Summary: (Appeal against the judgment dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.2236 of 2015). Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975--- ----R.4(1)(b)(iv)---Police official---Misconduct, allegation of---Dismissal from service---Ex-parte inquiry---Judgment of Tribunal based on allegations/findings which were never part of the show cause notice---Legality---In the show cause notice the allegation of absence from duty was raised, but based on the same show cause notice, the Tribunal reproduced some other allegations regarding the petitioner's conviction in a criminal case, which allegation was alien to the show cause notice, and no other show cause notice was presented by the parties that indicated any allegation of conviction in a criminal case or requested the petitioner to submit a reply---Departmental proceedings may be initiated on the basis of allegations contained in the show cause notice and not on the allegations which were never part of the show cause notice---Therefore, in all fairness, the departmental action on account of any misconduct should be confined to the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice/statement of allegations, and should not travel beyond its precinct because the accused of misconduct who is petitioner in this case was only liable to answer the allegations communicated to him in the show cause and had no supernatural knowledge to respond to the allegations not known to him---Even the holding of the enquiry was claimed to be a regular one, but it was actually conducted ex-parte without involving the petitioner or providing him any opportunity to defend himself---According to the latest position, the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case while being extended the benefit of doubt by the Trial Court---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Service Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Ch. M. Lehrasib Khan Gondal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Baleegh-uz Zaman Ch., Addl. A.G. Punjab along with Akhtar Ali Mehmood, DSC (Legal) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd September, 2024.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 04.07. 2022 passed by the Islamabad High Court in R.F.A. No. 117 of 2021). (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 22---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Discretion of Court---Scope---In a suit for specific performance grant of decree is a discretionary relief with the court---If the court comes to the conclusion that in grant of a decree equity leans in favour of the plaintiff then decree can be granted, otherwise, it is the discretion of the court---Even if the plaintiff has proved the agreement to sell even then it is the discretion of the court to grant a decree or refuse the same. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Appeal entertained by Court despite lacking jurisdiction---Contributory negligence of Court---Condonation of delay in seeking relief---Where a party, despite acting with reasonable diligence, is misled by the Court or fails to receive timely guidance about jurisdictional matters, the resulting delay or error is not entirely attributable to that party---If there is contributory negligence of the person knocking the door of the court and also by the court, then the person knocking the wrong door cannot be deprived of his/her legal rights available under the law. Sherin and others v. Fazal Muhammad and others 1995 SCMR 584 and Ghulam Ali v. Akbar alias Akoor and others PLD 1991 SC 957 ref. Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sardar Muhammad Tariq Farid Gopang, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Taimoor Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1. Raja Khalid Mahmood Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No 3. Assisted by Miss Maira Hassan, Judicial Law Clerk. Date of hearing: 23rd September 2024.

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 111 & 122---Unexplained income or assets---Amendment of an assessment---Notices under Ss. 111 & 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, simultaneous issuance of---Scope and effect---Definite information---Adjudication under S.111 prior to proceedings under S.122(5)---Contention of the petitioners / taxpayers was that the proceedings under S. 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance, 2001') for making determination regarding "definite information" was required to take place prior to the initiation of the proceedings under S. 122(5) of the Ordinance, 2001---Held, that in the case titled Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs Millat Tractors Limited reported as 2024 SCMR 700, the Supreme Court of Pakistan stated that the notices under Ss. 111 & 122 of the Ordinance, 2001 can simultaneously be issued but adjudication under S. 111 of the Ordinance, 2001 must take place in the first instance for forming of an opinion that would constitute "definite information" which shall form basis for initiation of proceedings under S. 122(5) of the Ordinance, 2001---Respondents / Department undertook that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case shall be complied with in its letter and spirit---As per the undertaking given by the respondents the proceedings under S. 111 of the Ordinance, 2001 shall be taken up and finalized before initiation of proceedings under S. 122 of the Ordinance, 2001---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs Millat Tractors Limited 2024 SCMR 700 ref. Imtiaz Rasheed Siddique and Raza Imtiaz Siddique for Petitioners. Ahmad Pervaiz for Respondents/FBR. Sheraz Zaka, Assistant Attorney General.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2) & O.1, R. 10(2)---Rent matter---Eviction of tenant---Ex-parte ejectment order---Respondent No. 1 filed ejectment application against respondent No. 2---Rent controller allowed the eviction application by way of an ex-parte order---Petitioner filed an application under S.12(2) read with O.1, R. 10(2), C.P.C., seeking recalling of the ex-parte ejectment order on the ground that the same was obtained by way of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of true facts, but same was dismissed---Appeal was filed, which was also dismissed---Validity---Respondent No. 1 filed ejectment application against respondent No. 2, who was real brother of the petitioner, however, the petitioner did not bother to bring on record true facts as to tenancy between respondents Nos. 1 and 2---Petitioner used to deposit the rent in bank on behalf of his brother through cheques as admitted by him in cross-examination---Case of the petitioner hinged merely on a sale agreement said to have been executed in his favour by the respondent No. 1 for which he availed civil remedy by filing a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction, but failed to succeed either before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court, whereby the claim of the petitioner as to purchase of the demised premises from the respondent No. 1 was declined---Findings of fact given by Rent Controller were concurred by the Appellate Court---Under constitutional jurisdiction, the Court avoids to give contrary findings until and unless the same are proved to be perverse, based on misreading or non-reading of evidence---Even otherwise, the powers in rent matters under constitutional jurisdiction of the Court are limited and confined only to ascertain whether the Courts below have flouted the statute or failed to follow the law relating thereto---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Mst. Mahmooda Begum and another v. Taj Din 1992 SCMR 809 and Muhammad Iqbal v. Mst. Zahidan and 2 others 2013 CLC 1780 rel. Sardar Sher Afzal Khan for Petitioner. Murtaza Hussain for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 through his legal heris Date of hearing: 19th September, 2024. Order Shamsuddin Abbasi, J .--- The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1979, impugning the order dated 31.01.2022, penned down by the learned Additional District Judge-XII (Model Civil Appellate Court), Karachi (South) dismissing First Rent Appeal No.208 of 2021, filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge /Rent Controller-II, Karachi (South) on 14.10.2021 dismissing his application under Section 12(2) read with Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. filed in Rent Case No.1031 of 2016. 2. Respondent No.1 Syeda Tatheer Fatima filed ejectment application vide Rent Case No.1031 of 2016 against Respondent No.2 Mazhar Ali seeking his eviction from demised premises viz Flat No.A-23, 6th floor, Super Place, Civil Lines Quarters, Dr. Ziauddin Ahmed Road, Karachi, on the ground of personal bona fide need. The learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction application by way an ex parte order dated 19.04.2017. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12(2) read with Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C., seeking recall of the ex parte ejectment order dated 19.04.2017 on the ground that the same was obtained by way of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of true facts. The learned Rent Controller by an order dated 14.10.2021 dismissed the application. Impugning the order of the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner filed First Rent Appeal No.208 of 2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-XII (MCAC), Karachi (South) and feeling aggrieved by the orders of the two Courts below, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has obtained ex parte ejectment order dated 19.04.2017 by way of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of true facts; that the petitioner filed Suit No.30 of 2014 for specific performance and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Karachi (South) and appeal preferred against the order of the learned trial Court was also dismissed by learned Appellate Court and against the orders of the two Courts below the petitioner has filed Civil Revision, which is pending adjudication before this Court; that it is a clear cut case of fraud but the two Courts below dismissed the application under Section 12(2) read with Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. without appreciating the material placed on record and application of judicial mind; that the respondent No.1 has admitted that respondent No.2 is her tenant since 2008 when she was neither attorney nor holder of title documents of the demised premises; that possession of the demised premises was handed over to the petitioner at the time of signing of sale agreement and payment of Rs.3 million in cash and Rs.1 million through cheque to the respondent No.1; that the respondent No.1 became attorney in the year 2014 and rent proceedings against respondent No.2 as her tenant are not maintainable; that the respondent No.1 has managed forged documents just to deprive the petitioner from his legal right. The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that impugned orders passed by the two Courts below are without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and application of judicial mind, hence the same are liable to be reversed and prayed that the petition may be allowed as prayed. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are real brothers and they have managed a false and fabricated sale agreement just to usurp the property of the respondent No.1; that respondent No.1 is owner of the property in question and her eviction application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and such an order has been maintained by the learned Appellate Court; that the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance and permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned trial Court and Appellate Court has maintained the order of the learned trial Court in appeal; that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have managed a false and fabricated sale agreement and based on such agreement the petitioner filed application under Section 12(2) read with Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., which were rightly dismissed by the learned Courts below. The learned counsel lastly submitted that scope of writ jurisdiction in rent matters is limited and the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference, hence prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. The respondent No.2, Aga Muhammad Khan, who is also a practicing advocate, present in person has supported the case of the petitioner and adopted the same arguments as advance by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 in person as well as perused the entire material available before me with their able assistance. 7. Record demonstrates that suit filed by the respondent No.1 seeking specific performance and permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Karachi (South) vide order dated 18.03.2017 and Civil Appeal No.59 of 2017 preferred against the order of the learned trial Court was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. The record is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner filed suit for specific performance and permanent injunction in the year 2015 whereas the respondent No.1 filed ejectment application against respondent No.2, who is real brother of the petitioner in 2016, however, the petitioner did not bother to bring on record true facts as to tenancy between respondents 1 and 2 and he (petitioner) used to deposit the rent in bank on behalf of his brother (respondent No.2) through cheques as admitted by him in cross-examination. The case of the petitioner hinges merely on a sale agreement said to have been executed in his favour by the respondent No.1 for which he availed civil remedy by filing a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction, but failed to succeed either before the learned trial Court or before the learned Appellate Court, whereby the claim of the petitioner as to purchase of the demised premises from the respondent No.1 was declined. The record is suggestive of the fact that the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application under Section 12(2) read with Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. after recording evidence and hearing the parties' respective counsel observing that the petitioner has failed to prove that ex parte ejectment order was obtained by the respondent No.1 by way of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of true facts. The order of the learned Rent Controller has been maintained by the learned Appellate Court observing that the petitioner has already availed civil remedy as to his claim with regard to purchase of the demised premises and allowing the fate of the application under Section 12(2) read with Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. and recording any finding as to the title /ownership of the demised premises is beyond the domain of the learned Rent Controller. 8. Findings of fact given by the learned Rent Controller are concurred by the learned Appellate Court. On query posed as to what perversity or illegality afflicted the orders of the two Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to advance any cogent argument in that regard, therefore, at this juncture, under the Constitutional Jurisdiction, this Court avoid to give contrary findings until and unless the same are prove to be perverse, based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. Even otherwise, the powers in rent matters under Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court are limited and confined only to ascertain whether the learned Courts below have flouted the statute or failed to follow the law relating thereto. Reliance in this behalf may well be made to the case of Mst. Mahmooda Begum and another v. Taj Din reported (1992 SCMR 809), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "In normal circumstances, the High Court is not supposed to interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal of special Jurisdiction in respect of matters exclusively within its competence, unless there has been a serious misreading or misappreciation of the evidence on the part of the said tribunal, or there has been failure on its part to take into consideration material facts or to apply the statutory law or any principle or rule of law as laid down by the superior Courts". In another case, similar view was followed by this Court in the case of Muhammad Iqbal v Mst. Zahidan and 2 others (2013 CLC 1780) observing as follows:- "It is settled proposition of law that Courts below, in its original and appellate jurisdiction are competent to draw inference, while delivering the judgment and it is not open to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction, unless and until miscarriage of justice is established by the party in the Constitutional petition, thus, High Court would not normally interfere in judgment and decree passed by court of competent jurisdiction for the reason that it was within their exclusive jurisdiction, to believe and disbelieve the evidence, it is worth to add that no Constitutional petition lies when evidence in the case has been properly appreciated and analyzed." 9. In view of the analysis and combined study of the entire material available before me by way of reappraisal, with such care and caution, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders (concurrent findings of the two Courts below). This Constitutional Petition is, therefore, bereft of merit stands dismissed along with all pending application(s) with no order as to costs. JK/I-4/Sindh Petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497(5) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(iv) & 34---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, common intention---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, recalling of---Allegation against the applicant was that he along with his co-accused caused firearm injuries to the daughter-in-law and sister of complainant---Record showed that the applicant was nominated by name in the promptly recorded F.I.R with specific role of causing firearm injuries to daughter-in-law of complainant, who as per Medico-Legal Certificate, had received 10 pellets injuries on vital parts of her body---Such injuries, if inflicted to any women, may cause disfigurement of parts of the body especially breast, which represent fertility, femininity and vitality---Injured daughter-in-law of the complainant had sustained injuries on sensitive parts of her body on account of direct fire made on her by the applicant with a repeater gun---Evidence on record indicated that an attempt was made by the applicant on the life of the said injured---Hence, offence under S.324, P.P.C, was prima facie attracted to the present case, which being punishable with imprisonment for ten years, fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C---Sufficient material was available with the prosecution to connect the applicant with the commission of alleged offence---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances, and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner was recalled. Zaigham Ashraf v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 18; Haji Maa Din and another v. The State and another 1998 SCMR 1528; Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another PLD 1996 SC 241 and Ghulam Muhammad alias Masood v. The State 2020 YLR Note 56 ref. Khalida Bibi v. Nadeem Baig PLD 2009 SC 440 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497 & 498 ---Bail---Observations of Court---Scope---Observations made in a bail order are tentative in nature and do not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on merits. Wajid Ali Khaskheli for Applicant. Ms. Sana Memon, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Abdul Rasool Abbasi for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 23rd September, 2024. Order Zafar Ahmed Rajput , J.--- Through instant Criminal Bail Application, applicant Ghulam Murtaza seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.60 of 2024, registered under sections 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 34, P.P.C. at P.S. Sehwan. His earlier application for the same relief bearing Cr.B.A.No.74 of 2024 was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshoro at Kotri vide order dated 09.08.2024. He was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2024, now the matter is fixed for confirmation of the same or otherwise. 2. It is alleged that, on 13.05.2024, at about 01:00 p.m., the complainant along with his daughter-in-law Mst. Seema and his sister Mst. Afsana Jalbani went to village Gulab Jalbani for condolence of their relative and on their returning they reached Bobak Sabeel, Railway Station Link Road, where their motorcycle became punctured. Meanwhile, the applicant along with co-accused Razzaq son of Manthar, both armed with repeaters, and Badal son of Gahi Khan, armed with pistol, came and in furtherance of their common intention, the applicant attempted to commit qatl-e-amd of Mst. Seema wife of Abdul Qadir (the daughter-in-law of complainant) by causing her direct firearm injuries with repeater; co-accused Razzaq made direct fire on Mst. Afsana (the sister of complainant) with his repeater. Then applicant again made straight fire from his repeater on Mst. Seema while co-accused Badal made fire with his pistol on the complainant which went missed. The accused persons then fled away and the injured were taken to Sehwan Hospital. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; that the alleged injury is on non-vital parts of the body of the injured Mst. Seema; that in the F.I.R. the complainant has attributed two repeater fires to applicant, while the said injured in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr. P.C. has attributed one to applicant and the other to co-accused Razzaq, which creates doubt in prosecution case rendering the case one of further inquiry; that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident; that the alleged injuries are punishable in maximum with imprisonment of three years for the offence under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C., which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C., and so far application of section 324, P.P.C. is concerned, its applicability would be seen by the trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties; hence, the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the case of Zaigham Ashraf v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 18), Haji Maa Din and another v. The State and another (1998 SCMR 1528), Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another (PLD 1996 SC 241) and Ghulam Muhammad alias Masood v. The State (2020 YLR Note 56). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and Assist. P.G. have opposed the instant application on the ground that the applicant has caused firearm injuries to injured witness Mst. Seema on her vital part, which fact is duly corroborated by the MLC; hence, he is not entitled to the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is matter of record that the applicant is nominated by name in the promptly recorded F.I.R. with specific role of causing firearm injuries to Mst. Seema who, as per MLC, has received 10 pellets injuries on her left side of chin, left ear region, upper arm, upper arm below, lateral and upper sides of left breast, medial side of right breast and centre chest, which have been declared by the MLO as Shajjah-i-khafifah and Ghayr-jaifah mutalahimah punishable under Sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(iii), P.P.C., respectively. The breast and chest are vital parts of human body and any such injuries, if inflicted to any woman, it may cause disfigurement of her such parts of the body especially breast, which represent fertility, femininity and vitality. The injured, Mst. Seema, has sustained said injuries on her sensitive parts of her body on account of direct fire made on her by the applicant with her repeater gun. Evidence on record indicates that an attempt was made by the applicant on the life of said injured. Hence, offence under section 324, P.P.C. is prima facie attracted to the present case, which being punishable with imprisonment for ten years, falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. As such, prima facie sufficient material is available with the prosecution to connect the applicant with the commission of alleged offence. 7. Moreover, the learned counsel for applicant has not been able to point out any special feature of the case entitling the applicant to grant of extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. It is now settled principal of law that in order to justify the grant of anticipatory bail, the accused is required to show that he apprehends his arrest on account of ulterior motives. One of the main considerations for grant of bail is whether the prosecution is motivated by malice so as to cause irreparable injury to citizen's reputation and liberty. The accused approaching the Court of law for grant of anticipatory bail is required to show that he is falsely implicated for extraneous consideration and ulterior motives are behind his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant has remained unable to persuade me to hold that accused had no concern with the alleged offence. Hence, in the instant case the pre-requisites for such concession i.e. malice and ulterior motives either on the part of complainant or the police are conspicuously missing. 8. As regards the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant, suffice to say that the Court under subsection (2) of the Section 497, Cr.P.C. has to assess tentatively the material produced before it and to see if reasonable ground exists to believe, prima facie involvement of accused in the commission of offence and if the accused found connected with the commission of offence, he will not be released on bail on the basis of further inquiry. Reliance in this regard may be placed in the case of Khalida Bibi v. Nadeem Baig (PLD 2009 SC 440). The question whether the injured Mst. Seema sustained alleged injuries due to double fires of applicant or one of applicant and the other of co-accused Razzaq, it would be seen at the trial by the trial Court. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant being on different footings does not advance the case of applicant for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, this bail application is dismissed. Interim order, dated 26.08.2024, stands recalled. 9. Needless to mention here that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on merits. JK/G-22/Sindh Application dismissed.

Summary: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)--- ----S. 20(4)(o)---Modarba Companies and Modarba Rules, 1981, R. 8(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Inquiry, initiation of---Issuance of show cause notice---Petitioners were aggrieved of show cause notice issued by SECP in order to safeguard interests of Modarba Certificate holders---Validity---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, in terms of S. 20(4)(o) of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 is empowered to perform such functions and exercise such powers of the Authority, including any powers of Federal Government delegated to the Authority and under any other law for the time being in force under which any function or power has been conferred on the Authority including, but not limited to, the functions and powers set out in Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan after hearing petitioners and/or their representatives passed order in question---Payments to different individuals on different heads were made without codal formalities and/or providing legitimacy of such payments---There were some incidents of fire which resulted in loss to company in view of absence of insurance coverage/Takafal---Huge payments needed to be scrutinized, and if the Regulator would keep a blind eye on it, then entire scheme set out in relevant laws to maintain a system of check and balance on companies would become redundant---High Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution as the petitioners failed to point out the fundamental right which had been infringed, as High Court was not sitting in appeal over order in question---Petitioners raised controversies factual in nature and the same were not warranted while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution---It was primary duty of regulatory authorities to safeguard interests of certificate holders and order in question was an attempt to achieve such goal---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Sameer Tayebally for Petitioner. Khaleeq Ahmed, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent No.1. Furqan Ali for Respondents Nos.2 and 3. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2024.

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----S. 25---Custody of minor---Determining factors---Welfare of minor daughter as the paramount consideration---Second marriage of husband---Effect---Hizanat, right of---Plea of second marriage of wife/respondent---Held, that if the contention with regard to second marriage of the respondent (mother) was taken as true, even then welfare and well-being of the minor daughter was with her real mother in view of the fact that the petitioner was a truck driver and remained out of home for his job and it would never be in the interest and welfare of the minor to remain in custody of her step-mother more particularly when her real mother was alive---Paramount consideration while deciding the question of custody is the welfare of the minor irrespective of age, sex, and religion---Primarily, welfare includes his/her moral, spiritual and material wellbeing---While considering what is the welfare of the minor the Court should have regard to the age, sex, religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and the preference of the minor, if he or she is intelligent enough to make it---In cases, concerning custody of a child, the Family Court is not required to go into intricacies/technicalities of the matter and should confine its findings to the extent of welfare of the child/minor, which is a paramount consideration---In the present case minor was aged about 10 years and she could not be taken away from the mother, who was more caring to her daughter, and due to her love and affection had not contracted second marriage and made hectic efforts by running from pillar to post merely to continue custody of her daughter---In contrast the petitioner (father) took a second wife---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Mst. Razia Rehman v. Station House Officer and others PLD 2006 SC 533 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahdat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 164---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25---Custody of minor---Photographs of Nikah as proof of second marriage of mother---Evidentiary value---Mere photographs, in absence of Nikahnama and/or any witness of Nikah, did not establish factum of second marriage. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25---Custody of minor---Parental jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, must exercise parental jurisdiction and is not precluded from giving due consideration to the welfare of the minor, ensuring no physical or emotional harm occurs due to the breakdown of parental ties---Courts are custodians of minors and have ample powers under the law and the Constitution to protect their interest, ensuring physical safety, emotional well-being and welfare after a balanced and dispassionate assessment. Mirjam Aberras Lehdeaho v. S.H.O., Police Station Chung, Lahore and others 2018 SCMR 427 and Mst. Madiha Younus v. Imran Ahmed 2018 SCMR 1991 rel. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of facts---Re-appraisal of evidence---Under constitutional jurisdiction re-appraisal of evidence in order to have a different conclusion than one already inferred by the courts below has never been considered an option to be upheld---Court under constitutional jurisdiction has to see whether any illegality has been committed by the forums below or the findings of the fact are based on material extraneous to the pleadings of the parties to justify interference on its part. Ms. Naheed Shahid for Petitioner along with Petitioner. Ms. Zainab Lashari for Respondents along with Respondent No. 1 and Minor Baby Alizay. Suresh Kumar, Additional Advocate General. Date of hearing: 18th September, 2024.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending