Summary: It is important to note here that the injunctive order, disobedience of which is complained of by the complainant, should in categorical clear terms restrain the performance of a particular act for making the alleged contemnor liable to be proceeded against for its violation and the said violation should not be such which has to be brought within the mandate of injunctive order by stretching its meaning to a situation which is not expressly mentioned into the same.

Summary: The protection of a subsequent purchaser as a bona fide transferee under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act is conditional upon strict proof of payment of consideration made in good faith and without notice of the prior agreement. Mere technical irregularities, such as non-decision of a miscellaneous application, do not warrant remand where they have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Summary: Petitioner, a Civil Law servant holding substantive post of Principal (BPS-19), was appointed on deputation as Controller of Examinations, BISE D.I.Khan, for a fixed three-year term. Before completion of tenure, he was prematurely repatriated to parent department by impugned notification, while another officer was assigned look-after charge. Held, appointment of Controller for a fixed statutory term confers protection of tenure; arbitrary repatriation without issuing show-cause notice and giving opportunity of hearing under Section 15(3) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1990, is unlawful. Complaints regarding performance alone, without due process, cannot justify curtailment. Deputation or subsequent joining of parent department does not validate illegal repatriation. Writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution allowed; impugned notification declared void; petitioner directed to resume duties and continue till lawful completion of tenure. Executive action curtailing statutory tenure is subject to judicial review. Cited: Syed Mehmood Akhter Naayl v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 195), Bacha Gul Wazir v. Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2015 SCMR 43), Malik Maqsood Anwar v. BISE, Kohat (W.P.No.1639-P/2025), Allauddin Akhtar v. Govt. of Punjab (1982 CLC 515).

Summary: Elections Act, 2017—Ss. 9(1), 9(5), 95(5) & 95(6)—Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Arts. 175F(2), 185(3) [since omitted], 218(3)—Election dispute—Recounting of votes—Effect of earlier consent order of Supreme Court annulling proceedings—Meaning and scope of “proceedings”—Distinction between proceedings and process rejected—The Federal Constitutional Court held that once the Supreme Court, by consent of parties, had annulled “all the proceedings related to” the recounting application and remanded the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan for fresh decision, the entire earlier chain of proceedings stood wiped out, including the processes adopted and the recount undertaken during those proceedings. The Court rejected the contention that although the proceedings stood annulled, the recounting process or its result survived independently. It was held that the term “proceedings” is comprehensive in nature and embraces every step, measure, and process taken from commencement of a cause until its culmination in a result or decision. Therefore, the Election Commission could not lawfully rely upon the earlier recount or its outcome after those proceedings had been set aside by the Supreme Court. The matter had to be considered afresh on the pending recount applications, uninfluenced by the previous recount result, and until such fresh determination the petitioner continued to hold the position of returned candidate. Election law—Recounting of votes—When permissible—Sanctity of ballot—Recount not to be ordered on vague or frivolous allegations—The Court reiterated that recounting is not to be ordered as a matter of course, but only on the basis of material demonstrating illegality or irregularity in the count and after satisfaction that there has been wrongful inclusion or exclusion of ballot papers. The sanctity of ballot was held to be sacrosanct, and recounting powers were to be exercised sparingly, only to do full justice between the parties and not to permit a roving inquiry designed merely to fish out material for voiding an election. In this context, the Court referred to Jam Madad Ali v. Asghar Ali Junejo and others (2016 SCMR 251). Election Commission of Pakistan—Fresh decision on recount application—Duty to comply with remand order in letter and spirit—The Court held that the Election Commission had failed to act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 20.11.2024, which required a fresh examination of the recount application after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned and through a well-reasoned speaking order. Instead of deciding the recount application afresh on its own merits, the Commission unlawfully relied upon and effectively revived the previous recount and its result, even though the earlier proceedings had already been annulled. Such course was held to be unsustainable in law. The Court, therefore, directed the Election Commission to comply with the earlier Supreme Court order in letter and spirit and to decide the recount applications for PB-21 Hub afresh. If the applications are allowed, recount in 39 polling stations shall be conducted thereafter; if refused, the Commission shall proceed further in accordance with law. Interpretation of statutes and legal expressions—Word “proceedings”—Ordinary and legal meaning—The Court held that the word “proceedings” is of very wide import and, in legal parlance, includes every step taken towards further progress of a cause from its commencement till disposal, whether for relief, redress, or other remedial object. It also includes processes adopted in prosecution or defence of an action, and cannot be artificially confined so as to exclude acts forming part of the decision-making chain. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied upon The State through Advocate-General, N.W.F.P., Peshawar v. Naeem Ullah Khan (2001 SCMR 1461), Member (S&R), Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore v. Syed Ashfaque Ali and others (PLD 2003 SC 132), and Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan through Secretary and others (PLD 2010 SC 61). Constitutional jurisdiction—Maintainability—High Court order and Election Commission order set aside—The Federal Constitutional Court concluded that the impugned judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dated 20.12.2024, as well as the Election Commission’s order dated 16.12.2024, were not sustainable in law because they failed to give effect to the true legal consequence of the Supreme Court’s earlier consent order. The Court accordingly granted leave, converted the petition into an appeal, and allowed the same. Case references—Jam Madad Ali v. Asghar Ali Junejo and others (2016 SCMR 251); The State through Advocate-General, N.W.F.P., Peshawar v. Naeem Ullah Khan (2001 SCMR 1461); Member (S&R), Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another v. Syed Ashfaque Ali and others (PLD 2003 SC 132); Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan through Secretary and others (PLD 2010 SC 61). The Court also expressly relied upon the earlier Supreme Court order dated 20.11.2024 passed in CPLA Nos. 3201/2024 and 3202/2024, by which all prior proceedings relating to the recount application had been annulled and the matter remanded to the Election Commission for fresh decision. Appeal allowed—Impugned orders set aside—Notification suspended—The Federal Constitutional Court granted leave, converted the petition into an appeal, and allowed it. The judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dated 20.12.2024 and the order of the Election Commission of Pakistan dated 16.12.2024 were set aside. The Election Commission was directed to decide the recount applications regarding 39 polling stations of PB-21 Hub afresh, strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court’s earlier order. Until such fresh decision, the notification declaring respondent No. 4 as returned candidate was suspended.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---- ----Art. 115---Estoppel of tenant---Tenant denying title of landlord---Scope---Respondents instituted suit for recovery of produce and ejectment against petitioners, which was decreed by Trial Court and such decree was maintained by appellate, revisional and constitutional forums---Supreme Court held that where a person enters into possession as tenant, he is estopped from disputing title of landlord so long as he continues to retain possession under tenancy---Doctrine embodied in Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is founded on public policy and prevents tenant from approbating and reprobating simultaneously---Tenant who subsequently asserts ownership rights cannot retain possession as tenant and, at same time, deny landlord’s title. Cited Case: • Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 SC 45 (b) Landlord and tenant---- ----Tenant asserting ownership/proprietary rights---Duty to first surrender possession---Tenant disputing proprietary title of landlord must first vacate and surrender possession and thereafter may contest his alleged title before competent forum---Law does not permit tenant to continue possession under tenancy while simultaneously setting up hostile title against landlord---If tenant ultimately succeeds in establishing his proprietary rights, he may enforce decree according to law with all its consequences. Cited Case: • Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad deceased through L.Rs. 2006 SCMR 1068 (c) Landlord and tenant---- ----Agreement to sell or alleged purchase by tenant---Effect on tenancy---Mere assertion of ownership on basis of agreement to sell or alleged acquisition of proprietary rights does not defeat maintainability of ejectment proceedings---Until tenant establishes his claim before competent Court, landlord continues to enjoy status of owner/landlord and relationship between parties remains regulated by tenancy---Tenant cannot legitimately resist ejectment proceedings merely on ground of alleged sale agreement or ownership claim. Cited Cases: • Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 SC 45 • Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani 2002 SCMR 1540 • Waheed Ullah v. Mst. Rehana Nasim and others 2004 SCMR 1568 (d) Ejectment proceedings---- ----Maintainability---Tenant claiming purchase of share/co-ownership---Effect---Ejectment proceedings remain maintainable even where tenant asserts that he has acquired ownership rights by purchase of a share in the property---Such assertion does not automatically terminate tenancy nor oust jurisdiction of forum deciding ejectment---Tenant’s plea of ownership cannot be made basis to resist ejectment where his possession qua demised premises remains that of tenant. Cited Cases: • Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 913 • Ghulam Mustafa and others v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and others 1991 SCMR 432 (e) Rent Controller / ejectment forum---- ----Limited jurisdiction---Complicated question of title---Proper remedy---Forum exercising limited jurisdiction in ejectment proceedings cannot adjudicate upon complicated questions of ownership title between parties---Where tenant claims to have purchased a share or acquired co-ownership, proper remedy is to seek partition through competent civil forum and not to resist ejectment proceedings by raising disputed title questions before ejectment forum. (f) Landlord and tenant---- ----Tenant claiming co-ownership by purchase of share---Proper recourse---Tenant claiming co-ownership cannot use such plea as shield against ejectment while retaining possession under tenancy---His remedy is to file suit for partition or appropriate proceedings before competent civil forum---Ejectment cannot be refused merely because tenant claims purchase of a share, where his position in respect of disputed premises remains that of tenant. Cited Case: • Ghulam Mustafa and others v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and others 1991 SCMR 432 (g) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Concurrent findings---Interference by Supreme Court---Suit for recovery of produce and ejectment was decreed by Trial Court; appeal, revision, second revision and constitutional petition were dismissed---High Court correctly construed law relating to estoppel of tenant, surrender of possession, maintainability of ejectment proceedings and remedy of partition---No illegality or jurisdictional defect warranting interference by Supreme Court was shown---Petition was devoid of merit. Disposition: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.806-P of 2018 was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused; Supreme Court held that tenant asserting ownership/co-ownership must first surrender possession before contesting title, ejectment proceedings remain maintainable, and remedy for alleged co-ownership lies through partition before competent civil forum. CMA No.1877-P of 2018 became infructuous and was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: In a suit for dissolution of marriage, the court is required to make proper efforts to reconcile the matter in terms Section 10(3) of the Family Court Act, 1964 and on failure of reconciliation proceedings is empowered to pass a decree for dissolution of marriage but said Section does not provide that in every case, where reconciliation proceedings are declared as not successful, the decree for dissolution of marriage on basis of Khula is definitely to be passed, rather the Court has to assess whether wife through her voluntary decision really requires marriage to be dissolved or not. 24First Appeal Against Order(F.A.O.) 68910/22 Oil Marketing Association of Pakistan Vs Oil Companies Advisory Council etc Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran 29- 01- 2026 2025 LHC 8281

Summary: Promptly lodged FIR-Effect- FIR registered within two hours of the incident leaves no room for consultation or the weaving of a false story. Testimony of victim of rape-Evidentiary value- Victim of sexual assault stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness; if her testimony is confidence-inspiring, it requires no further corroboration to sustain a conviction. Social stigma in conservative society-Presumption against false implication- In a conservative society, it is highly improbable that a complainant would expose a minor daughter to the "deathless shame" of a rape trial merely to falsely implicate an innocent person. Medical and Scientific Evidence-DNA as "Gold Standard"- Ocular account found unimpeachable fortification through positive Forensic DNA and Serology Analysis, which serves as a conclusive scientific link between the accused and the offence. Defense plea-Absence of evidence- A defense version consisting of stark denials and unproven allegations of previous enmity, without producing a single witness in support, is rendered a "mere moonshine" in the face of strong prosecution evidence. 23Writ Petition- Family- Dissolution of Marriage 1171-26 MUHAMMAD KORA VS JFC ETC Mr. Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabir 29- 01- 2026 2026 LHC 1014

Summary: (a) Elections Act, 2017 ----Ss. 95(5), 95(6), 9(5) & 4, 8(b),(c)---Recounting of votes---Wide margin and 5% rule---Independent recount power of ECP---Maintainability and remedy --- Recounting applications for PB-21 Hub (39 polling stations)---Held, recounting is not to be ordered as a matter of course; it must rest on some material showing illegality/irregularity in the count; power to recount is to be exercised sparingly and not on vague, indefinite or frivolous allegations---Sanctity of ballot is sacrosanct and recount cannot be used as a roving inquiry to “fish” material to void an election; recounting is permissible only to do complete justice on adequate factual foundation. Cited Case: • Jam Madad Ali v. Asghar Ali Junejo & others, 2016 SCMR 251 (b) Supreme Court consent order—effect ----Consent order dated 20.11.2024 (CPLA Nos. 3201/2024 & 3202/2024)---Annulment of proceedings---Fresh decision by ECP---No reliance on earlier recount results ---- ECP proceedings “leading to the impugned judgment” annulled by consent of parties---Held, once the Supreme Court annulled all proceedings related to the recount application, ECP was required to decide the recount applications afresh, without being influenced by or relying upon prior recounting/results that formed part of the annulled proceedings---Earlier recount/result stood “scraped off” and could not be resurrected; until a lawful fresh decision and (if allowed) a fresh recount is carried out, petitioner was to be treated as returned candidate and respondent No.4’s notification could not stand. Key holding: distinction between “proceedings” and “process” rejected—processes (including recount steps and results) are integral to proceedings and fall within “proceedings” annulled. (c) Interpretation—meaning of “proceedings” ----Construction of statutory/legal terms---Scope of “proceedings” ---- Held, “proceedings” is comprehensive, covering every step taken towards progress of a cause from commencement to disposal, including steps/measures adopted in prosecution/defence and the processes culminating in a decision; therefore recounting steps/results were part of annulled proceedings and could not be relied upon. Cited Cases: • The State through Advocate-General N.W.F.P. v. Naeem Ullah Khan, 2001 SCMR 1461 • Member (S&R) Chief Settlement Commissioner, BOR Punjab v. Syed Ashfaque Ali & others, PLD 2003 SC 132 • Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan through Secretary & others, PLD 2010 SC 61 (d) Constitutional jurisdiction and post–27th Amendment posture ----Art. 185(3) (omitted) / Art. 175F(2) transfer---Appellate competence of Federal Constitutional Court Petition originally under omitted Article 185(3) stood transferred and decided under the post-amendment framework; leave granted where impugned orders patently conflicted with binding consent directions of Supreme Court. (e) Relief and directions ----Setting aside High Court dismissal in limine---Setting aside ECP order dated 16.12.2024---Remand for fresh decision---Suspension of notification ---- Held, ECP order dated 16.12.2024 and Balochistan High Court order dated 20.12.2024 were unsustainable for non-compliance with Supreme Court consent order; ECP directed to decide recount applications afresh “either way” (allow or reject) and then proceed accordingly; if allowed, recount limited to 39 polling stations; timeline: preferably within two months; until then, respondent No.4’s notification suspended. Disposition: Leave to appeal granted; petition converted into appeal and allowed; Balochistan High Court judgment dated 20.12.2024 and ECP order dated 16.12.2024 set aside; ECP directed to decide recount applications afresh in letter and spirit of Supreme Court order dated 20.11.2024; notification of respondent No.4 as returned candidate suspended till fresh lawful determination (C.P.L.A. No. 5327 of 2024, judgment announced 04.02.2026).

Summary: Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act (XLII of 2012)--- ----Ss. 3(3), 11, 24, 52 & 67-A---Reference---Taxable services---Territorial jurisdiction---Applicant / company was withholding agent and was aggrieved of show cause notice issued by Authorities for non-deducting of sale tax on the services---Plea raised by applicant / company was that taxable services were provided in other province and tax could not be charged only for the reason that head office was registered in the Province of Punjab---Validity---Mere residency of a company in Punjab or its classification as a prescribed withholding agent does not, by itself, create a substantive tax liability under Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012---Liability to sales tax under Ss. 11, 24 & 52 of Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 was fastened exclusively upon a registered person providing taxable services---Punjab Revenue Authority was competent to initiate withholding tax proceedings on the basis of undisputed audited accounts showing composite amounts paid for services; final determination of withholding tax liability could not be made on aggregated figures alone---Each individual transaction was to be reconciled and examined to ascertain whether it had constituted a taxable service, the applicable rate of tax, and the obligation to deduct and deposit tax---Burden was upon the withholding agent to explain nature of transactions and justify non-deduction of tax---Once documentary evidence was produced before Appellate Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, to scrutinize and reconcile each transaction and determine taxability accordingly---Appellate Tribunal’s failure to undertake such exercise amounted to non-application of judicial mind, warranting annulment of its order and remand of the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law---High Court declared that the show cause notice was issued without any legal foundation and Appellate Tribunal had erred in upholding initiation of proceedings under S. 52 of Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 against applicant / company, despite absence of any statutory authority permitting such proceedings against a service recipient---Appellate Tribunal wrongly placed reliance on Withholding Rules, 2015, as subordinate legislation could not enlarge or create a substantive tax liability not contemplated by the parent statute---High Court set aside order passed by Appellate Tribunal as well as Order in-Original and show cause notice, as the Appellate Tribunal fell in error by sustaining proceedings and by affirming jurisdiction of Punjab Revenue Authority against applicant / company---Reference was allowed in circumstances. Nagina Silk Mill, Lyallpur v. The Income Tax Officer, Award Lyallpur and others PLD 1963 SC 322; Messrs Dewan Cement Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Sales Tax and another 2009 SCMR 1126; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad and 4 others v. Messrs Ibrahim Textile Mills Ltd. and others 1992 SCMR 1898; Pak Gulf Constructions (Pvt.) Limited v. Government of Punjab and others 2025 PTD 255; Fauji Cement Company Limited v. Government of Punjab and others 2025 PTD 864; Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue, Audit Range, Zone-I and others v. Messrs Eden Builders Limited and others 2018 PTD 1474; Collector of Customs, Sales Tax (West), Karachi v. Messrs K&A Industries, Karachi 2006 PTD 537; M/s Khawaja Tanneries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Punjab Revenue Authority and others Tax Reference (PRA) No.03 of 2025; M/s Jawa Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Punjab Revenue Authority and others Tax Reference (PRA) No.60652 of 2021 and Rahat Café, Rawalpindi v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Finance and others 2024 PTD 898 ref. Barrister Saad M. Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court, Yawar Mukhtar, Muhammad Abdul Sajjad and Shahid Razzaq for Appellant. Muaz ul Mulk with Ms. Nadia Murad, Legal Officer, Punjab Revenue Authority. Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate General. Khudayar Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th January, 2026.