Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.13,15 Pre-emption Act:Requirements of Talabs--right,waiver by pre-emptor--scope

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R. 3 & O. VII, R. 11---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Compromise---Cause of action---Power-of-attorney---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Executant of power of attorney died prior to the execution of agreement to sell---Effect---Agreement was not validly entered into by and between the parties after the death of principal---Said agreement to sell was not enforceable at law even if contesting parties were ready and willing to abide by its terms---Sub-attorney who claimed to have entered into an agreement of sell with the attorney had not invited objections on entering into agreement of sale of suit property---Even (present) plaintiff after entering into agreement of sale with the sub-attorney had not issued any public notice in newspapers for inviting any objection from public-at-large for transfer of title of suit property---Had such effort been made, legal heirs of the deceased executant of power-of-attorney could have warned the plaintiff before making any further payment of suit property---Search certificate of suit property was not obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar of the properties concerned---Defendant had already breached promise with the plaintiff---Broken promise by the compromising parties could not be endorsed by the court---Application for compromise of suit was liable to be dismissed---No cause of action existed for filing of suit against the defendant---Cause of action shown in the plaint was a false and collusive statement of plaintiff and defendant---Plaintiff had attempted to obtain a compromise decree from the court---Defendant had never refused to perform her part of contract---When cause of action had ceased to exist, provisions of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. would attract and plaint was liable to be rejected---Suit for specific performance was liable to be rejected once defendant had conceded that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract---Nazir of the court could not be allowed to perform part of contract under circumstances---Suit had become infructuous and plaint was liable to be rejected---Both the suit and compromise application were dismissed with cost of Rs. 100,000/- to be jointly and severally borne by the plaintiff and defendant---Said cost should be paid within specified period and if the same was not paid, Nazir of the court should take step for recovery of cost including attachment of movable and immovable properties of plaintiff and defendant---Member Inspection Team of High Court was directed to examine the record and if any criminal case was made out, he should initiate or cause to initiate criminal proceedings against plaintiff and defendant in accordance with law. Specific Performance of Contract (Transfer of Property -Suit Dismissed ) Diamond Rubber Mills v. Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. and 2 others 1989 CLC 1989 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Jurisdiction of civil court to exercise its authority to adjudicate between the parties would co-exist with the "cause of action" to settle the grievance of plaintiff against the defendant on his/her denial to accept/acknowledge certain rights of plaintiff---No suit could be filed without a "cause of action" and if at all such suit was filed, plaint should be rejected for want of cause of action---If cause of action had ceased to continue after filing of suit, nothing was left for the court to exercise its authority.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- Civil Procedure Code CPC---Ss. 42 & 8---Suit for declaration, possession and damages---Present suit was filed to obtain a conflicting judgment with regard to same property between the same parties---Plaintiff had deliberately over-valued the suit property and included a frivolous claim of damages which he did not try to prove even at ex parte trial---Plaintiff could not establish his claim by cogent and convincing evidence---Proof of ownership of plot was not enough to prove ownership of building standing thereon as other occupant was none other than his own brother---Defendant was in possession on suit property---Present suit had been filed after the lapse of 25 years of legal notice when plaintiff was requested for recovery of half portion of suit property---Defendant had already filed his claim---Plaintiff had obtained ex parte orders against the defendant by manipulation---Plaintiff had withheld the best evidence available with him and he had suppressed the facts---Issue of ownership was already subjudiced before competent court in a suit prior in time---Plaintiff had attempted to obtain ex parte order on the same issue---Suit was dismissed with cost.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order 1 Rule 10 CPC)----O. I, R.10---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.9---Suit for possession of immovable property owned by government and leased to private persons---Impleadment of Government as a party---Scope---Government could not be impleaded as a party in a suit for possession filed under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Application for impleadment of party was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: Allotment of land---The petitioner filed a petition seeking the allotment of land based on certain orders and claims. The petitioner had allegedly obtained land through fraudulent means, using forged documents and orders. The Chief Settlement Commissioner conducted an inquiry into the matter and found that the petitioner committed fraud and misrepresentation to try to obtain the land. The Chief Settlement Commissioner canceled the orders and resumed the land in public interest. The petitioner challenged the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order through the current writ petition. The High Court noted the evidence of fraud and misrepresentation, including forged signatures on orders, and found no merit in the petitioner's claims. The court upheld the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order, dismissing the writ petition. The court also directed the authorities to take necessary steps to retrieve the land from the land grabbers and dispose of it in accordance with the law, as it belongs to the public and the state.

Summary: The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and possession, claiming that their predecessor, Ashraf Ali Khan, was the owner of land and had constructed a shop on the property, which was later rented out to respondent. The trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the suit, leading the petitioners to file this revision petition. The counsel for the petitioners argued that both lower courts committed errors in misreading and non-reading crucial evidence related to the ownership of the shop and the tenancy agreement. However, the High Court found that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient documentary or oral evidence to prove their exclusive ownership or the gift of property to their father. The High Court ruled that respondent became a co-owner after purchasing the shop from the paternal aunt, a co-sharer in the joint property. In such a situation, the co-sharer could not file a suit for declaration and possession against another co-sharer; instead, they could only file a suit for partition. The High Court further held that the counsel for the petitioners failed to identify any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts that would justify interference by the High Court. Since no defects were pointed out in the lower courts' findings, the revision petition was dismissed.

Summary: For the foregoing reasons, convictions of both theappellants under section 302(b)/34 PPC and 7 (a) ofATA 1997/34 are maintained but their sentences arereduced from death to life imprisonment each.Compensation and fine awarded by the trial court andsentences in default thereof are also maintained.Convictions and sentences of present appellants onother heads under section 324/34, 337-F(i)/34,186/34, 353/34 PPC are maintained. In presence ofconviction of present two appellants under section 7 (a)ATA 1997, conviction under section 7 (h) of ATA 1997 isnot sustainable and same is hereby set-aside. All thesentences shall run concurrently. The benefit of section382-B Cr.P.C is also given to the appellants.Consequently, with the above said modification in thesentences of Muhammad Rizwan and Ijaz Baig presentappellants, Criminal Appeals were dismissed.

Summary: The case outlines the incident that occurred on 18.08.2007, where Muhammad Nawaz allegedly attacked and killed Mst. Shahnaz Bibi at a brick kiln. Eyewitnesses, including the complainant, identified Muhammad Nawaz as the perpetrator, alleging a motive related to a rejected marriage proposal. Muhammad Nawaz was arrested, and a blood-stained hoe allegedly used in the crime was recovered from him.Medical evidence presented during the trial confirmed the cause of death and the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim. Various witnesses provided testimonies supporting the prosecution's case. The appellant denied the charges against him during the trial.The defense raised points challenging the eyewitness accounts, delay in reporting the incident to the police, the absence of certain forensic reports, and an alleged compromise that couldn't be fulfilled due to financial constraints. The defense urged for the acquittal of the appellant.Conversely, the prosecution argued for the affirmation of the conviction, highlighting the promptness of the report, the reliability of the eyewitnesses, the consistency between medical evidence and witness testimonies, the recovery of the weapon, and the established motive for the crime.The Lahore High Court reviewed the arguments presented by both sides and examined the trial records. However, the conclusion or decision of the court is not explicitly mentioned in the provided excerpt. This legal document discusses the contentions raised by both the defense and the prosecution in the criminal appeal and murder reference, relating to the conviction of Muhammad Nawaz for the murder of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi.