Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: CR: Against the order dated 14-12-2019 passed by Learned Civil Judge Islamabad, whereas the application regarding change of guarantor / surety has been dismissed.

Summary: When the trial Court passes any order either acquitting or convicting the accused the same is to be challenged by way of an appeal in view of S.8 (a) of the illegal dispossession Act 2005.

Summary: Held:(1) The permanent place of residence of the petitioners, according to their CNIC,are Union Council Bilot and Union Council Mandhra Kalan, D.I.Khan, however,before interview they were married to Muhammad Ismail Hani and Muhammad Ramzan (husband) who are the permanent residents of Union Council Kathgarh and Mandhra Kalan, D.I.Khan. They were issued fresh CNICs wherein their permanent place of residence are mentioned as Union Council Bilot and Union Council Mandhra Kalan, D.I.Khan, therefore, they were rightly not considered for appointment on the posts which were meant for those candidates holding CNICs and domicile of Union Council Kathgarh and Union Council Mandhra Kalana, D.I.Khan.(2) We have reached at the conclusion that before entering into service, the permanent place of residence of a married woman would be deemed to be that of her husband and entry in this regard in the CNIC would be an evidence of her permanent place of the residence irrespective of the fact that the said document (CNIC) has been acquired after publication of the advertisement for the post.(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. For the reason stated above, this and connected writ petition No. 113-D/2019 being bereft of merits are dismissed.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------Ss. 17-A & 14---Suit for maintenance---Interim order---Scope---Petitioner assailed by Constitutional petition, order passed by Judge Family Court whereby he, on an application under S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964, was directed to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife till she rejoined him---Validity---Interim order was not an appealable order---Legislature, while denying the appeal against interim order, did not mean that the aggrieved person could approach the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution and against final order could file an appeal before the court subordinate to the High Court---Entertaining a constitutional petition in ordinary case against interim order, which was neither without jurisdiction nor contrary to law, would defeat the very purpose of not providing appeal against interim order---Aggrieved party had to wait for final order and after final order, he could impugn both the interim and final order in appeal before the appellate court---Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Summary: Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908)-------Ss. 4 & 5---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Anti-Terrorism Act(XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 121---Attempt to causeexplosion or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life orproperty---Possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, unlicensedpossession of arms, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Accused wasalleged to have been found in possession of .30 bore pistol and a hand grenade,which was defused on the spot---Evidence of recovery witnesses had remainedunshaken during cross-examination and nothing favourable to the accused wasbrought on record---Prosecution case was corroborated by the report of BombDisposal Commander and positive report of Forensic Laboratory---Safe custody ofthe parcels of defused hand grenade and pistol was proved beyond any shadow ofdoubt---Burden to prove defence plea under Art. 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984was upon the accused but no witness was produced to prove that he was abducted bythe police prior to registration of FIR---High Court observed that since theprosecution had failed to prove that the accused was a member of proscribedorganization and was a previous convict in any other such like case, therefore, hissentences were reduced to the one, which he had already undergone---Appeal wasdismissed accordingly

Summary: The petitioner, an ad hoc appointee, challenged her verbal termination from service following the transfer of respondent No.6 through an order. The petitioner, appointed as a Medical Officer on an ad hoc basis, contends that her termination violates Section 10 of The Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974. The respondent acknowledged the verbal termination practice on transfer but does not contest the facts. The court reviews the appointment letter, emphasizing its temporary nature, liable to termination upon the appointment of a regular incumbent. It deemed the termination on transfer without written notice or pay in lieu thereof as a violation of the law. The court sets aside the impugned transfer order, asserting the petitioner's right to continue serving unless terminated in accordance with the law, highlighting the importance of due process and adherence to constitutional rights. The petition was allowed.

Summary: Background:The case involves a challenge to the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 06.06.2014 in Civil Revision No. 820-P of 2013. The plaintiff/respondent, who is also an advocate, contested the mutation of certain properties through a Suit for Declaration, claiming that he and the defendants were legal heirs of Dr. Rab Nawaz Khan. Both parties presented oral and documentary evidence, leading to the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit, upheld by the Additional District Judge. However, the Peshawar High Court reversed these decisions, leading to this Civil Appeal.---Issues:Whether the Peshawar High Court rightly re-appraised the evidence under Section 115 of the CPC?Whether the High Court's interpretation of the evidence was appropriate considering the two lower courts' findings?Whether the mutations were fraudulent or bogus?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:After reviewing the judgments of the lower courts, the Supreme Court found that there were concurrent findings of fact and law by the Trial Court and the Additional District Judge, which were overturned by the Peshawar High Court. The Supreme Court held that the evidence presented by the plaintiff himself, including the mutations and Roznamchas, did not support the claim of fraud or bogus mutations. Additionally, the plaintiff's own admissions during cross-examination undermined his case. Therefore, the High Court's decision was deemed unsustainable, and the original judgment dismissing the suit was restored. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.---Citations/Precedents:Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)