Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Probono Public: Petitioner is aggrieved that in violation of directions by NCOC, mass political gatherings by different parties are being aggrieved. Seeks ban on all such activities as well as ban an converge of any such violation gathering.

Summary: The judgment addressed a longstanding dispute dating back to 2003 concerning an ejectment petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioner, an 82-year-old widow, alleged an oral tenancy agreement with Dr. Zafar Iqbal, the third respondent, which the fourth respondent, without authorization, sublet. The petitioner sought eviction and arrears of rent. However, the respondents contested the claims, challenging the absence of documentary proof for the alleged tenancy. The court examined the evidence, including affidavits, and determined that the petitioner indeed had an oral tenancy agreement with Dr. Zafar Iqbal. It found that the respondent's sublease without permission constituted a violation. The court also highlighted the failure of the respondent to challenge the nullification of a purported rent agreement, indicating a lack of legal standing. Lahore High Court, several legal precedents were cited and applied to support the court's determination. These precedents include: Ahmad Ali alias Ali Ahmad vs Nasar-ud-Din and another (PLD 2009 SC 453), Shajar Islam vs Muhammad Siddique and 2 others (PLD 2007 SC 45), Abdul Hamid Jalib vs Addl. District Judge, Lahore (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 775), ASGHAR ALI VERSUS TANVIR AHMAD AND OTHERS (2018 M L D 1231), SARFRAZ VERSUS MUKHTAR AHMED AND OTHERS (2016 C L C Note 48), Mst. ZARINA KHAN VS Mst. FARZANA SHOAIB (2017 SCMR 330) Relying on legal precedents, the court affirmed the petitioner's right to seek eviction and recover rent arrears. It emphasized that the landlord-tenant relationship could be established through oral agreements and stressed the tenant's obligation to honor the landlord's title. The judgment dismissed the respondents' appeal and upheld the petitioner's claims, underscoring the court's duty to rectify erroneous decisions when no alternative legal remedy exists.

Summary: Bail granted---Writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan by Respondent No. 4, challenging the alleged wrongful arrest of Respondent No. 5 in FIR. The petition contended that the arrest was politically motivated and mala fide. The learned Single Judge granted protective pre-arrest bail to Respondent No. 5 and annulled the proceedings related to his arrest. The Appellant argued that Respondent No. 5 had a history of criminal activities, including hijacking an oil tanker, and that the FIR was independent of prior cases. However, the Court, after considering legal precedents such as Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. The Chief Revenue Authority of Bombay and Ahmad Khan v. (AIR 1923 PC 148) The Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court, West Pakistan, determined the maintainability of the appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance (LRO). The Court concluded that the appeal did not fall within the purview of Article 199(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution and was, therefore, dismissed solely on jurisdictional grounds. Consequently, the merits of the case were not discussed, and the decision of the Single Judge granting protective pre-arrest bail to Respondent No. 5 remained upheld.

Summary: A reservist in the Pakistan Army, claimed that he was entitled to receive the minimum pension as per the Pension Regulations of Armed Forces. The Federal Government had issued several Office Memorandums increasing the minimum pension, but the minimum pension was not granted to the respondent. Muhammad Sabir filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which ruled in his favor, directing the appellants to pay him the minimum pension and setting aside the notifications denying him the minimum pension. The Deputy Attorney General argued that reservists were not entitled to the minimum pension as they are not regular Armed Forces personnel but reserves whose service can be called upon by the Army if and when required. The Supreme Court found that the classification of reservist pensioners is distinct and justified based on the nature of their service. Reservists receive a fixed-rated pension, which is different from the pension scheme for other classes of pensioners. The Court also analyzed the Office Memorandums issued by the Federal Government and concluded that they are applicable to retired government employees and retired employees paid from Defence Services Estimates.Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The writ petition filed by Muhammad Sabir was dismissed.

Summary: The appellants Muhammad Siddique, Jamshaid, and Saif Ullah were accused of the murder of Bakhat Bahadar. The deceased was found dead in the bushes near his poultry farm, and the flock, along with Saif Ullah and Jamshed, was missing from the scene. The appellants were apprehended, along with others, and were indicted for committing the murder during the course of Haraba. They were convicted under section 396 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lasbela and later by the Federal Shariat Court.The appellants claimed that they were wrongly implicated based on fake evidence and that Jamshed's confessional statement was fabricated to secure convictions. The prosecution argued that the circumstantial evidence, including Jamshed's confessional statement, proved the appellants' guilt beyond doubt.The court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution's case primarily relied on Jamshed's confessional statement, which was recorded after his arrest and was exasperatingly comprehensive. The court raised doubts about the voluntariness of the statement, considering that it contained even minute details that seemed contrived to cater to the prosecution's needs. Furthermore, the cautions administered to Jamshed indicated that he had been tortured during police custody, raising concerns about the statement's authenticity.As a result of the doubts and inherent infirmities in the case, the court concluded that the confessional statement could not be relied upon to structure the charge against the appellants. Consequently, the convictions were overturned, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge. They were ordered to be released if not required to be detained in any other case. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appeals and petition were allowed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Limitation Act, 1908 –– Arts. 142, 120 & S. 18 –– Suit for cancellation of sale-deed executed in 1953 –– Challenge raised after more than 50 years –– Duty to plead fraud with specific particulars –– Applicability of limitation - The Supreme Court held that a challenge to a sale-deed executed on 06.09.1953 on the ground of minority must be instituted within 12 years from attaining majority, under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The plaintiff, having filed the suit on 01.12.2005, failed to disclose how and when he allegedly acquired knowledge of the transaction, thereby falling afoul of Order VII, Rule 6, C.P.C. and Section 18 of the Limitation Act. –––Held, plaint lacked sufficient grounds for exemption from limitation and failed to disclose the circumstances under which the plaintiff came to know of the sale-deed. Suit was hopelessly time-barred and liable to be dismissed. [Raja Muhammad Aftab Ahmed v. Raja Muhammad Iftikhar Khan (Civil Appeal No.117/2019, decided 28.01.2020) followed.] (b) Guardianship –– Applicability of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in AJ&K in 1953 –– Execution of sale-deed by sibling in absence of formal guardianship certificate –– Effect The appellant contended that at the time of the disputed transaction, the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was not in force in AJ&K and that an application was made before the Sub-Registrar for appointment of a guardian, which became part of the sale-deed. –––Held, even if the legal requirement of formal guardianship certificate did not apply, the suit remained barred by limitation and failed on procedural non-compliance. (c) Procedural Law –– C.P.C., 1908 –– O. VII, R. 6 –– Failure to state grounds for exemption from limitation in plaint –– Consequence The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Order VII, Rule 6, C.P.C., which requires a plaintiff instituting a time-barred suit to disclose the grounds for exemption from limitation. Failure to comply renders the plaint materially defective. –––Held, in absence of specific averments showing fraudulent concealment or how knowledge was acquired, the plea of limitation exemption could not be sustained. Disposition: Appeal accepted; judgments and decrees of High Court and trial Court set aside to the extent of challenge to sale-deed dated 06.09.1953; suit held to be time-barred and dismissed accordingly.