Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: The petitioners claimed ownership of the Hevali, stating that it was initially in the possession of Atta Muhammad, a predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. After Atta Muhammad's death, the petitioners temporarily handed over possession to Yar Muhammad, a predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. However, the respondents refused to vacate the property, leading to a legal dispute.Both parties filed lawsuits related to the same property, and these suits were consolidated. Various issues were framed for consideration by the court, including questions about possession, maintainability of the suits, and the correctness of property descriptions.During the proceedings, the counsel representing the petitioners recorded a statement on May 15, 2012, stating their intention to withdraw the suit. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the petitioners filed an appeal with the Additional District Judge, Talagang, which was dismissed on July 18, 2012.In this judgment, the court examined the petitioners' argument that their counsel had recorded the withdrawal statement without proper authority and questioned the legality of the appeals court's decision to dismiss their appeal. The court cited legal provisions that empower counsel to make statements on behalf of clients unless explicitly restricted.The court also emphasized the importance of upholding the sanctity of judicial proceedings and the role of counsel in representing their clients. It noted that such allegations against counsel can undermine trust in the legal profession and judicial processes.

Summary: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)-------S. 17---Eviction of tenant---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Objection by the tenantwas that previous eviction petition was dismissed for non-prosecution--- Fresh evictionpetition---Maintainability---Appellant/tenant contended that it was a financial institution(Bank) and its long standing business would be uprooted in case of eviction and that it wasnot a bad paymaster and landlord had failed to prove his personal requirement---Respondent/landlord contended that several opportunities to vacate the demised property hadbeen given to the tenant since long---Landlord produced confidence inspiring evidence forpersonal need to establish own business before the Rent Controller---Issue was framedregarding maintainability of the suit, as the objection was raised by the tenant that prior to thepresent application, the landlord had already filed an application against the tenant, whichwas dismissed by the Rent Controller in 2010 on non-prosecution and the same was notchallenged before the next higher forum, as such, the application of the landlord was hit bythe principle of res judicata---Rent Controller had rightly decided the said issue that earlierapplication was not dismissed on merits, rather it was dismissed for non-prosecution, sincethe earlier application was with regard to the non-payment of monthly rent as such, thepresent application was for personal bona fide requirement of landlord, and a fresh cause ofaction had accrued to the landlord and the landlord was at liberty to file application forejectment at any stage for its personal bona fide requirement---Landlord produced threewitnesses and also recorded the statement of attorney---Statements of all the witnessessupported the contention of landlord that the property in question was required for personalbona fide use of landlord---Averments of eviction application were supported by thestatement on oath of the landlord---Contention of tenant was that its long standing businesswould be uprooted on account of ejectment, but the fact remained that rehabilitating alandlord, the tenant must make available premises for the owner and find out an alternateaccommodation---In the present case, the tenant had enjoyed tenancy rights for almost thirtyyears, it could not claim a lifelong tenancy rights in the said property---View of the RentController, on the face of record, appeared to be well-reasoned and in consonance with thespirit and object of law---Landlord had the right to pick and choose the property for hispersonal bona fide need---Tenant had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in theimpugned judgment---Tenant was directed to vacate the premises to the landlord within sixmonths---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Section 497 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- Section 31-A National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), ---Corruption and corrupt practices---Bail, grant of---Rule of consistency---Accused-petitioner was admitted to bail in view of principle of consistency