Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 602COS(B) 825/22 Faysal Bank Limited through Authorized Officer Vs Ms Tahir Omer Industries Limited etc Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi 26- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 2346 2025 CLD 1366 (Lahore)

Summary: (Against the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No. 30366 of 2024). (a) Administration of justice--- ----Laws, rules, regulations and procedures---Object, purpose and scope---Laws and Rules are enacted and formulated as well as promulgated in order to streamline working and functioning of institution(s), Court(s) and forum(s)---If any institution(s) is functioning without formal rule(s) or regulation(s) and any parameters, making its employee(s) answerable and accountable for act(s) or fault, it would cause an anomalous situation and such institution(s) would not remain functional for a long time---Same is the situation in judicial system, if litigants are allowed to proceed with their matters without following rules and regulations, framed and promulgated to lead litigation to ultimate end at the earliest, it would not only increase burden upon Court(s) but also destroy trust of general public upon the judicial system---Litigants cannot be permitted to take the Courts for granted and proceed with the lis as per their whims and wishes as well as cause agony to their rival parties without any progress in the matter(s) brought against them (rival party). (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XVII, R.3---Decision of suit in absence of evidence---Pre-conditions---Evidence of a party cannot be closed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. for non-production of evidence where the case on previous date was not adjourned at the request of such party---For the application of Order XVII, Rule 3 C.P.C. following conditions must co-exist: i) Adjournment must have been granted to the party at his request; ii) It must have been granted to it for the purposes mentioned in Order XVII, Rule 3 C.P.C.; iii) The party which has taken the time defaulted in doing the act - for which it took the time from the Court; iv) Party must be present or deemed to be present before the Court; v) There must be some material on record for decision of the case on merits and; vi) The court must decide the suit forthwith that is within a reasonable time. (c) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S. 13---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII, R.3---Suit for possession through pre-emption---Failure to produce evidence---Dismissal of suit---Principle---Petitioner / plaintiff was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed against him on his failure to produce his evidence---Validity---More than sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioner / plaintiff for producing his evidence and despite putting him under caution he did not bother to avail the same---Such indolent person(s) could not be allowed to play with the process of Court and linger on the matter on one pretext or the other, that too, without any plausible and valid reason---Petitioner was granted with absolutely last and final opportunities for production of his evidence with clear cut warnings but the petitioner did not pay any heed to such orders and direction of Trial Court---Such act of petitioner / plaintiff showed his adamant attitude towards the orders of Trial Court---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the orders passed by all Courts below---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer-Ud-Din and others 2015 SCMR 1401; Moon Enterpriser CNG Station, Rawalpindi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through General Manager, Rawalpindi and another 2020 SCMR 300; Duniya Gul and another v. Niaz Muhammad and others PLD 2024 SC 672 and Lutfullah Virk v. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh PLD 2024 SC 887 rel. Muhammad Akhtar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Syed Almas Haider Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. Assisted by: Owais Nasir, L.C. Date of hearing: 27th March, 2025.

Summary: Sections of law;- Article 199 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (a) Conditions mentioned in Nikah-Nama in the form of dower must be complied with, especially when same stand proved during the course of family proceedings. (b) Husband is bound to maintain his wife when marriage-tie between spouses is still in existence and there is willingness on part of plaintiff to rehabilitates with her husband. (c) Scope and extent of High Court in writ jurisdiction. (d) Concurrent findings of Courts below.

Summary: A careful analysis of the case-law noted above clearly gives it to understand that no doubt a right of appeal is not an inherent or vested right but is a creation of statute. Legislature is quite competent to lay different conditions when is proposes to confer upon a party such right to challenge an order before a higher forum/fora like for instance requirement to pay court fee; of sending pre-filing notice to the other side etc. But if incase the conditions so imposed are such that these are too onerous and cumbersome so as to render the very right of appeal as illusory, redundant or arduous, then obviously the same are not to be given effect to by the courts. Such clogs introduced have consistently been considered so as to curtail the right of appeal and render the same nugatory; and are taken as they run in direct conflict of the letter of Art' 4, 9 and 10-A of the Constitution. It needs hardly to reiterate that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2019 is a beneficial legislation promulgated for the larger benefit of worker / labour class of employees but while providing a right of appeal to one litigating side, a balance has to be maintained for both parties and undue preference and tilt towards the employee by relegating the employer or any other party in the manner that it has to necessarily deposit the whole sum adjudged against before it could have a recourse to appeal is too onerous and arduous as it renders the very purpose of appeal just illusory, ineffective and sham' Besides, it is also too lop-sided and discriminatory against one set of litigating party that it cannot withstand the test of Art. 25 0f the constitution of Pakistan. It can therefore be safely concluded that the impugned proviso to section 17(1) (a) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 is ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan with particular' reference to Art. 4, 9, l0-A and25 thereof. Such being a case the courts / tribunals shall not give effect to such impugned provisions6 and the appeals filed under section 17 ibid are to be dealt with, entertained and decided on merits without requiring a party to deposit the sum adjudged in the order appealed against.

Summary: (a) Evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence, in an eventuality, where an occurrence is not only a nocturnal-one but it also berefts of ocular or direct account. (b) Delayed plea of alibi has no worth and value in eyes of law, especially, when during the course of trial an accused person could not put-forward any evidence in his own defence within the meaning of section 340 (2) Cr.P.C. (c) Testimony of an injured eyewitness is required to be adjudged with judicious and independent mind in light of attending circumstances of each and every case. (d) When an occurrence took place without any planning or premeditation on part of an accused person, then benefit of such an eventuality can be extended to accused in terms of reduction of his/her sentence. (e) Distinction between punishment awarded U/S section 311 PPC in terms of Ta’zir or Qisas.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) ----O.XVII, R. 3—Failure to produce evidence—Consequence—Discretion of court—Scope— Where a party, after having been granted time for producing evidence with a clear warning that it was the last opportunity, fails to appear or adduce evidence, the trial court is empowered under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. to decide the suit on merits—Such discretion must be exercised strictly where there is persistent non-compliance and disregard for court orders—Adjournments granted without reasonable cause do not warrant further indulgence. Cited Cases: Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer-ud-Din (2015 SCMR 1401) Moon Enterprises CNG Station v. SNGPL (2020 SCMR 300) Duniya Gul v. Niaz Muhammad (PLD 2024 SC 672) Lutfullah Virk v. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh (PLD 2024 SC 887) (b) Principles of Civil Litigation ----Adjournments—Abuse of court process—Judicial discretion—Litigant conduct— A party cannot be allowed to treat litigation as an open-ended process to entangle rivals and delay final adjudication—Repeated defaults and misuse of adjournments constitute an abuse of process—Courts are duty-bound to ensure that trials are concluded without undue delay and in accordance with procedural law. (c) High Court Rules and Orders ----Volume I, Chapter 1-H, Rule 15—Adjournments for evidence—Costs not a substitute for good cause— Courts are reminded that merely offering to pay costs is not a valid ground for adjournment—Where adjournments are sought without sufficient cause, especially after issuance of a last opportunity, courts are not obliged to grant further time—Rule encourages enforcement of discipline and timely disposal of suits. (d) Judicial Efficiency & Discipline ----Litigant indolence—Repeated warnings ignored—Effect— Where a party repeatedly fails to heed court orders and warnings to lead evidence, despite being cautioned about consequences, it cannot later seek equitable relief—Courts must protect the judicial process from manipulation and uphold procedural integrity—Law favours the vigilant, not the indolent. (e) Constitutional Jurisdiction ----Art. 185(3) of the Constitution—Leave to appeal—Refusal— Petition under Article 185(3) was filed against dismissal of a pre-emption suit where plaintiff failed to lead evidence despite repeated opportunities—Supreme Court held that the lower courts acted within jurisdiction under procedural law and no miscarriage of justice was found—Leave to appeal was refused. ----Disposition: Leave to appeal refused—Petition dismissed—Order of High Court and concurrent findings of courts below affirmed—Repeated failure to produce evidence despite multiple adjournments and warnings justified closure of right to lead evidence under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.—Law must be applied strictly to discourage misuse and delay in the judicial process.

Summary: Bail denied ---- (a) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 ----Ss. 17, 22—Offence of human smuggling—Capsizing of migrant vessel resulting in death—Applicability of higher sentence Accused charged with facilitating illegal emigration of a Pakistani citizen to Italy via Libya—Victim died along with 79 others when vessel capsized near Greece—Though S.17 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 provides a lesser punishment, court held that in exceptional cases, the higher sentence under S.22 (imprisonment up to 14 years) is applicable due to the grave nature of offence—Death of intending emigrant and international embarrassment caused to the State were considered aggravating factors—Held, case fell within prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C. Cited Cases: • Haji Shahid Hussain v. The State 2017 SCMR 616 • Jehanzeb alias Bhobi v. The State 2002 SCMR 1380 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497—Bail—Discretion of Court—Exceptional circumstances—Death of victim due to criminal act Bail petition in non-bailable offence involving death of illegal emigrant—Court noted that in cases where circumstances are harsh, unusual, or involve death resulting from criminal conduct, higher punishment is likely and benefit of lesser penalty does not apply—Held, bail cannot be granted where gravity of offence and societal impact outweigh considerations of statutory minimum punishment—Petition dismissed. (c) Criminal liability—Human smuggling—Death of emigrant in foreign territory—Evidentiary value of complainant’s statement Petitioner accused of receiving Rs. 2.4 million from complainant to send his son abroad—Victim’s death confirmed; body not recovered—Statement of father, corroborated by investigative record, found credible and sufficient to establish prima facie case—Held, no mala fide on part of complainant, who had no reason to falsely implicate petitioner—Criminal liability for human smuggling sustained at bail stage. (d) Public interest and deterrence—Human smuggling as a growing menace—Judicial response Court acknowledged the rising incidents of human smuggling resulting in exploitation and death of innocent citizens—Held, such offences demand stern judicial response to protect public interest and uphold national dignity on the international stage—Bail not warranted in face of societal damage and deterrence objectives. Disposition: Bail petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 100, O. XVII, R. 3---Second appeal---Concurrent findings of facts---Scope---Petitioner’s complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and subsequent civil suit were dismissed for non-prosecution and failure to produce evidence---Trial Court dismissed petitioner’s adjournment application, noting repeated opportunities granted earlier, and proceeded to decide the suit under O. XVII, R. 3, CPC due to absence of petitioner and his counsel---Suit dismissed for lack of evidence---First and Second Appellate Courts upheld dismissal, recording petitioner’s non-serious attitude---Held, that scope under S. 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and does not warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence---Petitioner failed to raise or substantiate any such ground before lower courts---Ground that petitioner’s side was not formally closed was not raised before Appellate Courts and hence could not be agitated for the first time before Supreme Court---No illegality, infirmity or misapplication of law found---Leave to appeal refused.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O. XVII, R. 3---Dismissal of suit---Failure to produce evidence---Last opportunity availed and further adjournment denied due to absence of party and counsel---Adjournment application dismissed on ground of repeated delays and lack of due diligence---Trial Court within its jurisdiction to proceed under O. XVII, R. 3 and decide the case on merits---Held, Order XVII, Rule 3 CPC empowers Court to decide suit if party fails to produce evidence despite opportunity---Such decision not violative of due process if party had been afforded adequate chances---No indulgence warranted in absence of bona fide effort by petitioner to prosecute claim.Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused.Cited Legislation:• Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 100, O. XVII, R. 3• Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Summary: Summary pending