Summary: Section 115 CPC --- Section 27 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 & Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Property purchased through sale mutation despite having knowledge of earlier agreement of the same land by the vendor with another person ---- such subsequent vendee is not a bona file purchaser and is dis-entitled for protection of Section 27 of The Specific Relief Act as well as Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act ---- The alternate prayer made by plaintiff seeking compensation for breach of contract cannot be termed as withdrawal of his claim for specific performance under Section 19 & 20 of The Specific Relief Act.

Summary: Background: This case involves a dispute over land ownership based on conflicting sale deeds. The Plaintiffs claimed ownership of a piece of land in Mouza Siwag, later divided into Chak No. 99/TDA and Chak No. 99-B/TDA, through a sale deed executed in 1957 (the "First Sale Deed"). The Defendants, however, contested this ownership, citing a subsequent sale deed executed in 1975 (the "Second Sale Deed"), which transferred the same land to them. The Trial Court initially dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim, but the Appellate Court reversed that decision and decreed in favor of the Plaintiffs. This civil revision petition was filed to challenge the Appellate Court's judgment. -----Issues: 1- Whether the First Sale Deed of 1957 was valid, and thus the Plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the disputed land. 2- Whether the Second Sale Deed of 1975 and the subsequent mutations were valid or inoperative against the Plaintiffs’ rights. 3- Whether the civil revision petition was time-barred. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to prove the validity, execution, and authenticity of the First Sale Deed. Key evidence required to establish the validity of the First Sale Deed, such as the original document, testimonies of witnesses, and appropriate proof under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, was missing. The certified copy of the First Sale Deed could not be admitted without fulfilling the legal requirements for secondary evidence. Therefore, the Second Sale Deed and the subsequent mutations were deemed valid. The Court also addressed the issue of limitation, condoning a four-day delay in filing the civil revision petition based on the discretionary and corrective nature of revisional jurisdiction. As a result, the civil revision petition was allowed, the judgment of the Appellate Court was set aside, and the Trial Court’s decision dismissing the Plaintiffs' suit was reinstated. -----Citations/Precedents: Farman Ali v. Muhammad Ishaq and others (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 392) Chief Executive, PESCO Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others v. Afnan Khan and another (2021 SCMR 2100) Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749) Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah and others v. Asghar Hussain Shah and others (2007 SCMR 1884) Syed Mansoor Ahmad v. Mst. Maqbool Begum and others (1990 SCMR 1259) Amirzada Khan and others v. Ahmad Noor and others (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 410)

Summary: Background: This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Khushab, and Civil Judge Class-I, Noorpur Thal, regarding the inheritance rights of a woman (referred to as “respondent”), a descendant of the deceased, Janan Khan. The dispute centered on the property owned by Janan Khan, with the petitioners (his other heirs) contending that the respondent was not entitled to a share. The respondent sought a declaration that inheritance mutations relating to the legacy of Janan Khan had been illegally sanctioned, excluding her predecessor, Walayat Khatoon, from the estate. -----Issues: 1- Whether the suit was time-barred. 2- Whether the inheritance mutations were valid and in accordance with the law, or whether they were based on fraud and misrepresentation, depriving the respondent of her rightful inheritance. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Limitation: The court rejected the argument that the suit was time-barred, noting that the respondent had no knowledge of the disputed mutations and initiated the suit promptly upon learning of the alleged fraud. It emphasized that limitation could not bar someone from claiming their rightful inheritance if fraud was involved. Validity of Mutations: The court found that the respondent, as the legal heir of Walayat Khatoon, was entitled to a share in Janan Khan’s property. The petitioners had consistently argued that Walayat Khatoon was not Janan Khan's daughter, but the relationship was conceded during the hearing. The court held that the petitioners could not later argue that she was disinherited under customary law, particularly as they had not raised this defense earlier. The court emphasized that the estate should devolve according to Shariat law, which grants daughters inheritance rights. The petition was dismissed, and the judgment of the lower courts was affirmed, recognizing the respondent’s entitlement to her share of the property. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. J-I.V.V71-IN and others v. Mst. TAGGI through L.Rs. and others (PLD 2006 SC 322) Shahro and others v. Mst. Fatima and others (PLD 1998 SC 1512) Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1)

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11) Performance of the later agreement executedbetween plaintiff and defendant No.1, cannot be undertaken to beadjudicated by the Banking Court and/or could be denied. Even at theexecution stage in a banking case, if in this suit prima facie case is madeout while hearing injunction application the defendant No.1 can berestrained from executing any conveyance deed.

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC ( Suit for Recovery. Decreed.)] Two Suits i-e, Suit for Recovery filed by the plaintiff and suit for Declaration, Cancellation and Damages filed by the defendants were decided in a single judgment. The Suit of Plaintiff was decreed whereas the Suit of defendant was dismissed.

Summary: Criminal Revision (Revision is Transferred to Federal Shariat Court as Conviction Passed 2 Years and this court has no Jurisdiction .)

Summary: Appeal Dismissed---The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, who had convicted him under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the murder of Waseem. Bilal was sentenced to death, subject to confirmation by the High Court. He was also ordered to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The document includes the summary of the case proceedings, including the hearing date, order date, and the arguments presented by both the appellant's and the prosecution's counsels. The main points of contention in the case were the nature of the offense committed by Bilal (whether intentional murder or accidental shooting) and the appropriate section of the PPC under which he should be convicted. After examining the evidence, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and the appellant's statement, the High Court modified the conviction from section 302(b) to section 302(c) of the PPC. The Court found that the evidence suggested that Bilal's action was not premeditated but rather an unintentional act that led to the death of the victim. The Court then sentenced Bilal to fifteen years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered him to pay compensation to the deceased's legal heirs. The Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and made a negative reference to the confirmation of the death sentence.

Summary: Background: In this case, Newage Cables (Pvt.) Ltd. filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, challenging the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The Single Judge had dismissed Newage Cables' constitutional petition, which sought to set aside a repeat order issued by the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) concerning a purchase order for the supply of ACSR Conductor Osprey. -----Issues: 1- Whether the repeat order issued by LESCO was beyond the stipulated six-month period provided in the Letter of Intent. 2- Whether the repeat order was valid under the terms of the contract and the special conditions set forth in the Letter of Intent. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Validity of the Repeat Order: The court held that the repeat order was valid. The provision in the Letter of Intent allowed LESCO to increase or decrease the quantity of goods within six months of the issuance of the purchase order or during the currency of the contract, whichever is later. Since the repeat order was placed on 16.11.2018, which was within six months of the purchase order dated 18.05.2018, it was deemed lawful. Distinguishing the Previous Case: The appellant referred to a previous case (W.P.No. 19629 of 2021), where the court granted relief in similar circumstances. However, the court clarified that the facts of that case were different, as the repeat order there was placed beyond six months of the initial purchase order. In the present case, the repeat order was issued within the allowed timeframe, and the argument based on the earlier case was not applicable. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no misreading or jurisdictional defect in the decision of the learned Single Judge. -----Citations/Precedents: W.P.No. 19629 of 2021 (Referenced but distinguished in this case)

Summary: 1. Decision of learned Larger Bench in order to clear a serious disparity and conflict between views of two learned Single Benches of this Court regarding transfer of execution petitions in family matters. 2. It is held in this judgment that the learned Judge Family Court has the same powers as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) to transfer the execution proceedings and execute the decree in question.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan challenging the judgments and decrees of the Family Court, Phalia, and the Additional District Judge, Phalia. These judgments partially decreed a suit for dissolution of marriage, recovery of maintenance, and dowry articles filed by the respondents. The Family Court had ordered the petitioner to pay maintenance for the minors at the rate of Rs.20,000 per month per child and maintenance for the respondent (the wife) during the Iddat period. The petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the Family Court, arguing that the minors were born and residing in Italy, making the cause of action for their maintenance outside Pakistan's jurisdiction. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court in Phalia had jurisdiction to hear the case regarding maintenance, given that the minors and the petitioner were residing in Italy. 2- Whether the maintenance decree issued by the Family Court and upheld by the Additional District Judge was valid. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Jurisdiction: The court found that the Family Court in Phalia did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The minors were born and resided in Italy, where both parents had lived since shortly after their marriage. The cause of action for the maintenance, including expenses for food, accommodation, health, and education, arose in Italy. The court noted that Italy, as a welfare state, provided substantial support for minor citizens, which should have been considered when determining the quantum of maintenance. Since the cause of action arose outside Pakistan, the courts in Italy were deemed to have jurisdiction, and the suit for maintenance in Pakistan was not maintainable. Judgment: The court set aside the judgments and decrees of the Family Court and the Additional District Judge, dismissing the suit for maintenance for lack of jurisdiction. -----Citations/Precedents: Shahdad Khan v. Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi and another (2014 CLC 1238) Major Muhammad Khalid Karim v. Mst. Saadia Yaqub and others (PLD 2012 SC 66) Muhammad Younas v. Shahzad Qamar & others (NLR 1982 CLJ 35)