Summary: The plaintiffs claim ownership of a certain piece of land, while the defendants, particularly Hussain Developers, assert their own ownership and seek relief against the plaintiffs' claims. The document contains details about the nature of the dispute, the claims made by both parties, and the legal arguments presented by their respective advocates. The plaintiffs seek various declarations, injunctions, and damages, while the defendants counter with their own claims and requests for the court's intervention. The document also discusses the legal arguments presented by both sides, including references to registered sale deeds, revenue records, and previous court orders. The court considers the arguments and interim orders, and concludes by confirming the interim orders made in previous hearings and disposing of the related applications.

Summary: The case involved an incident where the complainant and others were attacked, resulting in fatalities and injuries. The petitioners argue that the inclusion of Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 during the investigation was incorrect, and they seek the transfer of the case, contending that it does not meet the criteria of "terrorism" as defined in the Act. The judgment delves into the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, emphasizing the need for a specific design or purpose to coerce, intimidate, or create fear in society. The court concluded that the incident, while brutal, does not qualify as an act of terrorism as the motive appears to be personal enmity rather than an attempt to intimidate the government or destabilize society. Therefore, the court allowed the writ petitions, declared the impugned order as without lawful authority, and directs the transfer of the case to a Court of ordinary jurisdiction for trial.

Summary: The petitioner, Mst. Asma Bibi, alleged that she had contracted a marriage with Imdad Ullah, who was residing in the USA. Subsequently, Imdad Ullah, allegedly influenced by his brother (respondent No.4), forged a divorce deed without the petitioner's knowledge. The petitioner was sent back to Pakistan, and four months later, she learned about the divorce. The petitioner challenged the divorce registration certificate and confirmation order, claiming they were illegal, void ab initio, and issued without notice.The central issue was the jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Union Council to pass the impugned order and issue the divorce registration certificate. The judgment cited relevant sections of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and Rules under the ordinance. It emphasized that jurisdiction lies with the Union Council where the wife was residing at the time of divorce pronouncement.Given that the petitioner was residing in the USA at the time of the alleged divorce, the judgment referred to a relevant notification authorizing officers of Pakistan Mission abroad to act as Chairman under the ordinance. The Court concluded that the Chairman, Union Council Chak No.94/NP, Khanpur, had no authority in this case. Additionally, it highlighted procedural lapses, such as the absence of attestation for documents and the unauthorized participation of Imdad Ullah's brother in the proceedings.Consequently, the impugned divorce registration certificate and confirmation order were declared legally ineffective and set aside. The constitutional petition filed by Mst. Asma Bibi was allowed.

Summary: Background: The respondent (wife) filed three suits against the appellant (husband) in the Family Court at Mirpur, AJK. The suits sought dissolution of marriage, recovery of dowry articles, and maintenance allowance. The couple had married on 08.08.2008, with one child born from the union. The respondent alleged that the appellant subjected her to abuse, neglect, and cruelty, and ousted her from his home in 2009. The respondent sought dissolution of the marriage due to non-maintenance and cruelty. In response, the appellant denied the allegations and filed a counter-suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court consolidated the cases and, after hearing the evidence, decreed dissolution of marriage on the ground of non-maintenance and partially allowed the maintenance allowance claim, but dismissed the dowry articles claim for lack of evidence. The appellant’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights was also dismissed. Dissatisfied with the Family Court’s decision, the appellant challenged it in the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeals. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of AJK. -----Issues: 1- Whether the dissolution of marriage could be granted based on non-maintenance when the statutory period of two years was not fulfilled. -----2- Whether the respondent proved cruelty by the appellant to justify dissolution on that ground. -----3- Whether the dismissal of the appellant’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights was legally justified. -----4- Whether the court could modify the decree for dissolution on the ground of khula instead of non-maintenance. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Non-Maintenance Issue: The Supreme Court found that while the respondent claimed non-maintenance, the two-year statutory period of non-maintenance was not met at the time the dissolution suit was filed. Cruelty Allegation: The court noted that the allegations of cruelty were not sufficiently proven by the respondent to justify dissolution of the marriage on that ground. --Khula as a Justifiable Ground: The court recognized the respondent’s statement that she could no longer live with the appellant within the limits ordained by Allah. This was sufficient to dissolve the marriage on the ground of khula, which allows a wife to seek divorce based on irreconcilable differences. --Restitution of Conjugal Rights: The dismissal of the appellant’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights was upheld, as the court found that forcing the respondent to return to the marital relationship was not feasible. The Supreme Court modified the lower court’s decree, dissolving the marriage on the ground of khula instead of non-maintenance. The court ordered the respondent to return the dower and any other benefits received from the appellant. -----Citations/Precedents: Islamic Family Law Principles: Courts in AJK have the authority to dissolve a marriage based on khula if the wife expresses that she cannot live with her husband in harmony. Family Law Precedents in AJK: The courts emphasize the importance of non-coercion in marital disputes and favor dissolution if reconciliation is not possible.

Summary: Background:Abdul Mutallib, the petitioner, filed an application under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) in Cr. Misc. No.04/2020 before the Hon'ble Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. He sought the release of his mini-truck, impounded by custom authorities, until the disposal of a case registered against him.---Issues:Whether Abdul Mutallib is entitled to the superdari of his impounded vehicle.Whether retaining the vehicle by custom authorities indefinitely is justifiable.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ali Baig presided over the case. The court allowed Abdul Mutallib's petition after considering arguments from both parties. Mutallib asserted his ownership of the vehicle and claimed no involvement in the criminal case related to it. The absence of any rival claimant and the proper maintenance of vehicle documents supported his claim. The court emphasized that retaining the vehicle indefinitely would result in its decay and damage, which was unacceptable under the law. Consequently, the court directed the respondent to hand over the vehicle to Mutallib on superdari, provided he furnished personal security bonds. Mutallib was instructed not to sell or transfer the vehicle until the case's decision and to produce it in court when required. The court's decision did not prejudice the rights of any rival claimant with better title.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending