Summary: Background:Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 filed a Suit for Cancellation of a registered waqfnama dated 18.10.2003, alleging forgery and fictitious representation during its execution. The waqfnama purportedly transferred property from Mst. Hameeda Bano to Defendant No.1 (the Appellant), with Defendants No.2 to 4, also heirs of Mst. Hameeda Bano, supporting its validity. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the Suit, but the Lahore High Court reversed the decision, prompting the present Civil Appeal.---Issues:Whether the Suit was time-barred.Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 paid the appropriate court fees.Whether the waqfnama was valid or forged.Whether the Suit was maintainable under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.Whether the objections regarding the certification by the Sub-Registrar were valid.Whether the Suit was within the statute of limitations.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court found that the Suit was indeed time-barred, as it was filed two years after the death of Mst. Hameeda Bano, the alleged transferor of the property.Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 failed to pay the appropriate court fees, rendering the Civil Revision liable for dismissal.The Court held that the waqfnama was valid, as Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its forgery or fictitious nature.The Suit was deemed maintainable under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as it involved a challenge to the validity of an instrument.The objections regarding certification by the Sub-Registrar were dismissed, as both documents contained the necessary certification.The Suit was found to be within the statute of limitations, as it was filed within three years of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1's knowledge of the alleged forgery.---Citations/Precedents:Allah Yar v. Muhammad Riaz and others (PLD 1981 SC 489)Mst. Kaniz Begum and others v. Mst. Akbar Jan and another (1984 SCMR 1493)

Summary: PLJ 2020 CrC (Islamabad) 945 Present Ghulam Azam Qambrani J MUHAMMAD AFZAL and another - - Appellants versus MUZAFFAR KHAN and 11 others - - Respondents Crl A No 99 of 2019 decided on 912020 Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 - - - - - - Ss 3 4 7 - - Conviction sentence - - Acquittal of - - Land was undivided - - Co - sharer - - Joint possession - - Non - availability of evidence - - Jurisdiction - - Challenge to - - Parties are descendants who left behind heirs and some land were left behind them which are in joint possession of parties - - However it was case of complainant that they have divided lands according to their shares but on face of record no such evidence has been brought to prove factum of partition in between them - - It is well settled law that all co - sharers are deemed to be owners of land unless land is divided partitioned in accordance with law uS 135 of Land Revenue Act 1967 - - It is well settled proposition of law that every criminal case has to be decided in its own peculiar circumstances and facts - - Disputed land was un - divided in between parties - - It is legally presumed that every share holder of a joint holding would be deemed to be in joint possession - - Since respondentcomplainant himself during cross - examination admits that it is also correct that land falling in khasra was never partitioned by meets and bounds by any revenue department - - During cross - examination complainant further stated that it is correct that I as well as respondents agreed in jirga that a person namely be appointed for measurement of whole property including house of Shahzad later on objected and refused to accept measurement done - - Meaning thereby still whole property has not been dividedpartitioned in between them therefore under Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 trial Court is not competent to determine legal character and to pass upon for handing over of possession of piece of land to some one as same is not vested in its jurisdiction - - Civil Court and revenue authorities are competent to resolve issues - - There is no direct evidence against accused to attract provisions of Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 - - It is an admitted fact that still land in dispute has not been properly partitioned through revenue staff and still no revenue record has been maintained about partition in between parties - - Possession of one co - sharer always deems to be possession of all co - owners - - No one can deny possession of co - owner - - Parties are in admitted feature that they are predecessor - in - interest who left behind landed property upon which parties ie appellants and complainant are in possession but still no proper partition has been made - - Respondentscomplainants failed to produce any evidence with regard to Qabza Groupsproperty grabbers and land mafia against appellants - - Matter in between parties is of civil nature - - Exercise in such matter would be abuse of process of law which cannot be allowed - - Order accordingly [Pp 950 951 952] A B C 2010 SCMR 1254 PLD 2007 Lahore 231 2016 PCrLJ 18 Raja Abid Hussain Janjua Advocate for Appellants Mr Ijaz Janjua Advocate for Respondents 1 to 11Judgement Result:Appeal accepted

Summary: The CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS, ISLAMABAD-Respondent (Against the judgment dated 16.02.2018, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 426(L)/2017) Civil service- -Regular inquiry after retirement from service-Appellant who was a Senior Auditor in the office of the Provincial Accountant General, along with four other employees was proceeded against for taking out a procession, and forcefully closing down their office-Competent authority dismissed appellant and three others from service, while the fourth employee was compulsorily retired-Service Tribunal reinstated all four employees in service with direction to hold regular inquiry against them, whereas in case of appellant his major penalty of dismissal from service was converted into compulsory retirement and it was ordered that since appellant had reached age of superannuation therefore there question of conducting a regular inquiry did not arise-Held, that case of the appellant was similar to that of the remaining four persons, and the very fact that the appellant retired from service before his appeal came to be decided, could not provide justification to the Tribunal to take a different view from the one taken in the case of the other four employees-Since the appellant seemed to have been treated differently by the impugned judgment from four other employees, the impugned judgment to the extent of the appellant was not sustainable in law-Impugned judgment was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the department to hold regular enquiry in the case of the appellant and thereafter, to pass necessary order in accordance with law-Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: TY 2008

Summary: Bail denied---Background:Arif Hussain, the petitioner/accused, filed a bail application under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) in Cr.Misc. No.67/2020 before the Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. He was accused under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in FIR No.38/2020 for his alleged involvement in an altercation that led to injuries.---Issues:Whether Arif Hussain is entitled to bail given the allegations against him.Whether the offense under Section 324 PPC attracts the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ali Baig presided over the case. The court dismissed Arif Hussain's bail petition after considering arguments from both parties. The court noted that Hussain was directly named in the FIR with a specific role, and the offense fell under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Eye-witnesses implicated Hussain in the occurrence, indicating his participation in facilitating the principal accused. Although an affidavit was submitted claiming Hussain's assistance to the victim, the court deemed it insufficient for further inquiry, deferring such determination to the trial court. Citing precedent, the court concluded that Hussain was not entitled to bail, and the petition was dismissed.----Citations/Precedents:PLD 1990 Supreme Court 83

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending