Summary: Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Art. 199 --- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order. VI Rule. 17. Amendments of pleadings--- On the application of respondent no.1/ Plaintiff`s amendment was allowed to challenge pedigree table of Samandur (Deceased) --- Respondent No. 1 / Plaintiff submitted all together new plaint which is not permissible under the ibid law. Writ Petition was partly allowed and the respondent no.1 /Plaintiff was directed to submit a plaint by only adding a para in respect of challenging the pedigree table and adding collector Mansehra as party to the original suit.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.1. It is explained with reference to certain rulings of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that once a defendant joins the proceedings and then remains absent, limitation for setting aside the ex-parte decree would be governed by Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Summary: Background: A petitioner challenged the exclusion of his properties located in Ghauri Town from the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IRRO, 2001). He argued that despite having approved his property map from the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and paying all relevant taxes, he was deprived of legal remedies to seek eviction against tenants. The petitioner sought to include his properties and other similar areas within the scope of the IRRO, 2001, for fair application of rent laws. ----Issues: 1- Does the exclusion of Ghauri Town and other areas from the IRRO, 2001, violate constitutional rights? 2- Was the Federal Government’s discretion in including or excluding areas under the IRRO, 2001, exercised arbitrarily? 3- Should the IRRO, 2001, apply uniformly to the entire Islamabad Capital Territory, regardless of the area’s approval status by the CDA? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Violation of Constitutional Rights: The court held that excluding certain areas, including Ghauri Town, from the IRRO, 2001, violated the constitutional rights of citizens under Articles 4, 9, and 25 of the Constitution. The IRRO, 2001, is intended to regulate landlord-tenant relationships uniformly across Islamabad Capital Territory. --Federal Government’s Discretion: The court found the Federal Government’s discretion in issuing notifications for the inclusion of areas under the IRRO, 2001, lacked a structured criterion. The Federal Government’s executive authority must align with constitutional provisions, ensuring equality and fairness. --Uniform Application of IRRO, 2001: The court concluded that the IRRO, 2001, should apply to the entire Islamabad Capital Territory, including areas not recognized by the CDA or those with canceled NOCs/LOPs. The law should protect the rights of landlords and tenants equally. The writ petition was allowed, and the Federal Government was directed to issue the necessary notification for the application of IRRO, 2001, to the entire Islamabad Capital Territory, including Ghauri Town and similar areas. The Federal Government was instructed to submit a compliance report within fifteen days. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2022 [SC] 267 (Privatization Commission vs. Aftab Hussain) PLD 2016 SC 534 (Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others vs. Shah Jehan Shah) PLD 2019 SC 297 (Human Rights Case No.69229-P of 2018) PLD 1998 [SC] 1445 (Mehram Ali Vs. Federation of Pakistan) PLD 2016 SC 808 (Mustafa Impex, Karachi vs. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad) 2010 SCMR 1301 (Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others in re Human Rights case) 2009 SCMR 1354 (Abdul Wahab and another vs. Secretary, Government of Balochistan and another) PLD 2022 Peshawar 46 (State Bank of Pakistan vs. Federation of Pakistan) 2017 YLR 1224 (Saleem Ullah Khan Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control, Interior Division, Islamabad) PLD 1997 [SC] 700 (E.F.U General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan) PLD 2002 [Karachi] 374 (Hakim Ali Zardari Vs. The State) PLD 2021 SC 379 (Malik Munsif Awan, Advocate, Chairman, Pakistan Justice Party, Lahore vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Justice, Islamabad and others)

Summary: Background: The petitioner, the Chief Minister of Punjab, challenged the orders issued by the Governor of Punjab on 19.12.2022 and 22.12.2022, under Article 130(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan. The first order summoned a session of the Provincial Assembly and required the petitioner to take a vote of confidence. The second order, issued on 22.12.2022, declared that the petitioner had ceased to hold office as Chief Minister due to the failure to take the vote of confidence and dissolved the Cabinet. However, the petitioner was allowed to continue functioning until a new Chief Minister was elected, as per Article 133 of the Constitution. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was required to take a vote of confidence under Article 130(7) of the Constitution. 2- Whether the Governor's order of 22.12.2022, removing the petitioner from office, was legally valid. 3- Whether the petition became moot following the petitioner’s successful vote of confidence on 12.01.2023. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Vote of Confidence: During the pendency of the writ petition, on 12.01.2023, the petitioner successfully took a vote of confidence in the Provincial Assembly, passing the required floor test under Article 130(7) of the Constitution. A notification confirming the vote was issued by the Speaker and communicated to the Governor. Governor's Response: Upon receiving the report from the Speaker that the petitioner had passed the vote of confidence, the Governor withdrew his previous order dated 22.12.2022, which declared that the petitioner had ceased to hold office. In light of the petitioner’s successful vote of confidence and the Governor's withdrawal of the 22.12.2022 order, the court concluded that the petition had borne fruit. The court set aside the Notification dated 22.12.2022 and deemed further adjudication on the justiciability of the Governor's order unnecessary. The petition was thus disposed of. -----Citations/Precedents: Pir Sabir Shah vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 738)

Summary: Background:The Islamabad High Court heard a petition by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) Fact Finding Report. The report suggested that PTI might be declared a foreign-aided political party under the Political Parties Order, 2002, due to alleged prohibited funding. The case was presided over by Babar Sattar, J.-----Issues:Whether the ECP exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring PTI potentially a foreign-aided party in the Fact Finding Report.Whether the ECP's conclusion that the PTI Chairman failed to fulfill his obligation to certify the party's funding sources was beyond its jurisdiction.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found the petition premature, stating the Fact Finding Report's conclusions were tentative and subject to change after the show-cause proceedings. The court held that PTI has the right to challenge the report's findings during these proceedings, including raising jurisdictional objections. The court also noted that sharing the report with the Federal Government did not constitute an overstep of ECP's authority, as any action by the government would require independent verification and adherence to due process. The petition was dismissed, with the court indicating PTI could seek judicial review post the conclusion of the ECP's show-cause proceedings if aggrieved by the final decision.----Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Hanif Abbasi Vs. Imran Khan Niazi and 3 others (PLD 2018 SC 189)Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. Vs. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLD 1987 SC 447)University of Dacca Vs. Zakir Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 90)Rahim Shah Vs. Chief Election Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 24)Messrs Airport Support Services Vs. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others (1998 SCMR 2268)Suo Motu Case No. 04 of 2010 (PLD 2012 SC 553)A.F Ferguson Vs. Sind Labour Court (PLD 1985 SC 429)Abbot Laboratories Vs. Joh W. Gardner 387 U.S 136 (1967)Chanan Singh Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies (AIR 1976 SC 1821)Union of India and another Vs. Kunisettay Satyanarayana (AIR 2007 SC 906)Mughale-Azam Banquet Complex Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2011 PTD 2260)Pir Sabir Shah Vs. Shad Muhammad Khan Shad Muhammad Khan, Member Provincial Assembly (PLD 1995 SC 66)

Summary: Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. ?Article 199--- West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrict Ordinance, 1959 ? ?S. 13 ?. Petitioner filed seven writ petitions against different tenants based on different agreements ?Rent controller ordered the petitioner to implead the parties and seek all the reliefs in one petition & consigned remaining six petitions. --- challenged to --- The West Pakistan urban rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 does not lay any restrictions regarding the applicability of principles and procedure laid down by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; and even single Ejectment application can conveniently be filed against several tenants, if the Ejectment of tenant is sought on similar grounds and based on one and the same agreement, but when several landlords have filed Ejectment applications, based on different agreements, on different grounds and against different tenants, then the rights of parties, differently placed, cannot be conveniently and conclusively decided in a single Ejectment Petition. --- Order passed by the Rent Controller in circumstances, set aside and all the six other Rent Petitions consigned through impugned order were ordered to be restored, with the directions to proceed with the cases in accordance with law.

Summary: [The importance of accreditation under the Pakistan National Accreditation Council Act, 2017 of Pesticide Laboratory under the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971. The concept of reading down of a rule] The case revolves around the certification of a pesticide laboratory and the validity of its reports. The respondents challenged the laboratory's report, which deemed their pesticides to be substandard and fake, on the grounds that the laboratory was not duly certified by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as required by Rule 22 of the Punjab Agricultural Pesticides Rules, 2018. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971, the Punjab Agricultural Pesticides Rules, 2018, and the Pakistan National Accreditation Council Act, 2017. The Court concluded that the certification of the pesticide laboratory is the prerogative of the provincial government under the Ordinance, and Rule 22, which mandates ISO certification, is inconsistent with the Ordinance and the Act, 2017. The Court clarified that ISO does not certify laboratories but only develops international standards. It further noted that the Pakistan National Accreditation Council (PNAC) is responsible for accrediting and certifying laboratories in Pakistan. Therefore, the Court read down Rule 22, interpreting it to mean that the pesticide laboratory should follow national and international standards accredited by PNAC under the Act, 2017. The Court directed the Provincial Government to review and amend the Rule accordingly. It ruled that the pesticide laboratories involved in the case, which were certified by PNAC, can be relied upon by the Agriculture Department for further proceedings. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, remanding the case for the High Court to address the remaining grounds raised by the petitioners. In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the petitions, clarified the accreditation process for pesticide laboratories, and emphasized compliance with national and international standards.

Summary: In the Absence of statutory service rules, the relationship between employer and its employees is that of Master and Servant.Mere adoption of rules of the government or their application by reference will not lend a statutory cover or content to these rules.An employee of a corporation or company or autonomous institution in the absence of violation of law or statutory rule could not press into service the constitutional jurisdiction for seeking relief relating to terms and conditions of his service.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, the Chief Minister of Punjab, challenged two orders dated 19.12.2022 and 22.12.2022 issued by the Governor of Punjab. In these orders, the Governor invoked Article 130(7) of the Constitution, declaring that the Chief Minister no longer commanded the confidence of the Punjab Assembly, thereby ceasing to hold office and dissolving the Provincial Cabinet. The Governor required the Chief Minister to continue in office until a successor took charge under Article 133 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the Governor’s orders were premature and unreasonable as they provided only two days for a vote of confidence, while procedural norms require a more extended period. The petitioner also contended that the Governor’s orders were based on an incorrect assessment of the situation and that no Assembly session had been held to confirm the alleged loss of confidence. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Governor's decision to direct the Chief Minister to seek a vote of confidence under Article 130(7) of the Constitution was legally valid. 2- Whether the two-day period provided for the vote of confidence was reasonable and in line with constitutional and procedural norms. 3- Whether the dissolution of the Provincial Cabinet without holding a vote of confidence was legally justified. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Governor’s Direction for Vote of Confidence: The court held that the Governor could only invoke Article 130(7) of the Constitution if there was a reasonable basis to believe that the Chief Minister had lost the confidence of the Assembly. The petitioner argued that the Governor’s satisfaction must be based on objective criteria, and mere assumptions or differences of opinion between the Governor and the Speaker of the Assembly were not sufficient to justify invoking Article 130(7). ---- Reasonableness of Time for Vote of Confidence: The court noted that the Governor had given only two days for the vote of confidence, which the petitioner argued was unreasonable compared to the ten days provided in previous judgments, such as Pir Sabir Shah vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 738). The petitioner claimed that more time was required under constitutional and procedural rules. Dissolution of Provincial Cabinet: The court recognized that dissolving the Provincial Cabinet without an actual vote of confidence had significant legal implications, particularly in light of the Messrs Mustafa Impex vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808) case, which emphasized the need for a functioning cabinet to conduct government affairs. ----- Undertaking by Petitioner: During the hearing, the petitioner provided a written undertaking not to dissolve the Assembly if the court suspended the Governor’s orders and restored the Chief Minister and Cabinet to their original positions. Interim Relief: The court suspended the Governor's orders, holding them in abeyance until the next hearing. The petitioner and the Provincial Cabinet were restored, but the petitioner was not precluded from voluntarily seeking a vote of confidence. -----Citations/Precedents: Pir Sabir Shah vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 738) Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Lahore 38) Messrs Mustafa Impex vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808)

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-Article 199 West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.Section 135-- Carving out tatima on the basis of report commission--- relates to factual controversy and the determination of possession of parties can only be made through spot inspection- such controversy cannot be determined by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of this court--- writ petition, in the circumstance-dismissed.2018 CLC Note 17 Peshawar (Bannu Bench), 2021 YLR Lahore 912, PLD 2015 Supreme Court (AJ&K)-7, 2021 MLD 1196 (Sindh) relied.