Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.8,55 SRA:Suit by parents against disobedient sons for possession of house etc--Adult offspring are bound to maintain their parents

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 174 & 176---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Qatl-e-amd---Inquiry into cause ofdeath---Disinterment of dead body---Medical report revealed that brother of petitioner dieddue to injuries caused by sharp edged weapon, hypovolemic shock and excessive bleeding---Trial Court allowed application of accused for disinterment of corpus to obtain a part ofdeceased's body for DNA test---Validity---Purpose of investigation under S.174, Cr.P.C. orinquiry under S.176, Cr.P.C. was only to ensure that no offence had been committed inconnection with death of a person---Such investigation or inquiry could not be carried out forthe purpose to determine crime weapon used in commission of offence or seat of injuries onthe person of deceased---Medical expert could safely opine that specific injury was inflictedby which kind of weapon---Investigation or inquiry under Ss.174 & 176, Cr.P.C. andexhumation of dead body could only be allowed if real cause of death was shrouded inmystery---Provision of S.176, Cr.P.C. related to death of a person while in custody of policebut not in case of death out of custody of police---Magistrate could only cause any dead bodydisinterred, whenever he considered it expedient for discovering cause of death and was notobliged to do the same, as request of accused for academic purposes, that too, after a delay ofabout 18 months---Disinterment of dead body was not inevitable and application was filed byaccused only for determination of academic questions and trial Court had fallen in errorwhile allowing the same---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by trial Court---Revision was allowed in circumstances.Mrs.Alia Tareen, Managing Director, Pakistan General Hospital, Quetta v. AmanullahKhan, Advocate PLD 2005 SC 99 rel.

Summary: member of the Judicial Commission unmistakably indicated that the most senior judge of the High Court should be nominated as Chief Justice in the absence of any valid reason - - Most senior Judge of Islamabad High Court therefore had a legitimate expectancy to be appointed as Chief Justice and that subject to any valid reason which was yet to be recorded by the Commission he would be entitled to be appointed as such - - Premises recorded by the Commission for departing from the welt established principle of determining seniority were not correct - - Reference under Art 186 of the Constitution was answered accordingly [Pp 281 282] GG HH II KK PLD 1996 SC 324 PLD 2011 SC 407 and PLD 1998 SC 33 ref PLD 2012 SC 1067 distinguished Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 192 (1) - - Inter se seniority of judges of High Courts determination of - - President of Pakistan power of - - Scope - - President of Pakistan could not determine the seniority of Judges of the High Courts [P 282] JJ Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Arts 175 - A (8) (14) 186 - - Reference to Supreme Court - - Judicial Commission composition of - - Judicial Commission nominating names for appointment of Judges of the Islamabad High Court in the absence of the most senior Judge of Islamabad High Court in the proceedings of Judicial Commission - - Legality - - Contentions on behalf of Referring Authority (the President) were that Judge of Islamabad High Court who sat voted and took part in the proceedings of the Judicial Commission was not the most senior Judge of Islamabad High Court that Judicial Commission could not be said to have been properly constituted in the absence of the most senior Judge of Islamabad High Court therefore nominations made by the Judicial Commission would not have any legal or constitutional sanctity notwithstanding that they had been confirmed by the Parliamentary Committee sent to the Prime Minister and then forwarded to the President - - Validity - - Failure of most senior Judge of Islamabad High Court to attend the meeting of the Judicial Commission would not vitiate the proceedings of the Commission - - Art 175 - A (14) of the Constitution clearly provided that no action or decision taken by the Commission or Committee would be invalid or called in question only on the ground of the existence of a vacancy therein or of the absence of any member from any meeting thereof - - Accepting that Judge of Islamabad High Court who sat voted and took part in the proceedings of the Commission culminating in the nomination of Judges was a non - entity yet it would not vitiate the proceedings when the Judicial Commission in view of Art 175A (8) of the Constitution had nominated the Judges by majority of its total membership - - Proceedings of the Commission would have been vitiated or materially affected if it had nominated the Judges with a margin of one but where the Commission nominated the Judges by a majority of 7 against 2 the presence or participation of a Judge who was not the most senior Judge of Islamabad High Court in the meeting would not be of any consequence - - Reference under Art 186 of the Constitution was answered accordingly [P 283] LL PLD 2003 SC 724 ref Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Arts 175 - A 186 - - Reference to Supreme Court - - Proceedings of Judicial Commission held in camera - - Propriety - - Contention - - Proceedings in the Judicial Commission could not be held in camera when the legislature purposely provided otherwise so as to ensure complete transparency and open scrutiny - - Validity - - Members of the Judicial Commission not only represented all essential segments of the Bar and Bench but also those of the Federation and the Province through Attorney General for Pakistan Minister for Law and Justice of Federation and Minister for Law of the Province - - Scrutiny was open in the truest sense of the word when each member was at liberty to present his point of view one way or the other - - Transparency in the proceedings could not be affected by holding it in camera if every member consciously and conscientiously gave his input in the nomination keeping in view its overall impact on the institution on the one hand and society at large on the other - - Reference under Art 186 of the Constitution was answered accordingly [P 285] MM Mr Wasim Sajjad Sr ASC Mr Abdul Latif Yousafzai Sr ASC Mr Idrees Ashraf Advocate and Mr Mehr Khan Malik AOR for President Mr Irfan Qadir A G for Pakistan Mr Dil Muhammad Alizai DAG Barrister Shehryar Riaz Sh Advocate Mrs Shafaq Mohsin Advocate and Ch Faisal Hussain Advocate for Federation Mr Makhdoom Ali Khan Sr ASC Mr Khurram M Hashmi Advocate Mr Umair Majeed Malik Advocate Mr Hyder Ali Khan Advocate Mr Saad M Hashmi Advocate and Mrs Asma Hamid Advocate and Khawaja Haris Ahmed Sr ASC Assisted by Kh Zaheer Ahmed Advocate Syed Ali Shah Gilani Advocate for Amici CuriaeJudgement Result:Order accordingly

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.42 SRA:Declaratory suit--inheritance--payment of alleged money by defendants could not deprive plaintiff from her inheritance right