Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.92---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42, 39 & 54---Waqf Property---Suit fordeclaration, cancellation documents and permanent injunction---Failure to obtain permissionfrom Advocate General---Effect---Plaintiff assailed the dismissal of his suit for declaration,cancellation of documents, permanent injunction and consequential relief---Validity---Plaintiff had admitted that the property was actually Waqf property---Relief claimed in thesuit fell within the scope of S.92, C.P.C., as such, permission from Advocate General wasrequired, which was not obtained---Suit was not maintainable---Revision petition wasdismissed.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.92---Public charities---Scope---Suit under S.92, C.P.C., is of special nature which presupposes the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable character---Object of S.92,C.P.C., is to protect a public trust of a charitable and religious nature from being subjected toharassment by suits filed against them---Public trust for charitable and religious purposes arerun for the benefit of the public---No individual should take benefit from them---Section 92,C.P.C., has no application where the plaintiff does not sue to vindicate the right of the publicbut seek declaration of his individual or personal rights.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.92---Public charities---Waqf property---Scope---Question, whether permission fromAdvocate General under S.92, C.P.C., is required, can only be determined once it isestablished that the property with respect to which the suit has been filed is waqf property---Where the Court holds on the basis of evidence that the property in question is waqf propertyand the relief sought by the plaintiff falls within the scope of Cls. (a) to (h) to subsection (i)of S.92, C.P.C., the suit can be dismissed on the sole ground that the consent under S.92,C.P.C., was not obtained prior to the filing of the suit---If on the other hand, the Court holdsthat the property is not waqf property or that the relief prayed for does not fall within thescope of S.92, C.P.C., then the consent under S.92, C.P.C., for filing a suit would not be necessary.(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S.115---Revision---Scope---High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction issupposed to make a comparative analysis of both the judgments in order to determine theirvalidity on the touchstone of S.115, C.P.C., but in the matter of giving preference to thejudgments of lower courts, while analyzing the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction,the preference and regard is always given to the findings of the appellate court, if those arenot suffering from any legal infirmity.Muhammad Nawaz through L.Rs v. Haji Muhammad Baran Khan through L.Rs andothers 2013 SCMR 1300 rel.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. XXII, R. 3-Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff-Scope-Where no application is made or intimation is given of death of sole or one of several plaintiffs the court proceed with the case and any order made and judgment pronounced in such suit notwithstanding of death of plaintiff have the same force and effect as it had been made or pronounced before the death took place-Death of plaintiff during pendency of his suit would not cause his suit to abate, if no application for impleading his legal representative is brought within the period of limitation-In absence of such application for impleading legal representative of a deceased party, Court will continue with adjudication of the suit and decree so passed would be valid. Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Sakhi PLD 1989 SC 755 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. XIV, Rr. 1 & 3-Framing of issues-Material from which issues may be framed-Scope-Issues are to be framed on the basis of material alleged by one party and denied by other-Court should frame issues with regard to material proposition of law or fact-Separate issues are to be framed-Court is to frame proper issues so that a party could know the controversy. Juma Gul v. Gul Bibi 2015 MLD 1627 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against impugned order dated 23.11.2017 and 30.09.2019 and impugned inquiry report dated 15.05.2017 and seeks reinstatement in service with all back benefits

Summary: Criminal revision against order dated 10.02.2020 passed by Learned Anti Terrism Court

Summary: Regular First Appeal, Suit dismissed, (value 27,65,000/-)

Summary: In the case at hand, appellants Muhammad Abbas, Faisal Jabbar, and Muhammad Yasir appealed their convictions under sections 302 and 34 PPC for the murder of Saqlain Mehmood Kiani. The trial court had sentenced Muhammad Abbas and Faisal Jabbar to death, while Muhammad Yasir received life imprisonment. The appellants challenged their convictions on grounds of case fabrication, failure of the prosecution to establish facts, and procedural defects. The defense, asserting enmity as a motive, argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution presented independent witnesses and medical evidence, with the recovery of a pistol from Muhammad Yasir serving as additional support. Upon analysis, the court expressed reservations about eyewitness testimony, highlighting the lack of physical proof and plausible reasons for their presence at the crime scene. Doubts about witness credibility arose due to the absence of testimony from nearby individuals and the acquittal of a co-accused, leading the court to invoke the principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." Legal precedent, notably the case of Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772), was cited to underscore the importance of cautious consideration when evaluating witness testimony. The court questioned the appellants' conduct, noting the absence of blood-stained clothes from eyewitnesses and highlighting the failure to secure crucial evidence. The lack of proof regarding the appellants' motive further weakened the prosecution's case. The court concluded that serious doubts existed about the appellants' guilt, warranting careful judgment.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXII, R. 3---Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff---Scope---Where no application is made or intimation is given of death of sole or one ofseveral plaintiffs the court proceed with the case and any order made and judgmentpronounced in such suit notwithstanding of death of plaintiff have the same force and effectas it had been made or pronounced before the death took place---Death of plaintiff duringpendency of his suit would not cause his suit to abate, if no application for impleading hislegal representative is brought within the period of limitation---In absence of suchapplication for impleading legal representative of a deceased party, Court will continue withadjudication of the suit and decree so passed would be valid.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XIV, Rr. 1 & 3---Framing of issues---Material from which issues may be framed---Scope---Issues are to be framed on the basis of material alleged by one party and denied byother---Court should frame issues with regard to material proposition of law or fact---Separate issues are to be framed---Court is to frame proper issues so that a party could knowthe controversy.