Summary: (a) Civil service-------Appointment of Sub-Inspector Police (BPS-14)---Candidate failed in interview andchallenged the appointment/recruitment orders passed in favour of another candidate---Constitutional petition of candidate was allowed by the Single Judge of High Court---Validity---Petitioner for initiation of proceedings under Art.199 of the Constitution shouldhave a locus standi; he was not aggrieved of any order, act or proceedings done or takenagainst her by the authorities---Recommendations of appointment were only between theprivate respondents and authorities which had nothing to do with the petitioner---Nodocument/order of authorities was on record to show that petitioner had been aggrieved of theact/proceedings of authorities---Single Judge had resolved factual controversy which couldnot be decided without recording of evidence---Constitutional petition was not maintainablewhere factual controversy was involved---Impugned judgment of Single Judge being notsustainable was set aside---Intra court appeal was allowed in circumstancesYousaf Haroon and others v. Punjab Public Service Commission, Agha Khan/Davis Road,Lahore through Secretary and others PLD 2001 SC 1012 ref.Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore PLD 1969 SC 223; Montgomery Flourand General Mills Ltd., Montgomery v. Director, Food Purchases, West Pakistan and othersPLD 1957 (W.P) Lah. 914; Dr. Imran Khattak and another v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, PSOto Chief Justice and others 2014 SCMR 122; N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission andothers v. Muhammad Arif and others 2011 SCMR 848 and Fida Hussain and another v. Mst.Saiqa and others 2011 SCMR 1990 rel.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Factual controversy couldnot be resolved while exercising constitutional jurisdiction.

Summary: the Commission lacked jurisdiction in the case of the private respondents. He pointed out that the private respondents failed to specify the industrial dispute that led to their termination and that the VSS was an optional scheme. The judge also recognized that the private respondents, having exercised their option for VSS, were legally estopped from invoking the Commission's jurisdiction. As a result of this comprehensive legal analysis, Judge Shujaat Ali Khan allowed the Company's petitions, set aside the Commission's orders, and dismissed the petitions filed by the private respondents before the Commission. This judgment underscored the importance of specific legal definitions and the careful examination of legal and jurisdictional aspects in labor-related disputes.

Summary: Background: The dispute arose over a Shamilat-Deh land measuring 10 kanal, originally part of survey No. 984 in Kotli District. The respondents, claiming ownership through a gift-deed executed by their father in 1968, filed a suit for the cancellation of a previous decree that the petitioners had obtained. The petitioners, on the other hand, claimed to have acquired ownership through adverse possession dating back to 1952. The petitioners’ suit to cancel the gift-deed and decree was dismissed by the trial court. Appeals to the Additional District Judge and the High Court were also unsuccessful. This led the petitioners to file a review petition before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, seeking reconsideration of the November 26, 2015 judgment. -----Issues: 1- Is there an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the earlier judgment? -----2- Can new points be raised in a review petition that were not argued during the appeal? -----3- Does the adverse possession claimed by the petitioners mature into ownership, overriding the gift-deed executed by the respondents? -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that: Error on the Face of the Record: No error apparent on the face of the record was found. The petitioners sought to introduce new arguments that were not raised during the initial appeal, which is not permissible in a review. Scope of Review: The Court clarified that under Section 42-D of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, read with Order XLVI, Rule 1 of the AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978, a review is limited to correcting errors on the face of the record. It is not a tool to re-litigate or reappraise evidence. The petitioners cannot use a review petition to reopen the case or introduce new claims. Adverse Possession vs. Gift-Deed: The petitioners claimed ownership through adverse possession since 1952, asserting that the gift-deed was invalid. However, the Court found no merit in this claim, as adverse possession could not override a registered gift-deed when the decree had already been canceled. Finality of Lower Courts’ Judgments: The judgments of the trial court, appellate courts, and the High Court were based on proper consideration of the evidence. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any misreading or non-reading of the record. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, reiterating that the petitioners could not introduce new points or reargue their case under the guise of a review petition. The prior decisions were upheld, with no order as to costs. -----Citations / Precedents: Sawar Khan vs. Banaras Khan & 2 others (2004 SCR 506) Held that new points not argued during the original appeal cannot be raised in a review petition. The scope of review is narrower than that of an appeal. Order XLVI, Rule 1 of AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978 Provides that review petitions are limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or considering new evidence previously unavailable. Section 42-D of AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 Governs the procedural rules for review petitions, restricting their scope to correcting legal errors and ensuring finality in litigation.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending