Summary: Service / Pay: Petitioner are employee of PTCL. They seek pay according to Govt Rules. Seekallowances like conveyaner, Medical leave encashment, etc

Summary: Any irregularity in the investigation would not vitiate the trial unless it has caused prejudice to the accused.

Summary: Revisional jurisdiction there is no impediment qua powers of this Court to appraise the evidence for the first time in civil revision under Section 115, CPC (PLD 1975 SC 678)

Summary: Pending

Summary: When eye witnesses could not justify the reason given by them for their presence at the place of the occurrence at the relevant time, they would be chance witnesses and their evidence would not be free from doubt. Any statement improved during trial is not worth relying.

Summary: Pending

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 100 --- Second appeal --- Scope and limitations --- Interference by High Court --- When warranted --- Petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of the first Appellate Court and the High Court in a second appeal, alleging misreading and non-reading of evidence --- Held, that under S. 100, C.P.C., second appeal can only be entertained on substantial questions of law, such as when the decision is contrary to law, involves failure to determine a material issue, or suffers from procedural defects --- High Court, in the instant case, properly evaluated the evidence and found no legal infirmity in the first Appellate Court's findings --- Supreme Court held that when there is inconsistency between the trial court and the appellate court, the latter's findings are to be preferred in the absence of cogent reasons to the contrary --- Appeal dismissed. Cited Cases: Madan Gopal v. Maran Bepari (PLD 1969 SC 617) Amjad Ikram v. Mst. Asiya Kausar (2015 SCMR 1) (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---- S. 27(b) --- Specific performance --- Bona fide purchaser for value without notice --- Burden of proof --- Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which was dismissed by the trial court but decreed by the appellate court and upheld by the High Court --- Appellant No.1, who subsequently acquired the property through an oral sale from his sister (Appellant No.2), claimed to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of the earlier agreement --- Held, that the burden of proving good faith and absence of notice rests upon the subsequent purchaser, who must establish that he acted with due diligence and inquired about prior encumbrances --- Mere relationship between vendor and purchaser (real brother and sister) raises a presumption of knowledge about prior transactions --- Transfer of property by Appellant No.2 to Appellant No.1, just before the cut-off date for performance under the agreement, was a calculated attempt to frustrate the respondent's claim --- Supreme Court held that the transaction was not bona fide and was aimed at depriving the respondent of his contractual rights. Cited Cases: Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Lal Khatoon (PLD 2011 SC 296) R. K. Mohammed Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (AIR 2001 SC 1658) (c) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) ---- S. 3 --- Notice --- Willful abstention from inquiry --- Effect --- A purchaser is deemed to have notice of a prior transaction if he willfully abstains from making reasonable inquiries about the property --- Supreme Court observed that Appellant No.1, being the real brother of Appellant No.2, could not claim ignorance of the prior agreement --- Absence of inquiry into possession, revenue records, and the vendor’s past dealings amounted to willful negligence --- Supreme Court reiterated that a person who deliberately avoids an inquiry is presumed to have notice of prior claims. (d) Administration of Justice ---- Misreading and non-reading of evidence --- Findings of first Appellate Court and High Court --- Supreme Court upheld the findings of the first Appellate Court and High Court, holding that both courts had properly assessed the evidence and reached a just conclusion --- The conduct of the appellants in executing an oral sale to frustrate the earlier contract was dubious and aimed at creating a false plea of bona fide purchase --- Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal. Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the High Court and first Appellate Court upheld. Suit for specific performance maintained.

Summary: [Interpretation of Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by NWFP Land Acquisition (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001]---The main contention in the review petitions is related to the interpretation of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the North-West Frontier Province Land Acquisition (Amendment) Ordinance 2001. The petitioners argue that the amended section does not provide for payment of 6% interest on the enhanced compensation to the landowner from the date of taking possession of the land until the date of payment. However, the respondents argue that the court is free to award any rate of interest on the enhanced compensation under the amended section.The court analyzed the provisions of the amended section 28 and section 34 of the Act and concluded that the court has the power to determine the amount of compensation, which includes interest, over and above the enhanced sum of compensation awarded by the court. The court further held that the amended section 28 does not impose a fixed limit on the interest rate and grants the court the authority to award interest at any just and reasonable rate.Consequently, the court dismissed the review petitions and upheld the earlier order awarding 6% interest on the enhanced compensation, stating that it is within the court's powers under the amended section 28.

Summary: The petitioner filed a civil revision petition in the High Court of Balochistan, Sibi Bench, seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, ruling that the reasons given, including extreme cold weather and illness of the stenotypist, were insufficient grounds for the delay.Additionally, the respondents' counsel raised an objection, stating that the petitioner should have filed a direct appeal instead of a civil revision petition. The respondents had previously obtained a decree for possession and delivery of property, and they claimed that the value of the subject matter exceeded Rs: 50,000/-, making a direct appeal to the Supreme Court appropriate. The Supreme Court upheld this objection and noted that the value of the subject matter was indeed Rs: 1,00,000/-.The Court referred to Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution, which allows a direct appeal to the Supreme Court if the subject matter's value exceeds Rs: 50,000/- and the High Court has reversed the lower court's judgment. The Court stated that a direct appeal should have been filed within 30 days, as per the Supreme Court Rules. However, the petitioner's appeal was filed after the limitation period and was barred by 33 days.As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that even if the petition had been converted into an appeal, the delay could not be condoned due to the substantial delay beyond the limitation period.

Summary: Service/Absorption---Limitation--Decision by the tribunal set aside.