Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged an oral gift mutation executed on 28.04.1984, claiming that her share in her father’s property was transferred to her brothers (the respondents) through fraud, depriving her of her rightful inheritance. The Civil Judge granted interim relief by restraining the respondents from alienating the disputed property. However, the Additional District Judge, on appeal, dismissed the interim relief on the technical ground that the petitioner failed to include all legal heirs of her father as defendants in the suit. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case for interim relief. ----2- Whether the petitioner’s failure to include other legal heirs as defendants warranted the dismissal of her application for interim relief. ----3- Whether the appellate court correctly applied the principles for granting temporary injunctions. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the petitioner had established a prima facie case, as there was a clear contradiction between the oral gift mutation and the respondents' claim that they had purchased her share. The appellate court’s decision to dismiss the petitioner’s application due to non-joinder of other legal heirs was found to be erroneous. The court emphasized that non-joinder of proper parties is an irregularity, not a fatal defect, and does not affect the petitioner’s right to claim her share. The court reinstated the trial court's order, which granted interim relief, and clarified that the trial court should not be influenced by these findings when deciding the case on merits. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Sheedan Begum and others v. Muhammad Usman Khan and others (2021 MLD 1937) Ashiq Muhammad and others v. Mst. Suhagan (2023 SCMR 1171)

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.09.2021, through which the Capital Development Authority (CDA) reviewed and reinstated a fine of Rs. 500,000 that had been initially imposed on 10.11.2015 for the non-conforming use of a residential property. This fine was originally set aside by the CDA Commissioner on 31.07.2017 after an inspection report found no commercial activity on the premises. However, in the review, the fine was reinstated based on new evidence that the petitioner’s property was associated with Pakistan Press International (Pvt.) Ltd., a fact not previously raised. -----Issues: 1- Whether the CDA's review of its earlier decision, reinstating the fine for non-conforming use, was valid under the law governing reviews. ----2- Whether the scope of the review jurisdiction was exceeded by considering new facts that were not presented in the initial proceedings. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the CDA Commissioner acted beyond the scope of his review jurisdiction by reconsidering the matter afresh instead of limiting the review to correcting errors on the surface of the record. The review decision was based on new factual evidence, such as the web page showing the petitioner's association with Pakistan Press International, which was neither part of the original case nor relevant to the review process. The court concluded that if there was new evidence, fresh proceedings could have been initiated rather than using review jurisdiction improperly. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 was set aside, as the review was found to be beyond the scope of what is permissible under the law. ----Citations/Precedents: Mehmood Hussain Lark v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (2010 SCMR 1036) Haji Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue) BOR (2010 SCMR 1049) Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem Qureshi (PLD 1991 SC 905)

Summary: Background: The petitioners, sought a declaration of ownership for Plot No.22 and Plot No.26 in Islamabad's Grain Market and Cloth Market, respectively. Parwez had emerged as the highest bidder for both plots in a CDA auction. Parwez paid 40% of the bid amounts but faced financial difficulties, leading him to request a refund for Plot No.26 and subsequently for Plot No.22 as well. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners are entitled to ownership of Plot No.22 and Plot No.26. 2- Whether the CDA acted fairly in adjusting the amounts paid by Parwez for Plot No.26 towards his liability for Plot No.22. 3- Whether the legal heirs of Parwez can claim the plots despite the initial surrender requests made by Parwez. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Ownership and Refund Requests: Parwez had initially requested a refund for Plot No.26, and later for Plot No.22. The CDA adjusted the amount paid for Plot No.26 towards the outstanding balance for Plot No.22 but did not fully refund the amounts as requested by Parwez. Parwez’s legal heirs later sought to retain both plots, expressing their willingness to pay any outstanding amounts. --Adjustment and Legal Entitlement: The CDA's adjustment of the amount paid by Parwez for Plot No.26 towards the liability for Plot No.22 effectively meant that Parwez’s financial liability for Plot No.22 was cleared. The CDA, however, did not officially cancel the allotment of Plot No.26 or issue a refund for the full amount paid by Parwez, leaving an ambiguity. --Rights of Legal Heirs: The court found that the legal heirs could not be faulted for Parwez’s request for a refund due to his illness. The legal heirs' subsequent withdrawal of the refund request and their willingness to retain both plots were considered. The court held that since the CDA adjusted the payment and did not refund the amounts, the legal heirs retained rights over Plot No.22. ----Citations/Precedents: Saad Muhammad Shaheen Al-Soofi Vs. Principle & Chairman, Academic Council, Sindh Medical College (1982 CLC 805) Shamim Khan Vs. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority (1999 YLR 410)

Summary: A SHO has no authority to register FIR against an accused person in violation of Section 196, Cr.P.C, as under the ambit of said provision of law he has to file a complaint against an accused person before the Court of competent jurisdiction --- FIR Quashed --- The petitioner claimed the FIR was illegal, discriminatory, malicious, dishonest, unconditional, void ab-initio, and null and void.The petitioner was charged under sections 295-A, 506, 398-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, and section 3 of the Loud Speaker Ordinance, 1965, for allegedly outraging the feelings of worshipers during Juma prayer through a loudspeaker in Timergara. The petitioner approached the court, asserting that no other adequate remedy was available to him.The judgment examined the argument that the FIR was registered in violation of section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). Section 196 prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offenses without a complaint made by order of or under authority from the Central or Provincial Government. The court referred to relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's observation in the case of "Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and 12 others v. Ghulam Qiasim Khan Khakwani and others."The court concluded that the FIR was indeed registered without the necessary authority, violating section 196 of the Cr.P.C. Citing the case of Attu Muhammad Deshani v. District Police Officer, Haripur, the judgment emphasized that the police should perform their functions without outside interference until the submission of a complete challan to the court.In this case, the Inspector/SHO directly took cognizance of the matter and lodged the FIR against the petitioner, bypassing the required procedure. As a result, the court quashed the proceedings to that extent, emphasizing that the trial court could not take cognizance of such a defective challan.The judgment also touched upon the issue of quashment, stating that while there is a general reluctance to quash criminal cases, the High Court may exercise its powers under Article 199 and section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. if no other adequate remedy is available to the aggrieved party.

Summary: Caretaker governments can only handle day-to-day affairs and any approvals of a permanent nature fall under the jurisdiction of the elected Local Government ----According to the Punjab Local Government Act of 2022, development expenditures must be within the approved budget for the financial year --- Powers and duties of Local Government Functionaries, including the approval of housing schemes, lie with elected office bearers, not Administrators --- Principle that ??law cannot be suspended, unless declared ultra vires??, is enshrined in Federation of Pakistan v. Aitzaz Ahsan and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 61) --- Administrators can only deal with day-to-day affairs. The court emphasized that the Administrator's powers are limited to maintaining public services, and any approvals of a permanent nature fall under the jurisdiction of the elected Local Government.The court pointed out that, according to the Punjab Local Government Act of 2022, development expenditures must be within the approved budget for the financial year. The powers and duties of Local Government Functionaries, including the approval of housing schemes, lie with elected office bearers, not Administrators. The court cited legal principles that caretaker governments should only handle day-to-day affairs and avoid making irreversible decisions impacting the future.It was highlighted that the judgment in the Mallik Mazhar Hussain case, though suspended in a different division of the court in Multan, is still binding on Administrators and officials unless overruled by a higher bench. In conclusion, the court held that the request for Preliminary Planning Permission by the petitioner is beyond the powers of the interim Local Government, and thus, the petition was dismissed.

Summary: The crux of the matter involved a dispute over the determination of dower, specifically pertaining to five tolas of gold ornaments or their price equivalent to Rs. 2,25,000/-. The appellant had initially filed a suit seeking the recovery of this dower, as well as maintenance for herself and a minor child, and both the Family Court and the District Judge had ruled in her favor.However, the Peshawar High Court, in the writ petition filed by the respondent, set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, except for the maintenance allowance. The High Court accepted the respondent's claim for the recovery of five tolas of gold ornaments or Rs. 2,25,000/- as the price thereof.The appellant argued that an Iqrarnama (agreement) dated 21st November 2012, which stipulated the dower as five tolas of gold ornaments, was still valid and had not been canceled by a subsequent Iqrarnama dated 9th April 2013. The respondent contended that the later Iqrarnama had an overriding effect and canceled the earlier agreement.The Supreme Court examined the legality of these agreements in light of Islamic law and statutory provisions. It emphasized that dower is a fundamental right granted to wives under Islamic law and cannot be waived through agreements. Additionally, agreements related to the custody of minor children, like the one in question, were found to be violative of the law and public policy.The Court cited precedents, such as the case of Bahadur Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan [2017 SCMR 2066] and Zulfiqar Ali v. Musarrat Bibi and others [2006 SCMR 1136], which upheld the rights of wives regarding dower and agreements affecting those rights.Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had not correctly assessed the evidence on record and set aside the judgments of the lower courts with respect to the recovery of dower (five tolas of gold ornaments or their price). However, it upheld the judgment regarding maintenance allowance for Mst. Haseena Bibi and the minor child.

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The petitioner, was implicated in the unfortunate death of a young boy named Hamza. The FIR was lodged on 8 August 2022, a few days after Hamza was reported missing. Initial police reports and statements pointed towards Javid Khan, but the investigation was challenged for its adequacy and competence. ----Issues: 1- The appropriateness of the investigation conducted by the police, particularly in relying solely on two statements that implicated the petitioner without further evidence. 2- The procedural conduct of the police and prosecution, including the physical delivery of documents that could have been electronically transmitted. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found the investigation into the death of Hamza to be incompetently handled, noting the reliance on minimal evidence and the lack of a thorough investigation. The court also criticized the practice of public servants using honorifics like "sahib" with job titles, suggesting it might lead to a sense of unaccountability. Furthermore, the court expressed disapproval of the practice where police officers physically bring documents to court that could easily be transmitted electronically, which hampers the efficiency of judicial processes.Consequently, the Court determined that a case for further inquiry was made and granted bail to the petitioner, Javid Khan, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond. The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to relevant authorities, including the Inspector General of Police and the Advocate-General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, presumably to address the highlighted procedural concerns. ----Citations/Precedents: The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly Section 161, which deals with the examination of witnesses by the police.FIR No.631, registered at Police Station Mathra, Peshawar, which initiated the case against Javid Khan.

Summary: Background:This case involves review petitions filed by Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, Chairman of Awami Muslim League, and the Government of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Defence, concerning the Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgment dated 6 February 2019. The original judgment addressed issues related to orchestrated violent protests in Pakistan and the failure of successive governments to take actionable measures to prevent such incidents, thus undermining judicial warnings about the potential consequences.??Issues:The main issue addressed in the review petitions and applications was whether the concerns highlighted in the original judgment had been disregarded by successive governments, leading to continued violence and lack of accountability, and what measures should be taken to ensure the judgment's implementation.??Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, expressed disappointment that the concerns previously raised were ignored, leading to repeated instances of violence. It noted the non-fixation of review petitions as a manipulation tactic within the judiciary, acknowledging this as an error and affirming a commitment to transparency and responsibility. The court dismissed Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed?s review petition (CMA No.3577 of 2019) as he did not press it, attributing its filing to a misapprehension. Another application (CMA No.9219 of 2023) was discussed in relation to forming an inquiry commission to investigate the reasons behind the non-fixation of review petitions. Additionally, the application by Mr. Absar Alam Haider (CMA No.9648/2023) was dismissed as withdrawn, as he no longer sought to restore his position but wanted to address specific findings against him.??Citations/Precedents:The decision referenced various administrative and procedural aspects of the judiciary and government actions, underpinning the discussions with constitutional mandates:Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017: Pertinent to the formation of the inquiry commission.Constitution of Pakistan: Articles 189 and 190, concerning the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions and their implementation by executive authorities, and Article 204 regarding the constitutional power of contempt to ensure compliance with court judgments.---Quote:Every institution must act transparently and responsibly, and admit wrongdoing. The Supreme Court acknowledges that these matters were not fixed for hearing on account of internal manipulation. Federal Government has constituted a Commission to fix responsibility and implement judgment.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a declaratory suit against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge Muzaffarabad, which was dismissed on 26.12.2011 for want of prosecution and non-compliance with a court order. The petitioners filed a review petition under Section 114 Order 47 CPC, which was dismissed on 11.06.2016. Subsequently, they filed a revision petition before the District Judge Muzaffarabad on 02.07.2016, which was also dismissed on 09.06.2017. The petitioners then filed a writ petition to challenge the decisions of both the lower courts. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court's simultaneous dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution and for non-compliance with a court order was legally valid. 2- Whether the review petition was competent despite being filed after the prescribed period of limitation. 3- Whether the orders of the lower courts violated legal principles or exceeded their jurisdiction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Simultaneous Dismissal for Prosecution and Non-Compliance: The court found that the trial court's dismissal of the suit for both want of prosecution and non-compliance with a court order was not legally justified. According to Order XVII Rule 3 CPC, if a party fails to produce evidence or comply with court orders, the court may proceed to decide the suit forthwith. However, the dismissal for want of prosecution is governed by Order 9 Rule 8 CPC, which deals with a different scenario. Imposing two penalties simultaneously was deemed excessive and not warranted by law. --Competence of the Review Petition: The court acknowledged that the review petition was filed after a significant delay, but emphasized that the essence of justice requires that interlocutory orders can be reviewed if justice so demands. The review application, though barred by time, could be treated as one under Section 151 CPC. --Violation of Legal Principles or Jurisdiction: The court found that the lower courts' orders violated legal norms and the principles of justice by imposing dual penalties on the petitioners. The proper course of action should have been to dismiss the suit for non-prosecution under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC, given the plaintiffs' absence on the relevant date. The writ petition was accepted. The judgments passed by the District Judge and the Civil Judge were set aside. The basic order passed under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC was treated as if it were passed under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC. The review application was treated as an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for the restoration of the case. The case was remanded to the court of first instance to decide the matter expeditiously within two months. ----Citations/Precedents: Order XVII Rule 3 CPC Order 9 Rule 8 CPC Order 9 Rule 9 CPC Section 114 Order 47 CPC Section 151 CPC 2003 YLR 1579 This decision emphasized the necessity of adhering to the correct legal provisions and ensuring that justice is served by allowing cases to be decided on their merits rather than through procedural penalties.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O.V, Rr. 16, 17, 19 & O. XXXVII, R. 4-Suit for recovery of money-Ex-parte decree, setting aside of-Appellant/defendant sought setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree passed by Trial Court against him through an application, which was dismissed-Validity-Case of the petitioner was that he was not properly served in the suit-Record reflected that the suit under O. XXXVII, C.P.C. was instituted on 25.05.2022 on which the summons was ordered to be issued to the defendant/petitioner for 14.06.2022-On the said date it was observed that service upon the defendant was effected, however, summons was again ordered to be issued along with affixation at conspicuous place/address of the defendant-Copies of both the summons were available on record and though it had been stated in the report of the process server that the defendant had received the same yet his signatures were not obtained in acknowledgement of their receipt-Rule 16 of O. V, C.P.C., required the Serving Officer/Process Server to obtain signature of the defendant while delivering him a copy of the summons personally-Thus, the requirement of law had not been properly adhered to in the instant case inasmuch as signatures or thumb impressions of the petitioner had not been apparently obtained in acknowledgement of receipt of the summons nor was it stated in the reports of Process Server that signatures of the petitioner were required upon delivery of the summons in acknowledgement of service endorsed on the original summons-Necessary pre-conditions for invoking R. 17 of O. V, C.P.C., i.e. refusal of the petitioner or his agent to sign the acknowledgement or failure of the Process Server to find the petitioner after using all due and reasonable diligence were clearly missing, therefore, procedure adopted by the Process Server was clearly not under the said rule-Even otherwise a copy of the summons was not specified to have been affixed on the door or some conspicuous part of premises of the petitioner to satisfy requirement of said rule-Additionally, no further inquiry in the matter was carried out under R. 19 of O. V, C.P.C., facilitating examination of the Serving Officer- -Service of the defendant/petitioner shown to be affected in the proceedings of the suit did not seem to be proper and in accordance with the law on the subject, in circumstances-Revision petition was accordingly allowed. Abdul Rehman Wahla v. Dr. Sher Dil Batra PLD 1986 SC 234; Amar Jeet Singh v. Sant Singh 2022 CLC 6; Shahzad Akhtar v. Farukh Jameel 2023 MLD 1118; Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited v. Messrs Saleem Rehman, Model Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory (Pvt.) Limited and others 1994 CLC 308; United Bank Ltd. v. Noor Textile Mills Limited and 7 others PLD 1995 Kar. 162 and Shahid Pervaiz alias Shahid Hameed v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen 2006 SCMR 631 ref.