Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ---- Ss. 39 & 42---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation on the basis of fraud and undue influence---Burden of proof---Plaintiffs (respondents) alleged that their land was fraudulently exchanged through coercion and misrepresentation by a politically influential person but failed to prove any specific fraudulent act against the petitioner (beneficiary of the exchange)---Court held that allegations of fraud must be proved by cogent evidence as per Order VI, Rule 4, C.P.C. and Article 117, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Plaintiffs' failure to challenge the exchange mutation at the time of attestation and lack of any contemporaneous complaints weakened their case. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---- O. VI, R. 4 & S. 115---Pleadings and evidence---Effect of failure to plead fraud properly---Party cannot lead evidence beyond its pleadings---Fraud was attributed to respondent No.5 (brother of the petitioner) but not to the petitioner himself, yet courts below erroneously considered evidence against the petitioner---Court held that a party cannot be allowed to establish fraud through evidence unless it is specifically pleaded in the plaint---Reliance placed on Sh. Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Adil (PLD 2008 SC 82) and Hyder Ali Bhimji v. ADJ Karachi (PLD 2012 SC 279). (c) Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ---- S. 52---Presumption of truth attached to revenue entries---Exchange mutation duly sanctioned by competent authority in the presence of revenue officials and independent witnesses---Plaintiffs' failure to challenge it before revenue authorities or courts for a considerable time upheld the presumption of correctness of the mutation under Section 52 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967---Court ruled that mere allegations of fraud without legal action at the relevant time cannot invalidate a duly executed mutation---Reliance placed on Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Murad (2022 CLC 1713). (d) Civil Evidence & Adjudication--- ---- Admissibility of evidence---Court held that testimonies of revenue officials and other independent witnesses supported the validity of the exchange transaction, whereas plaintiffs failed to produce any reliable rebuttal---Even if minor contradictions existed in defendants’ evidence, the primary burden of proof lay on the plaintiffs, which they failed to discharge. (e) Revisional Jurisdiction--- ---- S. 115, C.P.C.---Concurrent findings of lower courts reversed---Court found that both lower courts misread evidence and failed to apply the correct legal principles regarding fraud and presumption of correctness of mutations---Held, High Court can interfere in concurrent findings if they suffer from misreading of evidence and jurisdictional errors---Reliance placed on Nazim-Ud-Din v. Sheikh Zia-Ul-Qamar (2016 SCMR 24) and Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Qasim (2010 SCMR 1630). ----Disposition: Revision petition allowed. Judgments of lower courts set aside. Suit of respondents dismissed. ----Cited Cases: Sh. Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Adil (PLD 2008 SC 82) Hyder Ali Bhimji v. ADJ Karachi (PLD 2012 SC 279) Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Murad (2022 CLC 1713) Nazim-Ud-Din v. Sheikh Zia-Ul-Qamar (2016 SCMR 24) Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Qasim (2010 SCMR 1630)

Summary: (a) Service Law – Appointment under Rule 17-A ----Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, R. 17-A---Appointment on compassionate grounds---Eligibility criteria---Retirement on medical grounds vs. voluntary retirement---Scope---Petitioner’s claim for appointment under Rule 17-A was based on the assertion that his father retired from service on medical grounds---Held, for eligibility under Rule 17-A, retirement must be specifically on medical grounds, duly verified by a countersigned Invalidation Certificate---Petitioner’s father voluntarily retired upon completion of qualifying service, and the Pension Payment Order classified the retirement as "Retiring" rather than "Medical"---Thus, petitioner was not entitled to appointment under Rule 17-A. -----Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali and others v. Province of KPK through Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and others (2012 SCMR 673) Waqar Haider Butt v. Judge Family Court and others (2009 SCMR 1243) Member (S&R)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another (PLD 2003 SC 132) -----(b) Administrative Law – Invalidity Certificate ----Notification dated 08.08.2017 (Primary & Secondary Healthcare Department, Punjab)---Verification of Invalidation Certificate---Essential conditions for retirement on medical grounds---Scope---Held, an Invalidation Certificate must be countersigned by the Director General, Directorate General of Health Services, Punjab, for validity---In the instant case, the Directorate General of Health Services found no record of the purported Invalidation Certificate, declaring it fake and bogus---Retirement, therefore, could not be considered on medical grounds, precluding petitioner’s claim for appointment under Rule 17-A. (c) Evidence Law – Weight of Written vs. Oral Evidence ----Written record vs. oral assertions---Legal principle---Scope---Held, a written document outweighs an oral assertion---Petitioner challenged the authenticity of his father’s voluntary retirement application but failed to rebut its official diarization and authentication---Court relied on the officially recorded Pension Payment Order and retirement notifications, rejecting oral claims made by the petitioner. (d) Constitutional Petition – Concealment of Material Facts ----Principle of equity---Duty of petitioner to disclose all material facts---Scope---Held, petitioner failed to disclose material facts, including the disputed nature of the Invalidation Certificate and his father’s own application for voluntary retirement---Court ruled that concealment of material facts disentitles a petitioner from equitable relief---No relief granted. -----Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali and others v. Province of KPK through Secretary, Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and others (2012 SCMR 673) Waqar Haider Butt v. Judge Family Court and others (2009 SCMR 1243) Member (S&R)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another (PLD 2003 SC 132) -----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner not entitled to appointment under Rule 17-A due to lack of proof of medical retirement of his father. Court notes petitioner’s concealment of material facts and emphasizes the principle that those seeking equity must come with clean hands.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: ''The sexual offence mentioned in Section 375 PPC cannot be equated with the consensual consummation of marriage with a legally wedded girl, who has attained puberty, though she has not attained the minimum age provided under the Act of 1929." --- The Court, in effect, held that: 1. The criminal law related to statutory rape under section 375 Pakistan Penal Code has no affect on the under age marriages; ---- 2. Different under age marriages' laws do not affect the validity of marriages; --- 3. The purpose of marriage restraint laws is to only criminalize the conduct of marrying an underage girl and not to affect the legality of the marriages; --- 4. An under age girl can make a statement in court under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure; --- 5. Only an accused has a statutory right to cross examine a statement under 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. --- the judgment discussed the consequences of marrying an underage girl. It emphasized that the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, provided punishment for such marriages but did not declare them void. The judge rejected the petitioner's argument that respondent No. 5 committed rape, stating that consensual consummation of marriage with a girl who has attained puberty does not equate to rape. The judgment also addressed the petitioner's contention that Mst. Yasmin was not competent to have her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judge ruled that age alone did not determine competence, referring to the Qanun-e-Shahadat. The judgment emphasized the "rationality test" to determine a child's ability to understand and answer questions.

Summary: Background:This case, addressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, involves Civil Petitions Nos. 723 and 724 of 2021, which challenge the judgment dated January 26, 2021, by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The dispute centers on a gift deed registered on July 18, 1991, concerning a house purchased on June 3, 1991. The plaintiff (predecessor of the petitioners) filed a suit for declaration, cancellation, and permanent and mandatory injunction on May 12, 2011, claiming that the gift deed was executed at the request of his younger brother (defendant) who was residing in the United Kingdom at the time, purportedly to show financial and monetary strength.----Issues:Whether the gift deed meets the legal requirements under Mahomedan Law and the Specific Relief Act for it to be considered valid.Whether the plaintiff?s challenge to the gift deed was within the limitation period, given the deed was registered 20 years prior to the suit.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found that the gift deed did not satisfy the essential elements of a valid gift under Mahomedan Law, specifically:The defendant was not present in Pakistan at the time the deed was prepared and registered, making the acceptance and delivery of possession questionable.The plaintiff and his legal heirs remained in possession of the property since the deed's registration.Furthermore, the Court held that the cause of action for challenging the gift deed arose when the defendant attempted to transfer the property into his name, which prompted the filing of the suit. The initial courts failed to adequately consider these points.The petitions were converted into appeals and allowed. The plaintiff?s suit was decreed, the gift deed was cancelled, and the decrees by the first appellate court and the High Court, which favored the defendant, were overturned.----Citations/Precedents:Specific Relief Act (I of 1877): Sections 39, 42, 54, and 55.Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 3: Discusses the timing of the cause of action.Section 149 of Mahomedan Law by D.F. Mulla: Outlines the prerequisites for a valid gift under Islamic law, including offer and acceptance, and delivery of possession.

Summary: Background:This case involves Civil Petition Nos. 1354, 1355, and 1447 of 2020, reviewed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment dated February 12, 2020, by the High Court of Peshawar. The petitioners, Sundas, Naila Khan, and Mst. Reema Naz, were medical students at Khyber Medical University (KMU), whose eligibility to continue their studies was challenged based on the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) regulations.----Issues:Whether the petitioners, having failed their professional examinations multiple times as stipulated by the regulatory standards, were still eligible to continue their studies at KMU.Whether the court should intervene in academic matters such as eligibility criteria and examination regulations set by educational institutions and professional councils.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were ineligible to continue their medical studies under the "Admissions in MBBS/BDS Courses and Conditions for House Job/Internship/Foundation Year Regulations, 2013," which state that a student who fails to pass the first or second professional exams in four attempts, availed or unavailed, shall no longer be eligible to continue. These regulations were legally binding and had been incorporated into KMU's own examination regulations.The court emphasized that academic standards and eligibility criteria set by educational authorities are not generally subject to judicial review unless they are shown to contravene the law or are manifestly unreasonable. The court noted its established practice of non-interference in academic matters, affirming that educational professionals are best placed to determine policies related to academic performance.Despite arguments from the petitioners? counsel citing recent repeals in regulations and appealing on grounds of compassion and hardship, the court maintained that legal and regulatory compliance cannot be overridden by such considerations. The petitions were dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision that the petitioners were not entitled to continue their studies based on the injunctive relief they had initially received from civil courts, which allowed them to temporarily circumvent the binding regulations.----Citations/Precedents:Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962Admissions in MBBS/BDS Courses and Conditions for House Job/Internship/Foundation Year Regulations, 2013Khyber Medical University Examination Regulations, 2008Previous relevant case law affirming the principle of non-interference in academic affairs, including but not limited to:Sadia Nawaz Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and others (CP 928 of 2017)Muhammad Hamid Shah v. Pakistan Medical & Dental Council and others (1996 SCMR 1101)Asma Ghafoor v. Principal, King Edward Medical College and others (2011 SCMR 1311)

Summary: Background:Haji Shinkai (the appellant) brought an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan. The appellant sought restoration of a decree issued by the Trial Court, claiming ownership of land based on an arbitration award (Ex.P.8) obtained through arbitration proceedings.---Issues:Whether the appellant's suit seeking to enforce the arbitration award was maintainable under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.Whether the modification made by the High Court to the Trial Court's decree was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the appellant's suit was not maintainable under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which prohibits suits challenging the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or award. The appellant's claim sought to enforce the arbitration award, thus falling within the scope of Section 32's prohibition. Additionally, the court found that the appellant failed to prove that the defendants voluntarily acted upon the arbitration award, rendering the suit incompetent.Regarding the modification made by the High Court to the Trial Court's decree, the court deemed it unjustified since the appellant had not complied with the requirements set by the High Court. Therefore, the modification was deemed to have lost its effect.As a result, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the appellant's suit was not maintainable under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and no costs were awarded.---Citations/Precedents:Ch. Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Akram and others (PLD 1971 SC 516)Abdul Karim v. Bashir Ahmed (PLD 1974 SC 61)Bibi Najma v. Abdul Rehman (1998 SCMR 1304)Narbadabai & Ors. v. Natverlal Chunilal Bhalakia (AIR 1953 Bombay 386)Abdul Karim v.Bashir Ahmad (PLD 1967 Lah 365)Moolchand Jothajee v. Rashid Jamshed Sons (AIR 1946 Madras 346)M. Gulamali Abulhussein & Co.v. Vishwambharlal (AIR 1949 Bombay 158)Ramchander Singh & others v. Munshi Mian (AIR 1950 Patna 48)Kanhyalal Vishweshwarlal Mahjan v. Ramchandra Shankarrao Holkar (AIR 1959 Madhya Pradesh 415)Abdur Rehman v. Hamid Khan (1988 SCMR 1146)Awan Industries v. Executive Engineer, Lined Channel Div. (1992 SCMR 65)

Summary: Contract Act (IX of 1872)- -S. 73-Specific Relief Act ( I of 1877), Ss. 12 & 54-Suit for possession, permanent injunction and recovery of damages-Special damages, proof of-Requirements and scope-Claim of the plaintiff was that he was allotted two plots in a particular Phase/Sector/ Location (Premier Awami Villa) after balloting, however, despite delivery of possession of said plots, the defendants (Housing Society) subsequently carried out two successive balloting on two dates and allotted plots (Villa) in a different Phase/Sector/Location against earlier allotted/registered plots-Civil Court partially decreed the suit-Plaintiff preferred present appeal only to the extent of special damages to the tune of Rs.524,017,300/- -Contention of the appellant/plaintiff was that due to violation of terms and conditions by the respondents/defendants (Housing Society) he was entitled for recovery of special damages-Validity-Record revealed that although the contents of the plaint showed that the appellant/plaintiff claimed total damages to the tune of Rs.524,017,330/- allegedly suffered by him providing the details of damages on account of different heads/items of losses (total amount of money paid to the defendants; loss of profit on the said money @ Rs.14% per annum; cost of loss of opportunity due to the investment; compensation for the loss of mense profit due to failure to deliver the possession of the villas; compensation for torture and agony faced by the plaintiff due to non-performance of the defendants; and damages for failure to perform by the defendants as per their representations and projections)-However, the appellant/plaintiff remained unable to adduce any evidence to prove special damages allegedly sustained on account of said/mentioned losses-For awarding special damages, the person claiming special damages had to prove each item of loss with reference to the evidence brought on record, which might also include out-of-pocket expenses and loss of earnings incurred down to the date of trial, and generally capable of substantially exact calculation-Ground had been agitated by the appellant that documents (six in number) duly exhibited by him in the evidence had not been considered, whereas said documents related to acknowledgment slips for different tax years only, which had no nexus to the grant of special damages-Appellant's claim did not qualify aspired destination even if same be tested and evaluated on touchstone of parameters envisaged in Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872-Mere breach of the agreement on part of the respondent being alleged by the appellant/plaintiff was not sufficient enough to straightaway grant special damages in his favour-In said connection, he was obliged to establish, substantiate and prove all heads of his claim separately and distinctly-However, in the present case, the appellant had not embraced success on any count in proving the actual damages he suffered and all heads of the damages he claimed for to enable the court for assessment and grant thereof-Thus, Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit of appellant/plaintiff partly-Appellant had failed to make his case for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of the High Court-Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Abdul Majeed Khan v. Tawseen Abdul Haleem and others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 574; Malik Gul Muhammad Awan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance and others 2013 SCMR 507; Mrs. Alia Tareen, Managing Director, Pakistan General Hospital, Quetta and others v. Amanullah Khan, Advocate and 3 others PLD 2005 SC 99; Munawar Ahmed, Chief Editor Daily Sama and another v. Muhammad Ashraf and others PLD 2021 SC 564; Malik Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Hanif and others 2022 SCMR 1572; Sandoz Limited and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1995 SCMR 1431; Mirza Muhammad Moin Baig v. Mst. Amtul Rauf and others 2007 MLD 1978 and Messrs Sagaria Brothers v. Messrs Azim Markaz and 2 others PLD 1994 Kar. 149 ref.

Summary: Legal heirs of a person who was proved to have gone missing have a right to represent him in a suit filed against such a person in terms of Articles 123 & 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

Summary: Summary pending