Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: An appellate court, while exercising limited jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against an interlocutory order, cannot assume powers of a court hearing a regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC so as to reject the plaint, adjudicate disputed questions of fact, or finally determine rights of parties beyond the statutory confines of such appellate jurisdiction.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 199---University of Karachi Act, 1972, S. 28---Constitutional jurisdiction---Maintainability---Selection and appointment of Professor and Associate Professor in public sector university---Unsuccessful candidate---Non-statutory service rules and 'master and servant' relationship---Respondent No.1, an Assistant Professor, not recommended by Selection Board on 21.12.2023, whose recommendations were approved by Syndicate on 05.04.2024, challenged selection process; High Court partly allowed his petition as to Food Department---Held, that respondent No.1 was not invoking quo warranto, and relief sought was in nature of mandamus/certiorari arising out of service-selection process, requiring him to show an enforceable legal or public law right and corresponding duty on part of University---Mere fact that an institution is created by statute does not make every dispute relating to its employees or candidates amenable to constitutional jurisdiction; statutory body and statutory service rights are not the same thing, and where conditions of service are not governed by statute or statutory rules, breach of internal regulations, instructions or administrative directions does not ordinarily attract Art. 199---An unsuccessful candidate cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction merely because he was not recommended or considers himself more suitable---Later jurisprudence recognizes limited exception that where action of statutory or public authority carries public law element and is alleged to be arbitrary, mala fide, without lawful authority, in breach of natural justice or in patent violation of governing law or rules, Court may examine its legality even if service rules are non-statutory, but exception does not obliterate distinction between statutory and non-statutory rules, and Court may interfere only where record discloses patent illegality, violation of mandatory rule, mala fide, bias, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction or other defect of public law character---Scope of judicial review in academic and institutional matters is circumscribed and Court does not sit in appeal over policy or academic choices unless action is patently arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or contrary to law---Respondent No.1 had no vested right to recommendation or appointment, bare allegation of violation of rules, bias and non-consideration was insufficient, no jurisdictional defect was apparent on the face of record, and constitutional petition was not maintainable under Art. 199. Cited Cases: • Principal, Cadet College, Kohat v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170 • University of the Punjab v. Ch. Sardar Ali 1992 SCMR 1093 • Ijaz Hussain Suleri v. The Registrar 1999 SCMR 2381 • Abdul Rashid Khan v. Registrar, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 2011 SCMR 944 • Muhammad Zahid Maqsood v. University of Karachi through Vice Chancellor 2013 MLD 9 • Amir Jamil v. University of Karachi through Registrar 2018 PLC (C.S.) 542 • Pakistan International Airline Corporation v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman PLD 2010 SC 676 • Abdul Wahab v. HBL 2013 SCMR 1383 • Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed 2013 SCMR 1707 • Waqar Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division 2024 SCMR 1877 • Muhammad Qutub-ud-Din v. Province of Sindh (C.A. No.103-K of 2024) • Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical College Lyari Karachi v. Province of Sindh (C.P.L.A. No.534-K of 2024) (b) University of Karachi First Statutes, R. 6(4)---Selection Board---Member who is candidate for the post---Participation in proceedings relating to different post---Dr. Shahina Naz, an aspirant for post of Professor, was not among members present when Board took up the post of Professor on 21.12.2023 and joined later, participating only when post of Associate Professor was considered---Held, that R. 6(4) is not a blanket disqualification from entire meeting of the Board but is post-specific and attracted only in respect of proceedings relating to post for which member is himself or herself a candidate---Purpose of rule, to prevent participation in proceedings concerning one's own candidature, stood satisfied, and in absence of material showing that she influenced proceedings relating to her own candidature High Court was not justified in holding R. 6(4) violated. (c) University of Karachi First Statutes, R. 6(5)---Selection Board---Co-option or consultation of three experts---Consultation does not mean concurrence or unanimity---Three experts were consulted but, for post of Professor, one referee report was not relied upon by Board because of contradiction between marks assigned and remarks recorded---Held, that operative requirement of R. 6(5) is consultation with three experts, not unanimity, nor that all three expert reports be favourable; consultation means seeking opinion, advice or assistance and not concurrence or approval unless law expressly so provides, and such condition cannot be read in by implication---Once three experts had been consulted the requirement was fulfilled; expert reports were relevant material but did not replace function of Board, whose final recommendation remained within its domain subject to Syndicate's approval---Course adopted by Board in another matter, deferring consideration on conflicting referee report, could not be converted into a mandatory rule of law---Finding that R. 6(5) was violated could not be sustained. (d) Natural justice---Bias---Reasons for non-selection---Objections before Syndicate---Selection process---Allegation of bias against Dr. Shahina Naz---Held, that no material showed she influenced experts, controlled Board or procured recommendations; allegations of bias or personal hostility, however strongly made, cannot substitute proof, and she not having been impleaded before High Court, no adverse finding could safely be founded on unproved allegations against person not before the Court---No provision of the Act or First Statutes required Board to pass detailed speaking order regarding each candidate not recommended---Objections or dissenting note placed before Syndicate did not by themselves render approval unlawful, and unless statute requires unanimity or majority decision suffers from patent illegality, mala fide or want of jurisdiction, approval cannot be set aside merely because one member recorded objections---Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, selected as Associate Professors through same process with no finding of fraud, misrepresentation, ineligibility or misconduct against them, could not justifiably be required to undergo selection process a third time---Constitutional jurisdiction is attracted only where defect is patent, substantial and affects legality of the process itself, and a wider approach would convert constitutional Court into appellate forum over academic selections, inconsistent with autonomy of academic bodies. Disposition: Petition (transferred under Art. 175-F(2) of the Constitution) converted into appeal and allowed; impugned judgment dated 13.06.2025 of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Const. P. D-1851/2014 set aside; recommendations of Selection Board made in its meeting held on 21.12.2023, as approved by Syndicate in its meeting held on 05.04.2024, restored. Approved for Reporting.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: No civil suit is entertainable directly on any ground unless the attached documents contain documentary proof of plaintiff or his/her father/grandfather status prior to 1979 in terms of Rule 20(3)(a) to (i) of NADRA (National Identity Card) Rules, 2002, in case of doubtful status of person, as well as the order of NADRA authorities including decision of NADRA Verification Board as conclusive proof of finality of decision regarding status of plaintiff or his family member for which suit has been filed. The High Court shall not entertain such writ petition where no decision has been passed or where final remedy of appeal by the NADRA Verification Board and after that by the Federal Government was not exhausted.

Summary: (a) Penal Code----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Eyewitness identification---Estimator variables---Distance, lighting, age of witnesses and stress---Petitioner was convicted under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to death as Ta'zir with compensation of Rs.200,000/- under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C.; High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life and answered the murder reference in the negative---Occurrence was alleged at about 6:00 p.m. on 07.07.2011; FIR was lodged at 8:00 p.m. with two hours' unexplained delay, and post-mortem was not conducted until 5:00 a.m. the following morning---Conviction rested solely upon the ocular account of complainant Nazir Ahmad (aged about 50 years) and Bashir Ahmad PW.2 (aged about 60 years)---Site plan showed an inter se distance of 240 feet (approximately 73 meters; 48 Karams) between the deceased and the petitioner---Held, that the High Court had already declared the alleged recovery of Kalashnikov inconsequential and had not believed the motive, and those findings were based upon proper appreciation of the record---Although a specific role of firing with a .244 bore rifle was attributed to the petitioner, the attending circumstances rendered such attribution highly doubtful. (b) Criminal trial---Eyewitness identification---Estimator variables---Distance and lighting---Diagnosticity---This Court in Mian Sohail Ahmed v. State (2019 SCMR 956) had elaborated the concept of estimator variables, being witness-related factors beyond the control of the legal system that affect accuracy of memory retention and retrieval and are critical in determining the weight of an identification---Distance and lighting were the two primary pillars for assessing the weight of an eyewitness identification---Reliability of an eyewitness was inversely proportional to the distance of observation; beyond a certain range the ability to identify a person deteriorated sharply and approached guesswork---Research on diagnosticity demonstrated a sharp decline in accuracy as distance increased, finding that at 40 meters diagnosticity was already 50% lower than at 5 meters, and continued to taper until it reached a value of 1 at 100 meters, meaning the identification had no evidentiary value---At a distance of 240 feet (approximately 73 meters), the witness's ability to provide a reliable identification was severely compromised and mathematically equivalent to a random guess---Similar view was adopted in Ameeruddin v. State (PLD 2025 SC 383), discarding eyewitness testimony on the ground that a perpetrator cannot be reliably identified from a long distance such as 500 meters---Court must evaluate eyewitness testimony by weighing the distance, exposure duration, quality of opportunity to see, lighting conditions, and physical condition of witness and accused---On application of those variables, the distance of 48 Karams drastically reduced diagnostic value; the occurrence allegedly took place at dusk, engaging mesopic vision of lowered visual acuity; the witnesses were of advanced age; and they had taken shelter inside the baithak during firing by multiple accused---Resulting identification was unsafe and scientifically unsound. (c) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Indiscriminate firing by multiple accused---Attribution of fatal shot---Where as many as eight accused persons were allegedly resorting to indiscriminate firing, it was humanly difficult to ascertain with certainty from a distance of 240 feet whose shot actually hit the deceased---If a single circumstance created reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person regarding guilt, the accused was entitled to the benefit of such doubt as a matter of right and not of grace---Doubtful identification owing to considerable distance, coupled with improbability of attributing the fatal shot in a situation of indiscriminate firing, constituted a circumstance sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. Cited Cases: • Mian Sohail Ahmed v. State 2019 SCMR 956 • Ameeruddin v. State PLD 2025 SC 383 • S v. Henderson 27 A.3d 872 (NJ 2011) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; conviction and sentence of Shahbaz alias Gillo set aside; acquitted of the charge and directed to be released forthwith if not confined in any other case. (Criminal Petition No.750-L of 2018, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard 16.04.2026; Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ. Approved for reporting.)

Summary: (a) Supreme Court---Criminal review---Error apparent on the face of the record---Implementation of leave-refusing order---Contempt---Legal heirs of Javed Akhtar sought review of order dated 03.08.2022 passed in Criminal Original Petition No.13 of 2022, whereby the Capital Development Authority was directed to demarcate Property No.267-A measuring 501.11 square yards and deliver possession thereof to Mrs. Zeenia Satti, on the footing that such direction implemented the order dated 07.02.2020 in CPLA No.1192 of 2018---Held, that the order dated 07.02.2020 had refused leave and thereby affirmed the decree of specific performance in favour of Javed Akhtar/his legal heirs; paragraph 4 of that order, at the insistence of Mrs. Zeenia Satti, merely directed the Executing Court, through CDA surveyors, to identify the portion decreed in favour of the purchaser and any portion falling to her share, without prejudice to pending litigation, and did not direct handing over of possession to her---Mrs. Zeenia Satti was unable to point out any such direction in the order dated 07.02.2020---Observation in the order dated 03.08.2022 of handing over possession of the carved-out plot to her was an apparent error on the face of the order dated 07.02.2020, as it violated both the performance decree and the leave-refusing order---Possession was nowhere directed in the main order of which violation was claimed via the contempt application---No part of the order dated 07.02.2020 could be read as requiring that, even if the gifted portion turned out to be the decreed portion, it be handed over to Mrs. Zeenia Satti---Order dated 03.08.2022 was an outcome of apparent error and of her misrepresentation, and was set aside; all benefits drawn by her in compliance thereof were withdrawn. (b) Transfer of Property Act----S. 52---Specific Relief Act----S. 27---Lis pendens---Subsequent gift/transfer during pendency of specific performance litigation---Identity of decreed plot---Agreement dated 25.01.1988 for sale of 533 square yards, later decreed to the extent of 433 square yards, out of Plot No.267, Street No.22, Sector E-7, Islamabad, measuring 1,333 square yards---During pendency of appeals, on the seller's application the plot was subdivided on 28.12.1994 into an eastern portion measuring 732.22 square yards and a western portion measuring 501.11 square yards; the western portion was claimed to have changed hands on 27.03.1995 in favour of Mrs. Zeenia Satti, daughter of the seller, and the alphabetical suffixes of the plot numbers were later swapped on her request dated 16.04.1997 so that the western portion became Plot No.267-A---Held, that the alleged gift, effected during pendency of the performance appeals and with knowledge of the lis, violated S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act---Decree for performance bound subsequent buyers, transferees and donees having knowledge of the previous agreement and/or litigation---S. 27 of the Specific Relief Act supported the decree-holder's claim that a subsequent transferee or beneficiary having knowledge of earlier litigation, including the effect of lis pendens, would not defeat the decree---Mrs. Zeenia Satti had contested the appeals without asserting the gift, and the gift claim was never adjudicated in respect of the subject plot---Secret change of alphabetical suffix would not vitiate adjudicated proceedings of four courts, and identity of the portion regarding which performance was decreed could not be disputed irrespective of any number assigned to it---It was the western triangular unconstructed portion, later numbered 267-A, which had been agreed to be sold---CDA had already transferred the subject plot in compliance of the decree in favour of the legal heirs of Javed Akhtar; that transfer letter was wrongly and contumaciously withdrawn on 11.08.2022 on the strength of the order under review---Ownership letter issued during pendency of litigation in favour of Mrs. Zeenia Satti stood cancelled/withdrawn, and that of Javed Akhtar in respect of Plot No.267-A (current number of the western portion) stood restored---Executing Court directed to proceed expeditiously for further compliance. (c) Gift---Oral gift of immovable property---Ingredients---Offer, acceptance and delivery of possession---Abdul Karim Niazi, grandson of the seller, claimed House No.267-A on the basis of an alleged oral gift by Mrs. Zeenia Satti, his maternal aunt, and filed suits for declaration and permanent injunction, while she filed a suit for possession, mesne profits and injunction; Trial Court decreed his suits and dismissed hers; High Court allowed her regular first appeals---Held, that ingredients of a valid gift had not been fulfilled as per requirement---Title of the donor herself had not been proved in view of the findings in the connected criminal review, and the transactions were made to overcome the performance decree passed concurrently by four courts. (d) Civil Procedure---Second suit---Same cause of action and same parties---Maintainability---Appellant's first suit for declaration and permanent injunction, filed on 27.08.2015 on the same cause of action, was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.12.2015 and was not challenged further, attaining finality---Held, that the second suit on the same cause of action and between the same parties was not maintainable as barred by law---High Court had rightly non-suited the appellant. Cited Cases: None reported as relied upon. Disposition: Criminal Review Petition No.56 of 2022 allowed; order dated 03.08.2022 set aside; ownership letter of CDA in favour of Mrs. Zeenia Satti cancelled/withdrawn and that in favour of Javed Akhtar/his legal heirs restored; Civil Appeals Nos.428 to 430 of 2021 dismissed; without prejudice to the rights and interest of the legal heirs of Javed Akhtar as decree-holders. (Crl.R.P. No.56 of 2022 in Crl.O.P. No.13 of 2022 and C.As. Nos.428 to 430 of 2021, Supreme Court of Pakistan, announced in open Court on 14 May, 2026 at Islamabad; Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Shahid Waheed and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, JJ. Approved for reporting.)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 114 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 497(2)---Post-arrest bail---Role confined to lalkara---Further inquiry---Held, where petitioner’s attributed role is only raising a lalkara (and not targeted execution), question of dynamic intent and shared liability attracts further inquiry under S. 497(2) Cr.P.C.---Bail granted following precedents where accused assigned only lalkara / firing in air without targeted role. Cited Cases: • Qurban Ali v. The State and others 2017 SCMR 279 • Abdul Rehman v. Javed and others 2002 SCMR 1415 Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; appellant granted post-arrest bail subject to bail bonds of Rs. 100,000/- with one surety in like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court; observations tentative. Short order dated 14.05.2026. Not Approved for Reporting.