Summary: (a) A Candidate possessing higher qualification than the one prescribed, cannot be deemed ineligible (for lacking the prescribed qualification) (b) While applying rule of harmonious construction, para-19(f)(ii) of the KP Public Service Commission Regulation, 2017was read in a manner so as to make it align with rule-13 of APT Rules and other provisions of the Regulation, like para-13(b) and 11.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—S. 12(2)—Fraud and misrepresentation—Scope—Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., filed by legal heirs of mortgagor challenging High Court’s judgment allowing constitutional petition against order of Banking Court—Allegation that order was obtained fraudulently and without impleading legal heirs after death of mortgagor—Held, legal heirs were arrayed as respondents in restoration proceedings, their counsel entered appearance and sought adjournment, and the matter was ultimately decided in their absence—Participation in proceedings rebutted allegation of fraud or misrepresentation—Application dismissed. The Court reaffirmed that to invoke S. 12(2), C.P.C., a party must establish actual fraud or misrepresentation affecting the court's decision-making process—Mere procedural lapse or participation in proceedings by counsel precludes invocation of fraud—Petitioners’ contention that they were not impleaded lacked merit as record showed they were duly represented—No forged documents or active concealment proven. (b) Constitutional jurisdiction—Maintainability—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—S. 22—Interlocutory order of Banking Court—Availability of appeal—Scope—Petitioners contended that constitutional petition challenging dismissal of application for possession was not maintainable as order was appealable—Held, no appeal lies under S. 22 against interlocutory orders—Constitutional petition was maintainable—Such legal argument could not be raised under S. 12(2), C.P.C.—Application dismissed. The Court held that the challenge to maintainability of constitutional petition, being a legal plea, could not be pressed in a collateral proceeding under S. 12(2), C.P.C.—Said provision is confined to cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction, not legal errors or alternate statutory remedies. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—S. 15 (declared ultra vires)—Past and closed transactions—Effect—Scope—Auction proceedings under S. 15 conducted prior to declaration of provision as ultra vires—Mortgagor did not challenge auction—Sale certificate issued and mutation sanctioned—Balance sale proceeds withdrawn by mortgagor without objection—Held, transaction amounted to a past and closed transaction protected under settled jurisprudence. Court relied upon Muhammad Moizuddin v. Mansoor Khalil (2017 SCMR 1787), National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile Mills (PLD 2014 SC 283), and Muhammad Umer Rathore v. Federation of Pakistan (2009 CLD 257) to hold that sales finalized prior to invalidation of S. 15, including registered sale deeds and delivery of sale proceeds, are immune from challenge—Once mortgagor received residual sale proceeds without protest, his legal heirs are estopped from reopening concluded proceedings. (d) Estoppel—Mortgagor received balance sale proceeds after auction without objecting to auction process—Sale deed registered and mutation sanctioned—Held, legal heirs of mortgagor estopped from challenging sale proceedings—Acceptance of proceeds amounted to waiver of right to object—Application barred. Disposition: Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., dismissed for lack of merit and maintainability; no fraud, misrepresentation, or jurisdictional defect found; transaction held to be past and closed.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XXXVII---Suit for recovery on basis of cheque---Maintainability---Cheque returned with memo stating “photo account”---No dishonour in legal sense---Trial court judgment reversed---Respondent/plaintiff filed suit under Order XXXVII C.P.C. seeking recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- based on a cheque allegedly issued by the appellant/defendant against a loan---Trial court decreed the suit---High Court held that the cheque was issued against a “photo account” and was not dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds or refusal to honour, but rather due to procedural non-compliance requiring personal presence of account holder under bank rules---Such return did not constitute legal dishonour of the cheque under the law---Held, suit lacked valid cause of action as no dishonour occurred in legal terms---Trial court erred in law by treating the cheque as dishonoured. (b) Evidence Act (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984): ----Art. 129(g)---Withholding of best evidence---Adverse presumption---Plaintiff failed to produce key witnesses and did not name relatives who allegedly provided funds---Adverse inference drawn---Plaintiff claimed to have lent Rs.25,00,000/- to appellant in presence of witnesses and arranged funds from unnamed relatives---However, did not produce her brother, other key eyewitnesses or documentary proof of financial status---Held, presumption under Art. 129(g) operated against her for withholding best available evidence---Adverse inference drawn that unproduced witnesses, if examined, would not have supported the plaintiff’s case---Reliance placed on: • Sughran Bibi v. Mst. Aziz Begum (1996 SCMR 137) • Jehangir v. Mst. Shams Sultana (2022 SCMR 309) • Ghulam Fareed v. Daulan Bibi (2024 SCMR 202) • Sher Ayaz Khan v. Gul Najeeb Khan (2025 SCMR 380) (c) Banking Practice and Cheque Law: ----Photo account---Procedure for encashment---Cheque not encashable unless holder appears in person---Non-compliance renders presentation invalid---Cheque in question was drawn on a photo account, which under State Bank Circular No.10 of 2003 and bank rules could only be encashed with personal appearance of account holder---Respondent/plaintiff failed to comply with this requirement---Cheque thus not legally presented---Presentation and return under such circumstances could not be construed as dishonour of cheque---Reliance placed on Terms & Conditions of commercial banks and definition of "dishonour" in banking law. (d) Cheques---Nature and Authenticity: ----Cheque payable to “cash”---Multiple ink entries---Creates serious doubt about authenticity---Cheque was made payable to “cash” and contained writings in three different inks---Such discrepancies raised serious doubts regarding genuineness and execution of the cheque---Bank officials confirmed cheque could be encashed by any bearer and no specific endorsement to plaintiff was present. (e) Criminal Law and Effect of Acquittal: ----S. 489-F, Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Acquittal in criminal case---Plaintiff failed to challenge acquittal---Effect---Plaintiff had also lodged an FIR under S. 489-F PPC which resulted in acquittal of the appellant/accused---Admittedly, no appeal was filed against said acquittal---Held, acquittal lent further credence to appellant’s defence that cheque was not issued to plaintiff and supported plea of cheque being misused. (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XLI, R. 31---Misreading and non-reading of evidence---Reversal of trial court judgment---High Court found that trial court committed grave legal error by misreading evidence and failing to consider absence of credible proof, resulting in reversal of findings---Suit dismissed---Reliance placed on: • Nazim-ud-Din v. Sheikh Zia-Ul-Qamar (2016 SCMR 24) • Mehr Noor Muhammad v. Nazir Ahmad (PLD 2024 SC 45) ----Disposition: Appeal allowed; judgment & decree dated 16.03.2024 set aside; suit dismissed. ----Quote: Suit under order XXXVII CPC, 1908--- Suit for recovery of dishonoured cheque pertaining to Photo Account--- Clause 1.5 of Circular 10 dated 29.03.2003 of State Bank of Pakistan--- A unilateral presentation of a Photo Account cheque without associating the account holder, if said cheque is dishoured in absence of Photo Account Holder dishonouring of cheque is invalid and same does not give rise to cause of action to institute suit under Order XXXVII CPC. Thus suit stood dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----S. 12(2)—Application for setting aside judgment on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation—Maintainability—Requirements—Scope—Applicants (legal heirs of mortgagor) challenged High Court judgment in constitutional petition allowing auction purchaser’s prayer for possession—Grounds taken included non-impleadment of legal heirs, and maintainability of constitutional petition—Held, applicants were impleaded and represented in restoration proceedings; counsel was present, requested adjournment, and subsequently failed to appear—No concealment or fraud practiced—Constitutional petition was filed against interlocutory order which was not appealable—Application under S.12(2), C.P.C., not maintainable in absence of fraud practiced upon the Court or jurisdictional defect—Dismissed. (b) Constitutional Petition – Maintainability – Banking jurisdiction: ----Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Ss. 15 & 22—Constitutional petition filed against interlocutory order of Banking Court—Petitioner sought possession of auctioned property which was denied by Banking Court due to late filing of statement of accounts—Held, constitutional jurisdiction was rightly invoked as no appeal lay against such interlocutory order—Objection to maintainability was beyond the scope of S.12(2), C.P.C. (c) Constitutional Law – Validity of Statutory Provision – Effect of Declaration of Ultra Vires – Past and Closed Transactions: ----Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, S. 15—Declaration of S.15 as ultra vires by Supreme Court—Effect—Where sale deed was executed, mutation sanctioned, and proceeds adjusted—Sale held to be a past and closed transaction—High Court relied on Muhammad Moizuddin v. Mansoor Khalil 2017 SCMR 1787 and National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 2014 SC 283—Held, once auction purchaser deposited entire bid amount, sale certificate was issued, mutation entered, and predecessor of applicants withdrew balance sale proceeds without objection, auction became final and could not be re-opened under guise of constitutional challenge or S.12(2), C.P.C. (d) Estoppel – Withdrawal of Sale Proceeds – Challenge Barred: ----Respondent No.3 purchased mortgaged property in auction—Predecessor of applicants did not object to auction and withdrew remaining sale proceeds—Subsequent challenge by legal heirs held barred—Applicants estopped from denying validity of auction or seeking reversal of sale proceedings. Ali Muhammad v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1984 SCMR 94 followed. (e) Civil Procedure – Burden of Proof in S.12(2), C.P.C. Application: ----Applicants failed to establish any of the essential grounds under S.12(2), C.P.C., namely that fraud was practiced upon the Court, forged documents were used, active concealment occurred, or there was want of jurisdiction—Mere dissatisfaction with outcome or legal strategy does not justify interference—Application dismissed for lack of merit. ----Disposition: Application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. dismissed as not maintainable and meritless.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----O. XXXVII—Suit for recovery on basis of cheque—Requirements—Failure to prove cause of action—Plaintiff claimed to have advanced Rs.25,00,000/- loan to defendant and filed suit under summary procedure based on cheque—Trial Court decreed suit—On appeal, High Court found plaintiff failed to prove lending transaction through concrete evidence—Name of plaintiff absent on cheque, cheque marked “cash,” written in multiple inks—Return memo only cited “photo account,” not dishonour—Held, plaintiff failed to prove issuance of cheque against loan—Appeal allowed, trial court judgment set aside. Mehr Noor Muhammad v. Nazir Ahmad PLD 2024 SC 45 followed. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 129(g)—Withholding of best evidence—Presumption—Plaintiff did not produce her brother (who was allegedly the link between parties), nor key witnesses named in plaint who were allegedly present during loan transaction—Court held adverse inference to be drawn—Non-production of witnesses presumed to be unfavorable to plaintiff’s case. Sughran Bibi v. Aziz Begum 1996 SCMR 137; Jehangir v. Mst. Shams Sultana 2022 SCMR 309; Ghulam Fareed v. Daulan Bibi 2024 SCMR 202; Sher Ayaz Khan v. Gul Najeeb Khan 2025 SCMR 380 relied on. (c) Negotiable Instruments—Dishonour of cheque—"Photo Account"—Effect: ----S. 489-F, Penal Code (XLV of 1860); Bank Circulars—Cheque issued on photo account was returned due to account holder’s non-appearance, not due to insufficient funds—Held, return under “photo account” does not amount to dishonour under banking law or criminal law—Cheque not legally dishonoured—No cause of action accrued for filing suit based on dishonour. Definition of dishonour referred to; SBP Circular No.10 dated 29.03.2003 and Bank Alfalah Terms & Conditions examined. (d) Bank Accounts—Photo Account—Operational Requirements: ----As per SBP regulations and bank policies, cheques issued on photo accounts require personal appearance of account holder for encashment—Cheque presented without adherence to procedure—Held, cheque could not be encashed or treated as dishonoured without following prescribed mechanism. (e) Cheque—Not payable to plaintiff—Effect: ----Cheque marked “Cash” and not issued in plaintiff’s name—As per banking practice, such cheque may be cashed by bearer—Plaintiff failed to show possession with authority—Entry made in three different inks raised suspicion about manipulation—Court found cheque unreliable as evidence of liability. (f) Criminal Acquittal—Effect on civil suit based on same cheque: ----Accused/appellant acquitted in FIR under S. 489-F PPC—Plaintiff did not challenge acquittal—Though civil liability is independent, failure to appeal criminal acquittal weakened plaintiff’s position—Combined with lack of independent proof of loan, civil suit also found unmerited. (g) Appellate Jurisdiction—Misreading and Non-reading of Evidence—Scope of Interference: ----Trial court erred by ignoring material contradictions and failing to appreciate that plaintiff withheld key witnesses and documents—High Court reversed trial court’s decree due to clear misreading of evidence. Nazim-ud-Din v. Sheikh Zia-ul-Qamar 2016 SCMR 24 followed. ---Disposition: Appeal allowed; trial court judgment & decree dated 16.03.2024 set aside; respondent’s suit dismissed.

Summary: If according to own case of prosecution, parcel was comprising of recovered pistol as well as live bullets but in the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, it was mentioned that said parcel was having pistol but presence of live bullets is not mentioned in the same, then it means that safe custody of said parcel has been compromised and not proved.

Summary: Service Rules of Employees of Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, 2008--- ----R. 8 (b) (i)---Employee of Pakistan Defence Housing Authority---Services, dispensing of---Powers---Grievance of the petitioner, who was holding contract position of UDC in the Pakistan Defence Housing Authority (PDHA), was that his services were wrongly dispensed with---Validity---At the time services of the petitioner were dispensed with through the impugned letter, R. 8b(i) of Service Rules of Employees of Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, 2008 was in field ; which Rule reads that the Administrator may dispense with the services of an employee by giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof---Similarly, an employee may resign from service by giving one month's notice by paying one month's pay in lieu thereof---Thus, the services of the petitioner were legally dispensed with under R. 8(b)(i) of the Service Rules for Employees of PDOHA-2008---No illegality in the dispensment of the services of the petitioner was found---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others 2017 SCMR 2010 and C.P. No.D-838 of 2014 distinguished. Ehsanullah for Petitioner. Malik Naeem Iqbal and Talha Abbasi for Respondent No.2.

Summary: Scope and extent of the jurisdiction of Banking Mohtasib and widespread misconceptions attached thereto.

Summary: Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973--- Sale of resumed evacuee land to the subsequent purchase from the fraudulent allottee whose allotment was cancelled--- Under Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) (Amendment) Act, 2022 (XXI of 2022), the Notified Officer/ Chief Settlement Commissioner or the Full Board of Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to dispose of resumed evacuee land through private treaty or any other mode. It is only the Provincial Government which may utilize such resumed evacuee land only for public purpose--- Writ Petition dismissed.