Competence

Federal Legislature is vested with legislative competence to tax capital value of asset with the exception relating to immovable property

Capital value of immovable property falls with the provincial legislative competence and it has been circumscribed by territorial limits of provinces and immovable property not falling within territorial confines of province ipso facto is not susceptible to any provincial legislation

Provision of Art. 141 of the Constitution vesting legislative competence in Federal Legislature to make laws having extra-territorial application comes into play

There is no ambiguity and / or conflict inter se Art.141 of the Constitution and Entry- 50 of Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, as it is the finish-line of the exception in Entry-50 which gives way to the starting line of Art.141 of the Constitution

In Entry-50 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, the Parliament has been given power to legislate in respect of taxes on capital value of assets

To limit such power, particularly when Provincial Legislature is clearly not competent to legislate in respect of the same (to the extent of foreign immovable properties) would amount to placing the narrowest and the most restrictive interpretation on Entry-50 of Fourth Schedule to the Constitution which runs contrary to the scheme of the Constitution and principles of Constitutional interpretation enunciated by Courts of the country

Power to levy Capital Value Tax under Entry-50 of Fourth Schedule to the Constitution did not vest with Provinces in relation to foreign immovable properties owned by residents but with the Federal Legislature

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where order was passed with the direction to draw decree sheet then appeal was competent under S.96, C.P.C. and where decree sheet had not been drawn then appeal would lie under S.104 & O.XLIII, R.1, C.P.C.

Question before the High Court was whether an order under S. 131(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 made by Appellate Tribunal, was amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under S. 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Held, that literal reading of S. 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 suggested that jurisdiction under S.133 could only be invoked against an order of the Tribunal communicated under S. 132(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and none other

Only final order was amenable to jurisdiction under S.133 and an order interlocutory in nature could not be subjected to the same

Reference was answered, accordingly.

No second appeal is competent against a judgment passed by appellate court as one remedy of appeal is provided under Arbitration Act, 1940.

If no power of revision is provided under Arbitration Act, 1940, revision cannot be filed against appellate judgment rendered in accordance with S.39 of Arbitration Act, 1940.

Authorities instead of assailing the said order issued show-cause notice raising same allegations which had already been adjudicated upon in the order of Member Board of Revenue (Colonies)

Constitutional petition against issuance of show-cause notice was dismissed by the Single Judge of High Court on the ground that petitioner should appear before competent authority and raise his objections before the same

Contention of petitioner was that respondents could not re-open the case by simply issuing show-cause notice

Validity

Single Judge of High Court had not considered the fact that issue with regard to proprietary rights had already been adjudicated upon

Application for grant of proprietary rights was filed by the father of petitioner well within time and petitioner had stepped into the shoes of his father

Petitioner was entitled for grant of proprietary rights in circumstances

Substantive rights had been accrued in favour of petitioner on the basis of application moved by his father within prescribed time

Authorities had re-opened the matter requiring the petitioner to once again prove that application was moved by his father

Petitioner could not be forced to face such proceedings when competent forum had conclusively held that he was entitled to proprietary rights on the basis of application moved by his father

Requiring the petitioner to defend himself before competent authority would tantamount to re-opening the case

Authorities could not issue fresh show-cause notice with regard to the matter which had been adjudicated upon in finality by the competent forum

Impugned order passed by the Single Judge of High Court was set aside

Intra court appeal was allowed accordingly.

Record showed that 35-kilograms of charas contained in 35-packets and arms and ammunition were recovered from the secret cavity of truck trailer driven by the accused

Two hundred grams of charas was separated as samples from each packet for chemical examination

Circumstances suggested that the accused was found responsible for transportation of narcotics

Nothing was available on record to suggest that the said truck trailer was either hired by someone else or he had no knowledge about the availability of narcotic substance therein

In the present case, Excise Officials were witnesses, who were competent witnesses and their evidence could not be discarded only for the reason that they were Excise Officials

Said witnesses had furnished straight forward and confidence inspiring evidence

Nothing was on record to show that said witnesses had deposed against the accused maliciously or out of any animus

Circumstances suggested that it could not be believed that the Excise Officials would plant such a huge quantity of narcotic along with arms and ammunitions against the accused at their own sources

Objection of defence that the complainant had acted as Investigating Officer in the case and that all the witnesses were Excise Officials was of no help to the accused as there was no bar in the law for a complainant to act as Investigating Officer of the case

Witnesses had deposed in the same line to support the prosecution case and despite cross-examination at length, the defence had failed to point out any dent or to extract any material contradiction fatal to the prosecution case

Circumstances established that prosecution had succeeded to bring the guilt of accused to home and had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Prosecution case was that 269 slabs of charas, each slab weighing 1-kilogram, total 269-kilograms were recovered from the secret cavities of a vehicle, driven by accused, out of which, 15-kilograms were sealed for samples while remaining charas was sealed separately

Report in that regard had been received in positive

Accused, in circumstances, was liable to be held responsible for having only 15-kilograms of charas in his possession which offence attracted provision of S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Accused had been convicted by the trial court for life imprisonment accordingly

Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Prosecution examined complainant and mashir, who fully supported the prosecution case on material points and categorically deposed that during patrolling, they arrested the accused and recovered two bags in between front and rear seats of the car and four bags and scale from the dicky containing charas, each bag became 24-kilograms

Charas was sealed at the spot and memo was prepared in presence of mashirs

Witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on record in favour of accused

In order to strengthen the departure from police station, the complainant produced departure and arrival entries

Entire case property was sent to Chemical Examiner for examination and report within two days

Report of Chemical Examiner showed that the parcel was received at laboratory in sealed condition and seals were perfect as per copy of letter sent by the complainant

Result of the test showed that the parcel was found containing charas

Accused, in circumstances, were rightly held responsible for committing the offence charged against them because the knowledge and the conscious possession of the accused persons could not be ruled out

No proof regarding previous enmity with the police or mala fide had been produced by accused for their false implication in the case

Neither the accused persons examined themselves on oath in disproof of the charge nor examined any defence witness in support of their pleas

Police could not possibly foist such a huge quantity of charas along with vehicle against the accused

Prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, in circumstances

Appeal being devoid of merits was dismissed.

Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of provision of S.103, Cr.P.C.

Validity

Application of S.103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded by S.25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in such cases

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C.

Validity

In view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, applicability of S. 103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded and non-inclusion of any private witness was not a serious defect to vitiate the conviction

Evidence of Police Officials would be competent and could not be discarded, only for the reason that they were Police Officials

Police Officials had furnished straight-forward and confidence inspiring evidence and there was nothing on record to show that they deposed against the accused maliciously or out of any animus

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Applicant had sought recording of his evidence through his attorney under pretext that he being old and infirm was unable to understand the proceedings of the court

Applicant had filed his direct complaint before the Trial Court and thereafter the present revision before High Court in person

Such exercise on the part of applicant, prima facie, indicated that he was not an infirm person to understand the court proceedings

No provision existed in general or special law, which could authorize the courts to record the evidence of the witness/complainant through attorney, in criminal cases

Things, which were not permitted by law, could not be permitted to be done under any pretext; if permitted to be done then those would be unlawful

Trial Court, in circumstances, was right to dismiss the application of the applicant for recording the evidence through his attorney

Impugned order did not call for any interference by High Court.

Mere status of one as an official would not prejudice the competence of such a witness, unless he was proved to be interested and had motive for falsely implicating the accused or had previous enmity with the person involved.

Prosecution case was that 383 kilograms and 900 grams charas in different packets were recovered from the possession and pointation of accused

Record transpired that case of prosecution rested upon the evidence of complainant and mashir, supported with the positive report of Chemical Analyzer

Both the witnesses had given full account of arrest of accused from the pointed place and recovery of charas and had supported fully the contents of FIR and memo of arrest and recovery as well as corroborated the evidence of each other

Report of Chemical Analyzer showed that total 350 khaki paper envelops, each bearing one seal, were received for analysis

All the seals were intact, which after the analysis declared as charas

Said witnesses had identified the accused and case property to be the same present/available before the Trial Court at the time of recording their evidence and, during their lengthy cross-examination, defence had failed to shatter the truthfulness of their evidence thus their testimony remained unshaken

Defence had alleged that no witness from the locality was associated to witness the recovery, but S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had excluded the provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C.

Neither the alleged recovery of the charas could be held as doubtful due to non-association of any person of the locality to witness the search or recovery nor the deposition of witnesses lost its evidentiary value merely on the grounds that the witnesses were officials of Anti Narcotics Force

Accused had failed to point out any animosity or ulterior motive on the part of complainant for his false implication and foisting upon him the huge quantity of charas

Mere assertion of accused that he was involved falsely in the case due to political enmity was of no consequence being an afterthought

Such defence plea had neither been suggested to the prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination nor did even the accused stated so in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Defence witnesses had not uttered even a single word regarding any such political rivalry

Defence witness had stated that the accused was apprehended by the officials of Anti Narcotics Force, while the other defence witness had stated that some Army Officials arrested the accused

Defence witnesses had contradicted each other on the point of arrest of accused, which led to the inference that in fact none of the defence witnesses was present at the relevant place

Circumstances established that prosecution had succeeded to bring the guilt of accused at home and accused had failed to point out any non-reading of the evidence or any material illegality or serious infirmity committed by the Trial Court while passing impugned judgment

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. could be filed even by a person who did not remain a party to the proceedings.

Execution petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that on spy information, police party signalled to stop the vehicle of accused and on search, fifty packets of charas, each packet weighing 1-kilogram total 50-kilograms, were recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by accused

Ten grams were separated from each packet for chemical analysis

Record showed that fifty samples separately sealed were received in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on the following day of the incident and report of all the fifty samples was positive

Complainant had deposed that on receipt of information regarding transportation of charas by the accused persons, accused was driving the car

Co-accused was also seated on the front seat of the car

Ocular testimony of the complainant was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but he stuck to his stance regarding arrest of accused persons and recovery of charas from the secret cavities of the car

Mashir/witness had testified to the effect that recovery of charas was made in his presence

Case property including the car were produced before the court

Presence of the accused persons in vehicle wherein the subject contraband charas was being transported by keeping it in the secret cavities was fully established

In the present, case all the witnesses were police witnesses, who were as good as private persons

Statements of the prosecution witnesses, who were Police Officials, were sufficient to prove the recovery of the contraband charas

No enmity, ill will or personal grudge to falsely involve the accused persons in the commission of the offence was proved

Association of private persons as witnesses of recovery was not necessary in the case as the application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. had been specifically excluded in the narcotics cases by virtue of S. 25 of the Act

Circumstances established that the testimony of prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution was inspiring confidence

No material discrepancies or contradictions in the statements of witnesses were found rather they were consistent to each other on all the material aspects of the case

Appeal was dismissed accordingly. [Paras. 12, 15 & 16 of the judgment]

Prosecution case was that 120 slabs of charas, each slab weighing 1-kilogram, total 120-kilograms, were recovered from the secret cavities of truck, driven by accused

250-grams taken out from each slab were sealed in 120 packets at the spot for samples while remaining charas was sealed separately

Record revealed that the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused examined two witnesses and also produced memo of arrest and recovery, extracts of entries of departure and arrival and report of Chemical Examiner

Testimony of both the witnesses was in line with each other

Recovery of 120-kilograms of charas from the secret cavities of the truck used for transportation of the recovered narcotics substance, which was being driven by the accused, had been proved as there were no material contradictions or any other material discrepancy in the prosecution

Said witnesses were competent witnesses like any other independent witnesses and their evidence could not be discarded merely for the reason that they were the Police Officials

Testimony of the said witnesses had been corroborated by the positive report of the Chemical Analyst to whom the entire recovered narcotic substance was promptly sent, which was received by him on the following day

Stance of accused that the police had falsely involved him in the case by planting the recovery of charas from him was untenable as no justification existed on the record to falsely involve the accused in the case involving such huge quantity of narcotic substance

Accused had not produced any evidence in support of his defence plea

In the present case, no animosity or rancour of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses against the accused had been alleged

Circumstances established that prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of any doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner assailed order of Family Court whereby it had, in execution proceedings, directed the petitioner to return the remaining dowery articles including gold ornaments as per the list annexed with the plaint or to pay equivalent amount

Contention of petitioner was that gold ornaments were not specifically mentioned in the plaint

Held; petitioner instead of complying with the decree, filed revision application, which was not competent, as there was no such provision in the Family Courts Act, 1964

Gold ornaments were duly mentioned in the list attached with the plaint and their weight was mentioned in the prayer clause of the plaint

Petitioner by filing applications and petitions had been increasing the miseries of the decree holder just to satisfy his ego and deprive the decree holder of her ornaments of gold or value thereof

Constitutional petition was dismissed. [Paras. 1 & 7 of the judgment]

High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 491, Cr.P.C., can direct that any person 'illegally or improperly detained' in public or private custody within its territorial limits be set at liberty

Petition under S. 491, Cr.P.C. or a writ of habeas corpus is not ordinarily found to be competent where there is no element of illegal custody of a minor

Court can, however, in the interests of the child's welfare, pass an appropriate order in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction

Court while deciding such petitions does not conduct detailed inquiries or go into factual controversies

Such proceedings are summary in nature and aimed at providing immediate and efficacious relief to the aggrieved party

Orders passed in such proceedings are interim in nature and are subject to the final orders passed by a court exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Non-entertainment of petition under the writ jurisdiction where efficacious or alternate remedy was available was not an absolute law but rule of policy

High Court had discretion to grant relief under Art. 44 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 despite existence of an alternate remedy

High Court declined interference where an adequate, efficacious or alternate remedy was available to a party and he had approached the High Court by invoking writ jurisdiction without availing the same High Court, however, could interfere where petitioner had made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there were sufficient grounds available to invoke constitutional jurisdiction

High Court could exercise the writ jurisdiction in presence of alternate remedy in eventualities: firstly, enforcement of Fundamental Rights; secondly, where an order is necessary for natural justice; thirdly, where proceedings/orders challenged through writ petition were wholly without jurisdiction and lastly, where an Act or its provisions were challenged.

Section 417(1), Cr.P.C. was fully applicable to the present case, which clearly manifested that for the purpose of filing appeal against acquittal, Government could only appoint the Public Prosecutor

Additional Advocate-General did not come within the purview of the "Public Prosecutor" within the meaning of S. 417(1), Cr.P.C. to file appeal against acquittal on behalf of the State

Circumstances established that there was no illegality committed by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Writ petition was only competent where there was any violation of law or any statutory provision or celebrated principle of law.

Proceedings in the second suit will be stayed until and unless the first suit on the same subject is decided by the court

Second suit can be filed by the plaintiff in presence of the first suit but the proceedings in the second suit will be kept in abeyance till decision of the first suit.

Election petition filed prior to the issuance of notification could not be dismissed even after issuance of the notification

Impugned order being not sustainable in the eye of law was set aside

Matter was remanded to the Election Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Applicants moved Cooperative Judge for review of his order to hold a separate trial which was dismissed holding that he had no power to review his own order

Validity

Cooperative Judge had rightly dismissed the petition

Right of review was a substantive right and was always creation of relevant statute

If power of recalling the order with ultimate object of review was not available in the relevant statute then same could not be invoked

Power of review was not available to said Court on the basis of general principles or by virtue of S. 20, General Clauses Act, 1897

Applicants had failed to point out any provision of law in the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1939 whereby power to review his own order was entrusted to said Court

No illegality or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Cooperative Judge

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellate court through impugned judgment/order had directed the Trial Court to decide application, filed by the petitioner for removal of hurdle or hindrance in the passage/Pagdandi, afresh after hearing the parties, keeping in view the report of Local Commission

Such being not a "case decided", revision was not competent.

Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C.

Validity

In view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. in narcotics cases had been excluded and non-inclusion of any private person was not a serious defect to vitiate the conviction of accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

Mere fact that prosecution witnesses belonged to police department by itself could not be considered as valid reason to discard their statements

Police employees were the competent witnesses like any other independent witness and their testimony could not be discarded merely on the ground that they were Police Officials.

Under subsection (1) of S.9 of National Command Authority Act, 2010, appellant, having come under the direct control and supervision of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, Labour Appellate Tribunal or Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain grievance petition or any such matter of an employee of the Authority

Labour Court, was not justified to take cognizance of an employee of the Authority

Appeal was accepted and impugned order was set aside, in circumstances.

Defence had alleged that no private witness was associated at the time of recovery, which was violation of provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C.

Validity

Application of S. 103, Cr.P.C. had been excluded in such cases in view of S. 25 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Excise officials were as good witnesses as other public witnesses

Evidence of such witnesses could not be discarded merely for the reason that they belong to Excise Department

Complainant and officials of Excise Department had no reason and enmity with accused to falsely implicate him in the present case

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Plaintiff claimed that the suit land, which belonged to Public Health Department, had been allotted to him by Chairman Town Committee and he had been in possession of the same and that Chairman, Town Committee during his (plaintiff's) absence, had interfered in his possession

Both trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit

Question before High Court was whether the Town Committee had the authority to allot land measuring more than six hundred square feet

Under cl.4 of Notification dated 28th May, 1975 issued by Balochistan Government, application for allotment of land of Town Committee was to be referred to District Coordination Committee by Deputy Commissioner for obtaining NOC, which prerequisite was lacking in the present case

After issuance of the NOC, the case was to be referred to Secretary Local Government

Under cl.7 of said Notification, the only competent authority for making allotment was the Secretary Local Government

Other Notifications dated 31st July, 1975 and 7th August, 1975, also did not confer any power of allotment to the Chairman Town Committee

Documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff had although established allotment of the suit land but firstly, the procedure provided under Notification dated 28th May, 1975 had not been adhered to for the allotment, secondly, the Chairman Town Committee was not competent at all to issue any allotment order

Allotment in question issued by the Chairman Town Committee at any point of time was absolutely without jurisdiction, ab initio void and without lawful authority

Tehsil Nazim concerned had also addressed a letter to the court and categorically stated that no allotment whatsoever had been issued in favour of the plaintiff

High Court observed that Officials were under their prime responsibility to safeguard each and every inch of the State land allotted to Public Health Department

Revision petition was dismissed with cost in circumstances.

Consent decree was not appealable and non-filing of appeal against the said preliminary decree was no bar for filing revision petition.

Partition had to be sought for all the undivided immovable properties and partial partition thereof would not be competent

All the co-sharers of said undivided property had to be impleaded in the suit for partition

Court to ensure that each co-sharer was allotted his share equitably depending on the value thereof which would depend upon the area, location and nature of property

Suit property sought to be partitioned was situated within the Abadi Deh and civil court was competent to adjudicate the partition proceedings

Defendants had failed to point out any other joint immovable property within Abadi Deh in the Mauza

Immovable undivided property outside the Abadi Deh had to be partitioned by the Revenue hierarchy

Plaintiffs could not have included the land owned by the parties in Shamilat Deh in their suit filed before the Trial Court

Trial Court was required to first determine the respective rights of the parties and record the same in the preliminary decree

Said preliminary decree would ensure each party /co-sharer to know exactly their rights which would include their respective shares and if any improvement was made thereon

Both the courts below had accepted the prayer for partition but had not determined the respective rights of the parties

Impugned judgments passed by both the courts were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to determine the rights of the parties and decide the same within specified period.

Both courts below dismissed the suit for the reason that the agreement had not been proved in terms of Arts.17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, as only one of the two attesting witnesses had been produced and no explanation had been afforded for not producing the other witness

Validity

Non-production of one of the two attesting witnesses had neither been explained by the plaintiffs nor had any serious effort been made to produce him before the court through the process of law

Provisions of Arts.17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 clearly demonstrated that except for a will, no document could be used in evidence until the same was proved by two attesting witnesses

Mere producing one of the two attesting witnesses would not discharge the burden lying upon the plaintiffs to prove said document when execution of the same had been specifically denied by the defendants

Plaintiffs' other witness/scribe was claimed to be also one of the attesting witnesses of the agreement, and though plaintiff's witness had admitted that payment of the consideration had been made in presence of the scribe, but name of said scribe was neither mentioned in the agreement nor in the plaint in any capacity

Said witness/scribe himself had admitted that though he had witnessed the signing of the agreement but he remained ignorant about the payment made in his presence

Witness could not be introduced to prove the document, unless his name existed on the document or was referred by any of the other witnesses in their statements or was named as such in the plaint; therefore, at least, his name was required to be mentioned in the list of witnesses under O.XVI, C.P.C.

Scribe of the document could be a competent witness only in terms of Arts.17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, if he had fixed his signatures as an attesting witness of the document and not otherwise

Concurrent findings of the courts below were, therefore, upheld

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Section 439(5), Cr.P.C., contained prohibition to the effect that where right of appeal was provided; and no appeal was brought, no proceedings by way of revision was competent against order of acquittal

Applicant having failed to avail remedy of appeal provided under law, revision application against order of acquittal filed by applicant, was dismissed being not maintainable.

Writ petition without arraying functionary who had passed an order against a party in the line of respondent was not competent

Basic order in the present case had been passed by the Rent Controller who was a necessary party and without arraying him as party in the line of respondents writ petition was not maintainable

Appellate Court had not passed the original order which was passed by the Rent Controller

Rent Controller was necessary party in the present case

No illegality was found in the impugned order passed by the High Court

Tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of demised premises to the landlord within specified period and he was also directed to pay rent till eviction of demised premises

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff filed suit wherein defendants moved an application for rejection of plaint which was accepted by the Trial Court

Validity

Defendants-Customs and Excise Department received information that plaintiff-company which was recorded as closed was in production and was supplying the goods/cigarettes in the market without payment of Central Excise duty and sales tax

Factory of plaintiff was visited by the Customs officials and record was taken into possession which was involved in the production of cigarettes

Plaintiff-company had evaded central excise duty and sales tax and complaint was lodged against the same

Present suit was barred under S.217 of Customs Act, 1969

During pendency of appeal plaintiff had died before getting any decree in his favour and his legal heirs had been impleaded who could not continue to persue the suit after his death as right to sue in such case being personal to the deceased did not survive

Suit for compensation on the basis of wrong done was personal to the person wronged

No mala fide could be alleged in presence of such strong evidence against the official who were bound to protect the interest of the State

Plaint was rightly rejected by the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Within the meaning of S.19 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, only Secretary, Home Department of Provincial government was authorized to pass order for constituting a Joint Investigation Team in case registered under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

High Court declared order passed by Superintendent of Police (Investigation) to be illegal and without lawful authority and the same was set aside, as a result of which investigation carried out by Joint Investigation Team was also declared to be without lawful authority

High Court directed that investigation would be carried out by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector as per mandate of section 19 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, from the date when FIR was registered or by a Joint Investigation Team constituted by Government under S. 19 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 had been made applicable to all the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894

No appeal lay to the High Court against an order which was not an award or any part thereof as rights and liabilities of the parties would be determined finally and conclusively in the award as were determined in original decree

No award or any part thereof was passed by the court below in the present case

Application was dismissed for non-prosecution without any conclusive determination or adjudication of rights and liabilities of the parties, therefore appeal could not be filed under S.54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under S. 96, C.P.C.

Appeal should have been filed before the High Court under O.XLIII, R. 1(c), C.P.C.

Limitation for filing an appeal under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to High Court against an order of court below was 30 days from the date of said order

Residuary Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 would apply only to the cases where no limitation was provided in the said Act

Present appeal was not filed within 30 days which was barred by time

Plaintiff was bound to file an application for condonation of delay explaining the delay of each and every day up to the date of filing of present appeal in order to seek concession of condonation and discretion of court

No such application had been moved by the plaintiff and delay in filing of appeal could not be condoned in the absence of said applica-tion

Appeal was dismissed in circum-stances.

Wife filed suit for recovery of maintenance allowance wherein an application for fixation of interim maintenance was moved which was accepted by the Family Court

Validity

Family Court could pass interim order with regard to maintenance

Such order had been passed with jurisdiction which would merge in the final decision and would be appealable

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Review petition was pending adjudication before the revenue authority but such fact had been suppressed in the present writ petition

Writ petition had been filed after a period of nine months which was hit by laches

Public functionaries who passed the impugned order had not been arrayed in the line of respondents

Present matter was with regard to correction of record which had been decided by the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction

Writ petition being incompetent, was dismissed.

Appeal was incompetent in circumstances.

Supreme Court constituted a larger Bench to examine as to whether in view of the ratio decidendi of the cases Ali Hassan v. The State (2001 SCMR 1047) and Muhammad Riaz v. The State (2002 SCMR 184), the view taken in the cases of Muhammad Siddique v. The State (2014 SCMR 304) and Amir Masih v. The State and another (2013 SCMR 1059) was required to be re-examined by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court to settle the proposition about competency of second bail application if the first one had been withdrawn and no decision on merits had been given or the facts had also not been adjudicated upon; that as to whether the same principle would not be applicable in the case relating to suspension of sentence; that as to whether the judgment in the case of Muhammad Siddique v. The State (2014 SCMR 304) whereby suspension of sentence had been declined as the earlier application was dismissed, was in consonance with the law laid down in the judgments of Ali Hassan v. The State (2001 SCMR 1047) and Muhammad Riaz v. The State (2002 SCMR 184), and that if so then to what effect

Leave to appeal was granted accordingly.

Contention of defendants was that plaintiff was bound to deposit Zar-e-Soam according to the amount mentioned in the mutation

Application for rejection of plaint was dismissed by the Trial Court but same was accepted by the Appellate Court

Validity

Court had to take into consideration the contents of plaint and documents annexed therewith while fixing Zar-e-Soam

Property in dispute, according to the plaint, was sold for consideration of Rs.30,000 and amount of consideration mentioned in the mutation was not legible

Trial Court was left with no option but to fix Zar-e-Soam according to contents of plaint and no illegality was committed while determining the same

Order for deposit of Zar-e-Soam was passed by the Trial Court and amount was deposited within the stipulated period

No objection with regard to deposit of Zar-e-Soam was raised by the defendants at the time of submitting their attorney and application for rejection of plaint was filed after eleven months after deposit of Zar-e-Soam

Due care and caution was required to be taken by the Trial Court while fixing Zar-e-Soam but Trial Court was not supposed to be very mathematical about exact quantum of consideration amount

Only documents available before the court for fixation of Zar-e-Soam were the plaint and annexures thereto

Amount of Zar-e-Soam was tentative in nature and exact amount of consideration was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence of the parties and considering other relevant facts

Nobody was to suffer due to any omission on the part of the court

Revisional Court dealt with the order passed on the application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. and same was competent to adjudge vires of such order

Revisional Court could remand the matter to the Trial Court for framing of preliminary issue on the point of rejection of plaint

Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Findings recorded by the courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence which had been recorded in affirmative without availability of evidence for proving the relationship

Revision was accepted and suit was dismissed.

Tenant had never disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant nor the status of respondent as rent collector/landlord had been challenged

Respondent was competent person to file ejectment petition in his capacity as rent collector/landlord.

Review application was dismissed on the ground that same was filed without furnishing certificate of Advocate of the court, which was mandatory under provisions of R.43 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984

Validity

Application for review, would set-forth the grounds on which a review was sought, plainly and concisely

Application would be signed by a counsel and accompanied by a certificate signed by the Advocate in the form prescribed under R.43 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984

Embargo had been imposed under said R.43 that no such application would be entertained by the court without the said certificate

Mandatory requirement of filing a certificate by the Advocate along with the review application had to be fulfilled

If said certificate was not accompanied with the applications for review, the court would not entertain the application

Position in the present case had become different as the court had not only entertained the application, but the process was also issued; in pursuance of the process, the other party had entered its appearance, and contested the said review application and after hearing both the parties, impugned judgment was delivered

Once an application for review without the mandatory certificate had been entertained, it would be deemed that the requirement under R. 43 had been dispensed with by the court

High Court, in circumstances, after entertaining the review application, was not justified to dismiss the same on the ground that it was not competent

Court was supposed to look into the application at the filing of the same and if it was found that the requirement of provision had not been fulfilled in the true spirit the court should have taken notice of the same, but same had not been done

Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and case was remitted back to the High Court with the direction to decide the review application on merits.

Assistant Commissioner while exercising powers of Price Magistrate lodged F.I.R. against accused (petitioner) after taking samples of red chillies from the shop of the accused, which were found to be not in conformity to the standard as laid down in the Punjab Pure Food Ordinance, 1960

Contention of prosecution that Officers of the Local Administration were empowered through a notification to take necessary steps against adulterators etc., so the proceedings of the F.I.R. could not be quashed

Validity

Provincial Government through said notification never authorized the Officers of the District Administration to take the law in their hands

Proper course of the Local Administration was to confer powers of Inspector Health on the Assistant Commissioner or the Magistrate through a notification published in the Official Gazette, but same was not done

Provincial Government could by notification in the Official Gazette authorize any other officer to work as Inspector within the limit of their jurisdiction, but no such notification had been placed before the High Court, whereby, the Provincial Government may have empowered the Assistant Commissioner/Price Magistrate to perform the functions as Inspector under the Punjab Pure Food Ordinance, 1960

Complaint could be filed by an authorized Inspector and not the Assistant Commissioner or any other officer not authorized in such behalf

Court could not take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Punjab Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, unless complaint/F.I.R. was lodged by a Health Officer or an Inspector authorized in such behalf

Proceedings against accused including lodging of F.I.R. were without jurisdiction and had no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed and proceedings against accused, including the lodging of F.I.R., were quashed.

Petitioner, who was proceeded against under provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and was dismissed from service, had challenged his dismissal order

High Court lacked jurisdiction because the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 were unambiguous in its terms whereby the petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy available to him, but he rushed to the High Court without examining the point of jurisdiction

Before touching the merits of the case, the point of jurisdiction was to be dealt with

Order even though was without jurisdiction, mala fide and void, could only be challenged before the Service Tribunal and not before the High Court, if the jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal

Constitutional petition being not competent was dismissed.