Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964: ----S. 14(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Interim maintenance order passed by Family Court---Maintainability of writ petition---Scope of interference by High Court---Exceptional circumstances---Statutory bar of appeal or revision. Petitioner challenged the interlocutory order of the Family Court fixing Rs.8,000 per month as interim maintenance for the respondent. The High Court declined to entertain the petition, holding that Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 expressly bars an appeal or revision against an interim order passed by a Family Court. The Court observed that a party aggrieved by such an interim order must wait until the final decision of the Family Court and then challenge it through the appropriate appellate forum. Interference under Article 199 of the Constitution was permissible only in exceptional circumstances where the impugned order was palpably without jurisdiction, malafide, void, or coram non judice. The impugned order, being interlocutory in nature and free of jurisdictional errors, could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind barring appeals against interim orders was to avoid delays in family litigation. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the order at the appellate stage, if occasion arises. -----Cited Cases: Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi v. Province of Sindh 1996 SCMR 1165 Mumtaz Hussain alias Butta v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab 1976 SCMR 450 Mst. Maham Shabbir v. Salman Haider 2014 CLC 330

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: S.115 CPC.S. 24 West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960.S. 27 West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1960.Alienation of land without sanction of Consolidation Officer, during consolidation proceedings, held invalid.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Proceeding u/s 12(2) of CPC, 1908, are in nature of declaratory suit. For invoking of section 12(2) of CPC, 1908, it is to be shown that the judgement under challenge was the result of fraud misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction.

Summary: Pensionary benefits----The petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant in the Port Qasim Authority (PQA) in 1973, asserts that his service was confirmed, and he was promoted to Superintendent BPS-16 in 1984, subsequently granted Move Over to BPS-17. The petitioner claims to have rendered more than 14 years of service with PQA and more than 20 years with the Korangi Fisheries Harbour Authority (KoFHA) without interruption, retiring in 2008. The petitioner alleges that PQA has refused to grant him pensionary benefits despite his qualifying service.PQA contests the petitioner's claims, arguing that he is not entitled to pensionary benefits from PQA as he was appointed afresh in KoFHA and retired from there in 2008. PQA maintains that the petitioner has already received his Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) entitlement and is not eligible for further benefits.The court examines the petitioner's service history and concludes that he is entitled to pensionary benefits for the 14 years he served in PQA, considering there was no interruption in his service from the time he joined KoFHA. The court orders PQA to calculate and pay the petitioner's pensionary dues along with associated benefits within three months of the judgment.

Summary: The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of abduction and rape. The court noted that the complainant accused four unknown individuals of rape, but the medical examination of the victim reveals an old ruptured hymen with healed margins and no signs of recent trauma. The DNA report also states that no conclusion can be made about Muhammad Ramzan as a possible contributor to the DNA obtained. The court emphasizes that three other accused individuals were granted pre-arrest bail based on the complainant and victim's statements of suspicion. Given the negative DNA report and the lack of progress in the trial since the petitioner's arrest, the court concludes that there are sufficient reasons to believe that further investigation is needed. As a result, the court allowed the petition, granting the petitioner post-arrest bail on the condition of furnishing a surety bond of Rs.2,00,000 with one surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

Summary: Background:The case concerns the transfer of several medical and cultural institutions from the Federal to Provincial domain following the enactment of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 ("18th Amendment"). Various constitution petitions were filed before the High Court of Sindh challenging the devolution of institutions such as Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC), National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD), National Institute of Child Health (NICH), National Museum of Pakistan (NMP), and Sheikh Zayed Postgraduate Medical Institute (SZPMI) to the Province of Sindh. Similar challenges were raised regarding the transfer of Sheikh Zayed Medical Complex (SZMC) to the Province of Punjab. The High Court of Sindh declared the transfers unconstitutional, lacking lawful authority, and of no legal effect. Additionally, the case involves issues related to faculty requirements for medical colleges and hospitals.---Issues:Whether the transfer of JPMC, NICVD, NICH, NMP, and SZPMI from the Federal to Provincial domain after the 18th Amendment is constitutional.Whether the transfer of SZMC to the Province of Punjab was legally executed.Whether the actions of the Federal Government in transferring these institutions lacked due process and application of mind.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the declarations of the High Court of Sindh regarding the unconstitutionality of the transfers of JPMC, NICVD, NICH, and NMP to the Province of Sindh. The Court found that the transfers lacked lawful authority and were executed without proper consideration of the constitutional framework. Regarding SZMC, the Court determined that its establishment purpose fell under Entry No. 16 of the Federal Legislative List, making its transfer to the Province of Punjab unconstitutional. The Court emphasized the importance of due process and adherence to legal procedures in such transfers.---Citations/Precedents:Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v WAPDA and others (1997 SCMR 641)Shamas Textile Mills Ltd. and others v The Province of Punjab and 2 others (1999 SCMR 1477)Province of Sindh v. MQM (PLD 2014 SC 531)---Quote:Transfer/devolution of some institutions viz. SZMC, JPMC, NICVD, NICH and NMP from Federal Government to Provincial Governments is declared to be unconstitutional, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and within 90 days the Federal and Provincial Governments and all related Departments shall take all necessary steps relating to return of the afore-noted Institutions from the Provinces to the Federation.