Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Section 29(2) of Limitation Act excludes the application of section 5 for condonation of delay in filing appeal against acquittal under section 48 of CNSA, 1997. --- ''The contention of learned DPG that limitation does not run against a void order is repelled because it is now settled that law of limitation being lex fori creates a right in favour of the parties, therefore, cannot be ignored by treating it mere a technicality.'' --- it was claimed that the period of limitation for filing of appeal against acquittal by the State is six months as per Article 157 of the Limitation Act. The court examined that this appeal against acquittal is not being regulated under section 417 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1897, rather was filed under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which is a special law and is to be read for the period of limitation provided therein --- The court dismisses the application for condonation of delay.Section 5 of the Limitation Act is specifically mentioned as inapplicable to proceedings under special laws. --- The law of limitation requires that a person must approach the Court and take recourse to legal remedies with due diligence, without dilatoriness and negligence and within the time provided by law. --- The court affirms the principle that once an acquittal is recorded, the accused enjoys a presumption of innocence.Any challenge to the acquittal must be made within the specified time frame.

Summary: Suit for declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 and the suit under section 13 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa removal of encroachment of public property Act 1977, distinction.No doubt, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 approached to the civil Court through his suit wherein besides declaration, perpetual injunction, he has also prayed for cancellation of notice issued to him by petitioner No.1 for removal of alleged encroachments, as such, there were two distinct reliefs: one was to be dealt with u/s 11, 12 & 13 of the Act of 1977 for which the civil Court could not grant a decree for cancelation of notice under the provisions of the Act of 1977, as such, the petitioners to that extent has rightly submitted the application for return of plaint to the respondent No.1, however, his suit for rest of the reliefs such as grant of declaration that the disputed khasra number was the sole ownership of the father of the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 and he, being his legal heir, is exclusive owner with the prayer that entries in the revenue papers are incorrect against his rights requires rectification and perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from altering the nature of the suit property and lastly for compensation of the damages caused to his construction, were not the domain of the Tribunal in view of principle of Farid and others? case (supra). This Court was right in acceptance of Writ Petition No.2- M/2016 but the directions could only be given for return of plaint to the extent of notice challenged through suit by the respondent No.1 before the civil Court whereas for remaining reliefs, the civil Court had got ultimate jurisdiction u/s 9 of the C.P.C qua the relief u/s 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, thus, it appears that the Single Bench of this Court in said writ petition was not properly assisted by the then petitioners for return of plaint in respect of all the reliefs in view of the dicta laid down by the apex Court in the cases of supra cases of ?Muhammad Farid and others and Mian Hakim Ullah and others.

Summary: Background: Mahnoor Shabbir filed a suit for maintenance against her paternal uncle after the death of her grandfather, who was initially the defendant. The claim was based on Section 337 of Muhammadan Law, asserting that as a poor distant relative, she was entitled to maintenance from her uncle who inherited property from her grandfather. The trial court ruled in her favor, but the Additional District Judge, Lahore, reversed this decision on appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appeal by the respondents was time-barred. 2- Whether the petitioner was entitled to maintenance from her paternal uncle under Section 373 of Muhammadan Law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Timeliness of the Appeal: The petitioner claimed the appeal was time-barred, but the appellate judgment did not address this. No specific finding was provided in the impugned judgment regarding the timeliness of the appeal. Entitlement to Maintenance: --Section 373 of Muhammadan Law: The appellate court found that Section 373, which mandates that poor relatives within prohibited degrees are entitled to maintenance from those who would inherit from them, did not apply. It noted that the paternal uncle would not inherit from the petitioner or her father, as her father was survived by his parents, wife, and children. --Factual Findings: The appellate court also found that the petitioner was not established as a poor relative in need of maintenance. Evidence showed that the petitioner’s mother was financially stable and providing for her education. --Jurisdiction and Legal Basis: The court emphasized that Muhammadan Law, as presented in D.F. Mulla's text, is not statutory and its principles are not binding unless specifically legislated or adopted by courts in precedents. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the appellate court's decision that the petitioner was not entitled to maintenance from her paternal uncle. The appellate court’s findings were based on the lack of statutory support for the claim and the factual determination that the petitioner was not a poor distant relative entitled to maintenance under the discussed principles of Islamic jurisprudence. ----Citations/Precedents: Messrs Najaat Welfare Foundation v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 FSC 1): The Federal Shariat Court discussed the non-binding nature of D.F. Mulla's Muhammadan Law as it is a reference text, not statutory law. Various Superior Court Judgments: The court referenced multiple cases where Pakistani courts have departed from the principles stated in Muhammadan Law as per Mulla’s text.

Summary: Additional District Judge cannot initiate execution proceedings on the basis of statement of an accused person got recorded by him during the pendency of pre arrest bail petition. Petition Allowed. Order for attachment of property set aside. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was illegal, unlawful, and contrary to law and facts. The petitioner argued that the bail, initially granted and subsequently canceled, should not be the basis for attaching his property. The court observed that the impugned order was executed without proper consideration of the relevant law and facts. The court questioned whether an Additional Sessions Judge could initiate execution proceedings based on an accused person's statement recorded in a pre-arrest bail petition.The court highlighted that the terms "decree," "decree-holder," and "judgment-debtor" have specific definitions in the Code of Civil Procedure, and an order for the cancellation of bail cannot be considered a decree. Therefore, the petitioner could not be deemed a judgment-debtor, and the respondent No.2 could not be regarded as a decree-holder. The court concluded that the learned respondent No.1 acted beyond jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order, and declared it to be of no legal effect.

Summary: ''An amount deposited in State Treasury on a court's direction, if embezzled, shall be paid by Provincial Government, on a direct direction by the same court.'' --- During the hearing, the petitioner argued that the amount was rightfully deposited in the treasury but fraudulently withdrawn by the ex-Civil Nazar. The Additional Advocate General, Punjab, proposed referring the matter to the Administrative Committee, citing a similar case directed by the Human Rights Commission of the Supreme Court.To verify the facts, a report from the Directorate of District Judiciary was obtained. The DG confirmed the petitioner's entitlement but opposed referring the case to the Administrative Committee, citing the precedent set in the Gul Taiz Khan Marwat case (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 391). The DG emphasized that the responsibility to return the amount lies with the Provincial Government.After hearing both parties, the court observed that a definite procedure is needed for such claims to avoid delays. It held that if the embezzled amount was deposited in the treasury on the court's direction, the same court should determine whether the amount was embezzled and, if so, direct the Provincial Government for payment to the entitled person. In this case, the court found in favor of the petitioner, directing the Civil Court to modify the order and instruct the Provincial Government to pay Rs. 10,50,000/- to the petitioner. The petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Issues:Whether the Banking Court has the jurisdiction to dismiss a petition for leave to appear and defend a suit for non-prosecution.Whether the dismissal of a petition for non-prosecution allows the Banking Court to decree the suit without recording the plaintiff's evidence.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court allowed Azeem's appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. The Court held that Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, does not empower the Banking Court to dismiss an application for leave to defend due to non-prosecution. It emphasized that upon filing such an application, the Banking Court must consider its contents along with the plaint and replication to decide whether to grant or reject the application, irrespective of the defendant's appearance. The case was remanded to the Banking Court for fresh consideration of Azeem's petition for leave to appear and defend, strictly according to the law.-----Citations/Precedents:Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Section 10Various case laws cited by the appellant's counsel, including:Messrs Bahawalpur Cotton Company v. United Bank Limited, 2023 CLD 1116Oil and Gas Development Company Limited v. Muhammad Ilyas Mian, 2018 CLC 1666Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) v. Mst. Naima Ayub, 2013 CLC 1191Abid Aziz Khan v. Bank of Punjab, 2007 CLD 997Syed Asad Abbas v. Allied Bank of Pakistan, 2006 CLD 79Syed Rashid Hussain v. Bank of Punjab, 2005 CLD 1823-------Conclusion: The Supreme Court's decision clarifies the procedural requirements under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and emphasizes the Banking Court's duty to consider the contents of applications for leave to defend, irrespective of the defendant's appearance in court.

Summary: BackgroundThe Supreme Court of Pakistan is handling Reference No. 1 of 2011, a Presidential Reference filed under Article 186 of the Constitution regarding the late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's criminal trial and conviction. The Reference aims to revisit and scrutinize the circumstances and legal proceedings of the cases against Mr. Bhutto, particularly those reported as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and 3 others v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 38) and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 53). The inquiry has been ongoing, with various legal aspects and constitutional questions being raised regarding the legitimacy and fairness of the original trials.---IssuesThe Supreme Court is set to address multiple key constitutional and legal issues, including:The maintainability of the Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution.The need for factual inquiry under the same article and whether an opinion can be given based on such an inquiry.The credibility and legitimacy of the trial and appeal processes, especially considering the political context of Mr. Bhutto?s removal from power and subsequent prosecution.The possibility of judicial manipulation or bias during the trial or appeal to achieve a specific outcome.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeAs the case is still ongoing, the Supreme Court has yet to provide a final judgment. However, it has taken significant steps to ensure a thorough examination of all aspects related to the case. This includes the appointment of several amici curiae to provide expert opinions on both constitutional matters and specific criminal law issues, such as the conduct of murder trials by the High Court, the admissibility of confessional statements, and the potential impacts of legal bias.---Citations/PrecedentsArticle 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: This article allows the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on important legal questions.Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and 3 others v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 38)Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 Supreme Court 53)

Summary: BackgroundThe case involves a Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution of Pakistan concerning the late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's criminal trial and conviction. The reference, initiated by the President of Pakistan, questioned the legitimacy and proceedings of Mr. Bhutto's trial and sought a reevaluation from the Supreme Court. Despite starting hearings in 2011, the case remained pending while other references were addressed, prompting the need for its urgent resolution.---IssuesThe key issues addressed by the court included:The maintainability of the Presidential Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution.The necessity of factual inquiry within the scope of Article 186.The legitimacy and credibility of the trial and subsequent appeal, particularly given the political context of Mr. Bhutto's removal from power and subsequent prosecution.Allegations of judicial manipulation to influence the outcome of the trial and appeal.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeThe court allowed the participation of Mr. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Mr. Bhutto's grandson, in the proceedings. It addressed multiple constitutional and legal questions regarding the trial's conduct and its judicial review. The Supreme Court appointed numerous amici curiae to provide expert insights into various constitutional, legal, and procedural aspects of the case. The court directed that all relevant materials, including past orders and tribunal reports, be reviewed by the appointed amici curiae who would then submit their findings. The matter was set to be revisited in a subsequent hearing.---Citations/PrecedentsArticle 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Provides the framework for Presidential References.West Pakistan Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969: Empowers the government to constitute tribunals for inquiry.Judicial decisions referenced:Lahore High Court judgment concerning the investigation of Mr. Mohammad Ahmed Khan's murder.Supreme Court decisions on subsequent appeals and reviews.C.M.A. No.8622/2018 and C.M.A. No.10492/2023: Applications related to the representation and broadcasting of the proceedings.Order dated 21 April 2011: Previous order by the Supreme Court formulating questions for judicial opinion.