Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- Civil Procedure Code CPC (O.XXXIX, Rule.1 & 2 Interim Injunction)----Ss. 42, 54 & 56 (a) & (b)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963), S.17(2)---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Tenancy agreement---Temporary injunction, grant of---Scope---Plaintiff had sought restraining orders against the defendant from claiming any rent of suit property from him and restraining of relevant proceedings pending in the other court---Validity---Plaintiff was bound by the terms and conditions of tenancy agreement---Plaintiff would become illegal occupant of the premises if he denied rent of the same---Illegal occupant of immovable property could not restrain the owner from recovery of possession of said property by application of law---Plaintiff had no prima facie case to maintain injunction against the proceedings of Rent Controller in accordance with law---Application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: In Writ Petition, the petitioner, Secretary of Gulshan-e-Ravi Football Club, challenged the Parks & Horticulture Authority's (PHA) practice of allowing the playground, reserved for the football club, to be used for private functions and ceremonies. The petitioner argued that such use was causing damage to the playground and negatively impacting sports activities. The court considered the provisions of the Parks and Horticulture Authority Act, 2012, and emphasized the importance of maintaining public parks and playgrounds for the benefit of the community. The court held that the playground should be exclusively used for playing football, while the rest of the park could be used for public functions as per the PHA's policy. The court directed the PHA to strictly adhere to the law and maintain the entire park, especially the portion allotted for functions, to ensure the convenience and safety of the inhabitants of the area. The court also urged the provincial government to address the issue and provide suitable solutions for providing parks to the public, especially the youth, to promote a healthier society. The petition was partly allowed in favor of the petitioner, and the court issued directions to ensure proper use and maintenance of the playground and park.

Summary: (a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)-------Ss. 52, 38(12) & 44---Election petition---Election for Provincial Assembly---Corrupt orillegal practices---Proof---Standard of---Burden of proof would lie upon the person challengingthe election of returned candidate---Alleged illegal/corrupt practice had to be proved by clear,cogent and convincing evidence without reasonable doubt---No findings could be given onpresumption, surmises and conjectures---Standard of proof required was like that of a charge incriminal trial and in case of any doubt benefit of same had to be extended to the returnedcandidate---Statements of interested witnesses could not be made a basis to give findings uponthe allegations/issues without corroboration of the same---Mere registration of FIR on the day ofpolling could not be considered as evidence unless finding of guilt was recorded with regard tothe allegations levelled in the FIR---Affidavits/statements of election petitioners without anysupporting documents and without any corroboration from record could not be made a basis togive findings upon the allegations/issues---Election petitioners, in the present case, had failed toprove the allegations of corrupt, illegal practice or other illegal acts allegedly committed by therespondent through confidence inspiring oral or documentary evidence---Election material was not sealed in the separate packets/bags by the Presiding Officers and Returning Officers---Respondent could not be penalized for non-compliance of relevant provisions of Representationof the People Act, 1976 by the Presiding Officer and Returning Officers---Nothing was on recordthat no polling was conducted on the alleged polling stations or election was rigged by therespondent on those polling stations---No evidence had been produced by the election petitionersthat Form-XIV of said polling stations were forged, fabricated or maneuvered by or on behest ofrespondent---Authenticity of results declared by the Presiding Officers of such polling stationson Form-XIV could not be doubted in absence of any evidence to the contrary---Results ofalleged polling stations could not be excluded from count as serious doubts had arisen withregard to the safe custody of election material and accessibility of the same by any person---Respondent could not be penalized for the use of poor quality/defective ink by the ElectionCommission---If all the invalid votes were excluded from the votes secured by the respondenteven then he had the lead of 234 votes over the election petitioners---Election petitioners hadfailed to discharge the burden of proving corrupt, illegal practice or the illegal acts alleged tohave been committed by the respondent---Election petitions were dismissed in circumstances.(b) Administration of justice-------No one should be penalized for the act of public functionaries.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 489-F PPC at Police Station Qureshi. The petitioner was accused of issuing a dishonored cheque. The petitioner's counsel argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated, and the FIR was lodged after a considerable delay of 9 months. The prosecution contended that the petitioner was nominated in the FIR and, therefore, not entitled to bail. After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, taking into consideration the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and that the maximum sentence for the alleged offense was three years. The petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: The Commissioner Inland Revenue filed a reference application challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Lahore Bench regarding M/s Azgard Nine Limited for the tax year 2003. The reference application raised two legal questions regarding the mandatory or directory nature of the time limitation specified in Section 124(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the justification of the Tribunal's decision to declare the assessment order void ab-initio. The Lahore High Court Lahore held that the time limitation under Section 124(2) is mandatory, as indicated by the use of the word "shall," and the Tribunal was justified in declaring the new assessment order void due to it being passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Thus, the reference application was decided against the applicant department, and the judgment will be sent to the learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue as per Section 133(5) of the Ordinance, 2001.

Summary: Background: A post-arrest bail application was filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Sections 17, 18, and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The petitioner allegedly provided fake and forged documents to several individuals for obtaining visas from a foreign high commission, receiving a substantial amount for these services. The case originated from a complaint filed by the foreign high commission, implicating the petitioner as the organizer of this scheme. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the alleged involvement in forgery and emigration fraud. -----2- Whether the existence of an alternative sentence (fine) in the statute should permit bail as a matter of right. -----3- Whether the alleged offense falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court denied bail, citing sufficient incriminating material on record that connected the petitioner with the charged offenses. The court reasoned that the presence of a fine as an alternative sentence does not automatically place the offense outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that discretion in bail matters should consider the facts and circumstances of each case. Allowing bail merely due to the alternative sentence would undermine legislative intent, especially in cases where the main sentence exceeds ten years and the offense includes serious allegations affecting public interest and the nation's international image. The petition for bail was dismissed, with the court advising the trial to conclude promptly. -----Citations/Precedents: MUHAMMAD SHARIF v. STATE (2014 P.Cr.L.J. 297) MAQSUD v. THE STATE (2012 YLR 2511) SHER AHMAD v. THE STATE (PLD 1993 Peshawar 104) MUHAMMAD BILAL v. State (2014 P.Cr.L.J. 429) ARSHAD JAVED v. THE STATE (2003 MLD 1073) MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and another v. THE STATE (2001 P.Cr.L.J. 157) MURAD ALI Shah v. THE STATE (2004 P.Cr.L.J. 925)

Summary: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his representation regarding the recruitment process. During the course of the appeal, the respondent was appointed to the position, and the appellants argued that the appeal was time-barred and had become infructuous as the appointment had been made. The court examined the arguments and determined that the appeal was indeed time-barred by two days and that the order had been complied with through the respondent's appointment. As a result, the court dismissed the Intra Court Appeal, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge-in-Chamber in favor of Mohammad Yousaf and others.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.