Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, Rr. 90 & 91---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Non-filing of appeal---Condonation of delay---Jail authorities, responsibility of---Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts and no Jail Appeal was filed by him despite being in jail for more than thirteen years before filing of appeal before Supreme Court---Validity---Superintendent of Jail should have obtained and forwarded appeal as he was under obligation to facilitate petitioner/convict in filing of appeal within the period of limitation as prescribed under Rule 91 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978---Technicalities should not hamper Court of justice---Powers regarding condonation under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 should be liberally exercised to ensure administration of justice in its true spirit---Supreme Court condoned the delay of more than thirteen years caused in filing of Jail Appeal against death sentence on three counts---Application was allowed. Muhammad Bakhsh alias Muhammadi v. The State 1985 SCMR 72; Muhammad Nawaz v. The State PLD 2002 SC 287 and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. The State PLD 2009 SC 814 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302 (b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Triple murder---Death sentence on three counts---Principle of expectancy of life---Motive not proved---Plea of substitution---Accused was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts for committing triple murder---Plea raised by accused was that it was a blind murder---Validity---Both the eye-witnesses had plausibly explained their presence with deceased at the spot at the time of occurrence---Presence of complainant with three deceased out of whom one was his brother and remaining two were his wife and daughter respectively, was quite natural and appealable---In villages such close relatives do associate and accompany each other to market/bazaar for purchase of household articles---Substitution of real culprits, especially in cases where eye-witnesses lost their kith and kins before their own eyes was a rare phenomenon---Once motive is set up by prosecution, but thereafter fails to prove the same, then prosecution must suffer the consequences and not the defense---Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction of accused recorded by two Courts below under section 302(b), P.P.C. but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life on three counts as prosecution failed to prove motive and there were minor discrepancies in evidence coupled with long incarceration of accused, since his arrest including his period in death cell---Appeal was dismissed. Allah Ditta v. The State PLD 2002 SC 52; Muhammad Iqbal v. The State PLD 2001 SC 222; Asfandiyar v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 2009; Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487; Azhar Hussain and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1907; Shamsher Ahmad and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1931; Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723; Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795; Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State 2023 SCMR 566; Taiamal Hussain Shah v. The State and another 2022 SCMR 1567; Liaqat Ali and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 780; Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736; Khalid Mehmood and others v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 810; Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki's case 1993 SCMR 1660 and Falak Sher's case 1999 SCMR 2432 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence---Ocular evidence and medical evidence---Preference---Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence---Ocular account alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused. Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1996 SCMR 908; Naeem Akhtar v. The State PLD 2003 SC 396; Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2010 SCMR 1025 and Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 2011 SCMR 460 rel. Rizwan Ejaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Azhar Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Complainant. Irfan Zia, APG for the State. Date of hearing: 17th February, 2025.

Summary: Oaths Act (X of 1873)--- ----Ss. 8 & 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 163---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 8, 12 & 42---Suit for possession, specific performance of agreement to sell and declaration---Special oath, administering of---Stage of suit-- -Proceedings for setting aside ex-parte decree---Suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was decreed ex-parte and appellants/defendants during proceedings to set aside ex-parte decree offered for special oath---Trial Court dismissed application for setting aside of decree and on the basis of special oath decided the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff---Validity---Offer of special oath was triggered when application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte order was fixed for evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, while partial evidence of appellants/defendants in such regard had already been recorded---It was at such stage when the offer was made---If at all special oath could have been offered, it could only be to the extent of deciding pending application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C.---Procedure required in terms of Article 163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 read with sections 8 and 9 of Oaths Act, 1873 did not contemplate a decision of dispute which had already been rendered ex-parte---Decision on oath is one of the prescribed ways of disposal but at the same time Courts are bound to handle such cases with great care---Ex-parte judgment and decree was a past and closed transaction and it could only be opened once application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. could have been allowed and not otherwise---Corpus before Trial Court was a miscellaneous application and not the main suit---Judge in Chambers of High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction exceeded its jurisdiction, when Lower Appellate Court had exercised its jurisdiction properly---Revisional Court misread powers conveyed to the attorney which had not enabled the attorney to propose offer on a special oath---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court and restored that of Lower Appellate Court, which was incorrectly set aside---Appeal was allowed. Muhammad Ali v. Muhammad Aslam and others PLD 1990 SC 841 rel. Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. No. 550-L of 2009). Nemo for the Applicant (in C.M.A. No. 2063-L of 2016). Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2025.

Summary: ----S.2---Power of attorney---Interpretation---Power of attorney must be construed strictly as giving only such authority as is conferred expressly or by necessary implication---Power of attorney cannot empower beyond what it really conveys and its contents must be taken into consideration as a whole---Power of attorney only gives that power which is specifically mentioned therein. Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 and Muhammad Yasin and another v. Dost Muhammad through Legal Heirs and another PLD 2002 SC 71 rel. (b) Counsel and client--- ----Power of attorney (Vakalatnama)---Scope---Power of attorney (Vakalatnama) does not confer impliedly the power of compromise on the counsel or to make any statement to withdraw suit or to get the suit decreed (on basis of compromise), until and unless such powers have been specifically given to the attorney. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 12(2) & 115---Compromise of proceedings---Statement of counsel/ lawyer---Petitioners were aggrieved of disposal of proceedings in favour of respondents on the basis of statement made by their counsel/lawyer-- -Validity---Valuable rights of parties were involved in the lis, therefore, while deciding the case on the basis of compromise, the Court should have applied maximum care and caution to ascertain whether the parties had agreed to the statement of compromise given by their counsel---Petitioners engaged counsel to pursue their case diligently and efficiently and had never authorized him to make any statement of compromise or to get the suit decreed on the basis of compromise---No authority through Vakalatnama was given to the counsel to make compromise with the opposite party nor to get the suit decreed on the basis of compromise---Statement made by petitioners' counsel was not binding upon them---Courts below committed illegality while dismissing application of petitioners under S. 12(2) C.P.C.---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside orders passed by two Courts below wherein judicial mind was not applied and application under S. 12(2) C.P.C. was decided on surmises and conjectures---High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to decide the matter afresh---Revision was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Hussain and others v. Mst. Hanaf Ilahi and others 2005 SCMR 1121 and Abdul Shakoor and others v. Haroon and others 2008 SCMR 896 rel. Asif Imran Teja for for Petitioners. Sheikh Irfan Karim-ud-Din for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2024.

Summary: ----S. 540-A---Exemption from personal appearance---Grounds---Application of the accused under S. 540-A, Cr.P.C., for exemption from personal appearance permanently on the ground of earning his livelihood abroad was dismissed by the Trial Court, but same was allowed by the Revisional Court---Validity---Exemption of accused from attendance for a long period is always read as detrimental to expeditious trial but legislator has also taken care of such issue while introducing S. 540(2), Cr.P.C., which is a saving clause---Court could direct an appropriate authority for alternate arrangement for appearance of accused on video link if he is in Pakistan, and if abroad, Court can pass on such direction to concerned High Commission for arrangement of place suggested by the Commission---Thus, during the trial if the accused was incapable of remaining before the Court, he could seek his physical exemption from appearance either through lawyer or through virtual presence on video link---Consequently, impugned order did not call for any interference, therefore petition was dismissed accordingly. Haji Aurangzeb v. Mushtaq Ahmad and another PLD 2004 SC 160; Muhammad Nawaz v. The State and another 2015 PCr.LJ 58 and Aftab Ahmad v. The State through Assistant Advocate-General, Rawalakot 2019 PCr.LJ 267 ref. Haji Aurangzeb v. Mushtaq Ahmad and another PLD 2004 SC 160; Muhammad Nawaz v. The State and another 2015 PCr.LJ 58; Aftab Ahmad v. The State through Assistant Advocate-General, Rawalakot 2019 PCr.LJ 267; Muhammad Latif v. Zaheer Iqbal and another 2020 MLD 160; Intizar Hussain and another v. Amjad Hussain and another 2023 PCr.LJ 596; Raja Pervez Ashraf v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others PLD 2020 Isl. 24; Sajjad Akbar v. The State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 3 others 2022 MLD 1325; Meera Shafi v. Ali Zafar PLD 2023 SC 211; Khawaja Anwer Majid v. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman NAB and another PLD 2020 SC 635; Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. Special Judge, (Anti-Terrorism Court), Lahore and 3 others PLD 2004 Lah. 486; Munawar Hussain and another v. The State 2020 PCr.LJ 1184 and Muhammad Israr v. The State and another PLD 2021 Pesh. 105 rel. Zulfiqar Ali Dhudhi for Petitioner. Syed Muntazir Mehdi Bukhari, ADPP with Zulfiqar ASI. Rai Zameer ul Hassan for Respondent No.3.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 200---Direct complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C---Mala fides and ulterior motives of complainant---Perusal of the record demonstrated that prior to filing a direct complaint by the petitioner, an FIR was registered against the present petitioner and other accused persons with the allegations of attacking a police party and security persons deputed by some foreigners and robbing government ammunitions---Thus, the direct complaint appeared to be a deliberate and calculated retaliatory measure in response to the earlier FIR, indicating that it may have been filed with clear mala fide intentions and ulterior motives---In the present case, the material presented by the petitioner in support of the complaint failed to make out a prima facie case---High Court rightly held that this inadequacy of supporting material necessitated that the Trial Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the complaint, thereby preventing the legal system from being burdened with an unsubstantiated claim---Petition was dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 200, 201, 202, 203 & 204---Direct complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C.---Inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C---Purpose---Factors to be considered by the Court---Provisions of Sections 202, 203, and 204 of the Cr.P.C. require Trial Courts to conduct a thorough examination of the evidence supporting allegations made against individuals---In this context, the Trial Court must consider not only the factual basis for the accusations but also the underlying purpose of bringing those charges forward---This includes evaluating whether there is a legitimate objective behind the allegations or if they serve to unjustly target or harass the accused---Moreover, the Trial Court should assess the possibility of victimization, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to legal actions that could lead to unnecessary distress or humiliation---Careful analysis of the provisions of Sections 201 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. reveals that the purpose of inquiry or investigation under Section 202, Cr.P.C. is to enable the Court to scrutinize allegations thoroughly, with the aim of protecting a person complained against from being summoned to face frivolous accusations---Section 202 of the Cr.P.C is, in fact, an enabling provision that empowers the Court to conduct an effective inquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations presented in the complaint---This inquiry serves to help the Court form an opinion as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further---Therefore, the inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C is not a futile exercise and must be considered by the Court when deciding whether or not to issue process. Abdul Muktadar and another v. District and Sessions Judge, Jhang and 2 others 2010 SCMR 194; Abdul Wahab Khan v. Muhammad Nawaz and 7 others 2000 SCMR 1904 and Zafar and others v. Umer Hayat and others 2010 SCMR 1816 ref. Muhammad Yousuf Laghari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th October, 2024.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 200---Direct complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C---Mala fides and ulterior motives of complainant---Perusal of the record demonstrated that prior to filing a direct complaint by the petitioner, an FIR was registered against the present petitioner and other accused persons with the allegations of attacking a police party and security persons deputed by some foreigners and robbing government ammunitions---Thus, the direct complaint appeared to be a deliberate and calculated retaliatory measure in response to the earlier FIR, indicating that it may have been filed with clear mala fide intentions and ulterior motives---In the present case, the material presented by the petitioner in support of the complaint failed to make out a prima facie case---High Court rightly held that this inadequacy of supporting material necessitated that the Trial Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the complaint, thereby preventing the legal system from being burdened with an unsubstantiated claim---Petition was dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 200, 201, 202, 203 & 204---Direct complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C.---Inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C---Purpose---Factors to be considered by the Court---Provisions of Sections 202, 203, and 204 of the Cr.P.C. require Trial Courts to conduct a thorough examination of the evidence supporting allegations made against individuals---In this context, the Trial Court must consider not only the factual basis for the accusations but also the underlying purpose of bringing those charges forward---This includes evaluating whether there is a legitimate objective behind the allegations or if they serve to unjustly target or harass the accused---Moreover, the Trial Court should assess the possibility of victimization, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to legal actions that could lead to unnecessary distress or humiliation---Careful analysis of the provisions of Sections 201 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. reveals that the purpose of inquiry or investigation under Section 202, Cr.P.C. is to enable the Court to scrutinize allegations thoroughly, with the aim of protecting a person complained against from being summoned to face frivolous accusations---Section 202 of the Cr.P.C is, in fact, an enabling provision that empowers the Court to conduct an effective inquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations presented in the complaint---This inquiry serves to help the Court form an opinion as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further---Therefore, the inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C is not a futile exercise and must be considered by the Court when deciding whether or not to issue process. Abdul Muktadar and another v. District and Sessions Judge, Jhang and 2 others 2010 SCMR 194; Abdul Wahab Khan v. Muhammad Nawaz and 7 others 2000 SCMR 1904 and Zafar and others v. Umer Hayat and others 2010 SCMR 1816 ref. Muhammad Yousuf Laghari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th October, 2024.

Summary: ----Ss. 44A, 47 & O. XXI, Rr. 11, 58---Foreign decree---Execution proceedings---Passing of order of attachment of assets of judgment-debtor for satisfaction of foreign decree subject to any charge or encumbrance already existing on such assets---Secured objectors/banks filed their separate objections against the order of attachment---One of the secured creditor/bank took the plea that instead of attachment of assets of judgment-debtor let it be operational in view of its precarious financial position for clearing the debts---Validity---Attachment order explicitly stated action being taken was conditional upon and subordinate to any existing legal claims, charges or mortgages on them---If there were prior claims by other parties, such claims would take precedence---Such condition was a legal safeguard ensuring that the order of attachment of assets did not interfere with pre-existing rights of other parties and that the High Court acknowledged and respected any legal claims or financial burdens that were already in place before issuing the attachment order---Enforcement of a judgment is a legal process aimed at protecting creditor's right and if the judgment debtor's financial situation was as precarious as claimed, it was unclear how continued operations would safeguard public interest better---Precarious financial position of a debtor (judgment-debtor) alone was not a ground to deny a creditor (decree-holder) its right to enforce a judgment---If such a plea was to be accepted, that would set a dangerous precedent where financially distressed entitles could indefinitely delay enforcement by merely citing their poor financial health---Secured creditors might have mutually agreed to accord a "standstill" to the judgment debtor, but such an arrangement cannot be imposed on the decree-holder, which was not a part to such an informal agreement---Objections applications were dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 44A---Foreign judgment/decree---Execution---Legal entitlement of decree-holder to recover legitimate debt and impact on other creditors---Scope---Enforcement of a judgment is based on the legal right of a creditor to recover outstanding amounts---Financial impact on other creditors or depositors does not override the legal entitlement of the decree-holder to seek enforcement---Judgment debtor's financial distress cannot serve as a justification to deny the legitimate enforcement of the debt. Ijaz Ahmed for Decree Holder. Abdul Ahad and Khurram Ashfaq for Judgment Debtor. Abdallah Azzaam Naqvi for Objector/Applicant (in C.M.A. No.2940 of 2022). Rashid Anwar and Muhammad Adil Saeed for Objector/ Applicant (in C.M.A. No.2939 of 2022). Afaq Ahmed for Objector/Applicant (in C.M.A. No.2363 of 2022). Dates of hearing: 11th, 15th, 18th, 20th, 22nd December 2023, 22nd March, 2024 and 24th February 2025.

Summary: Per Amin-ud-Din Khan; Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Musarrat Hilali, Naeem Akhter Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ. agreeing. (a) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act (XVII of 2023)--- ----Ss. 2(1) & 2A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(3) & 191A(4)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 221A(2)---Fixation of cases---Vires of law---Jurisdiction of Benches---Question for determination was with regard to fixation of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal, challenging vires of section 221A(2) of Customs Act, 1969---Petitions in question were inadvertently fixed before Regular Bench of Supreme Court---Constitutional Committee of Supreme Court withdrew petitions in question and fixed the same before Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court---Validity---Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal in question, under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution, were mistakenly/inadvertently fixed before Regular Bench of Supreme Court and that Bench had assumed jurisdiction without lawful authority---Orders passed by Regular Bench of Supreme Court in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal in question were non-est---Committees constituted under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution and under section 2(1) of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 were legal and Constitutional fora to determine as to which Bench of Supreme Court would hear what matters---Exercise of powers and performance of legal and Constitutional functions by both the Committees did not impinge upon judicial functions of any Bench of Supreme Court---Supreme Court directed the office to issue notices to respondents and also to Attorney General for Pakistan and fix the petitions before Constitutional Bench after completing codal formalities. Per Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. (b) Interpretation of Constitution--- ----Reading down, principle of---Applicability---Court is duty bound to ascertain and elucidate present day meaning of the Constitution through purposive interpretation, rather than applying doctrine of reading down without purpose. (c) Maxim--- ----A verbis legis non est recedendum---Connotation---Legal maxim "a verbis legis non est recedendum" means that there must be no departure from the words of law---When language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there can be no assumption that the Legislature made a mistake---No word in statute should be treated as a certain surplusage or rendered ineffective or purposeless if Court is to carry out legislative intent fully and completely. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92; Hamza Rasheed Khan v. Election Appellate Tribunal PLD 2024 SC 1028; M.Q.M. v. Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 439; Khurshid Industries v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2020 SC 641; Sindh Revenue Board v. Civil Aviation Authority 2017 SCMR 1344; LDA v. Imrana Tiwana 2015 SCMR 1739; Province of Sindh v. M.Q.M. PLD 2014 SC 531; Reference by the President of Pakistan PLD 2013 SC 279; Aamer Raza v. Minhaj Ahmad 2012 SCMR 6; Al-Raham Travels v. Ministry of Religious Affairs 2011 SCMR 1621; Arshad Mehmood v. Government of Punjab PLD 2005 SC 193; Pakistan Tobacco Company v. Govt. of N.W.F.P. PLD 2002 SC 460; Elahi Cotton Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582; Government of Balochistan v. Azizullah Memon PLD 1993 SC 341 and Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, (South Asian Edition-2017), Vol-I, 15.9(f) rel. (d) Jurisdiction--- ----Object, purpose and scope---Term jurisdiction in legal parlance refers to authority conferred upon Courts by law and the Constitution to adjudicate matters between parties---Jurisdiction of every Court is delineated and established to ensure adherence to law and issuance of legal orders---Transgressing or exceeding boundaries of its jurisdiction and authority annuls and invalidates judgments and orders. Mian Irfan Bashir v. Deputy Commissioner (D.C.), Lahore PLD 2021 SC 571 rel. (e) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 209(8)---Code of Conduct for Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts---Provision of Article 209(8) of the Constitution implies complete submission to the Constitution and under it to the law. (f) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act (XVII of 2023)--- ----Ss. 2(1) & 2A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(3) & 191A(4)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 221A(2)---Fixation of cases---Vires of law---Jurisdiction of Benches---Question for determination was with regard to fixation of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal, challenging vires of section 221 A (2) of Customs Act, 1969---Petitions in question were inadvertently fixed before Regular Bench of Supreme Court---Constitutional Committee of Supreme Court withdrew the petition in question and fixed before Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court---Validity---Committee under section 2 of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 is responsible for handling and fixing cases before Regular Benches of Supreme Court, other than those falling within Article 191A(3) of the Constitution---Committee under section 2A of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 has been vested with jurisdiction to determine whether a case falls within Article 191A (3) of the Constitution, if it does, it should be heard by Constitutional Bench and if not, it may be referred to the Committee constituted under section 2 of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 for fixation and disposal by another Bench of Supreme Court---Both Committees are provided for under the provisions of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023---Second Committee is also protected under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution, a recognition not accorded to the First Committee---Supreme Court directed Registrar of Supreme Court that in order to provide effective administrative and sectoral support, he/she must take all reasonable precautions to prevent mistakes or oversight in case fixation---Supreme Court further directed that concerned branch/officials should be sensitized about the nitty-gritty of Article 191A of the Constitution so that they would not commit any such mistake or misadventure in future---Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court had rightly recalled orders passed by Regular Bench of Supreme Court as the same were without jurisdiction---On recalling such orders, the superstructure built thereon also collapsed and any proceedings taken, orders passed or actions made in pursuance of the orders in question had lost their status and effect. Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan PLD 1995 SC 66; Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Abdul Haque PLD 1963 SC 486; Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 [1803]; Secrest v. Galloway Co., 30 N.W. 2d 793, 797, 239 Iowa 168; Rupert Cross & J.W. Harris, Precedent in English Law 149 (4th ed. 1991); Black's Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition); C.C.K. Allen in Law in the Making (Page No. 246); Yousuf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia PLD 1958 SC 104; Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 119; Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Younas 2007 SCMR 1835 and Rehmatullah v. Saleh Khan 2007 SCMR 729 rel. Mirza Nasar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Iqbal Raja, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Khalil Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and K. A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (via video link from Karachi). Mansoor Awan, A.G.P. On Court's Notice. Salahuddin Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court, Shahid Jameel Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Imran Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Haider Waheed, Advocate Supreme Court, Rashid Anwer, Advocate Supreme Court, Ghulam Hyder Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (via video link from Karachi). Date of hearing: 28th January, 2025.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 123 & 124---Suit for declaration and injunction---Missing person---Proof---Hearsay evidence---Owner of suit land was issueless who had two brothers and one sister---Through sale mutation the owner transferred a portion of his land in favour of defendant/brother---Thereafter the owner had gone missing and remaining suit land was transferred through mutation of inheritance in favour of defendant/brother and defendant/ sister considering him (the owner) dead---Plaintiffs were successors-in-interest of third brother who did not get any share from suit land---Suit filed by plaintiffs was decreed and mutations in question were declared invalid---Validity---Statement of plaintiff could not be relied upon as he was a minor at the time of his father's death, and he had not stated who told him that his father was unaware of the sale---Such statement of plaintiff was treated as mere hearsay---Where original owner did not opt to contest sale mutation while alive, his death could not confer any rights or standing upon his descendants to challenge such sale---Plaintiffs lacked standing, and their claim was barred by time limitations imposed by law---If evidence shows a person was alive within thirty years prior to the date when question of his status arises, there is a presumption that he is still alive---Burden of proof then falls upon the party asserting his death---Such presumption is susceptible to rebuttal under Article 124 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---If it can be demonstrated that such a person has not been heard of for a period of seven years by those who would naturally have maintained contact with him, the burden of proof then shifts to those claiming the person is still alive---Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs predeceased his brother, thus, he had no claim to any inheritance from him---Plaintiffs lacked legal standing necessary to challenge validity of mutation of inheritance as they could not substantiate their claim to any share of inheritance---Supreme Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below as none of the Courts below properly appreciated such aspect of the matter, and had misdirected themselves, holding that inheritance mutation was void---Supreme Court declared that both sale mutation and inheritance mutation were valid---Appeal was allowed. Gauhar Rehman v. Jan Ashbi and another 1990 SCMR 1586; Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum and others 2002 SCMR 1330; Mst. Rakhi Bivi v. Rahat Bibi (7.N.W.191 at 192-93); The Hedaya, Page-216; Mazhar Ali and others v. Budh Singh and others (1884) ILR 7 All. 297; Sir John Woodroffe and Amir Ali's "Law of Evidence", 15th Edition (199 1) at PP 672- 673; Goods of Ganesh Das Aurora (deceased) AIR 1926 Cal. 1056; Jeshankar Revashankar v. Bai Divali (1919) 22 Bombay Law Reporter 771; Ramabai and others v. Sarawathi and others AIR 1953 Tra.Co.114; Muhammad Sarwar and another v. Fazal Ahmad and another PLD 1987 SC 1; Lal Hussain v. Mst. Sadiq and another 2001 SCMR 1036 and Perveen Shoukat v. Province of Sindh and others PLD 2019 SC 710 rel. Altaf Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. No. 44-P of 2012). Zia ur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. No. 62-P of 2012) via video link from Branch Registry Peshawar. Altaf Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 62-P of 2012). Zia ur Rehman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 44-P of 2012) via video link from Branch Registry Peshawar. Date of hearing: 26th February, 2025.

Summary: ----S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17, 75, 76 & 79---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Execution of agreement to sell, denial of---Proof---Producing two attesting witnesses of the agreement, requirement of---Producing original copies of the documents relied upon, requirement of---Primary and secondary evidence---Principle---The petitioner (vendee) filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell claiming to have made part payments and that the respondent No.1 (vendor) failed to execute the final transfer of the property---The respondent (vendor) acknowledged the existence of the first sale agreement, but disputed the date, place of execution, agents, and some terms---A second agreement was executed extending the final payment deadline---Only a photocopy of the first page was submitted, whereas, pages 2 to 4 lacked signatures of parties- --Trial Court dismissed the suit for lack of original documentary evidence and failure to examine attesting witnesses---The appellate court upheld this dismissal of Trial Court---Points for consideration before the High Court in the present revision petition were as to "whether the petitioner/vendee, having failed to produce the original sale agreement and examine attesting witnesses in accordance with the mandate of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could validly seek specific performance of the alleged agreements, particularly where the existence of a second agreement and compliance with contractual obligations remained unproven"---Held: Petitioner did not examine the two attesting witnesses of the agreements of sale, instead, he opted to examine his son, who was not an attesting witness, therefore, the petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements stipulated under Arts. 17 & 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Petitioner neither pleaded nor provided any substantiating evidence regarding the loss or destruction of the original documents annexed with the plaint---Furthermore, no effort was made to invoke the provisions of Arts. 75 & 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which prescribed the conditions for the admissibility of secondary evidence---In the absence of adherence to these legal prerequisites, and in view of the well-established jurisprudence, the suit lacked legal sustainability on this ground alone---It is settled law that documentary evidence must be presented in its original form unless exceptional circumstances justify the reliance on secondary evidence---The petitioner's reliance on photocopies, without fulfilling the necessary legal requirements for admissibility under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, lacked evidentiary weight---Additionally, significant discrepancies in witness testimonies and inconsistencies in the documentary evidence cast serious doubt on the authenticity and enforceability of the purported agreement---Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 117 & 120---Burden of proof---Scope---The burden of proof lies upon the party asserting a claim, and such a party must substantiate its case through credible and admissible evidence---Party cannot merely rely on highlighting deficiencies in the opponent's case, rather, it must independently establish its own claim through cogent and legally admissible evidence. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 75 & 76(a) & 76(c)---Document---Proof---Admissibility of documentary evidence---Legal framework---Admissibility of documentary evidence necessitates the submission of primary evidence unless the exceptions outlined under Arts. 76(a) & 76(c) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, are met---Secondary evidence is admissible only in instances where the original document is demonstrably unavailable---However, in cases where the execution and subsequent loss of the original document remain unverified, secondary evidence lacks evidentiary weight. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 75 & 76---Document---Proof---Authenticity of a document, dispute over---Relying on a photocopy instead of original---Effect and scope---When the authenticity of a document is contested and the original is not produced, a certified copy cannot be relied upon as evidence---Mere presentation of a document does not automatically confer evidentiary value unless its contents are established in accordance with the requirements for primary or secondary evidence under Arts. 75 & 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Hyderabad Development Authority v. Abdul Majeed PLD 2002 SC 84 rel. Nazir Hussain v. Amjad Hussain 2014 MLD 1100 and Syed Adnan Ashraf v. Syed Azhar-ud-Din 2014 MLD 342 ref. (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 75 & 76---Document---Proof---Admissibility and authenticity of a document---Principle---The submission of a photocopy, without proper verification through primary or legally recognized secondary evidence, holds no probative value---Furthermore, if a document is placed on record subject to its admissibility, yet no effort is made to establish its authenticity per Arts. 75 & 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, such a document cannot be deemed admissible in evidence---Documentary evidence must adhere to legal standards, and unless a document's authenticity is conclusively proven, its mere presentation before the court does not suffice to establish its evidentiary worth. (f) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ---Arts.75, 76, 117 & 120---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Photocopied version of agreement to sell, reliance on---Scope---Mere production of photocopied copies of a sale agreement, without substantiating the existence and execution of the original document, lacks evidentiary weight and cannot be relied upon as conclusive proof. (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Jurisdictional defect or procedural irregularity has to be identified for interference under the revisional jurisdiction---The scope of S. 115 of C.P.C. is confined to addressing jurisdictional errors and misapplications of law. Applicant in person. Respondents (called absent). Abdul Waris Bhutto, Assistant Advocate General for Official Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th March, 2025.