Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (SRA), which was decreed in her favor on 02.02.2021. This judgment was upheld by the Appellate Court and the Lahore High Court. During the execution proceedings, the respondents (judgment debtors) filed an objection petition claiming the decree had become inexecutable because they had become co-sharers in the khata/khewat where the disputed property is located. The Executing Court dismissed their objection, but the Appellate Court allowed their appeal, declaring the decree inexecutable. ----Issues: 1- Whether a decree for possession against an illegal occupant becomes inexecutable if the occupant purchases a share from a co-sharer in the joint khata/khewat during the execution proceedings. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Appellate Court’s Error: The Lahore High Court held that the Appellate Court erred in making the decree inexecutable based on the respondents' purchase of a share in the joint khata/khewat. --Validity of the Decree: The decree dated 02.02.2021 remained valid and executable despite the respondents' new status as co-sharers. The High Court emphasized that the respondents could seek partition through a fresh suit, but the existing decree could not be nullified by their subsequent purchase. --Exception to General Rule: The High Court noted that the specific portion of the property in question was clearly defined in the decree, making it an exception to the general rule where undetermined shares in joint property might render a decree inexecutable. The High Court allowed the civil revision, set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 21.04.2022, and restored the order of the Executing Court dated 24.02.2022. The decree for possession was held to be executable despite the respondents' subsequent purchase of a share in the joint khata/khewat. The respondents were directed to seek any further remedy through partition proceedings if necessary. ----Citations/Precedents: Allah Ditta v. Ahmed Ali Shah and others (2003 SCMR 1202) Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Abbas Tamanna and others [2015 CLC 89 (Lahore)] Muhammad Aslam (Through his L.R.) v. Wazir Muhammad (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 46) Dilshad Begum v. Mst. Nisar Akhtar (2012 SCMR 1106) Nazir Ahmed v. Mst. Sardar Bibi & others (1989 SCMR 913) Ramdas v. Sitabai and others [(2009) 7 SCC 444]

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11) Undisputedly, IPO is subsequent in time and following the rule laid down in the aforementioned Decisions, the present Lis and issues agitated therein is triable by the Tribunal [in accordance with law], established and functioning under the IPO. Consequently, this Application is treated as the one for return of plaint rather rejecting it. Accordingly accepted. Plaint is returned.

Summary: [Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (Section 31 (7))] In light of the foregoing, we reach to an irresistible conclusion that the exercise of passing monthly FCA on to the petitioners on the basis of NEPRAs determination dated 27.12.2019 is in accordance with law and the timeline provided under Section 31(7) of the Act, 1997 be adhered to, unless any party is restricted for a reason beyond its control, which is a case at hand. The Petitioners clearly failed to avail statutory remedies under the law while the impugned determination was being made and even thereafter, nonetheless there is no cavil that the petitioners owe FCA component to K-Electric and liable to satisfy this debt. These instant Petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.

Summary: The appellant in both appeals is Ali Ahmed alias Khatiya, who was convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court for various offenses.The court found the appellant guilty of several offenses, including under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), and the Sindh Arms Act. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment and fines for these offenses. The court then discusses mitigating circumstances presented by the defense, including the fact that the appellant is the main breadwinner for a large family and is not a previous convict. Taking these factors into account, the court decides to reduce the sentences imposed on the appellant while keeping some fines and penalties intact. The court specifies the new sentences and fines for the various charges. The court orders that all sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently and that the appellant will have the benefit of 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Summary: [TRADE MARK, Takaful Rules, 2012 (Rule 2)] Section 39 of the Trademark Ordinance, 2001 relates to the rightsconferred by registration whereas Section 40 of the Ordinance deals with the infringement of the registered trademark. In terms of Section 40 subsection 3(c) of the Ordinance a person shall infringe a registered trademark if the person uses in the course of a trade a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trademark in relation to services of the same description as that of service in respect of which a trademark is registered. The proposition thus appears to be simple that service which is being dealt with by both the plaintiff and the defendant whether is of same description or otherwise to attract the provisions as referred above. I may refer to the international classification of goods and services and it seems that it is being dealt with by class-36 and there is no dispute in this regard as the defendant himself chooses to apply under the same class. The defence that they have been dealing with takaful business would not turn much as it is being dealt with by the same classification

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of the victim under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to death. The trial court also imposed a compensation amount of Rs. 300,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The incident occurred due to a domestic dispute, where the appellant allegedly shot and killed the victim. The appellant filed an appeal against the conviction, while the State referred the case for confirmation of the death sentence. -----Issues: 1- Was the prosecution able to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellant for the murder of the victim? 2- Is the conviction and death sentence justified based on the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and death sentence of the appellant were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charge of murder, and the death sentence reference was answered in the negative. There were significant contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, particularly concerning the events leading to the shooting, the number of shots fired, and the presence of the accused at the scene. The medical evidence did not align with the prosecution's version of events, creating doubt about the cause and manner of the victim's death. There was a delay in reporting the incident and conducting the post-mortem examination, which further cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The recovery of the alleged murder weapon was deemed inconsequential due to the lack of corroborative evidence linking it to the crime. The court also found inconsistencies in the motive alleged by the prosecution, weakening the overall case against the appellant. The appellant was acquitted, and the conviction was overturned due to reasonable doubt. The death sentence was not confirmed. -----Citations/Precedents: Irshad Ahmed v. The State (2011 SCMR 1193) Rohtas Khan v. The State (2010 SCMR 566)

Summary: Background: Petitioners, as co-owners of a suit property, filed a suit for permanent injunction against Mehboob Khan (deceased), represented by his legal heirs, seeking protection of their proprietary and possessory rights. The respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it was barred by law and not maintainable. The trial court accepted the application and dismissed the suit, a decision that was upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal. The petitioners then filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC. ----Issues: Whether a suit for injunction simpliciter can be instituted by a co-owner/co-sharer without seeking partition. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Precedent and Legal Principles: The court reviewed relevant case law, including Ali Gohar Khan v. Sher Ayaz (1989 SCMR 130), Akhtar Nawaz Khan v. Danial Khan (NLR 1995 SCJ 169), Muhammad Rafiq v. Sardar (2004 SCMR 1036), and others, establishing that a co-sharer cannot change the nature of joint property or raise construction without the consent of other co-sharers. --Suit for Injunction by Co-owner: The court held that a co-owner can file a suit for injunction to protect their rights if another co-owner attempts to change the nature of the property or threaten their possessory rights. This suit is maintainable without necessarily seeking partition first. --Incorrect Application of Law: The trial court and the appellate court erred in dismissing the suit as not maintainable under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The revision petition was allowed. The orders of the trial court and appellate court were set aside. The suit was reinstated and directed to be decided afresh by the Senior Civil Judge (Civil Division), Rawalpindi, or any other competent court. ----Citations/Precedents: Ali Gohar Khan v. Sher Ayaz (1989 SCMR 130) Akhtar Nawaz Khan v. Danial Khan (NLR 1995 SCJ 169) Muhammad Rafiq v. Sardar (2004 SCMR 1036) Ashiq Hussain v. Prof. Muhammad Aslam (2004 MLD 1844) Fazal v. Ghulam Muhammad (2003 SCMR 999) Mst. Roshan Ara Begum v. Muhammad Banaras (2016 YLR 1300) Mst. Sanobar Sultan v. Obaidullah Khan (PLD 2009 SC 71)

Summary: Background: The petitioners owned 75 Kanals and 14 Marlas of land in Chunian, District Kasur. The Military Lands & Cantonments authorities (Respondents No. 2 to 4) took possession of this land without following legal procedures such as acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or executing a lease agreement. Despite multiple applications and correspondence with the authorities, the petitioners were neither compensated nor had their land returned. They filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, seeking the acquisition process to be completed or possession of their land to be restored. -----Issues: Whether the respondent authorities are justified in holding the petitioners' land without proper acquisition or compensation. Whether the petitioners are entitled to either the return of their land or appropriate compensation, including rent for the period of possession. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court allowed the petition. The court noted that under Islamic law and Pakistan's Constitution (Articles 23, 24, and 38), private property cannot be taken without proper compensation or following legal procedures. The respondents admitted to possessing the petitioners' land but failed to complete the acquisition process due to financial constraints. The court cited Article 227 of the Constitution, emphasizing the supremacy of Quranic and Sunnah principles that prohibit the forcible taking of property without compensation. The court referenced previous judgments where similar cases of unlawful possession of private land by the government were resolved in favor of the petitioners, directing compensation or return of land. The respondents were directed to complete the acquisition process within three months or restore the petitioners' land. Additionally, the respondents must pay rent/lease payments from the time they took possession until the land is acquired or returned. -----Citations/Precedents: Province of Punjab through Secretary Irrigation, Govt. of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others vs. Abdur Rehman Shaukat (1999 SCMR 2610) District Officer Revenue, Kasur vs. Abdul Rehmat Shaukat (2006 SCMR 188) Nasirabad Properties Ltd. vs. Chittagong Development Authority and others (PLD 1966 Dhaka 472) Mst. Mukhtiar Fatima vs. Deputy Commissioner, Multan and 2 others (1997 MLD 1792) Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate vs. Cantonment Executive Officer, Chunian, District Kasur and another (PLD 2009 Lahore 240) Muhammad Saleem Chaudhry vs. Defence Housing Authority, Commercial Area through Secretary and 4 others (2009 MLD 720)

Summary: Background: In this case, the petitioners, who are the paternal grandparents and father of four minors (two sons and two daughters), challenged the decision of the lower court, which awarded custody of the two minor daughters to their mother, the respondent. The mother had initially filed for custody, which was denied by the Senior Civil Judge (Family Division), Gujrat. Upon appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, partly allowed her request by granting custody of the daughters while retaining the custody of the sons with the father. The petitioners sought to retain custody of all four minors, arguing that separating the daughters from their siblings and themselves would negatively impact their well-being. -----Issues: 1- Whether the mother is entitled to custody of the minor daughters despite the children living with their paternal family for years. 2- Whether the father’s financial superiority and living abroad should be a determining factor in custody decisions. 3- Whether separating the daughters from their siblings would harm their emotional and mental development. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court upheld the decision of the Additional District Judge, maintaining that the mother should have custody of the minor daughters while the minor sons would remain with the father. Under Islamic law and the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, the mother is generally entitled to custody (Hizanat) of her minor daughters until they reach puberty unless she is disqualified due to remarriage or other legal reasons. In this case, the mother had not remarried and was not legally disqualified. The welfare of the minor daughters was deemed to lie with the mother, as they were at a tender age where maternal care was crucial. The father, while having better financial means, did not personally appear to argue that custody with him was in the best interest of the children. The court emphasized that the father’s financial ability to provide for the children did not outweigh the importance of the mother’s role in the daughters' upbringing. The court also noted that the father could provide financial support for the daughters’ education and well-being, even if they lived with their mother. Regarding the petitioners’ argument about the emotional attachment of the minors to their paternal family and siblings, the court found that the daughters’ relationship with their mother was more important for their psychological and emotional development. The court dismissed the idea that separating them from their siblings would cause more harm than being separated from their mother. The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the minors' wishes should be given weight, noting that at their young age, they might not be able to make decisions without external influence. The court also ordered that the minors should not be taken outside Pakistan without permission, as there was a risk of the father permanently relocating them abroad, which could undermine the mother’s visitation and custody rights. The petition was dismissed, and the mother retained custody of her daughters. The petitioners were ordered to hand over custody within two weeks, with the involvement of the Social Welfare Department if necessary. Additionally, the minors' names were placed on the Exit Control List to prevent removal from Pakistan without court permission. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Shaista Naz v. Muhammad Nadeem Ahmed (2004 SCMR 990) Mst. Beena vs. Raja Muhammad and others (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 508) Mst. Tahira vs. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and others (1990 SCMR 852) Mir Bat Khan vs. Mst. Shirin Bibi and others (2019 SCMR 520) Muhammad Nadeem Qadir v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (2012 SCMR 609)

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Recovery of Earnest Money and Damages), Tort Law] Suit for Recovery of Earnest Money and Damages decreed. The defendant had not any authority from the owner of the apartment for its sale, hence, the defendant through misrepresentation and fraud, induced the plaintiff in paying the amount of rupees fifty thousand towards part payment/earnest money for sale of apartment. The Defendant no. 1 was directed to pay the earnest money and the damages of rupees five hundred thousand to the plaintiff.