Summary: (a) The meaning and concept of Waqf, its literally means 'detention, 'stoppage' or 'tying up' Technically it means a dedication in perpetuity of some specific property for a pious purpose or a succession of pious purpose. (B) Cy-prés means following as nearly as possible the intention of donor. When a particular mode of charity indicated by donor is not capable of being carried into effect but the donor has expressed a general intention of charity, the Court does not allow the trust to fail but execute it 'Cy-prés' that is in some way as nearly as possible to that which the testator specified.Failure of object given by the testator essential. For the application of Cy-prés, the failure of the particular object specified by the testator is an essential pre-condition. Alternatively, this doctrine can be applied when surplus is left after satisfying the purpose specified by donor.The prime rule to be observed in the application of the Cy-prés doctrine is that donor intention must be observed as far as possible.

Summary: The impugned order of the learned court below reveals that the grounds made basis for the confirmation of the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the respondent/accused was nothing more but deeper appreciation of the record which is unwarranted at the bail stage. The learned court below has held the case of accused as one of further inquiry and even did not touch the basic ingredient of malafide or ulterior motives for false implication of the accused, which is a sine qua non for confirmation of pre-arrest bail. Though, the pre- arrest bail being an extra-ordinary relief, can only be extended in the cases where an accused does not prima-facie appears to have committed a non-bailable offence particularly when only oral allegations are leveled in the F.I.R. Thus, the learned court below fell into error while passing the impugned order, which calls for the interference of this court. [BCA allowed, pre-arrest bail allowed to the accused by the lower fora is recalled.]

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 188; Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, R.1; Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 76--- Review jurisdiction—Scope and limitations—Principles governing maintainability of review petitions—Held, power of review under Art.188 of the Constitution is circumscribed by statutory rules and limited to instances where an error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated or where new and material evidence is discovered that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence—Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided through conscious and deliberate adjudication—Mechanical repetition of arguments or mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of a judgment is not a ground for review—Advocates must certify review applications based on demonstrable errors, failing which they may face disciplinary action—Court denounced the growing trend of frivolous and vexatious review applications as a misuse of judicial resources and a violation of the finality of judgments. Director Education Officer (Female) Charsadda v. Sonia Begum 2023 SCMR 217 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s MSC Switzerland Geneva 2023 SCMR 1011 Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major (R) Muzaffar Khan Malik PLD 2021 SC 715 (b) Review Jurisdiction—Standards for Grant: ----Misconstruction of law, misreading of evidence, and non-consideration of vital pleas—When review lies--- Principles laid down—(i) Review lies where mistake or error is self-evident and materially impacts outcome; (ii) orders made on erroneous assumptions of fact or overlooking settled law are reviewable; (iii) misreading of evidence or non-consideration of relevant arguments may amount to error on record; (iv) no review lies where conscious decision is taken on fact or law; (v) rehearing of decided case is impermissible; (vi) error must be visible without elaborate reasoning; (vii) review lies if manifest wrong has occurred requiring rectification for justice—Courts must avoid converting review into an appeal—Judges of apex Court bear solemn duty to correct such errors, where pointed out. Wali Jan v. Government of KPK 2022 PLC(CS) 336 Sarhad Development Authority NWFP v. Nawab Ali Khan 2020 SCMR 265 (c) Legal Ethics—Frivolous Litigation—Advocate Responsibility--- Abuse of review process—Warning against mechanical filing of review petitions—Held, review petitions filed without valid grounds or merely to prolong litigation waste judicial time and resources—Advocates issuing certificates without proper basis may be subject to disciplinary action under the Supreme Court Rules—Review is a narrow remedy not to be employed as a fallback for failed litigants—Judiciary urged to exercise restraint and maintain sanctity of final judgments. ----Disposition: Review petitions dismissed with costs for lack of merit and failure to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 188 Scope of review jurisdiction—Reiteration of settled principles—Grounds for review—Distinction from appeal—Frivolous litigation—Costs. Petitioners sought review of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment reported as Director Education Officer (Female), Charsadda v. Sonia Begum and others (2023 SCMR 217), wherein appointments of Primary School Teachers (PSTs) were upheld based on valid domicile certificates, despite discrepancies in CNIC addresses—Court reaffirmed that, under S.3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors and Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011, domicile certificates, and not CNIC addresses, determine eligibility—Petitioners attempted to reargue already adjudicated matters without demonstrating any mistake apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence—Court held that under Art.188 of the Constitution, read with O.XXVI R.1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and O.XLVII R.1, C.P.C., review jurisdiction is limited and not to be confused with appellate power—Review may be granted only in cases of a self-evident error or newly discovered material—Petitioners' arguments were found to be reiterative and conclusively decided—Review petitions dismissed. ----Cited Cases: • Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. President of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 119 • M/s Habib and Co. v. Muslim Commercial Bank PLD 2020 SC 227 • Engineers Study Forum v. Federation of Pakistan 2016 SCMR 1961 • Govt. of Punjab v. Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq PLD 2016 SC 421 • Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue) BOR 2010 SCMR 1049 (b) Administration of Justice: ----Judicial process—Frivolous and vexatious litigation—Impact on system—Pending caseload—Deterrence through cost imposition. Court highlighted the systemic burden posed by frivolous litigation, noting that over 56,000 cases were pending before the Supreme Court, including 2,628 review petitions—Petitions that merely rehash previously decided points waste judicial time, delay resolution of genuine disputes, and undermine public trust in the judiciary—Court emphasized that abuse of process must be discouraged through imposition of costs under O.XXVIII, R.3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980—Such measures serve as necessary deterrents and help preserve access to justice for bona fide litigants—Court relied on jurisprudence supporting the principle that costs can be imposed for meritless or dilatory conduct. ----Cited Cases: • Inter Quest Informatics Services v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2025 SCMR 257 • Mukhtar Mai v. Abdul Khaliq 2019 SCMR 1302 • Jamshoro Joint Venture v. Khawaja Muhammad Asif 2014 SCMR 1858 • Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp. 496 U.S. 384 (1990) • Cropper v. Smith (1884) 25 Ch D 700 • British Columbia v. Okanagan Indian Band [2003] SCC 71 ----Disposition: Review petitions dismissed as frivolous, meritless, and an abuse of process. Court reiterated the narrow scope of review jurisdiction and ordered the imposition of costs as a deterrent to frivolous litigation.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) —-O. VII, R. 11—Rejection of plaint—Scope—Limitation—Cause of action—Held, plaint cannot be rejected unless it ex facie appears barred by limitation or discloses no cause of action—In suit for specific performance, if limitation or cause of action requires factual inquiry, plaint cannot be rejected without evidence—Facts in plaint must be taken as correct for purposes of O.VII, R.11 CPC—Irshad Ali v. Sajjad Ali (PLD 1995 SC 629) and Muhammad Anwar v. Bahan (2000 YLR 378) followed. (b) Limitation Act, 1908 —-Art. 113—Specific performance—Time for performance—No specific date—Period of limitation—Held, where no specific calendar date is fixed in agreement, limitation begins when plaintiff has notice of refusal—Agreement stipulating performance “within six months” falls within second limb of Art. 113—Question of when notice of refusal was received is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence—Mst. Kulsoom v. Mrs. Marium (1988 CLC 870), Mst. Nazar Rauf v. Dr. Riaz Ahmad (PLD 1988 Lah 390), and Mst. Bibi Khatoon v. Abdul Jalil (PLD 1978 SC 213) relied upon. (c) Specific Performance—Readiness and willingness —-Agreement to sell—Disputed execution—Agency—Scope—Plaint alleged that vendor’s agent executed agreement—Denial of authority by vendor—Held, such issue is factual in nature and requires framing of issue and trial—Rejection of plaint on this ground without recording evidence is unjustified—Plaint discloses cause of action and readiness and willingness was duly pleaded—Plaint could not be rejected without trial. (d) Declaratory relief—Agreement to sell—Maintainability —-Agreement not signed by vendor—Suit for declaration and specific performance—Maintainability—Held, declaratory relief can be sought with respect to agreement to sell if coupled with specific performance—Disputed authority of signatory requires proof—Whether person executing agreement was authorized by vendor must be resolved after evidence—Trial court erred in rejecting plaint without inquiry. Disposition: Revision petition dismissed—Order of remand by appellate court upheld—Trial court to decide case on merits after recording of evidence.

Summary: (Against the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P.No.4218 of 2008). Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)--- ----S. 30---Punjab Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S.8---Review---Maxim audi alteram partem---Judicial and executive authorities--- Proprietary rights---Board of Revenue was aggrieved of review of order passed in judicial side during executive proceedings, whereby grant of proprietary rights were recalled---Validity---Board of Revenue, exercising its powers on judicial side, granted proprietary rights in land to respondents---Board of Revenue had no powers on administrative side to set at naught the judicial orders, even more so when they had attained finality---Senior Member, Board of Revenue, had no jurisdiction to pass order in question which had been challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction before High Court, for the same purports to have been passed in exercise of suo motu review jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue---By virtue of the provisions of Section 8 of Board of Revenue Act,1957 no such power vested in the Board---If suo motu review was to be exercised by the Board for rectifying decision of a Member suffering from incorrect interpretation and application of law or non-appreciation of facts, it would lead to an unending cycle of litigation---Such order was also illegal as it had been passed in disregard of principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard, as embodied in the maxim, audi alteram partem---General letter of Senior Member had set aside a judicial order of Member (Judicial) through an administrative order---Supreme Court declined to interfere in order passed by High Court who appreciated law and had rightly adjudicated upon the matter and passed order in question within the four corners of law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Basher Ahmed (Deceased) through LRs. v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Lahore and others 2022 SCMR 620; Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore PLD 1971 SC 61; Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others 2008 SCMR 589; Riaz Hussain and others v. Board of Revenue and others 1991 SCMR 2307; Commissioner of Income Tax East Pakistan v. Fazlur Rahman PLD 1964 SC 410; Chuttan and another v. Sufaid Khan and another 1987 SCMR 503; The University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1965 SC 90 and Syed Abul A'la Maudoodi v. The Government of West Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 673 rel. Ahmad Awais Qazi, Additional Advocate General Punjab for Petitioners. M.A. Ghaffar Ul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Assisted by: Owais Nasir, L.C. Date of hearing: 27th March, 2025.

Summary: ----S. 11 & O.VII, R.11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.9---Res judicata---Applicability---Institution of a fresh suit on same cause of action after rejection of plaint in previous suit---Legality and scope--- Rejection of plaint and dismissal of suit---Connotations and distinction- --The petitioner filed a suit under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 for recovery of possession---The respondents filed an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., arguing that the suit was barred by res judicata, since earlier suits had already been rejected, and therefore a fresh suit on the same cause of action was not maintainable---The Trial Court dismissed the application, but the appellate court reversed that order and held the suit barred under S. 11, C.P.C.---The main challenge before the High Court was to “contest the appellate court’s finding of res judicata and the maintainability of the petitioner’s suit”---Held: Admittedly the previous two suits were not dismissed after settlement of issues and recording of evidence, on the contrary, the plaint of those suits were rejected---Rejection of plaint could not bar the petitioner/plaintiff to re-institute a suit---Rejection of the plaint under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. did not preclude the petitioner/plaintiff from re-institution of a fresh suit which was permissible under O. VII, R. 13, C.P.C. provided the earlier suit was neither expressly nor impliedly barred by any law---The impugned order was set aside with modification that suit filed against the respondent No.1 (government) was rejected being barred under the proviso of S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 while the said suit was maintainable against the respondent No.2---Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the said suit after notice to parties and decide the same in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ali and others v. Province of Punjab and others 2009 SCMR 1079 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 11 & O. VII, R. 11---“Rejection of plaint”and“dismissal of suit”---Connotation and distinction---Res judicata---Scope---Order VII, R. 11, C.P.C. refer only words the “rejection of plaint in suit” which ought to be applied by Trial Court having power and jurisdiction to adjudicate the lis and whenever any of the basic ingredients mentioned at (a) to (d) in O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. are available on examination of plaint including documents attached thereto---In contrast, the “dismissal of suit” connotes that it is a final determination of controversy between the parties---The power and jurisdiction to dismiss the suit can only apply by Trial Court when the parties have adduced evidence, produced documents on oath and undergone with the test of cross-examination by opposite party and finally fails to clear the test of “prove”---Another key difference between the “rejection of plaint in suit” and “dismissal of suit” is that the former keep opens the door for the plaintiff to re-try or re-file or re-institute a fresh suit or, in other words, the plaintiff cannot be precluded to file afresh suit on same cause of action or joinder of new cause of actions, against same parties or include other parties or on same subject-matter or with addition or subtraction of subject-matter where it is possible for him according to situation---In contrast, the later strictly prohibit the plaintiff to institute fresh suit---The plaintiff cannot file fresh suit (case) against the same parties (including legitimate successor in interest or successor in office) or in respect of same subject- matter---The legal position is further tighten on the point of cause of action---In former case, the cause of action may be kept same for the plaintiff or he may join more cause of action to re-agitate or institute suit whilst the later omit the point of cause of action and paved out another way to tackle the cases on examination of earlier subject matter decided either directly or indirectly in previous suit (case) and it can only be invoked when the evidence is recorded, the documents have produced on oath and such document could be read as admissible evidence by Trial Court or otherwise while delivering the judgment---However, in both situations law provides statutory remedies against either order of rejection of plaint in suit or dismissal of suit by way of judgment---The former does not preclude to re-institute a suit while the latter is rule of conclusiveness which restrict plaintiff to re-agitate or institute fresh suit and is called as doctrine of res judicata emerged under S. 11 of C.P.C. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.11---Res judicata---Connotation, concept and scope---The doctrine of res judicata is based on the following three maxims: i. ‘Nemo debet bis vaxari pro una et eademcansa’ which means none should be vexed twice for the same cause.’ ii. ‘Interest reipublicaeut sit finis litium’ which means that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation. iii. ‘Res judicata pro veritateaccipitur’ which means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct---The word "res" means "thing" and "judicata" means "already decided"---Initially, the concept of "Res judicata pro veritateaccipitur" which means, a decision of a judicial authority must be duly accepted as correct, was the full maxim which has, over the years, diminished to not more than "res judicata". (d) Administration of justice--- ----Each case has to be decided on its own facts---The Court cannot force or knock out someone‘s suit having variegated style and nature of lis. Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi and others PLD 2018 SC 189 rel. (e) Administration of justice--- ----Where the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner---Another important canon of law is that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi and others PLD 2018 SC 189 rel. Nemo for Petitioner. Shamsuddin Rajpar, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan for Respondent No.1. Rajab Ali, held brief for Aslam P. Sipio, who stated to be representing Cantonment Board Hyderabad called absent for Respondent No.2. Muhammad Saleh, Office Superintendent (Legal) for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 16th April, 2025.

Summary: The sale of property by a bank acting merely in the capacity of an attorney pursuant to a General Power of Attorney (GPA) does not constitute an 'obligation' in terms of Section 2(e) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, hence, the Suit under Section 9 of the Ordinance challenging the said sale deed is not maintainable.

Summary: Summary pending