Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 17---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Arbitration proceedings---Arbitration Award made Rule of the Court on basis of conceding statement of one of the defendants---Plea of fraud and misrepresentation---Proof---Dispute arose between sons over gift of property made by their father in favour of one of the sons---By way of the Arbitration Award, plaintiff-son was held to be the owner of the property in dispute on the basis of a gift in his favour by the father---Said Award was made the Rule of the Court on the basis of the conceding statement of the father ---Defendant-son filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. alleging fraud and misrepresentation---Held, that the question as to whether judgment and decree was obtained fraudulently by the plaintiff-son would depend primarily upon the fact whether the father actually appeared in court and conceded the case of plaintiff-son of making the Award, the Rule of the Court--- Judgment and decree sought to be set aside through the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was passed on 9-1- 1979 against the father who died on 11-10-1990---On the basis of the said judgment and decree, a mutation had also been effected---During his lifetime, the father never challenged the said judgment and decree---As per the record, the Award was filed in court where the father entered appearance and stated that he had no objection if the Award was made, the Rule of the Court---Statement of father was recorded and thumb impression was obtained---Defendant-son was unable to bring any evidence on record to disprove the thumb impression of the father---No evidence was brought on record to suggest that the father did not appear and concede the case of plaintiff-son---Defendant-son in his own statement did not specifically spell out that fraud had been allegedly committed or that the father did not appear in court, and his entire evidence was based on hearsay---Stamp vendor from whom the stamp paper for the Arbitration Agreement was purchased, also entered the witness box along with his register---Counsel who represented the father also appeared as a witness and supported the case of the plaintiff-son---Defendant-son conceded in his cross-examination that plaintiff-son was in possession and cultivated the part of the land in dispute---Record also showed that the defendant-son had been involved in a murder case, giving support to the claim of plaintiff that the father and defendant-son were estranged---Application filed by defendant-son under S. 12(2), C.P.C. had been rightly dismissed---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. ----- Background: This appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dated May 25, 2004, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant sought to set aside a judgment and decree dated January 9, 1979, which had made an arbitration award the rule of the court. The arbitration involved a property dispute between the appellant’s father, Muhammad Nawaz, and Respondent No. 3, who was declared the owner of the disputed property based on a gift from Muhammad Nawaz. The appellant challenged the judgment and decree under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), alleging fraud and misrepresentation, but his application was dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate and revisional courts. --- Issues: 1) Whether the judgment and decree making the arbitration award the rule of the court were obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. ---2) Whether the arbitration agreement and award were validly executed. ---3) Whether Muhammad Nawaz, the appellant's father, appeared in court and consented to the award. ---4) Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the lower courts. The court held that the appellant failed to prove that the judgment and decree were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The evidence presented, including the recorded statement and thumb impression of Muhammad Nawaz, supported the conclusion that he had consented to the award. The appellant's claims were based on hearsay, and no cogent evidence was provided to disprove Muhammad Nawaz's appearance in court or the validity of the arbitration agreement. The concurrent findings of fact were upheld, and the court found no grounds for interference, as no misreading or non-reading of evidence was established. ---- Citations/Precedents: Abdul Rasheed through L.Rs. and others v. Manzoor Ahmad and others (PLD 2007 SC 287) Habib and 8 others v. Haji Muhammad and 3 others (PLD 1970 Karachi 495) Peer Baksh through LRs and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others (2016 SCMR 1417) Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Khair Din through L.Rs and others (2014 SCMR 33) Mst. Fateh Bevi and others v. Additional District Judge, Khushab and others (2008 SCMR 1262)

Summary: s 497 CrPC, 489-F PPC S. 497 CrPC, gravity of offence--- discretion of court in granting bail.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S. 35,397 Cr.PC.Acceptance of jail petition--sentences,run concurrently--(petition allowed)

Summary: S. 497(5) CrPC, 376 PPCdelay in lodging FIR.it is settled principle of law that s. 497(5) CrPC is not punitive in nature and there is no compulsion for cancelling bail.

Summary: S. 512 CrPCForfeiture of bail bonds--- no one could be punished for any fault of the act of the Court.

Summary: Summary pending.