Summary: Section 100, Order XVIII CPC --- Article 17, 47, 79, 117, 118 and 127 of Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984 --- After de-consolidation of suit and framing of fresh issues regarding divergent assertion/pleading of the adverse parties than plaintiffs were placed under onus to prove their case through affirmative, corroborative & trustworthy evidence as per law and mere tendering in evidence the statement of witness recorded in another suit cannot be considered as a valid prove of the issue, whereas party under onus was to prove issue / stance afresh according to the parameters of rule of proof.

Summary: In view of the above, the applicant / accused Gul Hassan son of Muhammad Hassan has made out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 14.07.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. This bail application is allowed in the above terms.

Summary: [Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (Section 3)] There can be no denial to the fact that learned Official Assignee was directed by a competent court of law for taking re-possession of subject matter. The legality of competence of the Civil Court in issuing such directions cant be discussed by this Court while exercising Criminal Jurisdiction but what can safely be said is that such action of re-possession was, undeniably, under a lawful authority hence no offence within meaning of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005.

Summary: (Companies Ordinance, 1984)-----It is not a question of embarking upon the jurisdiction, but aquestion which involves adjudication of issues before this Court. Thequestion of overlapping is also not tenable as the title of these sharesis not subjudice before Senior Civil Judge at Multan. I may howeverobserve that the District Judge may pass its own independent orderand any observation here shall not influence proceedings before anyother forum including trial of Suit No.54 of 2013.

Summary: Test for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC.

Summary: Background: A decree for recovery of maintenance allowance was issued against a deceased individual on 06.12.2008. The decree was upheld by the courts, including the High Court, following the dismissal of a writ petition on 29.06.2010. After this, the judgment debtor transferred his property through two mutations in September and October 2010 based on alleged gifts. The petitioners, who were owed the maintenance allowance, filed an application before the Executing Court to cancel these property transfers and recover the decretal amount. The Executing Court allowed this application, but the respondents appealed, and the appellate court overturned the decision. This revision petition was then filed. ----Issues: 1- Whether the transfers of property through mutations by the deceased judgment debtor were valid or were intended to frustrate the enforcement of the maintenance decree. 2- Whether the Executing Court had the authority to cancel the mutations and recover the decretal amount. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the appellate court's judgment and restoring the Executing Court's order. The court determined that the transfers of property made by the judgment debtor after the decree was passed were an attempt to frustrate the enforcement of the decree. The court referenced a Supreme Court decision that had declared similar transactions as "sham transactions," meant to deprive a minor of her legal entitlement to maintenance. Therefore, the Executing Court had the authority to cancel the illegal mutations, and the appellate court erred in overturning that decision. ----Citations/Precedents: Amjad Iqbal v. Mst. Nida Sohail and others (2015 SCMR 128)

Summary: Background: This case involves a dispute over the authenticity of signatures and thumb impressions on mutations of property between legal heirs. The petitioner, a beneficiary of the disputed mutations, filed an application requesting the comparison of thumb impressions/signatures of two witnesses, who denied attesting the documents. The Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge dismissed this application. The petitioner challenged these decisions in the Lahore High Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the courts erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application for comparison of thumb impressions/signatures of the witnesses. 2- Whether the comparison of thumb impressions/signatures is necessary to reach a just and fair conclusion regarding the disputed mutations. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner’s application by the lower courts was incorrect. The court emphasized that when the authenticity of signatures or thumb impressions is challenged, it is necessary to allow a comparison to aid the court in reaching a just decision. The court reasoned that such a comparison would not cause undue delay and is essential for establishing the truth. Consequently, the orders of the lower courts were set aside, and the trial court was directed to carry out the comparison of thumb impressions/signatures and conclude the case expeditiously. -----Citations/Precedents: Ghulam Haider v. Fateh Muhammad (2005 MLD 1501) Mst. Nusrat Bibi v. Muhammad Ashraf Mehr and others (2007 YLR 41) Sarfraz v. Khizer Hayat and another (2008 YLR 818) Muhaar v. Muhammad Yousaf and others (2010 MLD 1745) Abdul Haq and others v. Iftikhar Ahmad and others (2017 MLD 1792) Shabbir Ahmed and others v. Cholistan Development Authority and others (2020 CLC 243) Wali Muhammad Khan and another v. Mst. Amina and others (2018 SCMR 2080) Nazir Abbas through L.Rs. v. Ghulam Muhammad through L.Rs. (2017 CLC 996) Mst. Akhtar Begum v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (2009 SCMR 264) Syed Sharif Ul Hassan through L.Rs. v. Hafiz Muhammad Amin and others (2012 SCMR 1258) Zafar Ullah Khan v. Mst. Hakim Bibi and another (2000 YLR 2789) Talib Hussain v. Additional District Judge etc. (PLJ 2014 Lahore 193) Syed Akbar Hussain through L.Rs. and another v. Mst. Naziran Begum and another (2014 CLC 1760) Lal Din v. Muhammad Saleem (deceased) through L.Rs. and others (2019 CLD 894)

Summary: Background: The case revolves around a dispute concerning the ownership of land donated for public use. The petitioner and respondent were real brothers who collectively donated 7 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land for the construction of a dispensary. The land was gifted to the government in 1966. Later, the government required land for a new Basic Health Unit (BHU), and the respondent alone donated 12 Kanals for this purpose. A resolution was passed by the District Council to return the previously donated land to the respondent in exchange for his donation of land for the BHU. The dispute arose when the petitioner later challenged this transfer and sought to correct the mutation in proportion to their original shares. ----Issues: 1- Whether the entire suit property, originally donated jointly by the petitioner and the respondent, could be lawfully transferred back to the respondent alone in exchange for his donation for the BHU. 2- Whether the orders passed by revenue officials correcting the mutation in favor of the petitioner were lawful. 3- Whether the challenge to the mutation by the petitioner was barred by limitation. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the land was donated for a limited purpose (the dispensary) and, once the purpose was extinguished, the land should revert back to the original donors in proportion to their shares. The court found that the donation of 12 Kanals of land by the respondent for the BHU was voluntary and not in exchange for the earlier donated land. Therefore, the respondent had no right to claim the entire suit property. The orders passed by the revenue authorities correcting the mutation in favor of the petitioner were lawful, as they ensured the return of the property in proportion to the original donation. The court also held that the challenge to the mutation was not barred by limitation since the petitioner applied for correction under the relevant provision of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, which did not have a prescribed limitation period. ----Citations/Precedents: Limitation Act, 1908: Article 14 concerning challenges to government officer orders. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967: Section 166, allowing correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in mutations. Dildar Ahmad and others v. Member (Judicial-III) BOR, Punjab, Lahore and another (2013 SCMR 906): Pertaining to the correction of mutations and wide jurisdiction of revenue authorities. Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Muhammad Khan and others (2005 SCMR 710): Discussing the two types of gifts (corpus and usufruct) in Islamic law. Abdul Rehman and others v. Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur and others (2009 YLR 753): Holding that conditional gifts remain subject to the conditions attached. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973: Articles 23 and 24 regarding protection of property rights.

Summary: Background: An Intra Court Appeal was filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 against an order by a Single Judge that allowed a writ petition. The respondent had applied for the position of Assistant Superintendent Jail (BS-16) and achieved a competitive exam ranking of 13th among successful candidates. However, the respondent was denied an appointment due to not meeting the eyesight requirements set forth in the job criteria. After a failed representation to the authorities, the respondent challenged the validity of both the rejection and the relevant prison rule regarding eyesight standards. -----Issues: 1- Whether the eyesight requirement (6/6 without glasses) stipulated in Rule 1042(C) of the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 is constitutional. 2- Whether the Single Judge overstepped judicial authority by interfering with the executive’s prerogative to set eligibility criteria for public service positions. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge's order was set aside. The court held that: The respondent did not successfully demonstrate that Rule 1042(C) violated Article 18 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to engage in lawful professions, provided statutory qualifications are met. The judiciary should exercise caution and not infringe upon the executive's authority to determine eligibility criteria for positions. The required eyesight standard is a legitimate criterion necessary for the role. The court cited several precedents emphasizing the importance of respecting the autonomy of the employing institution and the separation of powers. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through LRs v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi (1991 SCMR 2300) Mst. Rehmat and others v. Mst. Zubaida Begum and others (2021 SCMR 1534) Government of the Punjab, Food Department through Secretary Food & Another v. Messrs United Sugar Mills Limited & Another (2008 SCMR 1148) Lahore Development Authority through D.G and others v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others (2015 SCMR 1739) Chief Executive Officer, Multan Electric Power Company Ltd. Khanewal Road, Multan v. Muhammad Ilyas and others (2021 SCMR 775) Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 157) The Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and others v. Aamir Hayat and others (2019 SCMR 124) Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others v. Hayat Hussain and others (2016 SCMR 1021) Waqas Aslam & others v. Lahore Electric Supply Company Limited (Civil Petition No.4806 of 2019)

Summary: Petition pertains to the current issue of Corona Virus (COVID-19)