Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Section 540 Cr.P.C, inquisitorial provision makes inroads in adversarial system.

Summary: A. Whether columns No. 13 and 16 of Nikahnama are to be read separately or in conjunction with each other? B. Whether entries in Nikahnama can operate against a person not privy to the document/Nikahnama

Summary: Pending

Summary: [No provision under the Labour Laws or the Service Laws permitting the employer to terminate the services verbally without a written order containing the explicit reasons or cause of termination. The termination of service by a verbal order is alien to the labour and service laws of this country and also against the principle of good governance which is a process of gauging whether the Government, its departments/institutions and authorities are conducting their affairs lawfully and performing their duties honestly, conscientiously and transparently including their process of decision making in accordance with rules and regulations.2.The verbal termination order is otherwise against the principle of natural justice which turn of phrase was originated from the Roman word ?Jus Naturale?, which means principles and moralities of natural law, justice, equity, and good conscience that, is fervently and exuberantly founded in the judicial conscience.3. It is an elementary rule of law that before taking any adverse action, the affected party must be given a fair opportunity to respond and defend the action. This principle does not lay down any differentiation or inequality between a quasi-judicial function and or an administrative function/action for applying evenly and uniformly to secure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice.4. Before taking any punitive or adverse action, putting to end the services of any employee/workman or civil servant, the precept of fairness and reasonableness commands that an evenhanded opportunity to put forth the defence should be afforded.5. Even in the case of contractual or temporary engagements, the employees should be issued appointment letters in writing with the terms and conditions of engagement and in the case of termination, explicit reasons of termination should be assigned]

Summary: PLJ 2021 Peshawar (Note) 64 Present Muhammad Naeem Anwar J Mst SHERINAI (Widow) and 8 others - - Petitioners versus ZAREEN KHAN and 18 others - - Respondents WP No 2976 of 2019 decided on 4112019 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 - - Applications for partition of property by predecessor in interest of Respondents No 1 to 6 - - Ex - parte proceedings - - Applications for setting aside ex - parte decree - - Dismissed - - Appeal - - Allowed - - Suit for declaration was filed by present petitioner - - Application for stay partition proceedings - - Allowed - - Appeal - - Allowed - - Balance of convenience - - Challenge to - - Lis which is pending before civil Court would not create any hurdle in finalization of partition proceedings which are manifestly based on entries of revenue papers wherein both parties ie petitioners and respondents were shown to be owners - - Petitioners were properly given their respective shares which was admitted by counsel representing them before this Court - - Similarly while rest of revenue papers gone through wherein as per petitioners contention they have been deprived of and to this effect at this juncture petitioner has got no prima facie case - - Balance of convenience also did not tilts in favour of petitioners and secondly irreparable loss also does not support their contention - - Stay of partition proceedings till decision of civil suit even otherwise it is not permissible at this stage for reason that contention with respect to intricate question of law and fact of entries of revenue papers shall be determined when detailed enquiry in civil Court would come to an end therefore at this stage proceedings pending before revenue Officer regarding partition of landed property could not be stayed - - Matter before High Court is under consideration in connection with petition submitted under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 where otherwise disputed question of fact cannot be considered and only illegality or jurisdictional error was to be seen - - Contention of petitioners to extent of pendency of civil suit shall be determined before civil Court where their suit is pending - - Petitioners have not been able to point out any jurisdictional error or illegality in impugned orders passed by Revenue hierarchy - - Petition dismissed [Para 7 8 9 10] A B C D E 1987 PLD 2416 PLD 2014 Pesh 218 2003 CLC 87 and 2016 MLD 1896 ref Mr Javed Ali Asghar Advocate for PetitionerJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending