Summary: 1. Dismissal of suit in Non-prosecution under Order 9 CPC, upheld till High Court operates as a Bar to a 2nd Suit by the same plaintiff in respect of the same cause of action; notwithstanding, any subsequent Judgment in the Suit of Defendant, either way. No fresh cause of action can accrue.

Summary: Drug Appellate Board has no jurisdiction of revision of its own orders under Rule 5 of the Drugs (Appellate Board) Rules 1976; however, the Drug Registration Board can exercise powers under Section 7(11) of The Drugs Act 1976. Injunction allowed and impugned order passed by Drug Appellate Board suspended.

Summary: Service matters. No vested right concept in promotion policy. Government can amend the same, if deemed appropriate.

Summary: Promotion matters; fitness of employee; petition is maintainable;Once major penalty has been set-aside, then promotion cannot be denied on the same charges.

Summary: DMC--the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents for up-gradation of his post i.e Compounder in BPS-16--The grounds agitated by the petitioner in the instant petition that his up-gradation is permissible as per notification dated 13.05.2006, are not tenable for the reasons alluded in the preceding paragraph--we are not convinced with the assertion of petitioner that he is entitled for up-gradation in BS-16--Dismissed.

Summary: [Cantonments Act 1924 (Section 185)] In the circumstances, this being pure a question of law, where perusal of section 185 read with section 2(iv) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 leave no doubt in my mind that raising of boundary wall of less than eight 8 feet in height as long as it does not abutt a street, does not require approval by the defendant No.2. Resultantly Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative.

Summary: [Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (Section 8 (Fair Rent))] - Similarly, a presumptive view in respect of overall inflation and rate of taxes cannot be applied. The maintenance claimed to have been made/done by the landlord/respondent and in support thereof they have filed some accounts and debit vouchers but it pertains to a period w.e.f. March 2007onward. How these debit vouchers and maintenance bills are being applied to entire building and on what calculation and basis its ratio in terms of facilities provided to the premises is being applied, is inconceivable on the strength of the evidence available on record. Floor-wise true calculation is not provided. The presumptive analysis thus is beyond the domain and jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The statistics in terms of inflation and maintenance charges should have been provided in statement recorded on oath and only then it could have been taken into consideration by the appellate Court. Filing plethora of documents disclosing them as debit vouchers in respect of maintaining the entire building is inconceivable. Statistics showing percentage of taxation over the building in question as well as maintenance as to be applied to entire building and has to be established statistically and not generally. Such data was not provided to Rent Controller. Taxation and maintenance are differently applied on ground floor and upper floors.- Similarly in presence of lease deeds of the same building between same landlord and tenant or between same landlord and other tenants, the reliance/applicability of rent or fair rent of other buildings in the adjoining locality should not have been applied as a priority, wherein respect of which direct evidence is available. When a building is operated by lifts there is not a serious degree of difference between second and third floor of the same building where premises are situated.- Though the Rent Controller while determining fair rent of the premises in question has taken a very conservative view by fixing fair rent at Rs.10/-per sq. foot, yet I am of the view that fair rent fixed by the appellate Court is on higher side. The Rent Controller and appellate Court were required to provide a cumulative effect of all those factors available under section 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 subject to availability of evidence though the quantum of inflation and the enhancement of taxation has not been statistically provided in terms of applicability of such claim/charges per sq. foot yet the other factors may contribute for the determination of fair rent.- The rise in cost of construction has also not been demonstrated statistically. It is only presumptive analysis that cost of construction rises with the passage of time, however, the witness is required to provide data of such rise in cost of construction through his affidavit or any expert witness. It is a difficult assignment but the requirement of law. This burden could be relieved had appropriate lease deeds of same building or of adjoining building having similar facilities could be cited in evidence.- Section 8(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 enables the Rent Controller to revise such fair rent on account of changes/ additions brought or improving the premises in question which is not the case here. Similarly, there cannot be an automatic enhancement at the rate of 10% per annum on the fair rent in terms of Section 9 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. It provides a maximum cap of 10% per annum on the existing fair rent and not an automatic enhancement to its maximum. Such enhancement at any particular rate, which in any case should not be 10% per annum, is dependent on certain factors which were not decided in the application under section 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Besides, there was no prayer for such enhancement under section 9 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

Summary: Order VII rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint sought - Suit barred in law under Order 2 Rule 2 - Application dismissed.

Summary: The short question is whether compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the aforesaid grounds would be a valid exercise of the powers; and, whether such a purpose could be termed to be in the public interest?

Summary: Declaration of assets in Local Government Elections