Summary: The suit instituted for specific performance was dismissed by the Trial Court but the Appellate Court below upended the findings. During this period, the respondent never tendered payment of balance sale consideration, which was about 96% of the total sale amount, while he continued to enjoy the possession. Held: A meagre amount of Rs.100,000/- was paid as earnest money and the possession of the suit property was also taken over by the respondent whereafter the respondent continued to retain both the possession of suit property as well as the 96% of total sale consideration, which in the opinion of this Court is inequitable, on the part of the respondent. Inequity perpetuated when neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court below directed the respondent to deposit the balance consideration, at the time of entertaining the suit or admitting the appeal preferred by him, in addition to the fact that the respondent never showed his willingness to deposit the balance sale consideration. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Appellate Court below, which needs to be corrected by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The finding of the Trial Court was upheld as the agreement stood proved, however, the respondent was directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.2,000,000/- on the basis of the principle that who seeks equity must do equity.

Summary: Proceedings for recovery of electricity dues as arrears of land revenue not permissible unless the liability of a person to pay such dues is established through process provided by law from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Summary: 1048Regular First Appeal (R.F.A) (Final Decree) 31423/21 Govt of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence etc Vs Muhammad Sharif etc Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi 29- 05- 2024 2024 LHC 3195 PLD 2024 Lahore 467

Summary: The suit instituted for specific performance was dismissed by the Trial Court but the Appellate Court below upended the findings. During this period, the respondent never tendered payment of balance sale consideration, which was about 96% of the total sale amount, while he continued to enjoy the possession. Held: A meagre amount of Rs.100,000/- was paid as earnest money and the possession of the suit property was also taken over by the respondent whereafter the respondent continued to retain both the possession of suit property as well as the 96% of total sale consideration, which in the opinion of this Court is inequitable, on the part of the respondent. Inequity perpetuated when neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court below directed the respondent to deposit the balance consideration, at the time of entertaining the suit or admitting the appeal preferred by him, in addition to the fact that the respondent never showed his willingness to deposit the balance sale consideration. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Appellate Court below, which needs to be corrected by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The finding of the Trial Court was upheld as the agreement stood proved, however, the respondent was directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.2,000,000/- on the basis of the principle that who seeks equity must do equity. 1047Civil Revision 20763/24 Iftikhar Ahmad Vs Muhammad Anwar etc Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi 30- 05- 2024 2024 LHC 2864 2024 CLC 1735 (Lahore)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 452, 336, 337-A(i), 506(ii), 504, 147, 148 & 149---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, itlaf-i-salahiyat-i-udw, shajjah-i-khafifah, criminal intimidation, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged that they while armed with deadly weapons entered into the house of complainant party and injured the brother of complainant---Complainant, injured witness as well as all other eye-witnesses of the incident had fully explained the date, time, place of incident, manner of occurrence and involvement of the appellants---From the perusal of the evidence of the injured/eye-witnesses and other private witnesses, it appeared that they could not be termed as chance witnesses but rather would fall within the category of natural witnesses---From the appreciation of evidence, it was crystal clear that the prosecution remained successful in bringing cogent and unimpeachable direct evidence well supported and corroborated by the medical version against appellants---Evidence of the witnesses and injured witness could not be discarded merely because they were close relatives inter-se particularly since their presence at the place of occurrence was obvious as the incident took place in the house of the complainant party and in broad daylight---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Direct evidence---Scope---Direct evidence is material to decide the fact and to prove the charge---Insufficient, contradictory, discrepant direct evidence is deemed inadequate to hold a criminal charge as not proved but where direct evidence remains in the field and is natural and confidence inspiring then the requirement of independent corroboration was only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case. Muhammad Ihsan v. The State 2006 SCMR 1857 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Minor contradictions---Scope---Where the prosecution establishes its case beyond a reasonable doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confident inspiring evidence supported by the medical and circumstantial evidence then if there are some minor contradictions, which are always available in each and every case same may be ignored. Zakir Khan v. The State 1995 SCMR 1793 rel. Mian Taj Muhammad Keerio for Appellants. Shahzado Saleem, Additional P.G. Sindh for the State. Muhammad Yaseen Khaskheli for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 20th May, 2024. Judgment Amjad Ali Sahito, J .--- This judgment shall dispose of the fate of the instant Criminal Appeal filed by the above-named appellants/accused, assailing the judgment dated 07.12.2023, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khipro, in Sessions Case No.231 of 2021 (Re. The State v. Ghulam Ali and others), the outcome of FIR bearing Crime No.39/2021, offence under Sections 324, 452, 336, 337-A(i), 506(ii), 504, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Khipro, whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section 452, P.P.C.; Accused Ghulam Ali son of Muhammad and Waryam son of Umer are sentenced to undergo R.I for five years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) each and in case of failure of payment of fine, they shall further suffer to undergo S.I for three months more. Under Section 324, P.P.C.; Accused Ghulam Ali son of Muhammad and Waryam son of Umer are sentenced to undergo R.I for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) each and in case of failure of payment of fine, they shall further suffer to undergo S.I for three months more. Under Section 337-A(i), P.P.C.: Accused Waryam son of Umer is sentenced to pay Daman Rs.10,000/- to injured Hakim and in case of failure of payment of Daman he shall suffer S.I for two months. Under Section 336, P.P.C.: Accused Ghulam Ali son of Muhammad is smtenced to pay Arsh Rs.33,78,951/- equivalent to 50% of Diyat to injured Hakim and shall remain S.I till realization the payment of Arsh. Under Section 336, P.P.C.: Accused Waryam son of Umer is sentenced to pay Arsh Rs.33,78,951/- equivalent to 50% of Diyat to injured Hakim and he shall remain S.I till realization of the payment of Arsh. All the sentences awarded to appellants/accused named above shall run concurrently. However, the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C is extended to them. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that two years ago the brother of the complainant namely Akram contracted a love marriage with Mst. Hooran, which annoyed Hooran's uncle Ghulam Ali Bhanbhro. On 06-03-2021, in the daytime, the complainant along with his brother Hakim, nephew Shadi, and sister-in-law Mst. Hooran and other family members were at their house and at about 1115 hours, the accused namely Ghulam Ali and Weryam, armed with desi pistols, Daim holding a hatchet, Shahmir with a lathi, and Hamzo with an iron rod, committed house-trespass by entering into the complainant's house. Upon entering, accused Ghulam Ali caught hold of Mst. Hooran by her arm and asked her to go with him, to which she refused. PW Hakim Ali tried to stop Ghulam Ali, during which time accused Ghulam Ali made straight fire intending to commit the murder of Hakim which hit him at his left arm. Accused Waryam also made a straight fire upon PW Hakim intending to commit his murder, which hit him at his face and head. The complainant party then raised cries, and the accused persons, using abusive language, issued murderous threats and fled away. The injured Hakim was taken to the PS, where they obtained a medical referral letter and then rushed to Taluka Hospital Khipro. He was then referred to Hyderabad for further treatment and later to Karachi. During the course of treatment of the injured in Karachi, the complainant returned and filed an application in court for lodging an FIR, which was lodged against the aforementioned persons. 3. After completion of the usual investigation, the Investigation Officer submitted a report under section 173 Cr.P.C before the competent Court of law and thereafter the case papers were supplied to the accused under receipt. 4. The charge against appellants/ accused was framed at Exh.2, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial vide their plea recorded at Exh.2/A and Ex.2/B respectively. 5. To establish the accusation against the present appellants/accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Complainant Adam at Ex.07 who produced an Order dated 31-03-2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Application No. 80/ 2021 by the Honourable Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro at Ex.7/A and FIR at Ex.7/B. PW-02/Injured Hakim at Ex.8. PW-03 Shadi at Ex.09. PW-04/ Mashir Taj Muhammad at Ex.10 who produced memo. of injuries at Ex.10/A and memo. of site inspection at Ex.10/B respectively. PW05/Author of FIR, I.O/ASI Mushtaque Ahmed at Ex.11 who produced medical referral letter at Ex.11/A, entry No. 11, 13, 21 on one page at Ex. 11/B to 11/D. PW-06/MLO Dr. Sharjeel Khan at Ex.13 who produced provisional and final medical certificates, X-Ray and Radiologist expert opinion along with X-ray film, referred letter dated: 16-04-2021, complete medical file of injured issued by LUMHS with outward letter and Civil Hospital Karachi and letter of Special Medical Board dated: 11-08-2021 at Exs.13/A to 13/H. Thereafter, learned State Counsel closed the side of prosecution vide statement kept on record at Exh.14. 6. The statements of the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C were recorded at Exs.15 and 22 and Exs.16 and 25 respectively and they had denied all the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution and claimed their innocence. However, they did not examine themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defence. Thereafter A.D.P.P filed application under section 540, Cr.P.C which was allowed and then evidence of Associate Professor Dr. Amjad Ali Sehto (Member Special Medical Board) was recorded at Exs. 20 who produced DG health letter dated 01-06-2021 at Ex.20/A, board constitution letter No.4416/2022 dated 03-07-2021 at Ex.20/B, letter dated 12-07-2021 at Ex. 20/C, letter dated: 25-08-2021 at Ex.20/D, letter at Ex. 20/E, five films of CT scan of injured along with ultrasound of eye at Exs.20/F to 20/J, final medical opinion of Special Medical Board at Ex.20/K. Thereafter, again State Counsel closed the side of prosecution vide statement at Ex.14. 7. The learned trial court on evaluation of the evidence and after hearing the counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants/ accused vide Judgment dated 07.12.2023, which they have impugned before this Court by preferring instant Criminal Appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts of the case; that the present appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant; that the complainant and eye-witnesses are related inter-se and inimical towards the appellant; that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of contradictions and discrepancies, which are fatal to the prosecution case. That Section 324, P.P.C. is not applicable in this case, as the accused persons have not repeated the fire upon the complainant party; that the conviction so recorded by the learned trial court under Section 324, P.P.C. is against the law; that there is matrimonial enmity between the parties and the accused have been falsely implicated in this case, and P.W/injured Hakim has not supported the case of the prosecution; Learned counsel lastly prayed for the acquittal of the accused. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Prosecutor General for State and learned counsel for the complainant argued that there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant to implicate the appellants in this case falsely; that the appellants named in the FIR with the specific role of making direct fires of the pistol up on the injured/witnesses with the intention to kill them; that the ocular testimony furnished by complainant and injured is corroborated with medical evidence. They further argued that the learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence while recording the conviction and sentence of the appellants in accordance with the law, thus they lastly prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 11. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that PW Hakim received the firearm injuries at the hands of the accused/appellants only on the ground that he has contracted marriage with Mst. Haroon. The said marriage was an outcome of love and affection between the parties. which annoyed the appellant's parties, however, they attacked the complainant party resulting in PW/injured Hakin became serious injured and he had lost his one eye. It is settled that no one could be granted the licence to take the law into his own hands and start executing culprits instead of taking him/her to the court of law. A Muslim marriage is a union between two individuals, guided by Islamic principles and laws. The marriage is conducted with the consent of both the parties. In the instant case, there was no complainant from Mst. Hooran that the complainant party had abducted her and contracted forcefully marriage with her. But due to Ghariat the accused party entered into the house of the complainant party and this unfortunate incident took place. 12. The complainant, injured witness, and other PWs have deposed that on 06.03.2021, the complainant along with his brother, nephew Shadi, and sister-in-law Hooran were at their house, and the above-mentioned accused persons duly armed with deadly weapons viz: pistols, hatchets, and lathies in their hands, along with other accused persons, appellant Ghulam Ali held Mst. Hooran from her arm to, take her back, upon which she raised a cry. Her brother Hakim tried to rescue her, and then Ghulam Ali made a straight fire upon PW Hakim intending to kill him, hitting him in his left arm, and appellant Waryam also made a straight fire upon PW Hakim, hitting him in his face and forehead. After the incident, the injured was brought to the PS Khipro by one Saleem, where ASI Mushtaque Ahmed perused the injuries and prepared a memo. of injuries in the presence of two PWs, namely Taj Muhammad and Ashraf. The injured was referred to Taluka Hospital Khipro, and thereafter to Hyderabad for treatment. The doctors, after examining the injured, referred him to Karachi for further treatment. The complainant produced the FIR at Ex.7/B. The prosecution also examined injured witness Hakim, who specifically assigned the role of the accused persons. PW Hakim deposed that on 06-03-2021, accused Ghulam Ali and Waryam of being armed with pistols, Daim armed with a hatchet, accused Hamzo armed with an iron rod, and accused Shahmir being armed with a lathi entered his house. Accused Ghulam Ali holding his niece Mst. Hooran by her arm to take her back, and then the accused made a straight fire which hit him in his left arm. Accused Waryam also caused a fire, and he sustained pellet injuries on his forehead, fell down, and lost consciousness. PW Shadi also supported the version of the complainant so also injured the witness. In cross-examination, PW2/injured witness Hakin admitted that he was unconscious and his brother Adam informed him about the registration of the FIR after 15/20 days. 13. The prosecution examined mashir Taj Muhammad, who deposed that in his presence, the memo. of injuries was prepared, and so also the memo. of the place of the incident. He and co-mashir Ashraf signed the memos. prepared by ASI Mushtaque Ahmed. The injured witness and other witnesses have supported the version of the complainant, which is also supported by medical evidence. The prosecution also examined retired ASI Mushtaque Ahmed. He produced a medical referral letter at Ex. 11/A, entry Nos. 11, 13, 21 at Exs.11/B to 11/D. 14. The medical certificate of the injured Hakim was produced by Dr. Sharjeel Khan (PW-06) also proves that the injured was referred to him on the date of the incident; he examined him on the same date and found multiple firearm injuries on his body. Dr. Sharjeel Khan deposed that he was posted as Incharge Medical Officer at Taluka Hospital Khipro on 06.03.2021 when the injured, namely Hakim, appeared in the hospital along with a police letter for his treatment, after examining the injured, referred him to LUMHS Hyderabad for expert opinion. He received the medical files of the injured from LUMHS Hyderabad and Karachi on 21-05-2021, and then the injuries were declared by him as Shujjah-i-Khaffifah, Ghayr-Jaifah Damiyah, and Ghayr-Jaifah Mutlamiyah. He issued the Final Medical Certificate, confirming that the kind of weapon used was a gunshot (pallets). He produced the medical certificate of the injured Hakim as Ex.13/A to Ex.13/H, which also proves that the injured were referred to him on the date of the incident, viz: 06.03.2021. Thereafter, the prosecution examined Associate Professor Dr. Amjad Ali Sehto (Member Special Medical Board) at Ex.20, who produced certain documents including the final medical opinion of the Special Medical Board. The injuries were declared by him as Shujjah-i-Khaffifah. Injuries Nos.2 to 6 were declared as Itlaf-i-Salahiyat Udw. During the examination, he also got a CT scan of the injured along with an ultrasound of the eye. Finally, it was declared by the doctors that the injured Hakim had lost his one eye due to a firearm injury. 15. So far the plea raised by the counsel for the appellants that Section 324. P.P.C. is not applicable in this case as accused persons have not repeated fire upon the injured witness. It is suffice to say that once an accused person presses the trigger of his firearm, Section 324, P.P.C. comes into action. Section 324, P.P.C. consisted of two parts i.e. commission of an act with intention or knowledge to commit Qatle-eamd, and in the second part, there is effect of the act done. Application of Section 324, P.P.C. has to be judged in the background of the number of the accused persons, the weapon carried by them and the opportunity available to them to complete the intended offence. In the instant case, when the injured was present in his house along with the complainant and other witnesses, the appellants duly armed with desi pistols along with co-accused duly armed with hatchets/lathis appeared at the place of incident and tried to kidnap the wife of injured Hakim on which he has offered his resistance consequently he received multiple pallets injuries on the different part of the body, hence ingredients of S. 324, P.P.C. are very much applicable in this case. 16. In the instant matter, the complainant, injured witness as well as all other eye-witnesses of the incident has fully explained the date, time, place of incident, manner of occurrence, and involvement of the appellants. There can be no denial to the legally established principle of law that it is always direct evidence that is material to decide the fact and to prove the charge. Insufficient, contradictory, discrepant direct evidence is deemed adequate to hold a criminal charge as not proved but where direct evidence remains in the field with that of its being natural and confidence-inspiring then the requirement of independent corroboration is only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case. Reliance may be placed upon the case of Muhammad Ihsan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1857) wherein the Apex Court has held that: "5. It be noted that this Court has time and again held that the rule of corroboration is rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case rather this is settled principle that if the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of direct evidence, the requirement of corroborative evidence would not be of much significance in that, as it may as in the present case eye-witness account which is unimpeachable and confidence-inspiring character and is corroborated by medical evidence." 17. From the perusal of the evidence of the injured/ eye-witnesses and other private witnesses, it appears that they cannot be termed as chance witnesses but rather would fall within the category of natural witnesses. From the appreciation of evidence, it is crystal clear that the prosecution remained successful to bring cogent and unimpeachable direct evidence well supported and corroborated by the medical version against appellants Ghulam Ali and Waryam. The evidence of the witnesses and injured witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are close relatives inter-se particularly since their presence at the place of occurrence was obvious as the incident took place in the house of the complainant party and in broad daylight. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out some minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, which in my observation are not adequate to grip that the case of the prosecution is doubtful. It is settled by now that, wherein the evidence, the prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confident inspiring evidence supported by the medical and circumstantial evidence then if there may some minor contradictions which always are available in each and every case, such may be ignored, as it has been held by Honourable Supreme Court in case of Zakir Khan v. The State (1995 SCMR 1793). The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- "13. The evidence recorded in the case further indicates that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported each other on all material points. However, emphasis has been laid by Mr. Motiani upon the improvements which can be found by him in their respective statements made before the Court and some minor contradictions in their evidence were also pointed out. A contradiction, unlike an omission, is an inconsistency between the earlier version of a witness and his subsequent version before the Court. The rule is now well established that only material contradictions are to be taken into consideration by the Court while minor discrepancies found in the evidence of witnesses, which generally occur, are to be overlooked. There is also a tendency on the part of witnesses in this country to overstate a fact or to make improvements in their depositions before the Court. But a mere omission by witness to disclose a certain fact to the Investigating Officer would not render his testimony unreliable unless the improvement made by the witness while giving evidence before the Court has sufficient probative force to bring home the guilt to the accused." 19. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I have concluded that the prosecution has successfully established its case against appellants Ghulam Ali and Waryam, through ocular account furnished by the complainant and eye-witnesses/injured witnesses which is corroborated by the medical evidence coupled with circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any material irregularly or serious infirmity committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, which in my humble view is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the same does not call for any interference of this Court. Thus, the instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants/accused named above through impugned Judgment dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khipro in Sessions Case No.231/2021 (The State v. Ghulam Ali and others), arising out of Crime No.39/2021, for offence Under Sections 324, 452, 336, 337-A (i), 506(ii), 504, 147, 148 and 149 P.P.C. of PS Khipro is maintained. JK/G-23/Sindh Appeal dismissed.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Karachi Development Authority Order (V of 1957), Art. 52-A [as amended by Karachi Development Authority (Sindh Amendment) Act, 1994]---Suit for declaration and injunction---Amenity plot---Nature, changing of---Applicant / defendant was a Cooperative Society which had established family park over an amenity plot---Respondents / plaintiffs claimed to be the allottees of suit land after nature of suit land was converted from amenity to residential---Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of respondents / plaintiffs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Amendments in Art.52-A of Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957 were applicable, because conversion permission granted by the Authorities was of subsequent date---Conversion and sub-division of suit land was illegal from its inception---Authorities illegally converted land use, from amenity to residential, coupled with the fact that no construction was ever raised on suit land by respondents / plaintiffs---By operation of law when suit land was reverted to respondent / Society, thereafter it was allotted to applicant / Society---Applicant/ Society restored its original amenity purpose and suit land was utilized as family park for the residents of the vicinity---When suit was filed by respondents / plaintiffs, it was not maintainable---High Court set aside both the decisions passed by two Courts below and suit filed by respondents / plaintiff was dismissed---Revision was allowed accordingly. Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui and others v. Karachi Municipal Corporation (K.D.A. Wing), Karachi and others PLD 2021 Sindh 312; Samit Ali Khan v. Dr. Mrs. Zainab Irshad and 6 others PLD 1997 Karachi 450 and Abdul Razak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others PLD 1994 SC 512 ref. Muhammad Ali Ghanghro for Applicant. Nemo. for Respondents. Dates of hearing: 29th February, 25th March and 23rd April, 2024. Judgment Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, J.--- The Applicant-Society has challenged the Judgment and Decree of the learned Trial Court handed down in Suit Number 2127 of 1980, filed by present Respondents Numbers 1 to 4 (the private Respondents) which is maintained by the learned Appellate Court. The subject matter of this proceeding is an amenity Plot No.SNPA-9, measuring 17146 Square Yards, in Block 3, of Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies Union-the Respondent No.5, viz. the "Suit Land". 2. As per the averment of the present Revision Application, the Suit Land has been developed into a Park and a portion whereof is utilized to construct a Mosque; the Suit Land is known as "CHILDREN PARK", which is being used by the residents of the locality for relaxation and recreation. 3. Mr. Muhammad Ali Ghanghro, learned counsel for the Applicant, has argued, that both Courts have erred in deciding the case in favour of Respondents, inter alia, by overlooking the provisions of law and the case law, in particular, relating to conversion of an amenity plot into a residential one. Narrated the history of the Suit Land that earlier it was falling in the territorial jurisdiction of Respondent Number 5-Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies Union Ltd. Subsequently, it was allotted to Respondent Number 6-Al-Riaz Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which then allotted it to the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 [Plaintiffs], the present Private Respondents, vide Correspondence Dated 4th February 1979, produced in the evidence as Exhibit 13 [ per Paragraph-3 of the Plaint of the above Respondents]. Contended that the allotment is void ab initio because on 13th October 1977, vide Martial Law Order [MLO] No. 34, allotment of the amenity plots were cancelled which were to be resumed by the Authority in which the plots initially vested; this has been mentioned in the Public Notice published in various Newspapers including daily Dawn dated 31.01.1978, which was exhibited in evidence as Exhibit-74. The private Respondents misrepresented before the Respondent No.7 [the Federal Government, Ministry of Housing and Works], when they sought permission for conversion of this plot from industrial to residential [this Letter is at page-207 of the File, produced by the Private Respondents in the evidence]. Surprisingly, the latter, that is, Respondent No.7 without any probe or inquiry, accorded approval dated 31.05.1979 [at page-211 of the File], whereby, change of use of the Suit Land from amenity to residential was granted, besides, sub-division into five plots was also permitted. Another development took place, when the Respondent No.5- Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies Union Limited, allotted the Suit Land and delivered its possession to the Applicant for developing and maintaining a public park, which was in conformity to its original land use, which is accordingly done by the Applicant. Argued that the permission to change the land use granted by Respondent No.7 was in sheer violation of KDA Order, 1957, which is applicable to the present controversy; has traced out the statutory history of the amendments made in the KDA Order, in particular in Sections 52 and 52-A, imposing a bar for converting the land use of an amenity plot; referred to the Site Inspection Report [available in the record], to confirm that the Suit Land is being used as a Park as stated above. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has cited the following Case Law_ i. PLD 2021 Sindh 312 [Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui and others v. Karachi Municipal Corporation (K.D.A. Wing), Karachi and others]; ii. PLD 1997 Karachi 450 [Samit Ali Khan v. Dr. Mrs. Zainab Irshad and 6 others] - Samit Case; iii. PLD 1994 SC 512 [Abdul Razak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others]; 4. Private Respondents have filed the Counter Affidavit to the Injunction Application [preferred by the Applicant], vehemently disputing the stance of the Applicant, while opposing this Revision Application and supporting the two impugned Decisions. However, they chose to remain absent during hearings. 5. Arguments heard and record perused. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court_ 1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 2. Whether the suit is not undervalued? 3. Whether the suit is barred under section 70, 70-A and 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act? 4. Whether the suit is barred under Articles 270-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan? 5. Whether the provisions of MLO 34 [as amended by MLO 89] are applicable to the suit plots of the Plaintiffs? If so its effect? 6. Whether the suit plot has been legally converted by the competent authority into a residential plot by the order dated 31.5.1979? 7. Whether the orders dated 25.2.1989 passed by the defendant No.1 and all other subsequent orders in respect of Plot No. SNPA-9 are mala fide, without jurisdiction and lawful authority, illegal, null and void and no legal effect? 8. Whether the allotment of the subject plots by defendant No.3 in favour of plaintiffs is illegal and inoperative? 9. What should the decree be? 7. The private Respondents as Plaintiffs have filed the above Suit, inter alia, challenging the Order dated 25.02.1980, passed by Respondent No. 5 [KCHSUL], for allotment of Suit Land to the Applicant-Society as an amenity plot, and for declaration that the same had been converted vide Order dated 31-05-1979 [to residential] by the Respondent No.7 . The Suit was contested by the present Applicant and Respondent No.5-Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies Union Limited and Respondent No.6-Al-Riaz Cooperative Housing Society Limited, on whose behalf Written Statements were filed. Even the latter [Al-Riaz Cooperative Housing Society Limited], which had allotted the Suit Land to the private Respondents, opposed the Suit filed by them and admitted the fact that the Suit Land was an amenity plot, was later converted into residential [Paragraph-1 of the Written Statement at Page-113 of R and P of Suit No.2127 of 1980]. 8. After framing of Issues, evidence was led. 9. Mr. Muhammad Shahid Ali, one of the private Respondents [present Respondent No.4] had led the evidence on behalf of Plaintiffs; whereas, Feroz Ahmed testified on behalf of present Applicant Society. 10. The learned counsel has referred to the admission made by the said Witness [present Respondent No.4] that it was in their knowledge that Suit Land is an amenity plot; admitted that they have not paid the development charges of the Suit Land, because it was never demanded from them. To a question, has stated that he did not remember the price paid for each sub-divided plot in 1979. 11. The Applicant Witness reiterated the stance as averred in the pleadings. Emphasized that after promulgation of MLO 34, the Suit Land was reverted to Respondent No.5-Karachi Cooperative Societies Union Limited, which after due process was allotted the same to the present Applicant, which has developed the same in accordance with allotment Terms and Conditions. Denied the suggestion that the Suit Land is wrongly allotted to the Applicant-Society. Nothing contradictory has surfaced in his cross-examination. 12. The Agreement between Respondent No.7 [Federal Government] and Respondent No.5, dated 14.01.1954, produced in the evidence as Exhibit-68, is an undisputed document, whereby, the former has transferred a large tract of land in the City of Karachi, inter alia, for development and allotment, including for the purpose of Parks and Playgrounds. 13. The Exhibit-74 and Exhibit 69 [available at Pages-185 and 221] are also undisputed documents; the first one is the Public Notice of 31.01.1978 [published in newspapers] informing that the amenity plots allotted to Al-Riaz Society-Respondent No.6, has been cancelled under Martial Law Order No.34; in this Public Notice, the Suit Land is at Serial No.1; whereas, the second document is the Gazette Notification of 30.09.1979, informing the Public at Large, inter alia, that the amenity plots cancelled in pursuance of the MLO 34, and the Governor of Sindh was pleased to confirm the order of cancellation. This cancellation of Suit Land in favour of Respondent No.6-Al-Riaz Society was never challenged, thus, there is force in the contention of the Applicant's Counsel that once the plot has been cancelled through MLO 34 [dated 30th September, 1977], it could not have been granted / allotted to the private Respondents, subsequently, that is, on 04.02.1979 by Respondent No.6-Al-Riaz Cooperative Housing Society, which allotment is at page-163 of R and P of the above Suit. 14. Above referred MLO 34 has been perused and is reproduced herein under for a ready reference_

Summary: (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(s), 16 & 179(3)---Violation of Ss. 2(s) & 16 of the Customs Act, 1969---Allegation of---Order-in-Original passing of---Timeline---Order-in-original was passed after the statutory time line for decision---Contention of the Applicant / Department was that the order-in-original was passed after getting extension from Collector (Adjudication) under S. 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 ---Record revealed that Show-Cause Notice in the present matter was adjudicated vide order-in-original in terms of S. 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 and the First Proviso thereof---Cases wherein, S. 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969, has been invoked are to be decided within a period of 30 days from the issuance of Show-Cause Notice---Such period can be extended by the Collector for a maximum period of 60 days for reasons to be recorded---Order-in-Original in the present matter had been passed after 112 days; whereas, in the concluding paragraph of the said order, it had been stated that the Collector (Adjudication) has granted extension---Neither any reasons of the said extension had been mentioned, nor it had been stated that as to when the original period had expired, and when the extension request was made and how much period was extended by the Collector---Maximum period for which the Collector can extend the adjudication proceedings is 60 days, therefore, the order-in-original was required to be passed within a period of 90 days from the date of Show-Cause Notice whereas, admittedly, this time line was not complied within the present case---In the entire order-in-original, nothing had been stated as to any adjournment sought by the respondent / importer, therefore, no such period was to be excluded from this time line---Thus, proposed question was answered in the affirmative against the applicant and in favour of the respondent / importer---Reference Application was dismissed. Director, Director General Intelligent and Investigation (Customs), Karachi v. Messrs Chase Up (SCRA No. 119 of 2024) ref. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(s), 16 & 179(3)---Violation of Ss. 2(s) & 16 of the Customs Act, 1969---Allegation of---Order-in-original, passing of---Passing of order-in-original within a certain statutory timeline---Mandatory timeline---Order-in-original was passed after 112 days after issuance of Show-Cause Notice after getting extension from Collector (Adjudication) under S.179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969---Argument of the applicant/Collectorate was that such period of limitation was directory and not mandatory---Validity---Wherever the Legislature has provided certain period for passing of an order; then said direction is mandatory and not directory and non-compliance of such a mandatory provision would invalidate the Act---In the present case since adjudication was beyond the timeline prescribed in S. 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, therefore, the said decision was invalid---Thus, proposed question was answered in the affirmative against the applicant and in favour of the respondent / importer---Reference Application was dismissed. Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., v. Customs Appellate Tribunal 2019 SCMR 1735; The Collector of Sales Tax v. Super Asia Mohammad Din 2017 SCMR 1427; A.J. Traders v. Collector of Customs PLD 2022 SC 817; Director, Director General Intelligence and Investigation (Customs), Karachi v. Messrs Chase Up (SCRA No.119 of 2024) ref. Pervaiz Ahmed Memon for Applicant. Sardr Muhamma Ishaque and Amjad Hayat for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th May, 2024.

Summary: ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Locus standi---Aggrieved person- --Private person---Petitioner in public interest assailed establishing of a residential scheme by a private company allegedly in the vicinity of Cantonment and an Airbase---Validity---Petitioner had no interest at all in the housing scheme in question and its development had no effect on him---Petitioner was not an aggrieved person under Art. 199 of the Constitution and his Constitutional petition was not maintainable---Petitioner sought relief of declarations/directions against private individuals and as such his petition was not maintainable under Art. 199(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution, as the respondents/ private persons were not performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federation, Province or a local authority---Even no fundamental right of petitioner had been infringed---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Pakistan Tabacco Board and another v. Tahir Raza and others 2007 SCMR 97; Fida Hussain through attorney v. Executive Engineer Irrigation/Drainage Larkana and 4 others 2013 PLC (C.S.) 106 Sindh; Ms. Shehla Zia and others v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693; Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2011 SC 997; Malik Allah Ditta and others v. Member Board of Revenue/(Judicial-V)/Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer Punjab Lahore and another 2022 CLC 414; Human Rights Case No. 18877 of 2018 (PLD 2019 SC 645); C.P. No. D-730 of 2017; State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Messrs Pakistan Tabacco Company Ltd. PLD 1983 SC 280; Mst. Noor Jehan Begum v. Dr. Abdus Samad and others 1987 SCMR 1577; Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC) Karachi and 4 others 1999 SCMR 2883; Mst. Kaniz Fatima through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Salim and 27 others 2001 SCMR 1493; Democratic Workers Union C.B.A v. State Bank of Pakistan and others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 614; Suo Motu Case No.13 of 2007 PLD 2009 SC 217; Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455; Muhammad Yousaf Khan Bugti and another v. Province of Sindh through Senior Member Board of Revenue and 5 others 2013 CLC 1155; Balochistan Medical Association through President v. Government of Balochistan through Secretary Health and others 2017 CLC 1195 and Fazal Din's case PLD 1969 SC 223 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Public interest litigation---Principles---High Court should entertain public interest litigation under Art. 199 of the Constitution in extremely worthy cases which genuinely affect the public and their fundamental rights (but not as a routine)---In so doing, all legal requirements must be met by petitioner under Art. 199 of the Constitution---High Court must use extraordinary care and caution before entertaining such petitions. Barrister Fayaz Ali Metlo for Petitioner along with Petitioner. Farooq H. Naik for Respondent No. 13. Ayaz Hussain Tunio for Respondent No. 14. Allah Bachayo Soomro and Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, Additional Advocate Generals of Sindh along with ADC-I Jamshoro [Nooruddin Hingorjo] and Mukhtiarkar Thana Bula Khan [Iqtidar Rasool]. Muzzamil Khan Bughio for SBCA. Ghulam Abbas Sangi, Assistant Attorney General along with Director Survey of Pakistan Karachi [Asad Ali]. Date of hearing: 16th May, 2024.

Summary: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)--- ----S.3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Jurisdiction of the Court---Whether Single Judge of High Court had erred in assuming jurisdiction---In respect of some past/future maintenance allowance, a direct Constitutional Petition was filed by the wife and children before the High Court ; despite office objections, High Court on the assumption of jurisdiction, passed an order directing appellant to deposit a certain amount---Appellant, being respondent in the constitutional petition in which impugned order was passed, filed intra-court appeal under S.3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972---Plea of the appellant was that under wrong assumption of jurisdiction, impugned order was passed---Validity---Reliance of appellant to prefer appeal under S.3 of Ordinance, 1972 read with Art. 199, Cls. (1) of the Constitution was misconceived---In the first instance, the impugned order, admittedly, did not arise out of frame of Cl. (1) of Art. 199 of the Constitution; this would not only exclude the appellant from preferring an appeal but Cl. (3) of Art. 199 was also directly applied in the sense that it was only an ad interim order---No such appeal could be filed within the frame of S. 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, read with Art. 199 of the Constitution as the causes arising out of Cl.(1) of Art. 199 were primarily dealt with by Division Bench of the High Court as against rest of the other jurisdictions---Appellant may well address it under the principle of Kompetence-Kompetence and the Single Judge at best shall decide the issue of maintainability first before proceeding further in any manner --- Division Bench of the High Court remanded the case to the Single Judge who shall hear the counsel preferably on the maintainability issue first and shall then, if so required, proceed further as far as merits were concerned---Appeal stood disposed of accordingly. Messrs National Oil Refinery Ltd. v. Syed Mansoor Ali (High Court Appeal No.D-372 of 2023) ref. Rafiq Ahmed Kalwar for Appellant. Haider Waheed, Hussain Idrees and Mehak Asghar for Respondent on statutory notice under Rule XLIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. Date of hearing: 30th May, 2024.