Summary: Background: The petitioners, consisting of two widows and a son, filed a petition for leave to appeal against the respondents, who include sons, daughters, and a widow of Raheem Dad. The appeal was directed against the order of the High Court dated February 25, 2020, in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2020. The petitioners sought to challenge the decision made by the High Court regarding the dispute over certain property or rights. ----Issues: The central issue was whether the petitioners had valid grounds to appeal against the High Court's decision. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners expressed a desire to withdraw the petition for leave to appeal. Based on the statement made by the petitioners' counsel, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, marking it as withdrawn.

Summary: Background: The petitioner and respondent were contesting a case for the appointment of a guardian for their minor child before the Guardian Judge Kotli. During the proceedings, both parties reached a compromise, agreeing on a visitation schedule. On April 2, 2019, the petitioner did not return the minor to the respondent as per the agreed schedule and filed another application for guardianship before the Family Court Hajira. The respondent then filed an application before the Guardian Judge Kotli, who ordered on August 17, 2020, that the minor be returned to the respondent, and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application for guardianship. The petitioner challenged this order before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeal, leading to the current petition for leave to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the order dated August 17, 2020, by the Guardian Judge Kotli was an interim or final order. 2- Whether the appeal before the Shariat Appellate Bench and the Supreme Court is maintainable. 3- Whether the petitioner violated the terms of the agreement regarding the custody and visitation schedule of the minor. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the important legal questions raised by the parties. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the security amount within one month, failing which the leave granted order shall automatically stand rescinded. The case will proceed further according to law and be placed before the Acting Chief Justice for the constitution of the bench after its completion.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition (No.42 of 2018) which was initially dismissed by the High Court on 24.09.2018 for want of prosecution. The petitioner challenged this dismissal before the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the High Court on 21.11.2019 to decide the application for restoration of the writ petition afresh after perusing the original file and providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the parties. The High Court, after necessary proceedings, dismissed the application for restoration of the writ petition on 24.04.2020. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court's dismissal of the application for restoration of the writ petition was lawful and based on the facts of the case. 2- Whether proper notice was served to the petitioner regarding the transfer of the case from Muzaffarabad to Mirpur. 3- Whether the petitioner engaged Mr. Muhammad Sajjad, Advocate, as her counsel, and if she was aware of the proceedings. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the legal questions raised by the petitioner, recognizing the importance of these issues. The petitioner contended that she was not aware of the transfer of the case and did not engage Mr. Muhammad Sajjad, Advocate, as her counsel. She claimed that the findings of the High Court were against the record and requested for restoration of her writ petition. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the petitioner raised significant legal questions, such as the procedural fairness regarding the notification of the case transfer and the legitimacy of the engagement of counsel. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and directed the petitioner to deposit a security amount of Rs. 1000 within one month. Failure to deposit the amount would result in the automatic rescission of the leave granted order.

Summary: Background: The Collector Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, acquired Culverts situated in Mozia Kalyal Bainsi, Tehsil and District Mirpur. The compensation was determined at Rs. 11,11,531/-. The respondents, dissatisfied with the compensation, filed a reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhancement to Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. The learned Reference Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 29,76,000/-. Both parties appealed the judgment to the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court, which dismissed both appeals. The petitioner then sought leave to appeal this decision before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 2- Whether the reference application was maintainable without the permission of the learned Advocate-General. 3- Whether the enhancement of compensation was legally tenable based on the report of a private person. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal on the grounds that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Court noted that the judgment by the High Court was announced on March 9, 2020, and the PLA was filed on October 29, 2020, with no plausible explanation for the delay. The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner was unaware of the High Court's decision until September 14, 2020, as the appeals had been consolidated and decided together, making the claim of unawareness unconvincing. ----Citations/Precedents: The petitioner referenced several cases in their arguments: [1992 SCR 286] [2000 SCR 78] [2004 SCR 23] [2004 SCR 435] [2004 SCR 401] [2013 SCR 365] [2013 SCR 405] The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed due to being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation without a plausible explanation for the delay.

Summary: Background: Petitioners filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court dated 24.01.2020. Respondents filed a writ petition challenging a declaratory suit filed by respondent No. 1 for cancellation of a gift deed and related mutation in the Civil Judge Dadyal's court. Petitioners moved an application to be impleaded as a party in the suit, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge. The Additional District Judge Dadyal accepted the revision petition, but the High Court later set aside this decision and dismissed the writ petition. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners were necessary parties to the suit filed by respondent No. 1 for cancellation of the gift deed. 2- Whether the dismissal of the petitioners' application to be impleaded as a party was legally justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that a party can be impleaded in a suit if their presence is necessary for the court to pass an effective decision. In this case, the petitioners' interest was not directly affected by the suit's outcome. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's assessment that the petitioners had no legal standing to be impleaded as parties in the civil suit, as their interest was limited to the potential impact of a criminal case. The Supreme Court found no legal question of public importance in the petition and refused leave to appeal.

Summary: Background: The petitioner are both Physical Education Teachers (PET) at government schools in Mirpur District. Rehana Rasheed was transferred from Government Girls Higher Secondary School Behari Basar to Government Girls High School Siakh on 15.10.2020, while Shumaila Sabir was appointed to Rehana Rasheed's former position. Shumaila Sabir challenged this transfer order before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunal, which admitted the appeal and suspended the transfer order pending further hearing. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Service Tribunal was correct in suspending the transfer order pending the appeal. 2- Whether the merits and demerits of the transfer should be addressed by the Service Tribunal. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir decided not to delve into the merits and demerits of the transfer order since the matter was still pending before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court directed that the parties appear before the Service Tribunal on the next scheduled hearing date, 12.11.2020, for a resolution. The Service Tribunal was instructed to decide the appeal on the specified date.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Decree in pre-emption is based upon the doctrine of substitution, it is fact, as if in a sale deed the vendee`s name were rubbed out and pre-emptor`s name is inserted in its place.