Summary: The Court while considering the plaint must have regard to all the relevant allegation made in the pliant and must look the substance in the matter and not its form. A Court is competent to grant such relief as justice of the case may demand. For the purpose of determining the relief asked for, the whole of the plaint must be looked into consideration so that the substance rather than form should be examined. The appellate court should not have dismissed the suit on the ground that the same was not in proper form as the remedy of the plaintiff was to seek decree for specific performance, the suit should not have been dismissed on this technicalground subject to limitation, as provided under Order-41 Rule-30 CPC as well as under Section 151 CPC.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss.22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Registration of second FIR---Scope---Petitioner, accused of kidnapping and murder, claimed himself to be innocent in theFIR lodged against him and came forward to lodge a second FIR for the same incident forwhich the proposed accused had already lodged an FIR and challan thereof had also beensubmitted---No second case could be registered for giving a counter-version thereof by anaccused---Constitutional petition was dismissed.Sughran Bibi v. The State PLD 2018 SC 595 rel.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss.22-A & 154---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Information in cognizable cases---Registration of second FIR---Scope---No direction can be issued for lodging the secondFIR when an FIR has already been registered in respect of the incident.Miss Jameela for Petitioner.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S. 17 & Preamble---Object of Family Courts Act, 1964---Provisions of Qanun-eShahadat, 1984 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 not to apply---Scope---Petitioner assailedthe dismissal of his application under Art. 59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, read withS.151, C.P.C. for examination of a document through expert---Validity---Family Courts Act,1964, was promulgated for the expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes relating to themarriages and other family affairs and special procedure was provided to achieve suchobject---Purpose of enacting Family Courts Act, 1964, was to frustrate the technicalities forthe purpose of justice between the parties in the shortest possible time---Provisions of CivilProcedure Code, 1908 as well as Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, were not applicable in strictosensu to the proceedings before the Family Court by virtue of S.17 of the Family Courts Act,1964---Trial Court after going through the relevant law had rightly dismissed the application---Constitutional petition was dismissed. Farzana Rasool v. Dr. Muhammad Bashir 2011 SCMR 1361 rel.

Summary: (a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)-------S. 6---Act of 'terrorism'---Scope---Courts, for determining the issue whether a case istriable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or not, are required to examine the FIR (FirstInformation Report), the statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., the material collected bythe investigating agency and other documents available with the prosecution---Inclusion ofsurrounding circumstances, depicting the commission of the offence, prima facie permitstaking into consideration the documents/material, came on to surface with regard to previousenmity or dispute.(b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)-------S. 6---Act of 'terrorism'---Scope---Terrorists operate on a level different from that onwhich ordinary criminals operate, their operations and tactics are different and the offence ofterrorism is more connected with the object and design behind an action than with the actionitself---Terrorism is not primarily directed against the actual victims themselves who aretreated merely as 'collateral damage'---Extent of the actual damage caused or injuriesinflicted by the act is not the determinative factor in this regard---Ferocious action againstneutrals that had no dogmatic, conceptual or religious aims is just an act of criminaldelinquency, a crime, or simply an act of senselessness unrelated to "terrorism".Criminal Appeals Nos.95 and 96 of 2019, Civil Appeal No.10-L, and CriminalAppeal No.63 of 2013 rel.

Summary: Background:The legal question regarding the scope of appeal provided under section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 ("Ordinance") was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The matter stemmed from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30.05.2018, concerning the closure of the petitioner's right to file a written reply by the Insurance Tribunal under the Ordinance.---Issues:Whether the constitutional petition challenging the Tribunal's order is maintainable, considering the availability of a statutory appeal under section 124(2) of the Ordinance.Clarification of the legal position regarding the scope of appeal under section 124(2) of the Ordinance.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court analyzed section 124 of the Ordinance, which distinguishes between decisions of the Tribunal that are final and those subject to appeal. It noted that while section 124(1) prohibits questioning certain Tribunal decisions, section 124(2) provides for appeals against decisions regarding insurance claims or prescribed penalties above a specified amount. However, not all Tribunal decisions are appealable under section 124(2).The court emphasized that the statutory appeal under section 124(2) is limited to final decisions on insurance claims or penalties, excluding miscellaneous decisions made during proceedings. It asserted that while legislative intent aims for expeditious claim resolution, it does not preclude constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.Recognizing the constitutional court's authority, the court held that orders like the one closing the petitioner's right to file a written statement fall outside section 124(2)'s purview and are challengeable under Article 199. It set aside the Tribunal's order and the impugned High Court decision, directing the Tribunal to proceed with the case and decide it expeditiously.Acknowledging the conflicting interpretations of section 124 among High Courts, the court entertained the petitions in the interest of justice. It granted special permission to an advocate not registered with the Supreme Court due to his familiarity with the case and the prolonged pendency of the insurance claim since 2015.---Citations/Precedents:Arshad Mehmood v. Commissioner/Delimitation Authority, Gujranwala and others (PLD 2014 Lahore 221)Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2001 SC 607)Mrs. Shahida Zahir Abbasi and 4 others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1996 SC 632)Malik Muhammed Mukhtar, through Legal Heirs v. Province of Punjab through Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Bahawalpur and others (PLD 2005 Lah. 251)Miss Asma Jilani v. The Government of the Punjab and another (PLD 1972 SC 139)Government of West Pakistan and another v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14)Federation of Pakistan and another v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar (PLD 1986 SC 26)---Quote:Scope of Section 124 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Iggrived of statement of Avication Minister regarding Fake licenses of PIA Pilots. Seeks his removal from cabined and his disqualification further seeks constitution of Judicial commission for probing varacity of the statement. Disposal Information:

Summary: Misc Matter: Challenges increase in petroleum prices seeks the direction for reduction in prices.

Summary: Bail granted----Younas Hassan has filed a petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered at Police Station City Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. The charges included offenses under sections 302, 109, and 34 PPC. The allegation against Younas Hassan is that he commanded his co-accused to kill Muhammad Noman (deceased), leading to the firing by the co-accused and causing Noman's death. The court, in considering the bail application, noted that the petitioner's role is described as raising a command (lalkara) but not actively participating in the actual crime. The co-accused were armed and present at the scene, and the petitioner was empty-handed. The court emphasized that such allegations are easy to make but challenging to prove. The court acknowledged that the investigation has been finalized, a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted, and the physical custody of the petitioner is no longer necessary. It concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that further inquiry is required to determine if the petitioner facilitated the main accused during the offense. The court cited legal precedents supporting the grant of bail in cases where the accused's role is limited, and further inquiry is needed. The court accepted the petition, granting Younas Hassan post-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds.