Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.122(2) Income Tax Ord,2001,S.122(4) FA,2009:Prospective & Retrospectivity of Provisions.

Summary: S. 2 (ii)(a) Dissolution of Muslims Marriages Act, 1939, S. 13 MFLO, 1961.second marriage--- cruelty ...Nature of dissolution of marriage on failure of pre-trial reconciliation.

Summary: The case of the prosecution is that 35 trees in number (Government property) were mis-appropriated by the appellant. The ingredients of Section 405 P.P.C., regarding mis-appropriation within the definition of Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 have at all not been proved. The requirement of law under Section 221 Cr.P.C. is that a charge should state precise formulation of specific accusation made against an accused----Prosecution case hinges upon surmises and conjectures and it had badly failed to lead evidence of that stature required for conviction of any person. Criminal Appeal is accepted.

Summary: Muhammad Khan filed a suit for declaration regarding the ownership of disputed land against the appellants, Mst. Bharyan, etc. The land in question measures 47 kanals 15 marlas, and the suit relates to mutation No. 14 dated 25.05.1954 and subsequent mutations. The land's current measurement is 60 kanals 16 marlas.After the trial and appeal process, the case was remanded back to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur, for reevaluation based on the available evidence on record.The appellants, represented by Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate, raised objections to the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.03.2010, arguing that the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They claimed that the proceedings conducted by the trial court were illegal and void and requested that the plaint be returned for presentation before a court with competent jurisdiction.On the other hand, Hafiz Rizwan Aziz, Advocate for respondent No. 1, favored the impugned judgment and decree and requested the dismissal of the appeal.The court analyzed the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction and held that since the original suit's valuation was fixed at Rs. 400/-, which fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, the proceedings conducted by the Civil Judge Class III were not deemed invalid. The court also stated that the appellants did not raise the objection of pecuniary jurisdiction during the proceedings, and therefore, it could not be considered at the appellate stage.As a result, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the remand of the case to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur, for a fresh hearing based on the available evidence. The court cited various legal precedents in support of its decision.

Summary: PLJ 2014 AJK 73 Present Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan J MUHAMMAD JAMIL MUGHAL 15 others - - Petitioners versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE MUGHAL 24 others - - Respondents Revision Petition No 133 of 2010 decided on 1462013 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - O XXXIXR r 1 2 - - Application for interim relief was dismissed by Courts below - - Sanctioned order of cutting of trees from forest was not challenged earlier in plaint - - No prima facie case and not entitled any interim relief - - Concurrent findings - - Validity - - Courts below had passed orders by asking to execute undertaking in Court that they will be bound to pay the sale price of the timber of the land without litigation in case of final declaration of the relief claimed by petitioners in their favour - - Petitioners have been properlylegally redressed of their grievances and Courts below have concurrently reached the same conclusion hence the impugned order does not warrant interference by High Court [P 75] A B Mr Aftab Ahmed Awan Advocate for Petitioners Sardar Pervaiz Akhtar Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.