Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: PLJ 2004 Lahore 1036 [Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) -----Section 115: The preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiffs determining the share of co-sharers was assailed. -----Evidence Consideration: A report in an earlier suit between the same parties regarding the land in question was proved by another report prepared by the Tehsildar, who was appointed as the local commissioner in that case. The preliminary decree was fully supported by this undisputed report, which was also corroborated by the available revenue records. Separation and Adjustment of Shares: The respective shares of the parties were to be separated, adjusted, and delivered to both parties, for which the Appellate Court had directed the Trial Court to conduct proceedings for a final decree. No Grounds for Interference: No interference was warranted with the impugned order of the Appellate Court. [P. 1038] A -----Background: In 1984, the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners, claiming ownership of land measuring 2 kanals and 3 marlas in Khasra No. 998/500/11. The land was part of a Shamlat (communal property) in the village Hattar, previously partitioned in 1931. The respondents alleged that the petitioners’ predecessor, Muhammad Ramzan, had constructed rooms on 7 marlas of their land. The initial suit sought specific possession but was withdrawn when the revenue records were incomplete. The respondents then filed the present suit for separate possession through partition. The petitioners contended that they had purchased the land in 1940 and constructed a house on it, claiming bona fide ownership. Issues were framed, and evidence was recorded. The trial court dismissed the suit on 25th September 1995. However, the appellate court, through a judgment and decree dated 7th June 1998, passed a preliminary decree in favor of the respondents and sent the case back to the trial court for the final decree. -----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents had a valid claim to 2 kanals and 3 marlas in the disputed Khasra number. ----2- Whether the petitioners’ possession of 7 kanals and 17 marlas was lawful. ----3- Whether the appellate court's preliminary decree was supported by the evidence and revenue records. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The appellate court’s preliminary decree was upheld. The court noted that both parties had relied on a report from an earlier suit, which was proven through the Tehsildar, the local commissioner in that case. The report confirmed the land owned by the respondents as well as the petitioners, aligning with the revenue records. The petitioners' claim of being bona fide purchasers was not supported by evidence, and the apprehension that the respondents were attempting to take over their land was deemed baseless. The court found that the shares of both parties (7 kanals and 17 marlas for the petitioners, and 2 kanals and 3 marlas for the respondents) were to be separated, adjusted, and delivered accordingly. The appellate court had properly directed the trial court to conduct proceedings for a final decree based on the report and available revenue records. The civil revision was dismissed, with no orders as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Ex. P.1: Report by the Tehsildar, which was accepted as undisputed evidence in the case.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Bail granted---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 498: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Ss. 324, 341, 337-A, 147, 148, 149 Bail before arrest---Principles and considerations. Grant of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary concession, granted only in appropriate cases based on the merits of each case. Accused implicated due to personal enmity or ulterior motives, with no concrete evidence of involvement in the crime, may be entitled to anticipatory bail. In the instant case, three separate FIRs were registered on the day of the occurrence due to longstanding enmity between the parties, raising doubts about the roles of aggressors and victims. No empty cartridges or corroborative evidence were recovered from the site of the incident, and injuries sustained were classified as simple. Delay in recording the statements of witnesses and lack of prosecution progress further supported the petitioners' case. Held, the petitioners were granted bail as the case required further inquiry. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 498: Counter-versions and cross-cases. In cases involving counter-versions and cross-cases arising from the same occurrence, courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting bail, even in cases involving serious offenses. Courts must consider all surrounding circumstances, including the potential for false implication due to personal enmity, and the principle that the identity of the aggressor must be established during trial, not at the bail stage. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Grant of bail before arrest---Discretionary nature: Exercise of discretion in anticipatory bail matters must be based on cogent reasoning. Mere nomination in an FIR or allegations unsupported by strong evidence do not justify refusal of bail. The learned Sessions Judge’s rejection of bail was deemed arbitrary as it ignored the principles governing anticipatory bail. ----Disposition: Bail granted.

Summary: Summary pending.