 203 Cr.P.C. to prevent harassment, victimization, and misuse of legal process---A complaint should not be entertained where allegations lack prima facie evidence or appear to be motivated by mala fide intent. Cited Cases: • Abdul Muktadar v. District & Sessions Judge, Jhang, 2010 SCMR 194 • Abdul Wahab Khan v. Muhammad Nawaz, 2000 SCMR 1904 • Zafar v. Umer Hayat, 2010 SCMR 1816 (b) Malafide Intent & Retaliatory Litigation ----Abuse of legal process---Filing of direct complaint as a counterblast to prior criminal proceedings---FIR No. 03/2022 had been registered against the petitioner under Ss. 395, 353, 337-H(ii), 342 PPC for allegedly attacking police officers and robbing government ammunition---Held, the direct complaint was a deliberate retaliatory measure filed after the said FIR, with the intent to counteract legal action against the petitioner---Trial courts must be vigilant against such abuse of process to ensure that legal mechanisms are not misused for personal vendettas. (c) Judicial Inquiry & Evidentiary Deficiencies ----Preliminary inquiry under S. 202 Cr.P.C.---Failure of complainant to substantiate allegations---Petitioner’s complaint alleged theft of cash, furniture, and vehicles, but he failed to produce receipts or ownership documents---Two witnesses presented during the judicial inquiry contradicted the petitioner’s version, failing to identify the accused or substantiate claims of abduction---Held, a complaint must stand on its own merits and be supported by independent evidence---Trial courts must consider judicial inquiry reports before issuing process under S. 204 Cr.P.C. to prevent frivolous litigation. (d) Scope of Trial Court's Discretion ----Duty of trial courts to scrutinize complaints before issuing process---Legal requirement to filter out frivolous complaints---Held, the trial court failed to appreciate the judicial inquiry report, which found no prima facie case against the accused---A complaint must not be entertained unless there is substantive material evidence to support the allegations---High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to prevent unwarranted legal action. ----- Disposition: Petition dismissed. Leave to appeal refused. Stay application (Cr.M.A.No.124-K/2022) dismissed.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----O.VII, R.11—Rejection of plaint—Repetitive and vexatious applications—Abuse of process of law Petitioner’s second application under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. in a suit for malicious prosecution was dismissed with costs for being identical to his earlier application under the same provision and another under S.21, General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w S.13 of Defamation Ordinance, 2002—Earlier orders had attained finality and could not be re-agitated—Repeated filing of similar applications held to be frivolous and intended merely to delay proceedings; such conduct constitutes misuse of the process of law—Concurrent findings of Trial and Revisional Courts warranted no interference. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) ----Art.120—Limitation in suits for malicious prosecution—Mixed question of fact and law Determination of limitation in a claim for malicious prosecution depends upon factual inquiries and legal evaluation—Properly triable only after recording of evidence—Trial Court rightly declined to reject plaint summarily on limitation grounds. (c) Defamation Ordinance, 2002 ----Ss.8, 12 & 13—Distinction between defamation and malicious prosecution Underlying suit sought damages for malicious prosecution and not defamation under Defamation Ordinance, 2002—Contentions regarding limitation and exclusive jurisdiction under the Ordinance held misconceived—Courts below correctly found the Ordinance inapplicable to the controversy. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Art.199—Constitutional jurisdiction—Scope of interference High Court’s jurisdiction under Art.199 confined to correcting jurisdictional or constitutional errors—No such infirmity or violation found—Concurrent orders of lower courts based on sound reasoning; interference declined. (e) Practice and procedure ----Vexatious litigation by an advocate party-in-person—Imposition of costs Petitioner, an Advocate, repeatedly filed frivolous applications after settlement of issues, demonstrating a pattern of obstinate and abusive litigation—Courts are empowered to discourage such conduct through imposition of realistic costs—Costs of Rs.35,000 imposed, payable to the Sindh High Court Clinic within fourteen days. Cited cases: None reported. (g) Disposition — Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.35,000/-, to be deposited with the Sindh High Court Clinic within fourteen (14) days—All pending applications dismissed accordingly.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9, 14, 194, 204 & 209; Code of Conduct for Judges (Article IV); Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 Recusal applications moved by state agencies including FIA, IB, PTA and PEMRA on grounds of alleged bias by Presiding Judge due to authorship of a confidential letter addressed to the Supreme Judicial Council concerning interference of intelligence agencies with judicial independence---Maintainability---Applications alleged conflict of interest and past association of Presiding Judge with law firm AJURIS, as well as his past representation of PTA and telecom companies---Held, applications lacked merit and were part of a collusive scheme to obstruct court proceedings and intimidate the Judge into disqualification---Letter in question did not constitute personal interest, nor did it reflect hostility toward any litigating party---Mere authorship of intra-judicial correspondence addressing institutional independence, in absence of personal or pecuniary interest, does not attract test of “real likelihood of bias”---Grounds relied upon failed to establish either “reasonable apprehension of bias” or “real likelihood of bias”---Judges are under constitutional obligation to adjudicate without fear or favor and determine recusal according to their conscience, not at the behest of litigants---Bias must relate to disposition toward parties, not subject-matter of adjudication---Applications held to be mala fide, frivolous, and part of forum-shopping intended to manipulate bench composition and delay adjudication---Recusal applications dismissed with cost. Cited Cases: • Abid Shahid Zuberi v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 SCMR 2028 • Asif Ali Zardari v. The State PLD 2001 SC 568 • Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee PLD 1995 SC 423 • Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan PLD 1976 SC 57 • Mst. Benazir Bhutto v. The President 1992 SCMR 140 • Syed Akhlaque Hussain v. Pakistan PLD 1969 SC 201 (b) Contempt of Court ----Art. 204 of the Constitution State functionaries liable to contempt proceedings for collusive, unauthorized filing of recusal applications---Court issued show-cause notices to Directors General of FIA and IB, and Chairman and Members of PTA, to justify why they should not be proceeded against under Art.204 of the Constitution for abuse of court process---Prima facie collusion established from identical applications and lack of authorization or relevant connection to grounds pleaded---Misuse of state authority to obstruct justice, interfere with proceedings and undermine judicial independence, held to be a serious matter requiring judicial accountability under constitutional framework. (c) Judicial Bias---Principles and Doctrinal Framework ----Maxims: Nemo judex in causa sua; “Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done” Doctrinal distinction between conflict of interest and bias clarified---Conflict of interest arises from personal or pecuniary interest and mandates automatic disqualification---Bias refers to a state of mind prejudiced against a party and is assessed by the Judge’s conscience and surrounding facts---Code of Conduct and Constitution require Judge to be impartial but not viewpoint-neutral---Judicial independence, belief in constitutional supremacy, or prior expression of legal views cannot be construed as bias---Mere institutional criticism or past legal association without current personal connection or confidential knowledge is not sufficient ground for recusal---Standard of reasonable apprehension of bias must be met through objective facts, not subjective perception of a litigant. Cited Cases: • Federal Government v. Gen. (R) Pervez Musharraf PLD 2014 SC 585 • Asif Ali Zardari v. The State PLD 2001 SC 568 • Anwar v. The Crown PLD 1955 FC 185 • Independent Media Corporation v. Federation PLD 2014 SC 650 • Muhammad Azam Khan Swati v. The State 2023 PCr.LJ 350 • Kanwar Naveed Jameel v. Province of Sindh PLD 2022 Sindh 499 • Muhammad Asif v. The State PLD 2014 Lahore 543 (d) Costs---Frivolous Litigation ----Imposition of Costs Each applicant (FIA, IB, PTA, PEMRA) directed to deposit Rs.500,000/- personally by the officials who authorized filing of recusal applications---Amount to be held by the Deputy Registrar (Accounts) till final decision of the case---Court exercised inherent powers to penalize abuse of process and discourage mala fide attempts to interfere with court proceedings.

Summary: Background:The Chaklala Cantonment Board (petitioner) utilized 2 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land owned by M/S Umar Khan and Others (respondents) for the construction of Dhari Hassnabad Tulsa Road and Harley Street to Tulsa Road. A Surrender Deed was executed between the parties on June 24, 1987, promising the respondents alternate land in exchange. When the petitioner failed to fulfill this commitment, the respondents filed a suit for specific performance, possession, and recovery of compensation, which was decreed in their favor on November 20, 1990. The petitioner's subsequent appeals, including one to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, were unsuccessful.----Issues:Whether the Executing Court exceeded its mandate during the execution proceedings.The validity of the petitioner's objection petition filed during the execution proceedings.Whether the petitioner's litigation strategy constituted frivolous and vexatious litigation.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court dismissed the petition, finding it frivolous and vexatious, and imposed special costs of Rs. 5,00,000 on the petitioner-Board to be deposited to an approved charity. The court noted that the petitioner-Board, after exhausting all legal remedies, filed an objection petition as a last resort to thwart the execution process of a decree passed in 1990, depriving the decree holder of their rights. The objection petition was found baseless, and the court criticized the petitioner for engaging in unnecessary litigation, burdening the court system, and consuming judicial time.-----Citations/Precedents:Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908): Outlines the revisional jurisdiction under which the petition was filed.Qazi Naveed ul Islam vs. District Judge, Gujrat and others (PLD 2023 Supreme Court 298): Supreme Court's stance on frivolous and vexatious litigation, emphasizing the imposition of costs to discourage such practices and ensure fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution.Zakir Mehmood vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence (D.P), Pakistan Secretariate, Rawalpindi and others (2023 SCMR 960) and Capital Development Authority, CDA vs. Ahmed Murtaza and another (2013 SCMR 61): Reiterate the Supreme Court's view on imposing costs for frivolous litigation to unburden the courts and promote genuine claims.

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (XVII of 1979) ----Ss. 2(h), 15(2)(ii), 16(1)---Jurisdiction---Factory premises---Scope. Eviction suit filed by the Plaintiff (Askari Bank Limited) for possession of factory premises and recovery of rent was challenged by the Defendant on the ground that the Rent Controller under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (SRPO) had exclusive jurisdiction. Plaintiff contended that the premises, being a factory, fell outside the purview of the SRPO. ----Held: Under Section 2(h) of the SRPO, premises let without any machinery affixed do not qualify as a "factory" and remain within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. In the present case, the premises was a vacant building intended for trade or manufacturing, but without any machinery. Therefore, eviction remedies lay before the Rent Controller, not the civil court. However, the civil court retained jurisdiction for recovery of arrears of rent. ---- Cited Cases: Rahman Cotton Factory v. Nichimen Co. Ltd. PLD 1976 SC 781 Bashir Ahmad v. Zubeda Khatoon 1983 CLC 390 Ahmad Hassan v. Abdur Rauf Khan 1986 SCMR 494 (b) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ----Ss. 106, 109, 111---Notice of eviction---Statutory tenant. Plaintiff acquired ownership of the premises via a registered conveyance deed and issued notice to the Defendant under Sections 106, 109, and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff as the landlord but failed to vacate or pay rent. ----Held: A statutory tenant is obligated to pay rent to the landlord upon notice of change in ownership. Defendant's letters acknowledging the Plaintiff as landlord established knowledge of transfer, and arrears of rent became payable. (c) Limitation Act, 1908 ----Art. 110---Recovery of arrears of rent---Time-barred claim. Under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, arrears of rent are recoverable within three years of becoming due. Plaintiff sought recovery of rent from 2009, but the claim for arrears prior to September 2012 was time-barred. ----Held: Plaintiff was entitled to recover rent for the period from September 2012 to February 2024 at the agreed rate of Rs. 200,000 per month, totaling Rs. 27,600,000. (d) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----Ss. 35, 35-A---Compensation for frivolous litigation. Plaintiff sought compensation of Rs. 1,000,000 for a prior suit filed by the Defendant, claiming it was false and frivolous. ----Held: Plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the earlier suit was frivolous or caused specific damage. No compensatory costs were awarded as evidence of loss was lacking. ------ Disposition: Suit partially decreed. Plaintiff awarded Rs. 27,600,000 as arrears of rent with costs of the suit. Claim for compensation was dismissed.