Summary: (a) Maxim--- ----Nemo pro alterius facto punietur---Meaning---No one should be punished for the deed of another. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 7, 8 (1)(ca) & 73---Input tax adjustment---Conditions---Failure of supplier to deposit sales tax received from purchaser---Dispute pertained to denial of input tax credit to taxpayers in exercise of authority under S. 8(1)(ca) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 when the tax was duly paid but the supplier had been delinquent in depositing such sales tax in the government treasury---Validity---When conditions prescribed by S. 7 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 for purposes of input tax adjustment are satisfied and payment for such supply has been made in compliance with the requirements of S. 73 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 the purchaser is entitled to seek input tax adjustment unless the same is prohibited by S.8 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---System of rule of law is based on individual responsibility and liability and a taxpayer cannot be made to suffer due to delinquency of another, unless the taxpayer is complicit in such wrongdoing---Sales tax is charged in VAT mode and where a purchaser has paid the tax due for the value addition attributable to a supplier, as part of consideration for the supply paid in accordance with requirements of S. 73 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 it cannot be assumed that the Legislature intended to subject such purchaser to double-taxation for the supplier’s failure to deposit the sales tax received from the purchaser in the treasury---Purchaser, in paying input tax to supplier as part of consideration for supply, acts in accordance with requirements imposed by provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and where the supplier, who receives such sales tax payment as an agent on behalf of the State, fails to deposit the same with the treasury, it is the supplier that is at fault and ought to be penalized by tax authorities and not the purchaser---Once a purchaser discharges its obligation to pay input tax to a supplier in the manner prescribed by law, there accrues a proprietary entitlement to benefit from such tax payment by seeking its adjustment against output tax due from him, when not otherwise prohibited by S. 8 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and such entitlement cannot be denied due to any wrongdoing or delinquency on the part of supplier that the purchaser is neither complicit with nor has any control over---High Court declared that any contrary interpretation of Ss. 8(1)(ca) & 8A of Sales Tax Act, 1990 would be in breach of Arts. 4, 10A, 23, 24 & 25 of the Constitution---Reference was disposed of accordingly. D.G. Khan Cement Company Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2013 Lah. 693; Total Parco Pakistan Ltd. v. Pakistan PTCL 2021 CL 576; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills, Swabi C.Ps. Nos. 1830 to 1847/2022; Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-IV, Large Taxpayer Unit, Karachi v. Messrs Al-Abid Silk Mills Ltd., Karachi 2023 PTD 1492; The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore v. Messrs Eagle Cables (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore (C.P.L.A 2400-L/2022); The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Large Taxpayers Office, Lahore and another v. Messrs Mayfair Spinning Mills Ltd. and others 2025 SCMR 01; Pakistan Beverages Ltd. v. Large Taxpayers Unit 2010 PTD 2673 and Waseem Ahmed and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman and 4 others 2014 PTD 1733 ref. Hafiz Muhammad Idris and Syed Farid Bukhari for Applicants (in S.T.R. No.01 of 2015). Osama Shahid for Applicants (in S.T.Rs. Nos. 20/2015, 11/2016 and 28 of 2016). Dr. Farhat Zafar for Applicants (in S.T.Rs. Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 35 of 2015). Hassan Ali Khan for Applicants (in S.T.R. Nos. 45 of 2015). Ali Nawaz Kharal for Applicants (in S.T.R. Nos. 34 of 2015 and 33/2019). Syed Muhammad Abbas for Applicants (in I.C.A. No. 431 of 2016). Makhdoom Ali Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Khawaja Aizaz Ahsan and Hashim Khalil for Respondent (in I.C.A. 431 of 2016). Osama Shahid for Respondents (in S.T.R. No.01 of 2015). Wasim Abid for Respondents (in S.T.Rs. Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of 2015). Shaheer Bin Tahir for Respondents (in S.T.R No. 33 of 2019). Syed Ali Murtaza Abbas for Respondent (in S.T.R No. 11 of 2016). Sarmad Munir for Respondent (in S.T.R. No. 35 of 2015). Date of hearing: 24th September, 2025.

Summary: ----Vol. V, Chap. I, Pt. A, R. 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.115 & 151---Re-hearing of civil revision, application for---Office objection---Maintainability---Scope---Challenge was laid to the office objection regarding maintainability of an application seeking re-hearing of a civil revision which had already been dismissed on merits by the High Court; petitioner thereafter filed an application under S.151 C.P.C. for re-hearing, which was objected to by the office and an earlier similar application had already been rejected; through the present successive application, he again sought re-hearing of the same civil revision---The issue for determination was “whether a second application for re-hearing of a civil revision already decided on merits was maintainable in law?”---Held: While hearing the revision, not only the merits of the case were discussed but on the basis of same, the case was decided and there was no reason for re-hearing of the matter solely for the reason that applicant was dissatisfied with the decision especially when the stance of the applicant that his counsel had not been granted proper hearing was not emanating from the record of the case---Moreover, the second application again praying for re-hearing of the objection as well as the main civil revision was also not maintainable as subject to certain exceptions which were not available in the present case, filing of successive applications on the same subject matter even though on different grounds was not permissible under the law and the applicant was required to take all the grounds available to him at the time of filing first application and subsequent application after decision of earlier application was barred---Besides by up-holding the office objection, the matter had come to an end and the applicant had the remedy to challenge the order, whereby civil revision was dismissed, before the higher forum, therefore, there was no justification in the present case for re-hearing of the matter---Office objection viz. maintainability raised against the present application for re-hearing, which even otherwise was a subsequent application on the same subject, was sustained, in circumstances. Muhammad Boota and another v. Moor Begum and 2 others PLD 2002 SC 74 rel. Subedar Muhammad Afzal v. Syed Nafis Ahmad and others PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lah. 45 and Haji Inayat Ali v. Haji Rehmat Ali and 16 others 2010 MLD 894 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.151---Application for re-hearing of civil revision---Maintainability---Scope---Re-hearing of a case cannot be ordered merely because the applicant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the case as every dissatisfied litigant may file an application for re-hearing and there would be no end to litigation rather the same can only be ordered where the applicant substantiates before the Court that he was prevented by sufficient cause beyond control to appear before the Court when the case was called for hearing. Yasrab Traders v. Market Committee 2006 YLR 2280 ref. (c) High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders--- ----Vol. V, Chap. I, Pt. A, R. 9---Office objection, upholding of---Requirement to provide reasons---Exception---The Court is not required to give detailed reasons for up-holding the office objection for the reason that office objections are decided on administrative side by the Court and not on judicial side unless of course subject to the exception that the Courts deem it appropriate to decide the same on judicial side. Tausif Ahmed v. Muhammad Wakeel and another PLD 2023 Isl. 132; Rana Naveed Ahmad Khan v. Province of Punjab through Secretary LG and CD PLD 2014 Lah. 436; Siraj Ahmad v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore 2021 MLD 1234 and Tahira Naseem v. Arshad Mehmood and others 2021 PCr.LJ 682 ref. Muhammad Abbas Chohan for Applicant.

Summary: 87 160539/25 Muhammad Nawaz Vs Maqbool Ahmad etc Mr. Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabir 05- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 7201

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S. 133---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Reference Application before the High Court, filing of---Limitation---Suf ficient cause, absence of---Scope and effect---Applicant-Department filed the reference application and the office raised objection that file was ‘totally incomplete’, and directed to resubmit after removal of objections within three days, however, the Applicant-Department, after removing the objections, re-filed the reference application after 347 days beyond the period granted for removal of the office objections---Held: Inordinate delay was fatal in absence of any explanation demonstrating “sufficient cause” as required under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908---In the present matter, the Applicant-Department had failed to furnish any justification, much less a satisfactory or legally sufficient cause, for the delay in re-filing the reference application---The prescribed period of limitation is not merely a procedural formality but a matter of substantive right---Once the limitation period commences, it runs inexorably and cannot be arrested or extended by administrative lapses or clerical omissions---The Court is duty bound to enforce limitation statutes with judicial rigour and restraint, regardless of whether limitation is raised as a defense---Further, the law aids the vigilant, not the indolent (leges vigilantibus non dormientibus subserviunt)---Ignorance of law, inadvertence, does not constitute valid grounds for condonation, which is not to be granted as a matter of right, but only upon establishing sufficient cause with due diligence---Reference application filed by the Department, being non-maintainable on the ground of limitation, was dismissed, in circumstances. Asad Ali and 9 others v. The Bank of Punjab and others PLD 2020 SC 736; Muhammad Faisal Prop., F.A. Traders. Lahore v. Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-II RTO-II, Lahore 2025 SCMR 930 and Commissioner Inland Revenue, Faisalabad v. Messrs Al-Hamd Cotton Ginning Pressing Factory, Jhang (ITR No.256746 of 2018) ref. Khalil Ahmad Ali for Applicant-Department. Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent.

Summary: The following points are determined in this judgment: - 1. In case the defendant is proceeded against ex-parte in a suit under Order XXXVII of CPC, whether it is obligatory for the defendant to move an application for leave to contest alongwith application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings? 2. In case a suit under Order XXXVII of CPC is decreed ex-parte, whether it is obligatory for the defendant to move an application for leave to contest alongwith application for setting aside ex-parte decree? 95Jail Appeal 85571/23 Sufiyan Riaz Vs The State Mr. Justice Farooq Haider 03-12- 2025 2025 LHC 7029

Summary: In the light of analogy in Section 4 of the Ordinance, 1961, they would be entitled to get the share in the legacy of their grandmother, which they would have inherited in case their father Mumtaz Ali was alive at the opening of succession of deceased Mulakh Bano. 93Crl. Appeal 15580/20 Muhammad Iqbal Bali Jhatal etc. Vs The State etc Justice Abher Gul Khan 03-12- 2025 2025 LHC 7266

Summary: Held: The order of remand should not be passed as a matter of course. An Appellate Court is duty- bound to examine whether such a course would meaningfully advance the cause of justice or merely prolong the litigation. In the present case, findings on merits already stand recorded against the respondents after a full trial. A remand, in such circumstances, would only subject the parties to another round of avoidable proceedings. Even if the issue of limitation was to be decided in favour of the respondents, their suit would nonetheless require adjudication on merits on the basis of evidence?an exercise already undertaken by the Trial Court. The appropriate course, therefore, was reappraisal of the evidence by the Appellate Court below itself rather than a remand. The Appellate Court below failed to appreciate that the remand ordered by it would serve no useful purpose and would, instead, defeat the objective of expeditious justice. 92Civil Revision- Civil Revision (Against Decree) u/s. 115, C.P.C. 519-20 MST. KAYANAT MUMTAZ ETC VS MST. SARWAR SULTAN ETC Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf 03-12- 2025 2025 LHC 7304

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ----Art. 189 [as amended by the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025]---Judgment of Federal Constitutional Court---Binding effect---Principle---Any decision rendered by Supreme Court, under Article 189 of the Constitution [as amended by the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, which resolves a question of law or enunciates a principle of law, is binding upon all other Courts within Pakistan, with the exception of the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan---Such exception arises from the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, which establishes that decisions issued by Federal Constitutional Court are binding on all Courts in Pakistan, including Supreme Court itself---All Courts in Pakistan are Constitutionally mandated to adhere to the judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 11---Res judicata, principle of---Object, purpose and scope---Principle of res judicata, which is fundamental to rule of law, dictates that once a matter has been conclusively adjudicated by a competent Court, it should not be reopened or re-litigated---This principle is essential for maintaining integrity of judicial decisions and ensuring public confidence in the legal system. (c) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973)--- ----S. 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. III, R. 4---Counsel and client---Wakalatnama---Scope---No statutory law explicitly defines “Wakalatnama”, however, in light of the provisions of Order III, Rule 4, C.P.C., in conjunction with Section 22(3) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, it can be reasonably concluded that a Wakalatnama is a written document signed by a person or by their recognized agent, or by another person duly authorized by them, appointing an advocate to appear or act on their behalf in any Court---Appointment of an advocate through Wakalatnama grants that advocate an authority to represent and act for the appointing party in any Court. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 185(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Findings of facts---Re-assessment---Petitioners were aggrieved of setting aside of judgment by High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 12(2), C.P.C.---Validity---High Court after thoroughly deliberating upon facts and circumstances of the case had rightly accepted applications under Section 12(2), C.P.C.---It was not within the purview of Federal Constitutional Court to reassess findings of fact recorded by High Court unless it could be demonstrated that such findings were manifestly against evidence, so patently improbable that acceptance would result in a grave miscarriage of justice or if there had been any misapplication of principles related to appreciation of evidence---Petitioner failed to show that findings of High Court were physically impossible to warrant interference---Substantial burden was on the petitioner to demonstrate that the findings recorded by High Court were unsustainable on record, even if an alternative view could also be conceivable---Federal Constitutional Court declined to interfere, as petitioner failed to identify any legal, procedural, or jurisdictional error, defect, or flaw in the judgment---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Nemo for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd December, 2025. ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.--- Through this order, we intend to adjudicate C.P.L.As. Nos. 962, 963, and 964 of 2023 collectively, as they involve common questions of law and arise from the same impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.

Summary: Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss. 3, 30, 121 & 173---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115, O.VII, R.11 & O.XXVI, Rr. 9, 10, 18---Suit for declaration and injunction---Rejection of plaint---Demarcation proceedings---Urban property / building site---Revenue authorities, jurisdiction of---Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was rejected by Trial Court due to bar of S.172 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Revenue officer / official designated under Land Revenue Act, 1967, could not demarcate any urban property or the property that had gained character of building site---Trial Court rejected claim of petitioner / plaintiff as barred under S.172 Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the order was upheld by Lower Appellate Court mainly relying on S.172 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967---Both the Courts below failed to consider provision of S.3 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which excluded jurisdiction of revenue authorities---Provision of S.172 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, excludes jurisdiction of Civil Court in the matters that are solely within the authority of revenue officers---Matter was outside the jurisdiction of revenue authorities and the suit was properly filed before Civil Court---Civil Court is the most appropriate forum to resolve dispute between parties permanently by following the provisions of O.XXVI, Rr. 9 & 10, C.P.C., or O.XXVI, R.18, C.P.C. enabling Trial Court to conduct site inspection / demarcations under its authority, with the assistance of some expert revenue officials---Both the Courts below being unaware of their jurisdiction as provided by law proceeded to decide the matter without considering its legality---High Court set aside the orders passed by two Courts below as there were material illegalities and irregularities---High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to decide the suit after appointing Local Commission assisted by revenue staff in order to determine boundaries of suit property---Revision was allowed, in circumstances. Dr. Jalal Khan v. Qazi Naseer Ahmed, District Deputy Officer (Revenue), Kharian District Gujrat and 6 others 2005 MLD 814; Khizar Hayat and another v. Pakistan Railways through Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Lahore and 2 others 2006 CLC 1028; Pervez Ahmed Khan Burki and 3 others v. Assistant Commissioner Lahore Cantt and 2 others PLD 1999 Lah.31; Muhammad Sadiq and another v. Abdul Aziz and another 1990 CLC 1387 and Abdul Majeed v. Province of the Punjab and others PLD 2006 Lah.741 rel. Muhammad Saleem Lashari and Rehan Khan Babar for Petitioner. Chaudhry Hasan Murtaza Mann, Mehta Rajesh Nath Kohli and Qazi Najeeb-ur-Rahman for Private Respondents. Arbab Nasruminallah, Additional Advocate General for Official Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd October, 2025. MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN TAREEN, J.--- This common order shall dispose of Constitutional Petition No.478/2024 and Civil Revision Petition No.210/2022, as in both these petitions, subject matter is the same.