Summary: It is incumbent upon the Trial Court to go through the Contents of the Plaint before proceeding with case and it is the essential aspect of Order Rule 11 CPC to stop the frivolous Litigation at the Initial stage as it would not only avoid wasting of precious time of the court but it. also avoid to drag the opposite party in an unnecessary Litigation. Clause(d) of Order VII Rule II CPC provides that the Court is not proceed with a suit, which is barred by a Law.

Summary: The petitioner then filed a civil revision application against the Impugned Order, arguing that the executing court should not have proceeded with the execution during the pendency of another related case, and that the ownership of the property was still disputed. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments, stating that the executing court had the authority to execute the decree in accordance with the law and that the petitioner did not challenge the award through the proper channels in a timely manner. The court upheld the Impugned Order, deeming it in line with the law. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition confirming the validity of the Impugned Order and maintaining that the execution proceedings were lawful and valid.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXI, Rr. 89 & 26---Execution petition---Auction of property---Objections---Suit seeking declaration that proceedings before Executing Court were illegal---Scope---Objection was raised that the property to be auctioned was never allotted to the judgment-debtor---Executing Court dismissed the objection petition---Validity---Petitioner was not owner of suit shop to be auctioned by the Executing Court---Executing Court could not consider any document or orders passed in any other suit subsequently filed by the objector---Similar controversy could not be raised through another civil suit with regard to the same property---Objector could seek relief in a separate suit---Civil Court could neither declare proceedings of Executing Court as illegal nor regulate the property involved in the execution proceedings---Judgment and decree of one civil Court could not be nullified by another---Official Assignee (Nazir) had neither issued any notice to any of the judgment-debtor before inspection of property to be auctioned nor he appeared to have been physically present at the inspection---Report of Nazir did not disclose as to how and who identified suit shop to the inspection team---Proceedings in civil suit filed subsequently could not have any bearing on the orders of Executing Court---Applicant had no right to retain possession nor any order of civil Court passed in other civil suit would have effect of setting aside any of the orders of Executing Court for auction and possession to auction purchaser---Auction of suit shop was lawful and auction purchaser was entitled for possession being lawful owner under authority of Court order/decree---Official Assignee (Nazir) was directed to take possession of suit shop and hand over its possession to the auction purchaser---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: Issue:Whether the appeal filed by the CEO of Sunny Vision Cable Network was competent in the absence of explicit authorization by the company's Board of Directors.---Judgment:The appeal was dismissed due to incompetence. The court found that the CEO, despite being the license holder, lacked proper authorization from the Board of Directors to file the appeal on behalf of the company. The court underscored the importance of a resolution from the Board of Directors to authorize legal actions such as filing an appeal, which was absent in this case.---Reasoning:The court emphasized the legal requirement for a resolution from the Board of Directors to authorize individuals to file suits, appeals, or petitions on behalf of a company. Since no such resolution was presented, and the Articles of Association did not provide the CEO with such authorization, the appeal was deemed incompetent.---Conclusion:The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the CEO of Sunny Vision Cable Network for being incompetent, due to the lack of explicit authorization from the company's Board of Directors as required by law.---''Appellant in absence of a resolution by Directors of company at most could claim that he had been authorized by Articles of Association of company to file instant appeal but perusal of said articles shows that no such authorization is available in same. It is settled by now that an appeal, suit or a petition cannot be filed on behalf of a company and would be incompetent and not maintainable without there being a resolution of Board of Directors authorizing person, who had instituted proceedings, to file same''

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of specific sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), namely Sections 306(b)(c), 307(1)(b)(c), 309(1), and 310(1), on the grounds that these provisions, related to Qisas (retaliation) and Diyat (compensation), were against the Injunctions of Islam. Additionally, the petitioner contested Sections 313 and 338 of the PPC and Sections 345(1) & (2A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) on similar grounds. ----Issues: 1- Whether the impugned sections of the PPC and Cr.P.C. are against the Injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the existing legal provisions adequately address the gravity of offenses like honor killing. 3- Whether the state has the authority to legislate and enact laws for maintaining law and order while adhering to Islamic principles. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The court dismissed the petition, holding that the provisions in question were not against the Injunctions of Islam. The court emphasized that the state has the authority to legislate within the limits prescribed by Islamic law. The court further noted that the existing legal framework, particularly the amended Section 311 PPC, already addresses the concerns raised by the petitioner, especially regarding offenses categorized as "fasad-fil-arz" (mischief on earth). The court found that the petitioner's arguments did not sufficiently demonstrate that the impugned sections violated Islamic principles. ----Citations/Precedents 1997 SCMR 1307 - Sheikh Muhammad Aslam & another Vs. Shauakat Ali alias Shauka 2004 SCMR 236 - Bashir Ahmed Vs. The State 2005 SCMR 599 - Khan Muhammad Vs. The State PLD 1996 SC 1 - Abdul Haque vs. The State and another 2000 SCMR 338 - Abdus Salam vs. The State PLD 2005 SC 252 - Muhammad Abdullah Yousaf and others vs. Miss Nadia Ayub and others PLD 2015 SC 77 - Zahid Rehman vs. The State PLD 1980 FSC 1 - Muhammad Riaz Versus Federal Government PLD 1989 SC 633 - Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court Judgment on compoundability of Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302 PPC

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The standard of proof in election matters is much higher than the civil standard (balance of probabilities) though short of the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt). Recourse by the Court to Article 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 for visual examination of photographs and signatures was contrary to the dictates of the requisite standard of proof. The Court sets aside the judgment under review and directs that the petitioner shall be entitled to file her nomination papers if she intends to contest in any of the future elections.

Summary: Summary pending