Summary: (1) True Import of Clauses (a), (h) & (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8, read with Sections 2(14) & 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Admissibility of Input Tax paid to the Punjab Revenue Authority (PRA) against Services in terms of Section 2(38) read with Entry Nos. 14 & 16 of the Second Schedule of the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012; (2) Interpretation of a Document for Taxation Purpose is the Ascertainment of the Meaning, which the Document would Convey to a Reasonable Person having all the Background Knowledge, which would have been reasonably available to the Parties in the Situation in which they were at the Time of the Contract; (3) A Document has to be read as a whole and not by Picking and Choosing a Particular Paragraph or Portion thereof. 162Misc. Writ 55743/25 Fauzia Qayyum through Abdul Qayoom Vs Additional District Judge etc Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains 03-11- 2025 2025 LHC 7806

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973--- ----Rr. 2, 3 & 9---Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010), Ss. 3, 4 & Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Misconduct---Disciplinary proceedings---Harassment at workplace---Proceedings---Object, purpose and scope---Petitioner / civil servant was aggrieved of show cause notice issued to him regarding departmental inquiry on the allegation of sexual harassment of a female employee---Validity---Proceedings initiated under provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 are a matter between Federal Government in its capacity as an employer and a civil servant in his/her capacity as an employee---Purpose of such proceedings is to ensure that an employee is abiding by the terms and conditions of service prescribed for purposes of his/her conduct in discharge of his/her duties---Object and scope of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 is altogether different as the rationale for enactment of such law, as explained in its Preamble, is to provide for protection of women from harassment at workplace---Set of facts on the basis of which a complaint was founded against accused under provisions of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 needed to be inquired into, which if proved, consequences and penalties prescribed under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 were to flow toward petitioner / civil servant---Proceedings under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 are adversarial in nature, where a complainant makes allegations against an accused and the same have to be proved on the basis of cogent evidence---Penalties prescribed in terms of S. 4 of Protection Against Harassment of Women At the Workplace Act, 2010 may be similar to, or overlap with, the penalties prescribed in terms of R. 4 of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and the same has no bearing on the object, purpose and effect of the proceedings under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 on one hand and Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, on the other---High Court declined to interfere in show cause notice issued to petitioner / civil servant--- Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Nadia Naz v. The President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 2023 SC 588; Raja Tanveer Safdar v. Mrs. Tehmina Yasmeen and others PLD 2024 SC 795; Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer Gujrat 2022 SCMR 1770; Imran Amir v. Mst. Ismat Bibi and another 2023 CLC 1059; Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan v. Director General (Research), Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Punjab 2020 SCMR 1708; Asif Mehmood Butt v. Regional CEO, NBP 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1462; Falak Sher v. Inspector General Police, Lahore 2005 SCMR 1020; DIG of Police v. Anees ur Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134; Syed Muhammad Iqbal Jafri v. Registrar, Lahore High Court 2004 PLC (C.S.) 809; Saifur Rahman v Chairman, National Accountability Bureau PLD 2022 SC 409; Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1995 SCMR 626; The State v. Jehangir Akhtar 2018 SCMR 733; I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 1041; Pir Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan 2007 SCMR 54 and Muhammad Hassan Ullah v. Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan 2025 SCMR 134 ref. (b) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973--- ----R.3---Disciplinary proceedings---Scope---Proceedings under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 are not necessarily adversarial in nature---Such proceedings are meant to confirm and ensure that terms and conditions of service prescribed for purposes of Civil Servants Act, 1973 including requirements as to conduct and efficiency of an employee, are being complied with. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Jawad Arsalan, Assistant Attorney General for Respondents. Muhammad Ahmad Pansota, Barrister Scheherzaday Shehryar and Guzel Mobeen for Respondent No.4. Sher Alam Khan and Zeeshan Raza Zaidi, SOs, Establishment Division for Respondents. Ms. Zaib Tayyab, Director SS(A) and Ghulam Mustafa, APS, MOFA for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th August, 2025.

Summary: Sindh Land Revenue Act ( XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 42---Mutation---Amenity plots of Housing Society, sale of---Legality---Registered sale deed---Effect---Bona fide purchase, doctrine of---Scope---The subject plots were earmarked for public amenities-namely, a “Culture Center” and a “Hospital” as per the approved Layout Plan of the Housing Scheme---Record clearly showed that the Builder unlawfully alienated said amenity plots in contravention of the approved plan, which was impermissible under the law and public policy---The land reserved for amenity purposes in a sanctioned housing scheme cannot be converted, sold or utilized for any purpose other than that originally approved by the competent planning authority---Any such transaction was void and conferred no title, even upon a subsequent purchaser---The sale of amenity plots amounted to an illegality; the purchaser may, if advised, seek civil remedy against the Builder for recovery of his consideration, since the sale itself was null and void---The plea of bona fide purchase advanced by the applicant could not override the public interest or the sanctity of the approved layout plan---The doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice does not apply when the sale itself is prohibited by law or is in respect of property incapable of private ownership---Thus, the petitioner’ claim could not sustain as it was conclusively established that the sale and corresponding mutation of the amenity plots were unlawful, void ab initio and against the public interest---The petitioner's plea of bona fide purchase holds no legal weight in respect of amenity plots that could not be transferred or owned privately under the governing laws and planning regulations---Both subordinate authorities had passed well-reasoned and justified orders supported by law and factual record---Board of Revenue directed the District Administration and the concerned Director, Town Planning Authority, to inquire about illegal sale of subject amenity-plots and directions issued in present order were to be complied with against the delinquents---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Sagar Soni for the Applicant.

Summary: The direction to the petitioner to alter the date of birth merely on the strength of birth certificate(s) issued almost two decades after the claimed date of birth was legally untenable. The matriculation certificate, issued on the basis of particulars supplied by the respondent herself, constitutes a contemporaneous and conclusive document. Once such particulars have been recorded and certified, the respondent cannot be permitted to turn around and seek alteration of the same through subsequent documents of doubtful probative value. This Court is of the opinion that record maintained/corrected/amended by NADRA qua correction of the date of birth does not bind educational boards, which maintain separate statutory functions.

Summary: The aforementioned provision lays down the general rule that civil courts have inherent jurisdiction to entertain and try all civil suits unless a specific statutory bar either express or implied has been enacted to oust such jurisdiction. The phrase "civil nature" has been interpreted broadly by the courts to include all matters that involve the determination of civil rights and obligations. Accordingly, in the absence of any express or implied statutory bar, and in view of the fact that the Rent Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over disputes arising after the termination of the tenancy, the appropriate forum for seeking redressal in such matters remains the civil court. Thus, the remedy for the aggrieved party lies before the civil court, which is empowered under Section 9 CPC to adjudicate upon the matter.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — Ss. 302/34 — Qatl-i-amd, common intention — Bail, post- arrest— Refusal — Medical ground — Scope. Report of Standing Medical Board did not disclose that the ailment from which accused was suffering was life-threatening or that its treatment was not available in jail premises — Held, Mere illness, without proof of it being life-threatening or of the unavailability of adequate medical facilities, is not a ground for grant of bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause — Petition dismissed. "Mian Nazir Ahmad v. State etc"" (2016 SCMR 1536); ""Abdul Ghafar v. Federation of Pakistan etc"" (2021 P.Cr.L.J 1270 ref.) Criminal Law Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 497(1) — Bail

Summary: Civil Law Revision. Held: Family Court--- Ex Parte Decree --- Application for setting aside --- Limitation --- Due Service Law --- Substituted Service Law --- Article 164, Limitation act, 1908 --- Article 199 of the Constitution --- Petitioner assailed judgments of family court and appellate court refusing to set aside ex parte decree passed in a family suit for the recovery of dower, dowry articles, and maintenance --- Record showed petitioner was abroad during the relevant period --- No material produced to establish personal Service Law, Service Law through registered post, or effective substitutive Service Law --- Alleged publication was made in a local newspaper not circulated a petitioner’s place of residence, and no copy of said publication was dispatched to the address mentioned therein --- Order sheet itself recorded that defendant was abroad --- Held, no evidence of due Service Law was available on record --- Under Art. 164, Limitation Act, 1908, an application to set aside an ex parte decree must be filed within 30 days of decree, or, where summons were not duly served, within 30 days from date of knowledge --- Petitioner filed application immediately after acquiring knowledge through attorney --- Application therefore within time --- Courts favour decision on merits rather than non-suiting litigants on technicalities --- Impugned orders set aside; ex parte judgment and decree recalled --- Case remanded to Family Court for fresh adjudication after providing both the parties fair opportunity of hearing --- Petitioner was directed to furnish fresh surety bond with wo sureties covering entire claim, if decreed, and to deposit arrears of maintenance of his son and two daughters from 2015 till date, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid --- Family court was directed to determine maintenance of minor son in accordance with law and conclude proceedings within four months --- Petition allowed.

Summary: It is not an absolute or automatic right of the husband that upon dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula, the wife must in every case be directed or compelled to return all benefits including the dowry already received by her rather, such return depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and decision thereof lies within the discretion of the Court keeping in view the overall conduct of the parties and the reasons leading to the khula.

Summary: The direction to the petitioner to alter the date of birth merely on the strength of birth certificate(s) issued almost two decades after the claimed date of birth was legally untenable. The matriculation certificate, issued on the basis of particulars supplied by the respondent herself, constitutes a contemporaneous and conclusive document. Once such particulars have been recorded and certified, the respondent cannot be permitted to turn around and seek alteration of the same through subsequent documents of doubtful probative value. This Court is of the opinion that record maintained/corrected/amended by NADRA qua correction of the date of birth does not bind educational boards, which maintain separate statutory functions. 164Jail Appeal 6763/25 Ayaz Adil Vs The State Mr. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq 31-10- 2025 2025 LHC 8023