Summary: Sections of law;Sections 302, 354, 452, 96, 100, 303-A and 299-G PPC(a) Difference between an act committed in exercise of right of private defence and an offence committed under Ikrah-i-Tamexplained.(b) A murder committed under Ikrah-i-Tam is a criminal act which ensues a criminal liability under section 303 (a) PPC, while a murder committed in exercise of valid right of private defence falls in general exceptions and carries no criminal liability.

Summary: Entry in column No. 17 Nikah Nama would amount to a promise which is enforceable through Court to plenary Jurisdiction. Suit filed before family court on the basis of such promise was not maintainable being out of ambit of Schedule of S.5 of Family courts Act, 1964

Summary: In the Instant case, Government of Northern areas through secretary forest Gilgit Baltistan has been impleaded as defendant/ Respondent No. 2 and the property i-e the disputed forest also situate at Chilas, District Diamar, in the provice of Gilgit Baltistan. Under section 16(d) ibid, it has explicitly been provided that suit for determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated and under Section 20 of CPC, it has been provided that every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.

Summary: When the copies were prepared for delivery on 15.11.2018 for which the petitioner applied on 25.10.2018 so the time shall run from the date when the copies were prepared for delivery and not the date when petitioner opted to get the copies within the meaning of section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908. As the copies were prepared on 15.11.2018, therefore, it was for the petitioner to get the attested copies and file the petition within the period but as the petition was not filed within the limitation, as such, the same was not maintainable. Similarly, the petitioner has not filed any application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 for Condonation of Delay.

Summary: As Mst Shalo and the legal heirs of Farid and Akbar (from whom the title was derived by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) were aware in respect of the aforementioned development in the revenue papers and the petitioners/plaintiff at the time of institution of the last suit were estopped by their conduct under the principle Article 114 of Qanon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Though the petitioners of the instant suit were not the plaintiffs in suit No.272/1, however, as their predecessor-in-interest has purchased the property from Mst Shalo and the legal heirs of Farid Khan who were the plaintiffs in the earlier suit bearing No.272/1, the principle of estopple would be applicable as against the petitioners for the reason that Fazal Rahim (brother of Mst Bibi Rana) and Farid and Akbar were litigating against each other, in which the revenue officer had attested the mutation by considering the claim of Fazal Rahim from which the vendors of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners were fully aware. Abdul Jabbar (predecessor of petitioners) and the petitioners were estopped under the principle as defined by Osborn s.

Summary: The unit of shamilat is also depend on the customs and usages of founding families of particulararea, especially in KPK, there are different units of Shamilat as Jori , Muthi , Paisa , Anna , Bakhra, Seir etc. to regulate the rights of family or individual. In the case in hand, at the time of settlement, it was particularized that in the matter of Shamilat of the estate of Galla, the unit of the estate Topi in proportionate shall be considered as the unit of Galla . The mode and manner in which the shares of Sharmilat of Topi are settled shall be the yardstick for the shamilat of Galla.The best translation of Shamilat in English language would be Common Land or the Community Land so, the owner of Topi, who are not the owners of the estate of Galla being original owner (Aalla Malik) could not be paid compensation of the acquired land. Similarly, all the owners in the village Galla are also joint owners of Shamilat of it and their shares shall be proportionate to the size of their holding vis-a-vis total land in the village excluding malikan-e-qabza. It was the absolute right of the petitioners to claim compensation as there can be no cavil with proposition that no acquisition withoutcompensation.

Summary: The petitioner alleged that he had paid the sale consideration for the disputed propertybut instead of transferring the same, respondent No.1 got attested mutation No.11177dated 22.11.2012 in his favour. Yet, the petitioner has not produced a single witness inwhose presence the amount was paid to the respondent. The petitioner has not evenasserted a single word about the time, date, month, year or place when the payment wasmade to the respondent No.1. The petitioner has not produced Mst. Ilahi Noor or thewitnesses of mutation No.10611 dated 17.02.2011 through which he sold his 5 Marlas land in favour of Mst. Ilahi Noor in order to prove that the sale consideration paid by Mst.Ilahi Noor was handed over to respondent No.1.No fraud, as alleged by the petitioner, has been proved on record through cogent andconvincing evidence. The witnesses produced as PW-3 andPW-4 in support of transaction in question are real sons of the petitioner, who could notestablish in their evidence anything favourable to the petitioner. The factum of fraudalleged by the petitioner absolutely could not be substantiated through any independentand reliable evidence.

Summary: [Service matters (Counting of previous service for pension)] the petitioner is seeking addition of the period, served with Civil Aviation Authority (`CAA`) on daily wages, against the substantive post of Meter Reader, with the period served as a regular employee, for the purpose of pensionary benefits--In view of the above discussion, this petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority of respondents to include nine (09) years service of daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular and recalculate his service / retiring dues and other allied benefits and the same be paid to him in accordance with law. Respondents are further directed to process and complete the entire service dues of the petitioner within sixty (60) days from the date of receiving this judgment. No order as to costs.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Aurangzeb, the petitioner, was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for homicide.Initially sentenced to death, his sentence was altered to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court Lahore in a judgment dated 21.01.2014.The petitioner appeals against this judgment, challenging the conviction and sentence.---Issues:Whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether the discrepancies in witness testimony and the acquittal of the co-accused cast doubt on the petitioner's culpability.Whether the delay in filing the petition should be condoned.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The prosecution's case relied primarily on the testimony of two witnesses, Haqnawaz (PW-1) and Munir Hussain (PW-2), who provided consistent and plausible accounts of the incident.Despite discrepancies in the prosecution's case, such as the acquittal of co-accused and the complainant's supplementary statement nominating unknown assailants, the core evidence against the petitioner remained intact.The prompt reporting of the incident and the subsequent autopsy examination supported the credibility of the witnesses' presence at the crime scene.The recovery of a weapon consistent with the fatal injury further corroborated the prosecution's case.The petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Background:The dispute revolves around a piece of land measuring 15-Kanal 3-Marla in Chak Turangzai, District Charsadda, purchased by the appellant for Rs. 600,000 on 13.6.2005.The respondent, Safdar Khan, asserted his pre-emptive rights under the K.P.K. Pre-emption Act, 1987, leading to a legal battle.The trial court dismissed the respondent's suit due to his failure to perform Talabs (a legal requirement).However, consecutive appeals by the respondent resulted in a remand by the High Court for re-appraisal of evidence, ultimately leading to a judgment in favor of the respondent.---Issues:Whether the respondent successfully established the performance of Talabs.Whether the appellant's claim of informing the respondent prior to the sale holds merit.Whether the evidence presented by both parties was sufficient to prove their respective cases.---Holding/Reasoning:The respondent's preferential right to pre-empt the sale was recognized by both the trial court and the appellate court.Witnesses testified to the respondent's declaration of intention to pre-empt the sale, corroborating his position.The argument that the witnesses were discrepant was dismissed, as minor variations in their accounts are natural.The appellant's claim of informing the respondent prior to the sale was rejected due to conflicting testimony from their witnesses.The court found the official witnesses presented by the respondent sufficient to establish the dispatch of notice, thereby fulfilling the legal requirement.The judgments of the lower courts were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.