Summary: Service Matter: Challanges promotion of resondent. no. 03. Seeks setting aside. Further seeks direction for his promotion.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a civil revision challenging the order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, which set aside the ex parte decree issued by the Civil Judge and directed a fresh trial. Initially, the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.500,000 based on a promissory note. The suit was decreed ex parte on 22.01.2018 after the respondent failed to appear. The respondent later filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was initially dismissed by the Civil Judge but allowed on appeal. -----Issues: 1- Whether the service of notice to the respondent was valid, thus justifying the ex parte decree. -----2- Whether the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed within the limitation period. -----3- Whether the dismissal of the application without framing issues or recording evidence was legally tenable. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the civil revision, upholding the Additional District Judge's order that the ex parte decree be set aside and the case be retried. The reasoning was based on the following: --Improper Service of Notice: The court found that the notice served to the respondent was insufficient and did not meet the legal requirements under Order V, Rules 16-19, C.P.C. The notice was allegedly served to Zakir Ali, claimed to be the respondent's brother, but there was no evidence to establish that Zakir Ali was indeed a family member or living in the same household. The process server’s statement, which should have confirmed the proper delivery of notice, was not recorded. Thus, the service of notice was deemed invalid, making the ex parte proceedings unsustainable. --Limitation Period: The court held that the respondent’s application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., was filed within the limitation period. The respondent only became aware of the ex parte decree during the execution proceedings when his property was attached. The application was filed promptly after this discovery, and the court ruled that the application was timely filed. --Procedural Lapse: The Civil Judge had dismissed the application without framing issues or recording evidence, which was a procedural error. The appellate court correctly observed that the case raised factual controversies regarding service of notice, which required proper adjudication. The dismissal without addressing these issues or conducting a proper inquiry was legally untenable. The court emphasized that technicalities should not impede the delivery of justice and ordered the trial to proceed on merits. -----Citations/Precedents: Siraj Din v. Mst. Iqbal Begum (PLD 1968 Lah. 639) Syed Muhammad Anwar Advocate v. Sh. Abdul Haq (1985 SCMR 1228)

Summary: Bail Before Arrest in FIR No. 1097/21, dated 12-12-2021, U/s 302/109/34 PPC, P.S Koral, Islamabad.

Summary: Pending enquires with Anti-corruption Establishment.

Summary: 1. In order to determine the market value of the acquired land, not only the existing utility and potentiality is to be considered but its future potentiality and utility could also be considered.2. In hilly area due to non-availability of plain area, if the acquired land is a plain area, then such character of the land has to be kept in mind while fixing the market value of the acquired land.3. Compulsory acquisition of land is not the result of a willing seller and willing buyer but as against the consent of the seller, therefore, the seller being in a disadvantageous position has not to be paid only the existing market value of the acquired land but he is to be compensated in such a manner that the loss, which he suffered due to compulsory acquisition of land is heeled with such an amount that he started satisfied instead of repent.4. While acquiring the land, multiple factors including location, existing potentiality, its future potentiality and proximity to road or any commercial building are to be given due weight at the timeof fixation of market value of the acquired land.

Summary: Pending

Summary: ''Held that if a decree is inexecutable due to nullity in law, the executing court can go beyond the same. Habib Bank Limited v. "Mst. Parveen Qasim Jan and others" (2014 SCMR 322) is referred. In instant case, part of the preemptible property was mortgaged and rightly redeemed before the pre-emption decree was even passed in favour of the petitioners, hence, the vendees of the petitioners/ preemptors were not vested with a valid title. Therefore, the objection petition of the respondents was rightly accepted by the learned executing court which finding has been validly upheld by the appellate court below. '' --------- Background: The petitioners (legal heirs of Bakhsha) filed a civil revision against the judgments passed by the executing court and the appellate court, which denied execution of a pre-emption decree dated January 22, 1985, in favor of the petitioners. The decree was obtained after the petitioners filed a pre-emption suit in 1970 concerning the sale of 196 kanals and 19 marlas of land. The court had allowed the decree for only part of the land (108 kanals and 17 marlas), leaving the execution of the remaining 88 kanals and 2 marlas (the “mortgaged property”) in contention. The mortgaged property had a complex legal history, involving previous ownership by Muslim owners, mortgage to Hindu evacuees, wrongful mutation to the Central Government after partition, and eventual sale to the vendor, who sold it to the vendees. The contesting respondents, legal heirs of Noor Muhammad (original owner/mortgagor), objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the land was not lawfully sold by the vendor since it was redeemed by the original owners after the partition. ---- Issues: ---- 1)Whether a pre-emption decree can be executed when the vendor did not have ownership of the mortgaged property. ---- 2)Whether the redemption of the mortgaged property creates a legal barrier to the execution of the pre-emption decree. ---- -3)Whether the pre-emption decree is executable concerning the mortgaged property when the petitioners themselves have purchased portions of the property after redemption. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision, holding that the pre-emption decree could not be executed in relation to the mortgaged property for the following reasons: ---- Ownership of Mortgaged Property: The court held that the vendor’s title over the mortgaged property was defective. As per the legal principle, a person cannot transfer better title than they possess. Since the vendor did not have lawful ownership of the mortgaged property, the pre-emption decree was unenforceable to that extent. ---- Redemption of Property: The mortgaged property had been redeemed by the original owners (the contesting respondents) before the pre-emption decree was passed. This redemption, recorded in the revenue record, nullified any claim of ownership by the vendor or the vendees. ---- Doctrine of Res Judicata: The court rejected the argument that the second objection petition was barred by res judicata, noting that the earlier objection was not dismissed on the merits but on procedural grounds. ---- Execution Court Jurisdiction: Although the general rule is that an executing court cannot go behind the decree, the court recognized exceptions where the decree is found to be legally invalid. Since the mortgaged property did not belong to the vendor, the pre-emption decree was partially void and could not be executed in full. ---- Estoppel: The petitioners were also estopped from claiming the property because one of the petitioners had independently purchased part of the mortgaged property from the contesting respondents, thus acknowledging their ownership. ---- Citations/Precedents: Hoshiar Ali v. Ghulam Sabir (1993 CLC 2476) Sardar Ahmad Yar Khan Jogezai and 2 others v. Province of Balochistan (2002 SCMR 122) M.A. Hafeez Khan and 9 others vs. Riaz Ahmed Mehra and 3 others (1983 SCMR 803) Rashida Begum and others v. Saadi Baig and others (2003 SCMR 1456) Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Muhammad Saeed (PLD 1961 SC 192) Habib Bank Limited v. Mst. Parveen Qasim Jan and others (2014 SCMR 322) Haji Rustam Khan (through legal heirs) v. Dilbar Khan and others (PLD 1983 SC 212)

Summary: Article: 164 of Qanun-e Shahadat Order, 1984 read with Section: 27-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Summary: The date of regularization of services of employees was to be governed by the provisions of the policy under which services of employees had been regularized. However, where neither any policy nor Punjab Regularization of Services Act, 2018 was applicable to the employees and services of employees who had been initially appointed on temporary basis only and that too not against any regular post had been regularized from the date of creation of sanctioned post in compliance of orders of the High Court, which did not mention any particular date for regularization of services of such employees, then the date of regularization would be the date on which such posts were created and the services of Employees had been regularized and not the date of order of the Court.