Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Jurisdiction of Revenue official in matter of partition under Sec: 141 of the land Revenue Act.

Summary: The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, initiated a suit against the respondent/defendant for the specific performance of an agreement concerning a 10-acre land in Tehsil Karor, District Layyah. The petitioner contended that the parties willingly entered into the agreement, and he paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000 to the respondent. The petitioner further argued that if the respondent is not restrained from alienating the property, it would cause irreparable loss. The petitioner claimed that the lower courts committed a material irregularity by refusing to grant a temporary injunction. The respondent, however, vehemently opposed the petition, denying the execution of the agreement and receipt of the money. The respondent argues that the agreement is fabricated and does not create any enforceable rights. After hearing the arguments and reviewing the records, the court observed that the petitioner's claim is based on a written agreement, and prima facie, the petitioner has a good arguable case. The court noted that the respondent has not provided any material to substantiate the claim of being a tenant. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 462-K & 462-O---Interference, improper use or tampering with electric meter byindustrial or commercial consumer---Cognizance---Scope---Sub-Division Officer (SDO)lodged FIR with the FIA containing allegations of theft of electricity by the accused fromnear boshes of transformer for running his tube-well and service station---Offences relatingto Chapt. XVII-B of P.P.C. were covered by the provisions of S. 462-O, P.P.C. which oustedthe applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or any other law for the time beingin force relating the assumption of jurisdiction by the Court---Court could not takecognizance of any offence under Chapter XVII-B, P.P.C., except on a complaint made withreasons to be recorded in writing along with full particulars of the offence committed underthe chapter, by duly authorized officer (not below Grade 17) of the Government or thedistribution company---Proceedings were carried out in violation of the provisions of S. 462-O, P.P.C.---Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.Muhammad Mohsin Ghaman and others v. Government of Punjab through HomeSecretary Lahore and others 2013 SCMR 85 rel.(b) Administration of justice-------When the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it must be done in thesame manner as provided under the law, as deviation from the prescribed procedure amountsto violation of law.(c) Administration of justice-------Mandatory pre-requisites of law, if not followed, then the entire proceedings would benullified in the eyes of law

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: -----Seeking direction to set aside the impugned notice dated 20.05.2020 regarding stoppage of further admission in the Dental College of the petitioner (a) Medical Education – Provisional Recognition by Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC): —Pakistan Medical Commission Ordinance, 2019—Provisional Recognition—Legality and Continuation of Students' Education—Doctrine of De Facto—Scope and Application: The PMC Ordinance, 2019 was declared unconstitutional by the Islamabad High Court in Saira Rubab Nasir v. President of Pakistan (W.P. No. 3800/2019). As a result, all actions, orders, and decisions taken under the said Ordinance, including provisional recognition and permissions for medical and dental colleges to admit students, were deemed unlawful. However, recognizing the consequences on students' education, the court allowed ongoing students to continue their studies until a fresh inspection and recognition process was completed by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC). (b) Students' Rights – Continuation of Education Pending Fresh Inspection: —Right to Education—Student Welfare—Public Notice by PM&DC (20.05.2020): It would be inequitable and disruptive for students already admitted under provisional recognition to be transferred to other medical and dental colleges, especially when there exists a possibility that the colleges in question may fulfill PM&DC’s recognition criteria after re-inspection. Instead of causing disruption, students admitted during the disputed period are allowed to continue their education until a final decision is made post re-inspection. (c) Administrative Action – Inspection and Recognition of Medical Colleges: —Regulation 12, Medical and Dental Institutions (Recognition, Eligibility Criteria for Enhancement in Annual Admissions and Accreditation Standards) Regulations, 2018: The inspection and evaluation of medical and dental institutions must strictly follow Regulation 12 of the 2018 Regulations, ensuring transparency, objectivity, and adherence to established criteria for recognition. PM&DC must consider this regulatory framework while conducting fresh inspections of the petitioner colleges. (d) Adjustment of Students in Recognized Institutions – Regulatory Compliance: —Regulation 7(2), 2018 Regulations—Student Adjustment in Recognized Medical Colleges: Admitting students into recognized medical institutions beyond their sanctioned strength violates Regulation 7(2) of the 2018 Regulations, which limits annual student intake to 350 students for public-sector institutions and 150 for private-sector institutions. Adjusting students from unrecognized institutions without available vacant seats would amount to regulatory non-compliance. (e) Judicial Precedent – No Immediate Closure of Provisional Institutions: —Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Ziauddin Medical University (PLD 2007 SC 323): Even though provisional recognition has no legal basis under the PM&DC Ordinance or Regulations, the Supreme Court in Ziauddin Medical University refrained from ordering the immediate closure of institutions with provisional recognition, allowing them time to address deficiencies and undergo re-evaluation. -----Key Principles Established: Provisional recognition granted under the PMC Ordinance, 2019, is unlawful but students’ education should not suffer due to administrative irregularities. PM&DC must inspect medical colleges afresh under applicable regulations before deciding on their recognition. Students admitted under provisional recognition are allowed to continue their education until the inspection process concludes. Adjustment of students into recognized medical colleges must comply with sanctioned seat limits under the 2018 Regulations. The welfare and continuity of education for admitted students remain paramount during the transition process. -----Disposition: The petitioner colleges shall be inspected afresh by PM&DC in accordance with the applicable regulations. Students already admitted in the petitioner colleges will continue their education until PM&DC decides on the colleges' recognition after re-inspection. Petitioners may approach PM&DC for grievances in light of the judgment in Saira Rubab Nasir’s case.

Summary: Admittedly, the property owned by the petitioner was not the subject matter of suit No. 124/1, thus, there was no decree against the petitioner s property. Record reveals that in suit No.124/1, no decree for partition was passed on the basis of which the specific portion of the property was to be handed over to the decree holder. Record also transpires that the decree for declaration was to the extent of shares in the joint property and as per the provision of Order XI Rule 35 (2) of CPC, only symbolicpossession would be handed over to the decree holder.The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner was that under the garb of decree in suit No.124/1, the petitioner s owned and possessed property is intended to be taken from him. In such a situation, the remedy has already been provided by the legislature in the code of Civil Procedure 1908, under the provision of Order XXI Rule 99, 100 and 101of C.P.C, whereunder the petitioner could approach to the Executing Court bycontending that no decree has been passed regarding her property but in no case the contention of the petitioner could be treated under section 12 (2) of CPC. The provisions of Order XXI Rule 99, 100 & 101 are reproduced as under: - 99. Resistance or obstruction by bona fide claimant. Where the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by any person (other than the judgment debtor) claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other thanthe judgment debtor, the Court shall make an order dismissing the application.100. Dispossession by decree holder or purchaser. (1) Where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession. (2) The Court shall fix a day for investigating the matter and shall summon the party against whom the application is made to appear and answer the same.101. Bona fide claimant to be restored to possession. Where the Court is satisfied that the applicant was in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment debtor, it shall direct that the applicant be put into possession of the property.Likewise, in case of possession from joint property the mode of possession would be under Order XI Rule 35(2), which is reproduced as under: -Rule 35(2) Where a decree is for the joint possession of immoveable property, such possession shall be delivered by affixing a copy of the warrant in some conspicuous place on the property and proclaiming by beat of drum, or other customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance of the decree.Secondly, There is no cavil with the proposition that an application under section 12 (2) of CPC should be treated as a suit but it equally settled principle of law that in every application under section 12(2) there is no need to frame issues and record evidence, rather it depends upon the facts of case to case. In the case of Mst. Shabana Irfan versus Muhammad Sham Khan and other 2009 SCMR 40, it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that: - Needless to add that petition under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. can be decided summarily by thelearned Court, which has passed the final judgment, decree or order in dispute, when there are admitted facts, documents between the parties. There is no need to prolong the litigation, when the case ex facie appears to have not been filed in a wrong jurisdiction, and when fraud or misrepresentation was not involved therein the case or in the transaction.