Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8, 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11 & O.XIV, R.2---Suit for declaration and recovery of possession---Decision on issues of law and facts---Scope---Legal issue remaining undecided being not pressed by the parties---Legality---Contention of the petitioner was that at preliminary stage although an objection as to maintainability of the suit being barred by law, limitation and jurisdiction was raised and an issue to that effect had also been framed, yet the same remained unattended being not pressed by the petitioner---Validity---Petitioner agitated in the written statement that the suit of respondent/plaintiff was liable to be dismissed being barred by law, thus, Trial Court framed Issue No.4 in that respect in order to enable the parties, particularly petitioner, to put forth the available evidence---Although questions of limitation and maintainability were covered in Issue No.4, yet Trial Court while deciding the same simply said that "this issue is neither pressed nor argued by learned counsel for the defendant."---Petitioner did not produce any evidence on this issue, however, as the issue was based on a question of law, the Trial Court was duty bound to examine and decide it in light of the law and the judgments of the superior Courts---Trial Court committed a legal error by deciding this significant issue in a few words, which was impermissible in the eyes of the law---Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Chuttal v. Ata Muhammad through L.Rs 2007 SCMR 373 and Fancy Foundation v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi 2017 PTD 1687 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XIV, R.2---Issues of law---Framing of---Scope---Issues of law which go to the root of the whole case and are capable to be decided without evidence, the Court should decide such issue first---If issues are not framed but allegations are made in the plaint and they are rebutted in the written statement, it is open to the Court to allow the parties to lead evidence on such point and to give decision on it without framing any issue---It is the discretion of the Trial Court to frame and decide the legal issue first or together with the issues pertaining to factual controversy The Province of East Pakistan v. Hassan Askary PLD 1971 SC 82 and Messrs Zarkhaiz Agro Engineering and Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Sargodha Farms Aids (Pvt.) Ltd. 2005 YLR 200 rel. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Limitation---Issue, framing of---Limitation is also one of the grounds, which may bar filing of suit after lapse of the provided time---There is no express direction of law to frame a specific issue in respect of limitation, provided an issue in respect of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., is framed since it not only covers barring of the suit by any law under Clause (d) rather it covers Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. as well. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R.11---"Barred by law"---Word "law"---Meaning---"Law" means written law or statute law and is used in generic sense---Law includes Constitution, statutes, judicial principles, rules, by-laws, etc., which squarely fall within the ambit of Clause (d) of R. 11 of O.VII, C.P.C. Malik Khurram Shehzad and Arshad Mahmood for Petitioner. Tariq Mehmood Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th September, 2023.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17, 59, 79 & 129(g)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.27---Specific performance of agreement to sell---Burden of proof---Scope---Non-fulfilment of requirement to produce two attesting witnesses of the agreement to sell---Effect---Absence of evidence as to bargain of sale between the parties or about the payment or considerations---Adverse presumption---Expert opinion---Relevance---Suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial as well as appellate courts concurrently---Contention of the petitioner was that since the scribe of the document had been produced, therefore, requirement of Arts. 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984 (Order) had been fulfilled---Validity---Out of four witnesses to the document only one attesting witness was produced, who too was disbelieved by the courts below and there was no explanation for non-production of the other marginal witnesses---Mandatory requirement of Art. 79 of the Order had not been met as such document could not be proved nor could the petitioner produce admissible or credible evidence to prove the existence of any bargain of sale between the parties or about the payment for consideration, thus, the opinion of expert even if brought on record could not serve any purpose as a substitute for the mandatory requirements of law of evidence---Testimony of the scribe could not be equated with that of an attesting witness as both of them had signed the document in different capacities and with a different state of mind and such scribe did not meet the requirement of Art. 79 of the Order---Adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Order against the person intending to prove the document had to be drawn against the petitioner---Petitioner could not make out any case for interference in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below and the findings of the courts below were based on correct analysis and appreciation of evidence---Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Farid Baksh v. Jind Wadda and others 2015 SCMR 1044 and Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through legal heirs and others PLD 2011 SC 241 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R. 24---Production of handwriting expert qua report already available in evidence---Application for production of handwriting expert at appellate stage---Application for additional evidence at the appellate stage being an attempt to fill up lacuna in evidence could not be allowed. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 59---Opinion of expert as a substitution of direct evidence---Scope---Opinion of an expert or the report submitted by him on its own cannot be made basis to disregard the direct evidence---There is no need for the expert opinion which otherwise is nothing but confirmatory and explanatory to the direct evidence. Mst. Saadat Sultan and others v. Muhammad Zahur Khan and others 2006 SCMR 193 and Qazi Abdul Ali and others v. Khawaja Aftab Ahmad 2015 SCMR 284 rel. Ch. Bashir Hussain Khalid for Petitioner.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C) & Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.):----S. 392, S. 397, S. 34 P.P.C, S. 342, S. 154 Cr.P.CRobbery—Eyewitness testimony—Immediate arrest—Corroborative evidence—Prosecution's burden of proof—Scope—Appellant convicted under S. 392 P.P.C. for robbery at gunpoint—Trial court sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine—Held, that prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on multiple factors—(i) FIR was lodged promptly within an hour of the incident, eliminating the possibility of a fabricated case—(ii) Appellant was caught red-handed on the spot with the stolen items and an unlicensed firearm—(iii) Independent eyewitnesses, including the complainant and his fiancée, provided consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony—(iv) Arresting officer's testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination—(v) Defence failed to produce any rebuttal evidence or establish false implication—(vi) Mere absence of independent Mashirs (witnesses) was not fatal, as it is a judicially recognized fact that people avoid involvement in criminal proceedings—Reliance placed on Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State 2020 SCMR 474 and Muhammad Ehsan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1857—Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld.(b) Role of Eyewitnesses in Conviction:----Reliability of eyewitness testimony—Consistency of evidence—ScopeAppellant challenged conviction on grounds that prosecution witnesses were unreliable and had contradictions in their statements—Held, that prosecution witnesses provided a coherent and corroborated chain of events—Complainant and his fiancée independently identified appellant as the robber—Their testimonies were supported by immediate recovery of stolen items and the appellant's arrest at the scene—Minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not affect credibility unless they create doubt regarding the entire prosecution case—Reliance placed on Farooq Khan v. The State 2008 SCMR 917 and Niaz-ud-Din and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 725—Court found no contradictions serious enough to shake prosecution's case—Appeal dismissed.(c) Acquittal of Co-accused and Its Effect:----Acquittal of co-accused does not automatically benefit appellant—ScopeAppellant argued that co-accused was acquitted, implying doubt in prosecution’s case—Held, that acquittal of co-accused did not affect appellant’s conviction as the circumstances differed—Co-accused Shan was arrested days later and shown to the complainant before the identification parade, rendering the parade inadmissible—No stolen property was recovered from co-accused, unlike the appellant, who was caught with stolen items at the scene—Court reiterated that each accused's liability is assessed based on individual evidence against them—Reliance placed on Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713—Appeal dismissed.(d) Case Law References:• Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State 2020 SCMR 474• Muhammad Ehsan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1857• Farooq Khan v. The State 2008 SCMR 917• Niaz-ud-Din and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 725• Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713

Summary: In this case, Rehmat Ali (the Respondent) filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession for a shop against Manzoor Elahi (the Petitioner). The trial court decreed in favor of the Respondent, and the Petitioner’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the appellate court. The Petitioner then filed this revision petition challenging the trial and appellate courts' judgments on the grounds of maintainability, lawfulness, and procedural adherence. ---- Issues: ---- 1) Is the court required to decide legal issues that were not pressed by the parties? ---- 2) Can the court address general issues barring a suit without specifying the limitation? Is the maintainability issue under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to be dealt with generally? ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Lahore High Court held that: ---- Duty of Courts on Legal Issues: The trial court should address legal issues raised in the pleadings, even if not explicitly pressed, as per Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, which mandates deciding legal issues capable of disposing of the case without requiring evidence. General Issues and Limitation: Courts must consider limitations as per Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, which covers the legal barring of suits, including those based on time limitations, without necessitating separate framing of limitation issues if Order VII Rule 11 is invoked. ---- Maintainability under Order VII Rule 11: Maintainability involves both legal and factual questions, and thus requires evidence to be fully addressed. The trial court erred in dismissing this without proper examination. The court found that the trial court incorrectly dismissed Issue No.4 (pertaining to maintainability) without thorough analysis or evidence review, thus making a legal error. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial court to be reconsidered in accordance with legal procedures. ---- Citations/Precedents: The Province of East Pakistan vs. Hassan Askary (PLD 1971 SC 82) Messrs Zarkhaiz Agro Engineering and Services (Pvt.) LTD. vs. Messrs Sargodha Farms Aids (Pvt.) LTD. (2005 YLR 200) Muhammad Chuttal vs. Ata Muhammad through L.Rs (2007 SCMR 373 SC) Fancy Foundation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (2017 PTD 1687 SC)

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a mother of two minor children, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890, seeking appointment as the guardian of her children after her husband, who was murdered, left behind the minors. Initially, the Family Court appointed her as the guardian of both the person and property of the minors. However, the petitioner’s father-in-law challenged this decision, leading the case to be remanded by the Additional District Judge with directions to implead the father-in-law as a respondent. -----Issues: ---1- Whether the petitioner should remain the appointed guardian of her minor children. ---2- Whether the learned Guardian Judge erred in failing to include the paternal grandfather as a respondent in the initial proceedings. ---3- Whether the Additional District Judge’s remand of the case for further proceedings and the inclusion of the paternal grandfather was legally justified. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the failure to implead the paternal grandfather in the original proceedings was a valid ground for the remand of the case. The Additional District Judge was justified in setting aside the previous decision and remanding the case to the Family Court for a decision on merits after including the paternal grandfather. As a result, the court dismissed the petition, noting the consistent requests for adjournments by the respondents and a lack of merit in their arguments. The court upheld the remand order, directing the Family Court to proceed as per the guidelines set out by the Additional District Judge. -----Citations/Precedents: Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Article 199) ----Quote: ''In presence of mother, the welfare of the minor does not lie elsewhere. Welfare means wordly, moral and spiritual welfare of the minor. Child of tender age feels psychological more secured in the company of mother than anyone else. The amount of love and care which a child receives from the mother cannot be expected from any other relative. Welfare of the minor would be provided by the mother with more devotion and there is no other better institution than a lap of a living mother and there can be no better tutor than mother. Once a brief is accepted by the counsel, he is under legal obligation to appear before the Court and argue the case fairly and justly. Unnecessary and frequent adjournments for no legal or moral justification are unwarranted.''

Summary: The petitioner, Farzana Begum, filed a civil revision to challenge the decisions of the trial and appellate courts, both of which dismissed her suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. She alleged that the respondent, Muhammad Nawaz, had agreed to sell a piece of land to her on 20.06.2009 for a total price of Rs. 8,00,000, of which Rs. 3,25,000 was paid as earnest money. The remaining balance was allegedly paid by the petitioner on 29.09.2010. However, the respondent denied the existence of any sale agreement, claiming that the possession of the land was under a lease arrangement rather than a sale contract. The courts below dismissed the suit, and the petitioner sought relief through this revision. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the petitioner proved the execution of the sale agreement in accordance with the legal requirements under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. --2) Whether the petitioner's failure to produce two attesting witnesses invalidated her claim. ---3) Whether the refusal to allow additional evidence, such as the testimony of a handwriting expert, was proper. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Failure to Prove Agreement: The courts below found that the petitioner failed to prove the existence of the sale agreement as required by Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. She only produced one attesting witness (Abdur Rehman) out of four, but his testimony was discredited because he admitted to being paid to act as a witness and did not witness any payment. --- Non-Production of Attesting Witnesses: The petitioner did not provide any explanation for failing to produce the other three attesting witnesses. The courts held that this failure was significant, as Article 79 mandates the testimony of at least two attesting witnesses to prove the execution of a sale agreement. --- Rejection of Additional Evidence: The appellate court dismissed the petitioner's application to introduce additional evidence, such as the testimony of a handwriting expert. The court ruled that this attempt was made too late and was an effort to fill in gaps in the petitioner’s case. Furthermore, expert testimony was not a substitute for the direct evidence required under Article 79. ---- Expert Testimony: The court emphasized that expert testimony is weak, confirmatory evidence and cannot be used to prove the execution of a document when mandatory requirements, like the production of attesting witnesses, are not fulfilled. The court relied on precedent to conclude that direct evidence should not be replaced by expert opinion, which is not conclusive. ---- Outcome: The civil revision was dismissed. The petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for proving the execution of the sale agreement, and her application for additional evidence was rightly denied. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts were upheld, confirming that no enforceable sale agreement existed. ---- Citations/Precedents: Farid Baksh v. Jind Wadda and others (2015 SCMR 1044) Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through legal heirs and others (PLD 2011 SC 241) Mst. Saadat Sultan and others v. Muhammad Zahur Khan and others (2006 SCMR 193) Qazi Abdul Ali and others v. Khawaja Aftab Ahmad (2015 SCMR 284)

Summary: Background: This case involved multiple taxpayer companies challenging amendments made to Section 65B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (ITO) by the Finance Act, 2019. Section 65B, introduced through the Finance Act, 2010, provided a tax credit of 10% on investments in plant and machinery for industrial undertakings. The Finance Act, 2019 amended the provision, reducing the tax credit from 10% to 5% for the tax year 2019 and shortening the window for claiming the credit. The taxpayer companies argued that these amendments infringed upon their vested rights, as they had already purchased machinery before the amendment, with some installing it later. They sought protection under the earlier version of the law. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the amendments in the Finance Act, 2019, which reduced the tax credit and shortened the eligibility period, could retroactively affect the vested rights of the taxpayers. ---2) Whether the taxpayers' right to the tax credit had crystallized before the amendments, thereby making them protected vested rights. ---3) Whether the amendments violated the fundamental rights of taxpayers under Articles 18, 23, 24, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the amendments in the Finance Act, 2019, though retroactive, were constitutionally valid. The Court reasoned that: The legislature has the power to enact laws with retrospective effect, and such laws can vitiate vested rights unless explicitly protected. In this case, no such protection was provided. The right to claim the tax credit only vested when both the purchase and installation of the machinery had been completed. For those companies that had only purchased but not installed the machinery by the cutoff date, the right to the tax credit had not vested. The amendments did not violate the fundamental rights of the taxpayers under Articles 18, 23, or 24, as they dealt with fiscal matters where the legislature has greater discretion. However, the reduction of the tax credit from 10% to 5% for the tax year 2019 was deemed discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution, as it treated similarly situated taxpayers differently without any rational basis. ---- Citations/Precedents: Haider Automobile v. Pakistan (PLD 1969 SC 623) Molasses Trading v. Federation of Pakistan (1993 SCMR 1905) Jamshaid Gulzar v. Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 1504) Nagina Silk Mill v. Income-Tax Officer (PLD 1963 SC 322) Zila Council Jehlum v. Pakistan Tobacco Company (PLD 2016 SC 398) LDA v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending