Summary: To prove the offence of Jurah Jaifa, prosecution must prove mark of wound extending to body cavity of trunk.

Summary: The prime question which emanates for the determination of this Court is related to the impleading of a person (subsequent vendee) who purchases the property, subject matter of the suit/proceedings.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art. 199 Maintainability of writ petition by National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) employee—Scope—NBP Staff Service Rules, 1973—Statutory status—Rules, 2021 declared ultra vires by Peshawar High Court—Held, since the repeal of the 1973 Rules was declared without lawful authority and the Rules of 2021 had no legal effect, the petitioner’s service conditions continued to be governed by statutory rules—Writ petition maintainable—Petitioner’s claim that he was compelled to sign a blank stamp paper, used later as an Undertaking, was held plausible and relevant in light of Supreme Court precedent—Petitioner could not be estopped from pursuing legal remedies under Art. 199. Cited cases: Muhammad Tariq Badar v. NBP (2013 SCMR 314); Ikram Bari v. NBP (2005 SCMR 100); Muhammad Naeem v. Federation of Pakistan (W.P. No. 1418-P/2022; Peshawar High Court). (b) Civil Servant ---- Terms & conditions of deputation service—Deputation pay—APA evaluation—Substitution of remarks by borrowing department Employee of NBP deputed to NAB—Held, APAs during deputation were required to be completed by supervisory officer of NAB—Bank was not competent to substitute or alter the performance ratings provided by NAB—Preparation of duplicate APAs by the Bank, downgrading petitioner’s rating from ‘A’ to ‘C’, declared unauthorized and mala fide—APA for 2012 revised from category-C to B by countersigning authority, but Bank considered lower rating—Conduct held discriminatory and in breach of lawful procedure. Cited cases: None directly cited, but principle drawn from judgment text. (c) Administrative law ---- Mala fide conduct by public functionaries—Deprivation of due service posting—Disobedience of court orders Petitioner, despite being promoted as Vice President, was denied appropriate posting—Bank failed to comply with multiple High Court directions regarding proper posting and APA correction—Court held that denial of proper posting, despite policy requirements and court orders, reflected personal bias and administrative vendetta—Bank’s reliance on settlements and undertakings deemed insincere and contrary to record. Cited cases: Ikram Bari v. NBP (2005 SCMR 100); orders in W.P. Nos. 5373/2016, 25596/2019, and 45065/2022. (d) Service Law ---- Compromise agreement—Contingent contract—Enforceability—Effect of non-fulfillment of conditions NBP relied on compromise agreement dated 20.07.2020—Condition precedent included withdrawal of writ and contempt petitions—Petitioner failed to fulfill conditions—Held, compromise stood revoked automatically—Contract deemed contingent under S. 31 & 32 of Contract Act, 1872 and unenforceable upon failure of condition—Bank’s reliance thereon declared misconceived. Cited cases: Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Aslam (2012 SCMR 345); Ashfaq Ahmed v. Ch. Maqbool Raza (2008 CLC 1340). (e) Administrative Instructions ---- Posting policy—Vice Presidents—Regional Head / Executive postings—Discrimination in implementation Organizational Circulars required VPs to be posted as Regional Heads/Executives—Petitioner was not posted accordingly—Held, Bank could devise objective criteria (e.g., seniority) where postings exceed available seats, but cannot selectively deprive an employee without rationale—Posting to obscure branches without justification held unreasonable—Court directed appropriate posting. Cited references: Organizational Circulars No. 237/2010 and 21/2021. (f) Evidence ---- Performance evaluation—Mismatch between APA and conveyed grade—Improper APA completion APA for 2016 rated “Very Good” by Reporting Officer, but conveyed as “Good”—APA for 2020 completed by unauthorized officer not competent to report on petitioner—Held, such discrepancies violate service law principles—Reporting and countersigning roles must be strictly followed—Bank directed to rectify all flawed APAs for years 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2020. Cited principles: Drawn from reasoning in para. 19–21 of judgment. (g) Public sector bank employment ---- Deputation allowance—Entitlement—Scope Petitioner deputed to NAB from 2006–2012—Bank only paid 4 months’ deputation pay—Bank’s own Instruction Circular No. 66/02 entitled deputation officers to allowance @15% of basic pay—Court held petitioner entitled to deputation pay for entire deputation period—Non-payment declared unlawful. Cited internal circular: Instruction Circular No. 66/02 dated 28.10.2002. (h) Civil Procedure ---- Implementation of court directions—Failure to act on remand—Effect NBP failed to implement directions issued in W.P. No. 5373/2016 and other orders—President of the Bank ignored judicial observations while deciding representation—Held, action amounted to evasion of lawful directions and administrative misconduct—Impugned order set aside to extent of MTO dues, posting, APA correction, and deputation allowance. Cited judgments: Orders in W.P. No. 5373/2016, W.P. No. 25596/2019, W.P. No. 45065/2022. Disposition: Writ petition partially allowed—Impugned order of President NBP set aside to the extent of non-MTO charges, improper posting, APA corrections for 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2020, and unpaid deputation pay—President directed to ensure full compliance—Regional Head (Lahore Central) ordered to post petitioner against any seat reserved for VPs per policy.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Under Section 7(f)(ii) of PEEDA, where charge of absence from duty for a period of more than one year is proved, the penalty of compulsory retirement, or removal or dismissal from service shall be imposed. However, if the absence from duty is not more than one year, the Authority has option to impose any one or more penalties mentioned under section 4 of PEEDA, however, such discretion must be reasoned, supported by cogent justification and in accordance with principles of proportionality and administrative fairness.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Under Section 7(f)(ii) of PEEDA, where charge of absence from duty for a period of more than one year is proved, the penalty of compulsory retirement, or removal or dismissal from service shall be imposed. However, if the absence from duty is not more than one year, the Authority has option to impose any one or more penalties mentioned under section 4 of PEEDA, however, such discretion must be reasoned, supported by cogent justification and in accordance with principles of proportionality and administrative fairness. 379Writ Petition- Land- Consolidation 2535-15 MUHAMMAD BUX ETC VS MBR ETC Mr. Justice Ch. Sultan Mahmood 17- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4147

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: i. For maintaining a suit being filed in a representative capacity, a plaintiff is required to file an application under Order I Rule 8 CPC for seeking permission to file the said suit in its representative capacity and such permission is to be granted by the Court through a specific and explicit order. ii. In order to file a suit in representative capacity, a plaintiff is required to append the list of the interested persons on whose behalf the suit is being filed and then such interested persons/owners are to be served through notices or at least through publication of an advertisement and in case of absence of the aforesaid exercise by the trial Court and in absence of any specific order qua the grant of permission to file the suit in representative capacity then such suit could not be treated as a suit filed in representative capacity by such plaintiff. iii. In case of absence of any permission by the trial Court to file the suit in representative capacity, a co-owner/individual cannot maintain a suit for declaration or possession with respect to Shamilat land, as a co-owner/co-sharer of Shamilat land cannot, in his personal capacity can maintain a suit for declaration or possession. iv. A suit for declaration, issuance of permanent injunction or suit for dispossession in respect of a Shamilat land could not be filed by an individual/co-owner, and the proper course for an aggrieved co-owner with respect to Shamilat land is to file a suit for official partition. v. An excess of possession of a co-owner in Shamilat land could not be challenged by the co-owner of Shamilat land unless and until such Shamilat land is officially partitioned and thereafter every co-owner is handed over possession proportionate to his original ownership in the said mouza. vi. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, and any party who succeeds to tilt the scale in his favour would be entitled for the relief claimed. vii. The scope, extent and domain of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in cases of concurrent findings has duly been dilated and highlighted.