Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----S. 115—Concurrent findings of fact—Revisional jurisdiction—Scope and limitation—Findings of fact by trial and appellate courts based on proper appraisal of evidence—High Court held that revisional powers are not to be exercised unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional defect, or gross illegality—Petitioner failed to point out any perversity or material illegality—Held, concurrent findings do not warrant interference in revision. Allah Bakhsh v. Muhammad Riaz PLD 2025 SC 63; Muhammad Shamim Ali v. Mst. Asma Begum 2024 SCMR 1642; Muhammad Aslam v. Maulvi Muhammad Ishaq 2024 SCMR 1390 relied on. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Arts. 17(2)(a) & 79—Proof of financial agreement—Mandatory attestation—Loan transaction—Respondent/plaintiff produced written agreement (Exh.P-1) regarding repayment of Rs.20,37,000/-—Agreement attested by two marginal witnesses produced and examined as PW-2 and PW-3—Execution proved in accordance with mandatory requirements under Arts. 17 & 79—Trial court rightly relied on properly proved document. Khudadad v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah 2022 SCMR 933; Hafiz Tasaddaq Hussain v. Muhammad Din PLD 2011 SC 241 followed. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 129(g)—Withholding of best evidence—Adverse inference—Petitioner claimed amount was paid by third party (Ch. Mubarak Ali) and transaction was on behalf of Shahid Mehmood—However, neither of them were produced in court nor summoned—Court held that failure to produce material witnesses attracted adverse presumption under Art.129(g) that evidence if produced would be unfavorable to petitioner. Jehangir v. Mst. Shams Sultana 2022 SCMR 309 relied on. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Arts. 117 & 119—Burden of proof—Onus to prove specific plea—Petitioner claimed money was owed by plaintiff/respondent and that cheques were repayment of another party’s debt—Court held petitioner failed to discharge burden under Art. 117 and did not prove alternative plea by any cogent evidence under Art. 119—Assertions made without proof were rejected. Mst. Naziran v. Ali Bukhsh 2024 SCMR 1271; Mazhar Saeed v. A.D.J. 2011 YLR 3089 distinguished. (e) Contract—Loan agreement—Validity and recovery: ----Respondent proved execution of loan agreement and disbursal of Rs.20,37,000/- via two cheques which were duly encashed by the petitioner—Petitioner admitted receipt during cross-examination—Contrary version regarding repayment on behalf of third party unsupported by documentary or oral evidence—Held, suit for recovery rightly decreed. ----Disposition: Civil Revision dismissed. Concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts upheld.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ----S. 9(c)––Possession of Methamphetamine (“Ice”)––Safe custody and transmission of narcotics—Chain of custody—Legal requirement and evidentiary implications Conviction of petitioner under S. 9(c), CNSA for alleged recovery of 1800 grams of Methamphetamine was set aside due to critical lapses in the prosecution’s case regarding chain of custody—Held, prosecution failed to prove safe and secure movement of recovered contraband from the point of recovery to the forensic laboratory—Key witness who transported case property to police station was neither cited nor examined—Seizing officer failed to mention delivery of narcotics to police station or FSL—No receipt issued by Moharrir; Register No.19 not produced—Investigating Officer failed to record statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. or document how samples reached the FSL—In absence of a complete, unbroken, and documented chain of custody, the chemical examiner’s report was rendered unsafe to rely upon. ➤ Followed: Javed Iqbal v. The State (2023 SCMR 139); Qaiser Khan v. The State (2021 SCMR 363); Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State (2021 SCMR 451); Zubair Khan v. The State (2021 SCMR 492); Asif Ali and another v. The State (2024 SCMR 1408) (b) Criminal Trial—Chain of Custody—Legal Standard ----Burden of proof—Material discrepancies—Effect Held, in narcotics cases where punishments are severe, the prosecution is obligated to prove each link in the chain of custody with clear and corroborated evidence—Failure to cite, examine, or document persons in whose custody narcotics remained is fatal to the prosecution’s case—Unexplained gaps and contradictory witness statements create serious doubt in the integrity of evidence, requiring benefit of doubt to be extended to accused. ➤ Relied on: Abdul Ghani and others v. The State and others (PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C) 462) (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 161—Failure to record statements—Adverse inference Held, Investigating Officer’s failure to record or produce statements of material witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., including persons involved in transmitting the narcotics, indicated procedural lapses—Such omissions compromise the evidentiary value of prosecution’s case—Benefit must go to the accused. (d) Evidence Act, 1872 ----Principle—Benefit of doubt—Mandatory in case of prosecution failure Where prosecution fails to prove secure transmission and handling of narcotics, and evidence is riddled with inconsistencies, the law mandates that benefit of doubt be extended to the accused—Court reiterated the foundational principle that no one shall be convicted unless the prosecution’s case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Conviction and sentence under S. 9(c) CNSA set aside—Petitioner acquitted of the charge and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Federal Excise Act, 2005 ----S. 3(5)(c)---Franchise services---Liability to pay duty---Legal incidence of excise duty---Franchiser vs franchisee---Scope and interpretation Dispute regarding who bears legal incidence of excise duty on franchise services provided within Pakistan—Department contended liability lay on the respondent franchiser under S. 3(5)(c), while taxpayer argued Rule 43A shifted liability to franchisees—Held, parent statute clearly fixed legal obligation to pay duty on the person providing the service, i.e., the franchiser—Statutory scheme admits no exception unless expressly provided—Franchisees made liable only where franchiser is located outside Pakistan—Court reaffirmed distinction between legal incidence of tax (imposed by statute) and its economic burden (commercially passed on)—Held, delegated legislation cannot override or alter express provisions of parent statute—High Court and Tribunal erred in placing reliance on Rule 43A—Appeal allowed and legal incidence affirmed on franchiser. Cited Case: • British India Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1963 SC 104 (relied) (b) Interpretation of Statutes ----Delegated legislation---Limits---Subordinate legislation cannot override express provision of statute---Franchise excise regime Rule 43A of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005 held to be inapplicable to franchise agreements between Pakistani entities—Court observed that Rule 43A, though validly framed before insertion of S. 3(5), could not continue to operate once legal incidence was expressly codified in the parent statute—Any attempt to shift liability via rule-making beyond what is provided in the statute declared ultra vires—Distinguished from Sales Tax Act, 1990, where express power exists under S. 3(3A) to shift tax burden—No such enabling clause in the Federal Excise Act, 2005—Court clarified that tax rules cannot create primary liability where none exists under statute. (c) Tax Procedure---Reference under wrong statute ----Federal Excise Act, 2005---S. 34A---Sales Tax Act, 1990---S. 47---Wrong statutory provision invoked in tax reference---Effect Respondent argued that department filed reference before High Court under wrong law, i.e., S. 47 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 instead of S. 34A of Federal Excise Act, 2005—Court held this to be a procedural irregularity of no consequence—No objection raised before High Court, and same cause of action and forum involved—Petition maintained and appeal proceeded on merits.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 185(3)---Civil revision---Leave to appeal---Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference by Supreme Court---Petitioner’s suit for declaration of ownership based on a gift deed was dismissed by Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court---Held, when three Courts below concurrently appreciate evidence and reach same factual findings, Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere unless miscarriage of justice or gross illegality is shown---No case for interference made out---Leave refused and petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Mst. Farzana Zia v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb (2024 SCMR 916) • Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLJ 2023 SC 8) (b) Gift (Hiba)---Islamic law---Declaration and validity of oral/registered gift---Requirements---Scope **Donor's retention of possession---Effect---**Gift deed relied upon by petitioner showed that donor had retained possession during his lifetime---Held, retention of possession negates one of the essential elements of a valid gift---Where gift deed imposes future rights or obligations, it must be compulsorily registered---In absence of valid delivery of possession, no lawful title passes to donee. Cited Provisions: • Registration Act, 1908, S. 49 • Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 123 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984) ----Art. 79---Proof of document required by law to be attested---Marginal witnesses---Failure to produce---Effect---Petitioner failed to produce attesting witnesses of the gift deed---Witnesses presented only confirmed signatures without establishing reasons for non-production of marginal witnesses or invoking secondary evidence---Held, mandatory requirements of Art. 79 not fulfilled---No evidentiary value attached to such testimony. ---(d) Islamic Inheritance Principles---Exclusion of legal heirs---Scope and burden of proof---**Petitioner, being grandsons, failed to justify why donor would exclude his sons (legal heirs) from inheritance---Held, burden was on donee to establish circumstances justifying exclusion of heirs---Such facts were neither pleaded nor proved---Courts rightly rejected claim. Cited Cases: • Fareed v. Muhammad Tufail (2018 SCMR 139) • Mst. Tahira Samina v. Javed Saeed Tariq (2024 SCMR 24) ---- (e) Evidence---Oral transaction of gift---Burden and standard of proof---Constructive possession-------In oral or informal transactions, donee must prove gift through unimpeachable evidence, including specific details such as date, time, location, and witnesses---Possession by one heir is presumed to be on behalf of all legal heirs unless rebutted---Held, none of these requirements were fulfilled in the present case. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Shafiq Ullah v. Allah Bakhsh (2021 SCMR 763) • Muhammad Sarwar v. Mumtaz Bibi (2020 SCMR 276) • Mst. Tahira Samina v. Javed Saeed Tariq (2024 SCMR 24) ---- (f) Limitation Act, 1908---Inheritance---Right not extinguished by passage of time---Held, mere passage of time does not defeat rightful claims to inheritance---Limitation is not applicable where fraud is alleged or inheritance right is being claimed. Cited Cases: • Mohammad Boota v. Mst. Fatima (2023 SCMR 1901) • Syed Kausar Ali Shah v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah (2022 SCMR 1558)

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (XLVI of 2001) ----S. 9(1), S. 2(c), S. 2(e), S. 15---Maintainability of Suit---Essential elements---Mortgage Deed and General Power of Attorney (GPA)---Sale of mortgaged property without execution proceedings---Scope and legal consequences---Plaintiff had mortgaged property to secure a loan obtained by a third-party borrower company and also executed a GPA in favour of the defendant-Bank---Upon borrower’s default, defendant-Bank obtained a decree in COS No.10/2002 but did not implead plaintiff nor initiate proceedings under S.15 of the Ordinance against her---Plaintiff successfully moved an application to have her property excluded from execution proceedings, and it was deleted from the Fard Taliqa on 08.12.2016---Subsequently, defendant-Bank sold the mortgaged property on the basis of GPA to defendants No.2 to 4---Held, that for maintainability of a suit under S.9 of the Ordinance, existence of (i) a ‘customer’, (ii) a ‘financial institution’, and (iii) a ‘default’ in fulfilment of an ‘obligation’ regarding any finance must be established---In present case, although plaintiff could be construed as a ‘customer’ and defendant as a ‘financial institution’, there was no ‘default’ in relation to a finance as contemplated by S.2(e)---Property was sold solely through GPA, not under Mortgage Deed or decree, and GPA did not create an enforceable ‘obligation’ under S.2(e)---Therefore, no cause of action under S.9 was made out---Suit held not maintainable. Cited Cases: • Amtex Limited v. Bank Islami Pakistan Ltd. 2016 CLD 2007 • Al-Raheem Rice Mills v. Bank Alfalah Ltd. 2018 CLD 1351 • Ishfaq Ahmed v. Habib Bank Ltd. 2017 CLD 1639 • Sh. Altan Azmat v. Habib Bank Ltd. 2014 CLD 1636 • Mian Mehmood Ahmad v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp. 2010 CLD 293 (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (XLVI of 2001) ----S. 2(e)---Definition of “obligation”---Scope---Applicability to General Power of Attorney (GPA)---GPA executed by plaintiff in favour of Bank held to be an independent legal instrument and not an “obligation” under S.2(e)---Held, that obligations under S.2(e)(ii) relate to representations, warranties, and covenants made by customer regarding finance and associated securities, and do not include acts of the financial institution under a GPA---Mere existence of Mortgage Deed did not confer right to invoke S.9 when GPA was independently relied upon for sale---Plaintiff’s challenge pertained to GPA-based sale, not enforcement or default of the mortgage itself---Thus, GPA not covered under S.2(e) and suit under Ordinance not competent. (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 199---Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), O.VII, Rr.10 & 11---Return or rejection of plaint---Separate application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC---Maintainability---Plea that separate application under O.VII, R.11 CPC was barred after amendment introducing Rule 11-A---Held, not sustainable---Jurisdictional objections already raised and Issue No.1 framed on maintainability in prior proceedings---Court competent to examine maintainability even at interlocutory stage---Plaint returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for want of jurisdiction under the Banking Ordinance. Cited Cases: • Al-Baraka Bank (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Enshaa Holdings Ltd. 2019 CLD 1350 • Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. v. Soneri Bank Ltd. 2018 CLD 203 • Summit Bank Ltd. v. Qasim & Co. 2015 CLD 1377 • Haji Dad Muhammad v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. 2011 CLD 785 • Procter & Gamble Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Bank Al-Falah Ltd. 2007 CLD 1532 Disposition: Plaint returned under Order VII Rule 10, CPC for lack of jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched.---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25---Suit for past and future maintenance of minors, recovery of dower amount and house rent---Counter guardianship application filed by the husband---Right of dower---Enforceability---Trial Court through consolidated judgment decreed the suit of the wife excluding the relief of house rent and dismissed guardianship application, but the Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the husband and set aside the decree passed in favour of the wife---Validity---Appellate Court while adjudicating upon the matter pertaining to dowry article and maintenance had not only misconceived the law, but had also made a blanket observation without referring to a particular statement of a witness, thus, the Appellate Court had not appreciated and analyzed the evidence of the petitioner in its true prospective, thus, the reasons drawn by the Appellate Court for setting aside the decree for recovery of dower amount and maintenance was contrary to law and sheer result of misreading of evidence---Dower amount cannot be waived of under any circumstances as it is an indefeasible right of the spouse and she enjoys exclusive and absolute right over her dower, which cannot be relinquished at any cost---Judgment and decree of the appellate court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Haseena Bibi v. Abdul Haleem PLD 2024 SC 291 rel. (b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 17(3) & 25---Custody of minors---Welfare of minor---Paramount consideration---Non-consideration of factor of intelligent preference by minors---Effect----Pea of inability of the mother to afford the expenses of children---Legality---It is primary duty of the father to bear the expenses of the children and merely the inability of the mother to afford the expenses of their children does not disqualify her from retaining the custody of the minor(s)---If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the court may consider that preference as well, but such right of preference had not been given to the children. Mst. Razia Bibi v. Riaz Ahmad 2004 SCMR 821 and Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen 2022 SCMR 2123 rel. Rizwan Somro for Petitioner. Shah Wali for Respondent No. 1. Arbab Nasruminallah, Additional Advocate General for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 14th April, 2025.

Summary: The questions of limitation, waiver and acquiescence cannot be brushed aside in every claim of inheritance. ? The distinction has to be drawn between a claim of inheritance agitated during the lifetime of the legal heir(s) and the one agitated after death of such legal heir(s)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The questions of limitation, waiver and acquiescence cannot be brushed aside in every claim of inheritance. ? The distinction has to be drawn between a claim of inheritance agitated during the lifetime of the legal heir(s) and the one agitated after death of such legal heir(s) 531Election 34877/20 SNGPL . Vs Waseem Majid Malik etc Mr. Justice Shahid Karim 22- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 3529 2025 CLD 1260 (Lahore)