Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged several rent-related laws, arguing that these laws were against the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The laws in question included various provincial rent restriction ordinances and the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act. The petitioner asserted that according to the Quranic verses, individuals must earn their livelihood through personal labor, implying that charging rent for properties without personal labor is contrary to Islamic principles. -----Issues: 1- Whether the rent-related laws mentioned are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as prescribed in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. 2- Whether the petitioner fulfilled the procedural requirements mandated by the Federal Shariat Court for challenging multiple laws. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition both on procedural grounds and on the merits of the case. The petitioner failed to comply with Rule 7(2) of the Federal Shariat Court’s Procedure Rules, which requires separate petitions for challenging each law. This procedural rule has constitutional force, and the petitioner’s failure to follow this procedure rendered the petition deficient. The court reaffirmed its previous rulings that contracts of rent (Ijarah) are valid under Islamic law. The court emphasized that Islamic law recognizes various forms of wealth transfer, including gifts, inheritance, and rent, which do not require personal labor by the recipient. The petitioner's argument that charging rent is un-Islamic was unsupported by any specific Quranic verses or Hadith. The court noted that rent and lease contracts have been accepted practices under Islamic jurisprudence since the time of the Prophet and the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The petition was dismissed in limine for both procedural non-compliance and lack of substantive evidence supporting the petitioner's claims. -----Citations/Precedents: Ashfaq Ahmad vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 FSC 286) Federal Shariat Court’s rulings on the following laws: The Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 The NWFP Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 The Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 The Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963

Summary: S302,324,337-A,337-F,337-YAppreciation of evidence,indiscriminate firing,no specific role (Appeal allowed)

Summary: S.217,218,109 PPC,5(2) PC ActJurisdiction of High Court where investigation is mala fide or without jurisdiction(Petition allowed)

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XVI, R. 1(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908) S.3---Summoning and attendance of witnesses---Object, scope and nature of O.XVI R.1, C.P.C.---List of witnesses, non-filing of---Provisions of O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C. were mandatory---Use of the word "shall" in O.XVI, R.1(1), C.P.C. was re-emphasized with a prohibition that the party "shall not" be permitted to call witnesses other than those in the said list except with the permission of the court on showing "good cause" for the omission of said witnesses from the list---Time limit was an essential requirement of O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C. for seeking any relief with respect to summoning and attendance of court witnesses---Limitation of seven days was imposed so that the other side should be well aware of possible evidence expected in the case to meet it in rebuttal---Such limitation, if was allowed to be flouted with impunity, then the parties would keep on surprising each other by introducing witnesses and documents in evidence---After seven days from the time of framing of issues, upon failure to file list of witnesses, a statutory right was accrued in favour of opposite party which was; that even if evidence was available with a party such evidence shall not be used by the party having such evidence in their possession---Said right was analogized to the right of parties under S.3 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Rights survived but the remedy was extinguished---Evidence may be available but its effect was barred seven days after framing of issues by the court---Not only the "good cause" had to be shown by the delinquent party for calling a witness through the court but at the same time the applicant was required to explain the delay in disclosing the name of the witness---Failure of party to explain such delay would disentitle such party from getting relief and it would be against the spirit of the law to causally condone the time limit given in O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C. in the name of doing justice on merit. Muhammad Umar Mirza v. Waris Iqbal and others 1990 SCMR 964; 2008 YLR 1871 and 2008 CLC 1334 rel. (b) Administration of Justice--- ----Submission of irrelevant case-law by counsel appearing in court---Complaint of overwork in the judiciary was one of the basic obstacles in the administration of justice and it was not for the courts alone to administer justice and ensure that justice was not denied on account of inordinate delay in the disposal of cases---Each and every lawyer appearing in court had an equal responsibility to ensure that they should not consume the time of the court out of proportion to the issue in hand on the date of hearing---Very valuable time of the court can be consumed in the reading of case-law submitted by counsel and if such case-law was not relevant, it was one of the major contributing factor in the delay of administration of justice----Counsel were expected to be brief and to the point to help save time of the courts which in turn would utilized by the courts in disposal of other cases particularly the old cases.

Summary: The process of awarding lease of a Power Generation Company for 20 years by WAPDA to the respondent is not sustainable as the transaction in question, by no stretch of imagination, is legal, transparent, fair, open or the result of a competitive and fair process. The Power Plant is a public asset and those entrusted therewith were sadly found wanting. Direction is issued to the Federal Government to fix civil and criminal liabilities in this regard.