Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: This case involves a civil revision challenging judgments and decrees dated September 30, 2010, and February 20, 2013, issued by the learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge (ADJ), Islamabad. The petitioners/plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of a house and adjoining land in Mauza Ghagri, Islamabad, used for residential and agricultural purposes. The petitioners alleged that the respondents attempted to forcibly take possession of the property, prompting the filing of a suit for permanent injunction to restrain such actions. Both the Trial and Appellate Courts dismissed the petitioners’ suit, leading to the present revision petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners are owners in possession of the suit property. -----2- Whether the suit is maintainable as filed for a permanent injunction without a declaration of title. -----3- Whether the Trial Court and Appellate Court failed to evaluate evidence and reports, including the local commission’s findings. -----4- Whether the subsequent registered sale deed (No. 8321) is valid, given the earlier pre-emption decree and sale deed (No. 8303). -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court set aside the judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts and remanded the case for retrial. The key reasoning included: --Title Dispute: The court emphasized that the crux of the dispute lies in determining the scope of registered sale deed No. 8303 and its implications for the subsequent sale deed No. 8321. It needed to be ascertained whether the vendor had any remaining property after executing the first sale deed. --Possession in Abadi Deh: The property is located in Abadi Deh, where possession holds significant weight. The length and continuity of possession were not adequately addressed by the lower courts. Physical Boundaries: The physical location of the disputed property relative to the boundaries described in the sale deeds was not examined. --Local Commission's Report: The local commission’s report was discarded without appointing a new commission for a fresh inspection, depriving the court of crucial evidence regarding the ground reality. --Inconsistent Evidence: The respondents' written statements and deposition contained inconsistencies, which were overlooked by the lower courts. The court found that the lower courts had delivered superficial judgments without thoroughly addressing the factual and legal complexities of the case. The revision petition was allowed. -----Citations/Precedents: "Mst. Nomail Zia vs. Adnan Riaz" [2014 CLC 87]: Pertaining to the validity of local commission reports and technicalities in procedural law. "Jan Muhammad Khan vs. Shah Mir Hussain, etc." [1985 SCMR 2029]: On issue-wise findings by the court under Order XX, Rule 5 CPC. "Muhammad Sain vs. Muhammad Din" [1996 SCMR 1918]: Concerning proper appreciation of evidence and adherence to procedural rules. "Mst. Fatima Khanum vs. Ashiq Ali" [PLD 1988 Karachi 433]: On the necessity of filing a declaration suit in disputes involving both title and possession.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: The learned trial Court without considering evidence as a whole had held that she made admission about payment of Mahar worth 5 told gold and same finding is contrary to evidence on record, as she categorically stated that gold ornaments were though given to her at the time of her Rukhsati, but were snatched by the defendant/husband at the time of ousting her.

Summary: Since the scope of PATA forum viz a viz pending disputes is highlighted, therefore, needs publication.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 54---Suit for permanent injunction---Illegal construction---Proof---Plaintiffs challenged the illegal construction by the defendants on the open space around their property---Trial Court, deciding the issue as to ownership of the plaintiff in affirmative, dismissed the suit regarding the illegal construction, and the appellate court upheld the findings of the Trial Court---Validity---Revision petition had been pending for 29 years due to the delaying tactics of the defendants---Defendants had not filed any objection to the Nazir report, which was supported with the photographs and details of encroachments upon the open spaces---Both the courts below had not taken into consideration the proceedings of the earlier identical suit filed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs against the defendants---Defendants had challenged the judgment passed in the said earlier suit in appeal which had been dismissed---Appellate court in said appeal had inspected the premises and inspection/observations of the court were part of the judgment delivered against the defendants---Both courts below had refused to give any importance to the Commissioner's reports, without assigning any reason for not taking those reports into consideration, in which case, for proper and fair adjudication of the issue of raising construction in open spaces on the property, the courts had to personally inspect the site in dispute---Commissioner, who had inspected the site, had appeared as a witness and also produced photographs along with the inspection reports showing blocking of the passages, and the defendants had failed to prove anything contrary to the actual inspection reports, nor had they filed any objections to the inspection reports---Inspection reports prepared twice on order of the High Court had confirmed the inspection reports, whereunder, the defendants had been found to be in occupation of open spaces---Trial Court had failed to appreciate the documentary evidence including the site plan issued by the Settlement Department showing the exact location of open spaces at the disputed site---Said site plan had been first endorsed by the civil court in earlier suit, and on the basis of the same, the defendants had been forced to remove illegal constructions from the open spaces in execution of the judgment and decree, and the site plan had been again endorsed by the Settlement Department, which was reconfirmation of the plan 1999 CLC 312 and 2011 SCMR 1255 rel.

Summary: Issues:The validity of reserving 5% of seats for "Youth" and increasing women's reserved seats from 22% to 33%.--The method of election (show of hands vs. secret ballot) for Mayors, Deputy Mayors, Chairmen, and Vice Chairmen.--The jurisdiction of the Sindh Government to amend election procedures after the announcement of the Election Schedule.-----Decision:The amendments introduced by the Sindh Local Government (Third Amendment) Act, 2015, regarding reserved seats for "Youth" and the increase in reserved seats for women, were upheld as validly legislated.The Supreme Court decided that all reserved seats should be filled as per section 18A of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, which was to be revived and amended by the appellant immediately. If not amended within two weeks, seats were to be filled as otherwise prescribed by law.The elections for the posts of Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chairman, and Vice Chairman must be held under the Constitution and the law; hence, it is within the competence of the Sindh Government to legislate on the method of election. However, since the amendment for these elections was made after the Election Schedule was announced, it had no legal effect. Therefore, the elections for these posts were to be held through secret ballot.Notifications regarding transfers and postings of bureaucrats issued by the appellant after the Election Schedule's announcement, without the Election Commission of Pakistan's approval, were declared void.The Election Commission of Pakistan was directed to ensure the completion of the remaining election process for local bodies in Sindh, including reserved seats and offices of Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chairman, and Vice Chairman, within 60 days.

Summary: (a) Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance (XXXVI of 1971)- -S. 8(3)-Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Employees of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Workers Welfare Board ("Employees")-Statutory rules of service-Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997 were applicable with full statutory force to the service of the employees of the Workers' Welfare Board of the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Moreover after the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, said Rules enacted by the Federal Government were exclusively within the domain of the Provincial Government/Provincial Workers' Welfare Board-Employees could file a Constitutional petition before the High Court if there was any invasion on their service benefits and rights by the authorities. Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997 enacted by the Federal Government were adopted and made applicable to the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with clear directions and express approval of the Federal Government. For all intents and purposes said Rules had become applicable with full statutory force to the service and terms and conditions of service etc. of the employees of the Workers Welfare Board of the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Before the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Ministry of Labour was within the domain of the Federal Government and once under its approval and direction the Workers Welfare Board has adopted the Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997, regulating the terms and conditions of service of its employees. After the Eighteenth Amendment, said Rules were exclusively within the domain of the Provincial Government/Workers' Welfare Board and unless the same was amended, repealed, modified or re-enacted under the changed Constitutional scenario, the same had a binding statutory force and the services of the employees of the Workers' Welfare Board of the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, were squarely and undoubtedly regulated by the said Rules. Till date said Rules had neither been repealed nor amended in any manner by the Provincial Government or for that matter by the Provincial Assembly of the Province. Services of the employees of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Workers' Welfare Board were fully protected by the statutory rules, and any invasion on their service benefits and rights by the authorities entitled them to approach the High Court through a Constitutional petition. (b) Employer and employee- -Permanent post having statutory rules-Probationary/contractual period-Employer could not put the employee on contract basis/ probation for an unreasonably long period when the appointment was made against a permanent vacancy/sanctioned post-Such practice was deprecated by the Supreme Court. (c) Employer and employee- -Sanctioned post having statutory rules-Such post could not be kept vacant unless abolished by the competent authority. (d) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 224(1A)-Caretaker Government/Cabinet, functions of-Scope-Except for extraordinary circumstances, the Caretaker Government/Cabinet had to confine itself to running day to day administration of the State and to take decisions, required for orderly running of the affairs of the State but the decisions, having far reaching effects should only be taken by the elected government, having the mandate to perform extraordinary functions for the welfare of the people, for which purpose it was being chosen.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending