Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): --- O. XXIII, R. 1 & O. XVII --- Withdrawal of Suit --- Conditional withdrawal of suit with liberty to file a fresh suit --- Jurisdiction of the trial court --- Failure to lead evidence --- Scope. Petitioners filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of documents, and permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge-III, Khairpur, in 2017. Issues were framed on 31.05.2018, but the plaintiffs failed to lead evidence. On 02.09.2019, plaintiffs sought withdrawal of the suit, conditioned upon filing a fresh suit due to technical defects. The trial court permitted withdrawal but declined permission to file a fresh suit, citing delay and failure to produce evidence. The petitioners challenged this order in Civil Revision Application No. 43/2019, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge-III, Khairpur, on 10.06.2022, upholding the trial court’s decision. Held, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to permit withdrawal while simultaneously denying permission to file a fresh suit. If the court disagreed with the condition, it should have either rejected the withdrawal request or accepted it entirely, instead of adopting a paradoxical approach. The failure of plaintiffs to lead evidence did not justify disposing of the suit in such a manner, as O. XVII, C.P.C. requires the court to either decree or dismiss the suit on the basis of the available material. The revisional court also erred in failing to recognize the trial court’s jurisdictional defect. Further held, that the trial court’s approach violated O. XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C., which governs withdrawal of suits. The petitioners’ right to file a fresh suit could not be denied arbitrarily. The case was remanded to the trial court with directions to either allow withdrawal of the suit unconditionally or proceed with the case as per law. Petitioners were granted the opportunity to introduce additional grounds for withdrawal if desired. ----Disposition: Petition allowed. Orders dated 02.09.2019 and 10.06.2022 set aside. Case remanded to the Senior Civil Judge-III, Khairpur, for reconsideration in accordance with O. XXIII, R. 1, C.P.C..

Summary: Challenging contract between Secretary Communication, NHA and FWO

Summary: Appellant of Appeal 121/2018 files this writ for PROTECTIVE BAIL to surrender before the Court.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: It is a second revision against consecutive orders wherein the accused now challenges framing of charge over it. FIR No. 06/2023 dated 15.08.2023 U/s 5, 9 of the Official Secret Act r/w 34 PPC P.S. FIA/CTW, Islamabad

Summary: The petitioner is in Dubai; He seeks the removal of his name from the blacklist for purpose of renewing his license.

Summary: Background:Sara Akhtar, formerly Sara Ghouri, filed a suit in 2009 seeking declaration and cancellation of six sale mutations dated January 16, 1989, pertaining to 977 kanals and 19 marlas of land. These mutations were in favor of Mehmood Khan and others, including Mansoor Ahmed Khan's sons and other relatives. The suit was decreed on June 28, 2019, and subsequent appeals by the petitioners were dismissed, culminating in the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, on March 10, 2021.---Issues:Whether the suit was filed within the prescribed time limit and if the possession of the subject land was sought.Whether the burden of proof lay upon the petitioner-respondent and if fraud was established.Whether factual errors were committed by the courts in their decisions.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The burden of establishing the validity of the sale mutations rested with the petitioners, who failed to discharge it. The High Court found that their failure amounted to fraud. The respondent, Sara Akhtar, denied knowledge of the sale mutations and argued that the burden of proof lay with the petitioners, in line with Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Additionally, constructive possession of the land was claimed by the respondent through her maternal uncle. Only one beneficiary of the purported sale testified, and his credibility was questioned due to his age at the time of the sale. The High Court found no illegality in its judgment and dismissed the petition, directing the revenue authorities to ensure the immediate delivery of land possession to the respondent.---Citations/Precedents:Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.----Quote:Substantial costs imposed, as frivolous litigation deprived a woman of her land for 14 years.

Summary: (a) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act (XXX of 2021)- - -Ss. 3 & 18-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377-B-Child molestation-Appreciation of evidence-Delay in registration of FIR-Inconsequential-Overly technical objections by defense-Accused was alleged to have committed sodomy with the victim child-Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for fourteen years-Plea raised by accused was that Trial Court did not sign judgment as Special Court and there was unexplained delay of two days in registration of FIR-Validity-Not signing of judgment as Special Judge was an objection overly technical as the Judge was duly notified and had jurisdiction in the matter-Law generally encourages prompt reporting of crimes-Courts recognize that child abuse is a sensitive issue-Several factors can contribute to delay in reporting child sexual abuse, including fear, shame, threats from perpetrator or lack of awareness-Delay in making such reports to police are not material unless circumstances are such that they warrant an adverse view-Legal system aims to balance need to protect children from abuse with the principles of fairness and due process-Accused failed to refer to any circumstances which required taking an adverse view against prosecution because of the delay-Complainant was victim’s father while prosecution witness was paternal uncle who had adopted the victim-Prosecution witnesses did not harbour any ill will towards accused that could serve as a motive for falsely implicating him in the present case-Statements of prosecution witnesses were in line with testimony of victim providing consistent and corroborative evidence-Child sexual abuse is a deeply traumatic and sensitive issue that demands that justice system handle such cases with exceptional care and consideration for unique needs and vulnerabilities of child victims-Parliament passed Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 to effectively deal with rape and sexual abuse offences (enumerated in Schedule thereof) but some of its provisions had not been implemented since promulgation-High Court directed Federal Government to immediately review the steps taken to implement Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 and ensure that requisite systems were in place-High Court directed Trial Courts to exercise extreme caution when writing judgments and must identify victims using acronyms rather than full names-High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court to accused-Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Piao Gul v. The State PLD 1960 SC (Pak) 307; Muhammad Ramzan v. Mst. Khalida Parveen PLD 1971 Lah. 813; Allah Jiwaya v. Judge Family Court and another 1990 MLD 239; Matiullah v. Mst. Saddiqa 2017 MLD 1871; Zahid v. The State 2022 SCMR 50; Irfan Ali Sher v. The State PLD 2020 SC 295; Mubeen Ahmed v. The State and another PLD 2021 Isl. 431; R v. DAI [2012] 2 LRC 633; R. v. Marquard [1993] 4 R.C.S. 223; Raja Khurram Ali Khan and others v. Tayyaba Bibi and another PLD 2020 SC 146; Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54; State of Orissa v. Machindra Majhi and another AIR 1964 Ori. 100; State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu Barku Gade 1995 Cri. LJ 1432; Khalil v. The State PLD 1956 Lah. 840; Muhammad Ramzan alias Jana v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 392; Abdul Ghani and others v. The State PLD 1959 Dacca 944; Muhammad Ilyas v. Kabir Hussain and another 2003 YLR 806; The State v. Muhammad Boota 2014 YLR 306; Iftikhar Ali v. The State 2022 PCr.LJ 1396; Bashir Ahmed v. The State PLD 1979 Kar. 147; Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2019 SCMR 64; Vetrovec v. The Queen [1982] 1 S.C.R. 81; R v. W. (R.) [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; Abdullah Khan v. The Queen [1990] 2 R.C.S. 531; Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and others v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341; Panchhi and others v. State of U.P. 1998 (7) SCC 177; Ratansingh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2004) 1 SCC 64; Muhammad Afzal v. The State PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lah. 788; Ulfat Hussain v. The State 2010 SCMR 247; State through Advocate General Sindh v. Farman Hussain and others PLD 1995 SC 1; Keefe v. State 50 Ariz. 293, 72 Pac. 2d 425; People v Gage, 62 Mich. 271, 28 N.W. 835 (1886); In re Cindy L. (1997) 17 Cal.4th 15, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 803, 947, P2d 1340 and Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara and others 2023 SCMR 413 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)- -Arts. 3 & 17-Witness and competency-Voir dire test-Applicability-Child witness-Scope-Child is competent to be a witness if he possesses capability and intelligence to understand and respond rationally to questions - a criterion known as the-voir dire test-Satisfaction of the Court in terms of Art. 3 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 is not a mere procedural formality but a legal obligation and must be discharged with utmost care and caution. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 377-B-Child abuse-Trial-Testimony of child/victim-Evaluation of child’s testimony as a victim of sexual abuse requires a thorough and balanced approach to ensure protection of their rights and interests while upholding principles of justice-Absence of corroboration should not automatically discredit child’s testimony in such cases-Tender age of child, combined with other case specific circumstances, such as demeanour and unlikelihood of tutoring may make corroboration unnecessary-This is a factual consideration in each case-Courts must acknowledge that children may respond to trauma of abuse in diverse ways, which may include confusion, fear or emotional distress-Sexual abuse of a child can take form of penetrative or non-penetrative acts-Non-penetrative cases pose more significant challenges, especially in our societal context-This category has a heightened risk of false accusation and judges must determine guilt or innocence of accused by thoroughly examining all available evidence, considering surrounding circumstances and adhering to applicable legal standards-Conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of a child victim of sexual abuse is legally possible but its viability depends on circumstances of the case and strength of child’s testimony. Bashir Ahmed v. The State PLD 1979 Kar. 147; Raja Khurram Ali Khan and others v. Tayyaba Bibi and another PLD 2020 SC 146; Zahid v. The State 2022 SCMR 50 and Atif Zareef and others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 550 rel. (d) Evidence- -Hearsay-Connotation-Principles of trustworthiness and necessity- -Applicability-Hearsay evidence is given by a witness consisting of a report of something which someone else has said rather than a statement of something the witness has actually seen or experienced-Certain hearsay statements can carry reliability even without subjecting original declarant to cross-examination-Trustworthiness can be established from circumstances under which statement was made, guaranteeing a level of reliability comparable to that found in a statement that has undergone cross-examination-There are situations where applying cross-examination test is impossible-such as in cases where the declarant has died and it becomes necessary to consider the statement in its untested form if it is to be used at all-Exceptions to hearsay rule are based on two fundamental principles: trustworthiness and necessity. Wigmore on Evidence (1940), 1364, Vol. V, p.9 and Yun, J. (1983). A Comprehensive Approach to Child Hearsay Statements in Sex Abuse Cases, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 83, No.7 (Nov. 1983), pp. 1745-1766 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1122326 rel. (e) Criminal trial- -Child witness-Approach of Courts-When a child engages with the judicial system, the response should be supportive, collaborative and aligned with a child-right-driven approach-Involvement with legal system can take various forms, such as being party in legal case, acting as a witness, undergoing legal proceedings or seeking legal remedies-This approach is based on acknowledging children as rights holders and vulnerable individuals, emphasizing crucial need to establish an environment that prioritizes their well-being and protection throughout legal processes. Najeeb Ullah Khan Jatoi, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Research assistance by Asim Murtaza Cheema, Research Officer, LHCRC.

Summary: Summary pending