Summary: Background:The case involves a review petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the interpretation and application of Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The petitioner, a dissenting judge from a previous judgment, seeks clarification on the composition of the bench hearing the review petition.---Issues:Whether a dissenting judge from a majority judgment should be included in the bench hearing the review petition.The scope of jurisdiction and judicial power of a dissenting judge in a review petition against a majority judgment.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court unanimously held that a dissenting judge should be included in the bench hearing the review petition against a majority judgment. The court reasoned that Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, which requires the same bench to hear the review petition, must be adhered to. Additionally, the court emphasized that there is no limitation on the jurisdiction and judicial power of a dissenting judge in a review petition compared to the judges who delivered the majority judgment. Several precedents were cited to support this reasoning.---Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Saleem v. Fazal Ahmad, 1997 SCMR 315Babar Shehzad v. Said Akbar, 1999 SCMR 2518All Pakistan Newspapers Society v. Federation, PLD 2004 SC 600Ata Ullah v. Surraya Parveen, 2006 SCMR 1637Azhar Siddiqui v. Federation, PLD 2012 SC 774Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 752Gadoon Textiles Mills v. WAPDA, 1997 SCMR 641Gandaf Steel Industries v. Federation, 1997 SCMR 1669Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan, PLD 1998 SC 388Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan, PLD 2000 SC 77Nawaz Sharif v. Imran Khan, PLD 2018 SC 1Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877Shyam Lal Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1137Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416Terengganu Forest Products v. Cosco Container Lines, [2011] 1 MLJ 25---Quote:Dissent in the GIDC review judgment - dissenting judge is an essential member of the review bench.

Summary: Background:The Capital Development Authority (CDA) appealed against the judgment of the Islamabad High Court dismissing their appeal. The case originated from a suit filed by Rana Munawar Khan regarding the possession and installment payment of a plot allotted to him by the CDA. The respondent alleged delays and encumbrances in possession, leading to a dispute over payment installments and late charges.----Issues:Whether the interpretation of clause (6) of the allotment letter by the lower courts was correct.Whether the rescheduling of installment payments and waiver of late charges by the CDA, based on the direction of the Federal Ombudsman, were valid.Whether the subsequent suit filed by the respondent was barred by the principle of res judicata.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the lower courts misinterpreted the evidence and clause (6) of the allotment agreement. It was found that the clause did not impose an obligation on the CDA to deliver possession free from encumbrances within one month; rather, it was the respondent's duty to take possession within that time frame. Additionally, the rescheduling of installment payments was not based on proper authority, and the waiver of late charges was not approved by the CDA board. The Court refrained from ruling on the res judicata issue due to the impending expiration of the lease. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside.----Citations/Precedents:Clause (6) of the lease agreementFederal Ombudsman's direction for rescheduling

Summary: Background:In the case of W.P No. 118 of 2019, the petitioners, representing the estate of Muhammad Essa Khan, challenged a judgment/order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge Gilgit. The impugned judgment set aside an earlier order dated 22.10.2018 of the trial court, which had dismissed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint.----Issues:Whether the impugned judgment/order passed by the Additional District Judge Gilgit is contrary to law and facts.Whether the proposed amendment in the plaint would change the nature of the suit or cause a new cause of action.Whether the revisional court's exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 CPC was appropriate.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioners contended that the impugned judgment/order was contrary to law and facts and should be set aside. They argued that allowing the proposed amendment in the plaint would alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action.The respondents countered that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action. They argued that the revisional court had rightly exercised jurisdiction in allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.The court considered the arguments and perused the contents of the application filed by the respondents for amendment in the trial court. It observed that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action but would aid in arriving at a just and correct decision.The court reiterated the settled principle of law that parties can apply for amendment of pleadings at any time to arrive at a correct decision. It found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment/order passed by the revisional court. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.----Citations/Precedents:Article 86(2) of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018Enabling articles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973Order 6 Rule 17 CPCSection 115 CPC

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Sections of law; Section 6 C.P.C(a) A civil appeal in a suit having value of the subject matter of less than Rs.50 million shall lie before District Judge of the concerned District.(b) Procedural laws normally have retrospective effect unless provided otherwise by express words or necessary intendment.

Summary: The obligation of husband to pay Nifqa or maintenance would be construed in accordance with the principles as laid down in HIDAYA translated by Charles Hamilton in Chapter XV such as Nifqa , in the language of law, signifies all those things which are necessary to support of life, such as food, clothes and lodging. It was demonstrated as, when a woman surrenders herself into the custody of her husband, it is incumbent upon him to supply her with food, clothing and lodging, whether she be a Muslim or an infidel, because such is the precept both in the Holy Quran and in the sacred traditions also, because maintenance is a recompense for matrimonial restrain, whence it is that where a person is in the custody of another on account of any demand, or so forth, his subsistence is incumbent upon the other.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Muzaffar Ali Khan, filed a suit for declaration and possession of suit land, claiming it was transferred by way of gift to his late son, Mukhtar Hussain, for obtaining a loan from Karakorum Co-Operative Bank Limited (KCBL). Mukhtar Hussain later suffered from mental illness and sold the land to the respondent, Shehzad Khan, during the mortgage period, which the petitioner claims was illegal. The mutation of the land was allegedly done in collusion with Revenue Officials. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, leading to this civil revision petition.----Issues:Whether the suit filed by the petitioner is maintainable.Whether the land transfer to the respondent during the mortgage period was legal.Whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the petitioner had disclosed a prima facie case, and the grounds for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were not applicable. The judgments and decrees of both lower courts were set aside, and the case was remanded back to the trial court for disposal on merits after recording evidence.----Citations/Precedents:Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC: Rejection of plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action.Order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC: Rejection of plaint where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation.Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC: Rejection of plaint where the relief claimed is properly valued but written upon insufficiently stamped paper.Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC: Rejection of plaint where the suit appears to be barred by any law.----Detailed Reasoning:Maintainability of Suit: The trial court rejected the suit on the grounds that it did not disclose a cause of action. However, the court found that the petitioner had made sufficient averments regarding the illegal transfer of land during the mortgage period.Illegality of Land Transfer: The Tehsildar's inquiry report confirmed that the land was sold during the mortgage period without redemption, making the transfer illegal.Error in Lower Courts: Both lower courts erred in dismissing the suit without considering the full merits of the case and the evidence presented.Conclusion:The revision petition was allowed, the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the case was remanded back to the trial court for disposal on merits after recording evidence. Each party was left to bear its own costs.----Outcome:The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit on merit after recording evidence in accordance with law.