Summary: The background involves a suit filed by the respondent in 1993, resulting in a judgment favoring the respondent in 2016, which was challenged by the appellant in the present appeal. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 6,337,455/- as security for the decretal amount.The respondent, citing old age, infirmity, and dire financial need, sought the release of the deposit, offering to furnish a bank guarantee satisfying the court. The respondent's counsel referenced legal precedents supporting the release of deposited amounts subject to adequate security.The appellant's counsel contested the release, arguing potential prejudice to the appeal. The court considered a prior order suggesting the deposit be invested in a government profit-bearing scheme until the appeal's final decision.After reviewing arguments and relevant judgments, the court allowed the application, directing the Nazir to release the decretal amount to the respondent upon the submission of a bank guarantee ensuring the released amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Nazir and validity until the appeal's decision. The arrangement was contingent upon the appeal's final outcome.

Summary: Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that every suit shall be instituted in a Court of lowest grade competent to try it. The primary reason, amongst many, is that a right of appeal may be available before appellate jurisdiction which jurisdiction is asked to exercise concurrent jurisdiction. Concurrent jurisdiction could only be exercised in exceptional cases and circumstances which do not exist here. It could also be exercised when appeal is being heard and orders are required to be passed as being from original court/forum,for exercise of concurrent jurisdiction as in the case of Idara-e-Noore-Haq.

Summary: The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants seeking specific performance, perpetual injunction, and special damages. The plaintiffs had entered into an agreement to purchase the property from the defendants for a total consideration of Rs. 1,76,70,000/-. They had paid an initial amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- at the time of the agreement and an additional sum of Rs. 13,30,000/- in June 2004. The agreement specified that the defendants were to complete the transaction within 15 days, subject to the mutation of the property and the execution of a 99-year lease in their favor. However, the defendants allegedly failed to fulfill their obligations within the stipulated time frame. Legal notices were exchanged between the parties, and the plaintiffs, asserting their readiness to pay the balance sale consideration, filed the present suit. The defendants contended that they had mutated the property in their name and sent a revocation notice to the plaintiffs. The court, after considering the evidence and arguments, directed the defendants to perform their part of the agreement within 30 days or face court-ordered actions. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the significance of specific conditions outlined in the agreement for the sale of immovable property. Additionally, the court clarified the consequences of non-compliance and established a mechanism for the completion of the transaction, involving the execution of a conveyance deed and the possible issuance of a 99-year lease.

Summary: Officers are posted on acting charge---Secretary Local Government says that he will examine the record as to whether Miss Shamona Sadaf is working in BPS-18 or BPS-16 till then he will relieve that lady and will not be posted on that post until the issue is resolved. In case, inquiry speaks that she is having BPS-18 or she is posted on same place on any other post and if she was working in BPS-16 and has been designated BPS-18, delinquent officers including that lady shall face the consequences to be carried out by the authorities.

Summary: For roads, bridges, gas/oil line etc. most precious lands were/are being acquired or intercepted in between to have a shortest distance to minimize the cost of that project, but we do not realize that while doing so we are not only destroying fertile/ agriculture land but so also risking our future. This acquisition is normally based on feasibility report of that particular project but there is no realization that for providing some convenience or low cost project, precious land is being destroyed, which is far more important for our future than the convenience and low cost project. The project may cost less but consequences would be detrimental. We are living in a world where natural resources such as fertile land is being vacuumed up by development of concrete structure and this would count a lot in future and no one would come for our rescue when we have to yield our own food for our own consumption. In this case land was attached with the research based agriculture department of Sindh which caters for not only fruit crop but other agri products as well. The authorities responsible for identifying this land have not applied their mind at all and in an attempt to please, the most fertile land of the province had been provided for an object which could conveniently be achieved on non-agriculture land, subject to law. Blanket recommendation was forwarded by the Committee constituted for the aforesaid purpose and without identifying the reasons of disassociating the land with the agriculture based research department, they have made this land available for a scheme called Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Town. The recommendation of the Committee and the action of the authority is neither transparent nor lawful but in fact a mala fide attempt to usurp the most precious and fertile land of district Mirpurkhas where research is being conducted. The provincial government should have emphasized to uplift the research system of the agriculture department and steered the progress by maintaining it rather than to ignore the research based system. They could always find the land anywhere else and provide resources and amenities for dwellers where the land could be developed by land developers. The performance of Ministry of Agriculture to save the land was half-hearted and they only presented themselves as marionette since they have not taken action against usurpation of their land. If we really want to protect the agricultural lands and to promote sustainable agrarian growth for the future, large scale basic reforms and legislation are needed.

Summary: Ouster clause in Section 227(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 Suit against show cause notice Plaint rejected.

Summary: The Defendant issues / has issued the cheques in favour of Plaintiffs, but the same upon presentation could not be encashed because of closure of account, then this conduct on the part of Defendant is a mala fide one and is done with a dishonest intention to defraud the Plaintiffs. Hence, suit is decreed.

Summary: 1. A simple suit for declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act regarding possession without claiming title to property is incompetent2. Khasra Girdawari is not a title document nor can be relied upon to claim title or possession.

Summary: ["Criminal Trial (Discrepancies and contradictions )"] It seems that most of the grounds which persuaded learned Division Bench to acquit the said accused, are common in nature and they are also applicable to the case of present appellant. For instance, (i) violation of the provisions of Section 103 Cr. P.C., as discussed in paras 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment; (ii) non-production of arrival and departure entries by police officials, as discussed in para 23 of the judgment; (iii) extension of benefit of doubt to the accused as discussed in paras 24, 25, 26 and 30 of the judgment and (iv) although there being cross-firing during alleged police encounter, no injury/scratch was caused to the police officials or the complainant party.

Summary: The petitioner sought the regularization of his service in the District Municipal Corporation (DMC) West, claiming initial contractual employment as a cooly with an extension for 89 days, as per a letter.During the hearing, the court raised concerns about the petition's maintainability due to the absence of a clear extension of the petitioner's contractual service by DMC West. The petitioner's counsel argued that, according to the rules, the petitioner is presumed to be on DMC West's payroll in the absence of a relieving letter. Additionally, he cited Section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013.The court examined the facts and concluded that the appointment letter explicitly stated the contractual nature of the petitioner's service, initially for 89 days, with an extension for another 89 days. The service record did not provide information on whether the contract was further extended, and there was no vacancy for the petitioner's position, making regularization contingent on the availability of a vacancy. The petitioner's appointment was made after the enactment of the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, rendering his case ineligible under Section 3 of the Act.Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating that no grounds for the regularization of the petitioner's service were established. However, the petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the competent authority for the continuation of his contractual post, subject to legal procedures within a reasonable time.