Summary: (a) Family Laws— —Dower—Recovery of dower in form of ornaments or cash—Entitlement to prevailing market value—Scope of decree— Family Judge decreed in favour of wife recovery of seven (07) tolas of gold ornaments or in the alternative Rs.100,000/- as dower—In execution, decree-holder sought recovery of gold ornaments or their current market value—Executing Court directed recovery of ornaments or their prevailing price—Revisional Court set aside such order by holding entitlement restricted to Rs.100,000/-—High Court, in writ petition, reversed the Revisional Court and restored Executing Court’s order—Supreme Court upheld High Court—Held, where decree affords alternate modes of satisfaction, decree-holder retains liberty to elect the more beneficial option—Executing Court is competent to direct payment of current market value where delivery of ornaments is not possible—Principle affirmed in Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Samina Kanwal (2017 SCMR 321) and Mst. Ayesha Shaheen v. Khalid Mehmood (2013 SCMR 1049)—Entries in Nikahnama are to be treated as independent obligations, not merely substitutes for prompt dower—Haseen Ullah v. Mst. Naheed Begum (PLD 2022 SC 686) relied upon. (b) Execution of Decree— —Amendment in execution petition—Effect— Addition of Rs.100,000/- in execution petition by decree-holder was made upon objection of judgment-debtor—Such amendment did not amount to waiver, relinquishment, or substitution of right to ornaments—High Court rightly appreciated that decree-holder continued to retain her original claim of seven (07) tolas of gold in alternative to cash. (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction— —Supervisory scope of High Court—Reappraisal of evidence not permissible— Once trial and appellate forums have adjudicated upon facts, constitutional courts exercise only limited jurisdiction and cannot re-evaluate evidence or substitute findings of appellate courts—Principle reaffirmed in M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari (2023 SCMR 1434)—High Court’s interference in writ jurisdiction was justified as Revisional Court had travelled beyond decree and misapplied settled principles. Cited Cases Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Samina Kanwal & others 2017 SCMR 321 Mst. Ayesha Shaheen v. Khalid Mehmood & others 2013 SCMR 1049 Haseen Ullah v. Mst. Naheed Begum & others PLD 2022 SC 686 M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari & others 2023 SCMR 1434 Disposition Petition dismissed—Leave to Appeal refused.

Summary: Concealment of proceedings and misuse of interim relief. CR dismissed with cost of Rs.100,000/- 298Crl. Misc. 34187/25 Aqsa Noureen alias Asima Bibi Vs The State etc. Mr. Justice Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh 18-08- 2025 2025 LHC 5332

Summary: (a) Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018--- ----Art. 86(2)---Gilgit-Baltistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2022, Rr. 51 & 52---Writ petition---Maintainability---Alternate efficacious remedies, non-availing of---Bidding/procurement process---Issuance of acceptance letter with the stipulation of provision of enhanced performance security/ guarantee---Petitioner/contractor assailed such enhancement through writ petition---Objection raised by the respondent-department was that other remedies in terms of Rr. 51 and 52 of the Gilgit-Baltistan Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2022 (Rules), before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) and Procurement Review Committee (PRA), respectively, had not been availed before filing the writ petition---Validity---Respondents had issued letter of acceptance under Cl.3 directing the petitioner for provision of performance security/guarantee of an amount equal to 32.593% of the bid amount from any Schedule Bank of Pakistan, but instead of filing the complaint before the GRC as provided under the Rules, surprisingly the petitioner filed the writ petition, which was alien to the prescribed Rules and remedies available to the petitioner before the forums of GRC and PRC established under the Rules, as such without availing the remedies provided to him under the Rules, the writ petition was not competent---Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Where the law requires an act to be done in particular manner it has to be done in that manner alone and such dictate of law cannot be compromised by any manner or cannot be ignored or dispensed with. Amjad Hussain and Tehseen Raza for Petitioner. Raja Shahid Zaman Addl. A.G assisted by Irfanullah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th August, 2025.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O.XXXVII, R. 3 & Form 4, Appendix-B-Suit for recovery of money-Non-issuance of proper notice-Copy of plaint provided in proceedings of criminal case-Valid service, question of-Appellant/defendant was aggrieved of dismissal of his application for leave to defend the suit on the ground that proper notice was not issued by Court-Plea raised by respondent / plaintiff was that copy of plaint had been provided to appellant / defendant during proceedings under criminal law-Validity-If defendant in summary suit is given a copy of plaint when he appears in criminal case, it is not a good service-Summonses were to be in the prescribed Form and with the summons a copy of plaint was to be attached to show nature of the suit enabling appellant / defendant to file application for leave to defend the suit within the prescribed period of ten days-Although summons was served upon appellant / defendant, yet till the time he appeared in Court and filed application for leave to defend the suit officially and on record the copy of plaint was not handed over to him-High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court dismissing application for grant of leave to appellant / defendant and he was granted condition leave to defend the suit-Appeal was allowed accordingly. 2012 YLR 1694; PLD 1998 Lah. 163; 2010 CLC 1184; 2001 MLD 1759; PLD 1984 Kar. 252; 1993 CLC 2217 and 2003 YLR 2583 ref.

Summary: ----O.XXXVII, R. 3 & Form 4, Appendix-B---Suit for recovery of money---Non-issuance of proper notice---Copy of plaint provided in proceedings of criminal case---Valid service, question of---Appellant/defendant was aggrieved of dismissal of his application for leave to defend the suit on the ground that proper notice was not issued by Court---Plea raised by respondent / plaintiff was that copy of plaint had been provided to appellant / defendant during proceedings under criminal law---Validity---If defendant in summary suit is given a copy of plaint when he appears in criminal case, it is not a good service---Summonses were to be in the prescribed Form and with the summons a copy of plaint was to be attached to show nature of the suit enabling appellant / defendant to file application for leave to defend the suit within the prescribed period of ten days---Although summons was served upon appellant / defendant, yet till the time he appeared in Court and filed application for leave to defend the suit officially and on record the copy of plaint was not handed over to him---High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court dismissing application for grant of leave to appellant / defendant and he was granted condition leave to defend the suit---Appeal was allowed accordingly. 2012 YLR 1694; PLD 1998 Lah. 163; 2010 CLC 1184; 2001 MLD 1759; PLD 1984 Kar. 252; 1993 CLC 2217 and 2003 YLR 2583 ref. Atif Hanif for Appellant. Hidayat Ali Leghari for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 12th August, 2025.

Summary: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)--- ---- S.3 [as amended by Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) (Amendment) Act (XXI of 2022)]--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--- Constitutional petition--- Evacuee property, disposal of--- Cancellation of allotment--- Provincial Government, ownership of--- Petitioners were aggrieved of order passed Board of Revenue cancelling allotment of land in question in favour of allottee and subsequent transfer of the land in their favour through sale deedwhich land had come into the ownership of Provincial Government--- Validity--- Petitioners occupied and had sold valuable land, which was to be allotted to those who were entitled for such allotments owing to their sacrifice and miseries of migration in one of the world’s most bloodied migration--- Saga of allotment(s) against dubious settlement claims accumulated to the fortunes of those, who had the means and tools to frustrate the system--- Object, of exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of judicial review by Superior Court(s) is to foster justice, preserve rights and to right a wrong--- While exercising judicial review, a Constitutional Court may proceed in equity to set aside or annul a void judgment or enjoin enforcement by refusing to intervene in the circumstances of the case before it--- High Court declined to invoke such power for petitioners whose hands were sullied by gross misrepresentation and fraud--- There was no lawful order of allotment in favour of original allottee, who himself was non-existent, and as such, the first mutationwas of no lawful consequences--- As a natural corollary, all/any subsequent transactions based thereon were absolute nullity in the eye of law--- Sale deed in favour of petitioners was a dubious document and could not be relied upon for treating petitioners as ‘aggrieved persons’--- High Court declined to interfere in the matter as no case was made out for interference while exercising extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution--- Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Mohammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 SC 331 ref. Syed Wajihul Hassan Zaidi v. Government of the Punjab and others PLD 2004 SC 801; Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari PLD 1997 SC 351; Chittagong Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. C.S. Ltd. PLD 1970 SC 132; Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236; Begum Shamsun Nisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi and another PLD 1982 SC 413; Gul Muhammad v. Addl. Settlement Commissioner 1985 SCMR 491; Nazim Ali and others v. Mustafa Ali and others 1981 SCMR 231; Wali Muhammad and others v. Sheikh Muhammad and others PLD 1974 SC 106; Meraj Din v. Director, Health Services 1969 SCMR 4; Tufail Muhammad v. Muhammad Ziaullah Khan PLD1965 SC 269; Azmat Ali v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD1964 SC 260; Mst. Mobin Fatima v. Muhammad Amin and 2 others PLD 2006 SC 214 and Secretary to the Government of the Punjab v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others PLD 2001 SC 415 rel. Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for Petitioners. Ahsan Rasool Chatha, A.A.G for the State.

Summary: (a) Educational institution--- ----University disciplinary proceedings---Cancellation of Ph.D. admission --- Subsequent civil suit by the student, filing of---Maintainability and effect of prior constitutional adjudication---Earlier writ petitions and civil suit arising out of same disciplinary action---Res judicata---Direct and substantial identity of issues---Bar against re-agitation of already adjudicated matter---Briefly, the respondent was a Ph.D. scholar of the petitioner University who had submitted her thesis but her admission was cancelled; her departmental appeal, two writ petitions, and civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court were all dismissed, while her separate civil suit for declaration and injunction was initially dismissed by the Trial Court but later decreed by the Appellate Court directing restoration of her admission and consideration of her thesis---The issue in the present civil revision was “whether the Appellate Court could lawfully grant such relief despite the earlier adjudications by the High Court and the Supreme Court?”--- Held: A comparative analysis of pleadings, affidavits, and documents from both the writ petitions and the civil suit revealed that the issues were directly and substantially the same---While procedural irregularities and unfairness were apparent on record, particularly from DW-01's cross-examination, the fact remained that the respondent’s case had already been adjudicated conclusively by competent constitutional forums---High Court, sitting in revisional jurisdiction, could not override the authoritative pronouncements of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court---Judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court was set aside --- Present civil revision was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Chiragh-ud-Din Bhatti v. Province of West Pakistan 1971 SCMR 447; Allah Bachaya v. Qadul 1989 SCMR 836 and Atiqur-Rehman and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and another 1984 SCMR 1469 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.203---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---The provision of S.115 of C.P.C. under which the High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction, confers an exceptional and necessary power --- This power is intended to ensure the effective exercise of the Court's superintendence and visitorial authority of correction, unhindered by technicalities---While considering the scope of revisional jurisdiction, the primary factors that warrant its exercise are those expressly provided in S.115 C.P.C. namely, where the subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity---Such jurisdiction may also be invoked where the subordinate Court has decided a matter based on misreading or non-reading of material evidence, or where it has omitted to consider crucial evidence that had a direct bearing on the issues involved---Therefore, the scope of revision is narrow and is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors or gross mis-appreciation of evidence that leads to a miscarriage of justice---However, where the first Appellate Court, while exercising its powers under S.96 C.P.C, has reappraised the evidence and reversed the findings of the Trial Court, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115 C.P.C is limited---It may only interfere where the findings of the first Appellate Court are tainted by misreading or non-reading of evidence, or where the judgment is in violation of settled principles laid down by the superior Courts---Ordinarily, the first Appellate Court has the jurisdiction to reassess the entire evidence on record and reach a different conclusion---The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, while assailing the orders of subordinate Courts, is also to be exercised in conjunction with its supervisory jurisdiction under Art.203 of the Constitution, to correct orders that are perverse, fraudulent, erroneous, or passed either in express violation or ignorance of applicable law. Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed 2014 SCMR 161 and Muhammad Feroze and others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali 2006 SCMR 1304 rel. Abdul Waheed v. Muhammad Bilal PLD 2005 Pesh. 19 ref. Nauman Munir Paracha for Petitioner. Rana Abid Nazir Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th August, 2025.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12--- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11(a)---Suit f or specific performance of agreement to sell--- Rejection of plaint--- Absence of cause of action---Arbitration clause---Wrong precedent, reliance on--- Effect--- Petitioners / defendants were aggrieved of dismissal of their application seeking rejection of plaint on the basis of arbitration clause available in the agreement to sell--- Plea raised by petitioners / defendants was that the precedent judgment relied upon by Trial Court was not applicable--- Validity--- Order in question was based solely by placing reliance on a judgment which did not discuss or lay down the principle(s) of law subject matter of the case in hand and was distinguishable on facts mentioned therein--- Trial Court had given no other reason for reaching the conclusion that how that case law was relevant, thus, making reference to such a case-law based on previous judgment to reach the conclusion was not sustainable--- Oder in question was devoid of plausible reasoning and patently ambiguous and there was no explanation in the same as to how the conclusion was reached in the matter and was also based on misreading or non-reading of judgment relied upon in the same, hence such reliance on the judgment was misplaced--- Jurisdiction vested in Trial Court had not been exercised properly--- High Court set aside order in question and the matter was remitted to Trial Courtfor decision afresh on the application filed by petitioners / defendants--- Revision was allowed accordingly. Mrs. Farkhanda Talat v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and others 2007 SCMR 886 distinguished. Collector, Land Acquisition, Chashma Right Bank Canal Project, Wapda , D.I. Khan and others v. Ghulam Sadiq and others 2002 SCMR 677; Muhammad Mal Khan v. Allah Yar Khan 2002 SCMR 235; Tariq Mehmood and another v. The State 2002 SCMR 32; Director Housing, A.G’s Branch, Rawalpindi v. M/s. Makhdum Consultants Engineers and Architects 1997 SCMR 988; Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem 1994 SCMR 2213; Ghulam Sarwar through his L.Rs. v. Province of Punjab through District Collector, Lodhran PLD 2025 SC 60; Mrs. Shamim Akhtar and others v. Mrs. Sultana Mazhar Baqai and 5 others 2003 CLC 1521 and Collector of Sales Tax and Federal Excise (RTO) v. Messrs Zeal Pak Cement Factory, Hyderabad 2010 PTD 147 ref. Liaqat Sami Khan, Faizan Naveed Khalil and Syed Rafaqat Hussain Bukhari for Petitioner. Jamshaid Iqbal Khakwani, A.A.G, Ahmad Hassan Khan Khichi, Syed Hassan Abbas Raza, Faisal Anwar and Dr. Muhammad Azeem Raja for the State. Muhammad Naveed Farhan, M. Karim Joiya and Muhammad Nasir Khan Pahor for Respondent No. 1.

Summary: Although an order which is otherwise sustainable on basis of merits of the case should not be set- aside merely because reference to a judgment based on distinguishable facts and unrelated and irrelevant case law has inadvertently been made in the same, yet where the impugned order is based solely by placing reliance on a judgment which does not discuss or lay down the principle(s) of law subject matter of the case in hand and is distinguishable on facts mentioned therein, and Court gives no other reason for reaching the conclusion that how said case law was relevant, then making reference to such a case-law based on previous judgment to reach the conclusion is not sustainable. 307Crl. Appeal 132000/18 Zain ul Abadien alias Zain Vs The State etc Justice Abher Gul Khan 01-08- 2025 2025 LHC 5232

Summary: (a) Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975)- -S.5(5)-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A-Debit-blocking/ freezing of bank accounts by FIA-Directions to debit-block bank accounts issued on the same day as receipt of the complaint-No investigation/inquiry initiated prior to freezing the bank accounts-Legality-Powers of authority to freeze bank accounts-Scope-Procedure enunciated-Brief facts were that the petitioner company entered into a Robotic Process Automation Agreement with Habib Bank Limited (HBL) in July 2024, which was effective until 30.06.2025 with automatic renewal for two years-On 05.06.2025, when the agreement was nearing expiry, HBL lodged a complaint before the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) against the petitioner company, and on the same day, FIA issued a notice under S. 5 of the FIA Act, 1974, directing various banks to block the petitioner company’s bank accounts-The petitioner company challenged the said notice before the High Court under Constitutional jurisdiction asserting that the FIA’s action lacked lawful authority as it was issued without forming a written opinion or obtaining an order from the competent authority, as required under S. 5(5) of the FIA Act, 1974-Held: Firstly, from perusal of the complaint, no allegation of Rs.1.324 Billion was spelled out therein-Secondly, the last page of the complaint reflected that the complaint was marked to -S.I. Zohra-for verification on the same day i.e. 05.06.2025, whereas on the same day, the impugned letter for debit-block of the bank accounts of the petitioner company was issued- -No record had been filed in court to establish that based upon which material and opinion or as to when, the said complaint was converted into inquiry on 05.06.2025-While issuing directions to debit-block the bank accounts of the petitioner on the same day of receipt of the complaint dated 05.06.2025, the power under S. 5 of the Act had been used in haste, without any caution or restrain, and without forming an opinion in writing-Moreover, while taking such action, the respondent No.1 also did not establish that sufficient time was not available to approach appropriate authority for obtaining order for seizure, which was a mandatory requirement-Respondents could not be allowed to exercise their power under S. 5 in an unfettered manner, without reasonable care and caution, without giving reasons for making the order and without application of mind, as mandatorily required under S. 24-A of the Act, 1897-None of these requirements were fulfilled in the present case-Impugned notice issued under S. 5 of the Act was set aside-Constitutional petition was accepted, in circumstances. (b) Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975)- -S.5(5)-Powers to seize a property by member of agency, exercise of-Scope-Before seizure of property by a member of FIA it must be established that sufficient time was not available with concerned member to approach appropriate authority for obtaining order for seizure and it is only in these circumstances that power under S. 5(5) of the Act, 1974 could be exercised by such member. Muhammad Muslim v. Federal Investigation Agency PLD 1984 Kar, 71; Fazal Mahmood v. Sardar Khan and 3 others PLD 1996 Kar. 475; Uzma Adil Khan and others v. Federal Investigation Authority 2023 CLD 599; Muhammad Sohail Shaikh v. The State and 2 others PLD 2021 Lah. 612 and Muhammad Bilal Nawaz v. Director General FIA Punjab and 5 others PLD 2024 Lah. 584 ref. Ms. Alizeh Bashir, Deputy Attorney General Federation of Pakistan. Umair Shah, Inspector FIA, CBC, Karachi.