Summary: (a) Police Rules, 1934----R. 12.14---Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 285/286---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Recruitment as constable---Conviction on confession for minor offence---Fine of Rs.500---Effect on eligibility for induction into police service---Respondent was convicted in FIR No. 269 dated 22.04.2018 registered under Ss. 285/286, P.P.C. at Police Station Talash, District Dir Lower, and sentenced to fine of Rs.500 on basis of confessional statement only---High Court allowed his writ petition and directed the police authorities to consider him for post of constable for which he had applied---Held, conviction for fine of Rs.500 on confessional statement was a minor penalty which did not fall in category of heinous crime or offence of moral turpitude; a trivial or less harmful offence cannot have such severe consequence as to rule out possibility of induction into government service---A criminal has to be considered with reference to his bent of mind towards crime and tendency of committing further crimes in future; offence under Ss. 285/286, P.P.C. is negligent conduct with respect to fire, combustible matter or explosive substance, punishable with imprisonment up to six months or fine up to three thousand rupees or both---Respondent, on available record, was not a habitual criminal and had not concealed the conviction---Punishment must commensurate with crime and cannot damage entire life of convict---Conviction in such minor offence with minor or negligible consequences could not create permanent embargo upon induction into police department. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 243---Conviction on admission of guilt---Confessional statement---Consequences of confession---Held, confession of guilt is mainly made with an arrangement and understanding to avoid wastage of court's time, with some element of repentance and remorse, and with consequence limited to that extent only; convict cannot be bound for a life-long prohibition without being educated about result of making confessional statement---Such information was not apparently conveyed to respondent to reach an informed decision as envisaged under S. 243, Cr.P.C., nor was sufficient cause shown to him as to why he should not be convicted---After admission/confession accused becomes friend of the court and is entitled to reasonable leniency. (c) Police Rules, 1934----R. 12.14---Standing Order 6/2015 (Punjab Police), para. 23---Good character of recruit---Criminal record---Court noted that under R. 12.14 of Police Rules, 1934 a recruit has to be of good character and great care is required in selection of suitable men for police service, and that para. 23 of Standing Order 6/2015, as amended on 01.06.2018, debars candidates having criminal record or affiliation with proscribed organization from appointment---Allegation in registered FIR not followed by indictment or conviction remains only an allegation; FIRs may be registered with motivation or enmity and opinion of Investigating Officer in that regard is relevant and carries weight---Rule on good character could not, however, be applied so as to create permanent embargo against induction of respondent in the circumstances of the case. (d) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 10-A---Civil rights---Due process---Respondent has constitutional protection of his civil rights with corresponding obligations through due process and fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution. Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal against judgment dated 15.03.2023 of Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) Swat in W.P. No. 17-M of 2023 dismissed as meritless and leave refused. Approved for Reporting.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The requirement of production of succession certificate or lawful award under Section 78 of the Companies Act, 2017 is not merely a procedural formality; rather, it serves the substantive purpose of determining entitlement of the legal heirs vis-a-vis movable assets of the deceased, including shares and securities, thereby protecting the company from exposure to conflicting claims, multiplicity of proceedings, and future litigation.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Held: Upon framing of additional issues, the Trial Court did not specifically call upon the parties to submit fresh list of witnesses. Under the amended Rule 1(1) of Order XVI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filing of list of witnesses is not automatic duty cast upon the parties; rather, the matter is left to the act of the Court, directing the parties to submit such list. Furthermore, the petitioner/defendant had good cause for not including the Branch Manager in his own list of witnesses as the said witness had already been cited by the respondent/plaintiff and was expected to appear alongwith the relevant record for the purpose of examination-in-chief, followed by cross-examination by the petitioner/defendant. Admittedly, said witness was withheld by the respondent/plaintiff, which constrained the petitioner/defendant to move the application. Therefore, the request of the petitioner/defendant to summon the Branch Manager cannot be examined in isolation from these developments in the suit proceedings.

Summary: Pre-emptor must specify the exact place of his house where he got the alleged knowledge of sale as It is a cardinal requirement of law that the pre-emptor must clearly establish the exact date, time and place where he first acquired knowledge of the sale.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)----S. 27---Agreement to sell---Specific performance---Proof of execution and payment---Admission by original owners---Agreement dated 03.09.2002 for sale of 341 kanals and 17 marlas of land situated in Mouza Nithranwali, Tehsil Kamoki, District Gujranwala, and a rice mill (sheller), for Rs.100,00,000/- plus Rs.24,00,000/-, of which Rs.22,95,000/- was paid at the time of agreement and a total of Rs.91,50,000/- was paid, leaving Rs.8,50,000/- outstanding---Trial Court dismissed the purchaser's suit; High Court allowed the regular first appeal and decreed the suit---Original owners joined the proceedings but later did not appear nor file written statement; the only contesting party was a subsequent claimant impleaded as defendant No.7---Held, that when execution of the agreement was not denied by the original owners, which facts were otherwise demonstrated in the evidence led by the plaintiff and his witnesses including the scribe (PW-7), the burden to prove execution was discharged, and payment of sale consideration likewise stood proved---In FAO No.251 of 2004 the original owners admitted in paragraph 6 that they had entered into the agreement dated 03.09.2002 with the plaintiff and denied the alleged subsequent sale agreement dated 03.10.2002 with the subsequent claimant---Such admission, in the absence of contrary confidence-inspiring evidence, effectively foreclosed the case of the subsequent claimants---Subsequent claimant, having knowledge of the earlier agreement and dispute, got himself impleaded and filed written statement, yet during pendency of the suit got the property mutated in his name vide mutation Nos.566 and 567 dated 03.06.2005 and 22.02.2007. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)----S. 27(b)---Subsequent transferee---Bona fide purchaser for value without notice---Burden of proof---S. 27(b) provided that specific performance of a contract may be enforced against any person claiming under a party thereto, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract---Held, that a subsequent vendee seeking protection under the said provision must establish that the transaction was supported by valuable consideration, entered into in good faith and without notice of prior rights, and that he had acted with due care by making reasonable inquiry into the title in the manner expected of a prudent purchaser---Mere denial of knowledge of a prior agreement was insufficient to discharge the burden; the subsequent vendee must affirmatively establish good faith and due diligence, including reasonable inquiry into the title of the vendor---Initial onus to prove valuable consideration, good faith and absence of notice lay upon the subsequent transferee, and upon its discharge the burden shifted to the plaintiff---Plea of a bona fide purchaser could not be accepted on mere assertion, but must be established through cogent evidence and attending circumstances---Where surrounding circumstances disclosed haste, lack of inquiry, or facts as would reasonably put a purchaser on notice of a prior claim, the protection of S. 27(b) was not attracted, and the prior agreement remained enforceable against him. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)----S. 27---Subsequent purchasers claiming through a subsequent transferee---Appellants in Civil Appeal No.203-L of 2014 were neither parties before the Trial Court nor the High Court, and claimed title through a registered sale deed dated 03.06.2010 from one Muhammad Abdullah, who had purchased through mutation No.713 dated 23.12.2009 from the legal heirs of the subsequent transferee---Held, that since the subsequent transferee/buyers had not discharged their burden of want of knowledge of the previous agreement or litigation, the present appellants had to sail and sink with them---As the alleged transferee himself did not acquire a clean title, nothing could have been passed on---Findings of the High Court were unexceptionable. Cited Cases: • Faqir Syed Anwar-ud-Din deceased through LRs v. Syed Raza Haider and others PLD 2025 SC 31 • Gulzar Ahmad and others v. Muhammad Aslam and others 2022 SCMR 1433 • Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Lal Khatoon and others PLD 2011 Supreme Court 296 Disposition: Civil Appeals Nos.168-L and 203-L of 2014 dismissed; judgment dated 14.04.2014 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in RFA No.630 of 2010 maintained; CMA Nos.8700 and 8699 of 2019 (impleadment) and CMA No.1085 of 2014 (stay) disposed of. (C.As. Nos.168-L & 203-L of 2014, Supreme Court of Pakistan, decided 04.05.2026 at Islamabad; Shahid Waheed, Musarrat Hilali and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, JJ. Approved for reporting.)