Summary: The property in question consisted of four pieces of land located within Tehsil Lahor of District Swabi, KPK. The sales were documented through mutation records on different dates. The main issue revolved around the performance of Talab-i-Muwatibat, a legal requirement under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987, for certain property sales to be subject to pre-emption.The appellants contended that the High Court had wrongly overturned the lower court's well-reasoned findings, which had been upheld by an appellate court. They argued that there was insufficient cause for the High Court to reverse established facts in its revisional jurisdiction.After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court concluded that the central issue in three of the suits was the fulfillment of the Talab-i-Muwatibat requirement for pre-emption. In each of these suits, the informant Muhammad Nabi claimed to have acquired knowledge of the property sales and subsequently informed the plaintiff. The court scrutinized the timeline and credibility of these claims, as well as the distances involved in relaying the information from the village to the courts.The court found discrepancies and inconsistencies in Muhammad Nabi's statements, raising doubts about the accuracy of his claims. The court also noted that the claims rested on improbable coincidences and circumstances, making them less credible. As a result, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's view that these claims lacked credibility and upheld their findings.Regarding the fourth sale, the respondent had purchased the property through a court decree. The court ruled that since the respondent had been declared the owner in possession of the property, any pre-emption suit should have been filed within a specific period as mandated by the law. The court cited legal precedents in support of this interpretation and upheld the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court to dismiss the suits.Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the judgments and decrees issued by the trial court and the first appellate court

Summary: Against Reinstatment into Service---The core issue revolved around the legality of the respondent's appointment as a Special Auditor in the Cooperation Department. The petitioners contended that this appointment was not conducted according to proper procedures, specifically with regard to the selection process mandated by the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC). The petitioner also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the lack of disclosure during the appointment process.The Court examined relevant legislation, such as the "Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973" and the "Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 1989," along with associated rules. The Court's analysis determined that the position of Special Auditor, classified as a grade 17 post, necessitated selection through the SPSC. The Court found that the appointment process overseen by the department's Secretary was in violation of proper procedures, rendering the appointment invalid.In its ruling, the Court criticized the use of vague terms like "competent authority" in legal matters and emphasized the importance of clear language to avoid disputes and prevent misuse of power. The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and issued directives for various government entities to ensure that notifications and communications identify the authorized person by their designation and name.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Thus, the law regarding the retrospective application of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 is by now settled by the Apex Court and any mutation if attested during the period of riwaj prior to the application of N.W.F.P Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935/Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 being a past and closed transaction would not be subject to the application of the Act No.V of 1962.

Summary: U/A 184(3)/Others - Order---

Summary: [Reduction to lower pay scale, 1. The Court decisions are to be based on truth founded on evidence which is an indispensable obligation. The purpose of producing all material evidence is to assist the Court or Tribunal for reaching just conclusion in the matter, hence it is crucial for the parties to put forward all relevant and convincing evidence in support of case for meeting the standards of proof.2. The Court or Tribunal has to examine whether the evidence led in the matter was confidence inspiring or not. No trustworthy evidence was produced against the respondent to prove his guilt. The best evidence is the evidence which is necessary to prove existence of the circumstances coming into being or a question of fact or documents as the case may be.3. Even in the departmental inquiry the general principle of burden of proof is quite significant and whenever the matter is reached to the Tribunal arising out of the case of misconduct in which major penalty has been imposed, the Tribunal has to see in depth whether the charges against the delinquent has been proved in the inquiry or the inquiry was conducted in cursory or slipshod manner or in violation of principles of natural justice as in all fairness, due process of law is to be followed and respected]