Author name: Sajjad Hameed

๐Œ๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐‘๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐ฎ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ซ ๐š๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐ซ ๐’๐จ๐ก๐š๐ฐ๐š ๐‘๐จ๐š๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Œ๐š๐ซ๐ ๐š๐ฅ ๐‡๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐๐š๐ซ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ก๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐•๐š๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐ž๐ž ๐Œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐ฌ. ๐‡๐จ๐ฐ๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ, ๐’๐ฆ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ค๐ข๐จ๐ฌ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐ฆ๐š๐ฒ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ฎ๐ž ๐ญ๐จ ๐›๐ž ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐’๐ฎ๐›๐ฃ๐ž๐œ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐‹๐ข๐œ๐ž๐ง๐ฌ๐ž/๐๐Ž๐‚ ๐›๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ˆ๐ฌ๐ฅ๐š๐ฆ๐š๐›๐š๐ ๐–๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐‹๐ข๐Ÿ๐ž ๐Œ๐š๐ง๐š๐ ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐š๐ซ๐.

๐Œ๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐‘๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐ฎ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ซ ๐š๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐ซ ๐’๐จ๐ก๐š๐ฐ๐š ๐‘๐จ๐š๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Œ๐š๐ซ๐ ๐š๐ฅ ๐‡๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐๐š๐ซ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ก๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐•๐š๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐ž๐ž ๐Œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐ฌ. ๐‡๐จ๐ฐ๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ, ๐’๐ฆ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ค๐ข๐จ๐ฌ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐ฆ๐š๐ฒ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ฎ๐ž ๐ญ๐จ ๐›๐ž ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐’๐ฎ๐›๐ฃ๐ž๐œ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐‹๐ข๐œ๐ž๐ง๐ฌ๐ž/๐๐Ž๐‚ ๐›๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ˆ๐ฌ๐ฅ๐š๐ฆ๐š๐›๐š๐ ๐–๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐‹๐ข๐Ÿ๐ž ๐Œ๐š๐ง๐š๐ ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐š๐ซ๐. The Supreme Court in a five-pages short order has recently held that Monal and other restaurants located in the National Park/Margala Hills shall vacate the premises within three months as the National Park is not supposed to be place to be used for commercial use contrary to its purpose. National Parks are to be preserved as national parks. However, the Court has clarified that ๐ฌ๐ฆ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐Š๐ข๐จ๐ฌ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐š๐ฒ ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐š๐ญ ๐จ๐ซ ๐š๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐๐ข๐ซ ๐’๐จ๐ก๐š๐ฐ๐š ๐‘๐จ๐š๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐๐š๐ซ๐ค but they have to get license first from the Islamabad Wild Life Management Board. By this, the Court has impliedly declared theย  Islamabad Wildlife Management Board as the licensing authority. The Court has also declared the said Board, not the CDA or any other entity, to be the managing authority of the National Park.ย  The power to look after the National Park is now vested within the said Board. In this case, the Islamabad Wildlife Board was one of the petitioner and had filed Constitution Petition No.3 of 2024 which was successfullyย  represented by our partner, Mr. Umer Ijaz Gilani, Advocate Supreme Court. Click to Download

๐Œ๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐‘๐ž๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐ฎ๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ซ ๐š๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐ซ ๐’๐จ๐ก๐š๐ฐ๐š ๐‘๐จ๐š๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Œ๐š๐ซ๐ ๐š๐ฅ ๐‡๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐š๐ฅ ๐๐š๐ซ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ก๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐•๐š๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐ž๐ž ๐Œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐ฌ. ๐‡๐จ๐ฐ๐ž๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ, ๐’๐ฆ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ค๐ข๐จ๐ฌ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐ฆ๐š๐ฒ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ฎ๐ž ๐ญ๐จ ๐›๐ž ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐’๐ฎ๐›๐ฃ๐ž๐œ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐‹๐ข๐œ๐ž๐ง๐ฌ๐ž/๐๐Ž๐‚ ๐›๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ˆ๐ฌ๐ฅ๐š๐ฆ๐š๐›๐š๐ ๐–๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐‹๐ข๐Ÿ๐ž ๐Œ๐š๐ง๐š๐ ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐š๐ซ๐. Read More ยป

๐Š๐ก๐ฎ๐ฅ๐š ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐€๐›๐ฌ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ž ๐š๐ง๐ ๐…๐ฎ๐ง๐๐š๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐š๐ฅ ๐‘๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐š ๐–๐ข๐Ÿ๐ž: ๐…๐ž๐๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ฅ ๐’๐ก๐š๐ซ๐ข๐š๐ญ ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ.

๐Š๐ก๐ฎ๐ฅ๐š ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐€๐›๐ฌ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ž ๐š๐ง๐ ๐…๐ฎ๐ง๐๐š๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐š๐ฅ ๐‘๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐š ๐–๐ข๐Ÿ๐ž: ๐…๐ž๐๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ฅ ๐’๐ก๐š๐ซ๐ข๐š๐ญ ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ. The Federal Shariat Court in a recent judgment has unequivocally held that Right of Khula of a Wife is not only her fundamental right but it is also her absolute right which cannot be made contingent upon the consent of her husband. The Court further clarified that when the wife is ready to surrender the dower in exchange for Khula, there is not reason for a court to delay the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula. The family courts must grant Khula to the woman without any delay in case she surrenders her dower willingly. The Court further held that Badal e Khula (amount which is offered by a wife in exchange for Khula) cannot exceed the amount of dower. It shall be either equal to the amount of dower or less than that in certain exceptional cases where the wife successfully establishes maltreatment, ill-treatment or mistreatment on the part of her husband to some extent. PLD 2024 Federal Shariat Court 9 Click to Download  

๐Š๐ก๐ฎ๐ฅ๐š ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐€๐›๐ฌ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ž ๐š๐ง๐ ๐…๐ฎ๐ง๐๐š๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐š๐ฅ ๐‘๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐š ๐–๐ข๐Ÿ๐ž: ๐…๐ž๐๐ž๐ซ๐š๐ฅ ๐’๐ก๐š๐ซ๐ข๐š๐ญ ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ. Read More ยป

๐€ ๐๐ž๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐…๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฌ๐œ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐š๐ง๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐‹๐š๐ฐ ๐จ๐ซ ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ž๐ฌ, ๐Œ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐›๐ž ๐„๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ญ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ž๐ ๐›๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Ž๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ข๐œ๐ž/๐ˆ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ซ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ก: ๐’๐‚

๐€ ๐๐ž๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐…๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฌ๐œ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐š๐ง๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐‹๐š๐ฐ ๐จ๐ซ ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ž๐ฌ, ๐Œ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐›๐ž ๐„๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ญ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ž๐ ๐›๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Ž๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ข๐œ๐ž/๐ˆ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ซ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ก: ๐’๐‚ In a short judgment, the Supreme Court has reiterated its earlier view in Fazal Muhammad v. State (PLD 1987 SC 273) and Ahsan Abid v. Khusru Bakhtiar (PLD 2022 SC 712 ) and held that any petition which does not fall within the scope of any provision of the Constitution, law or Rules must not be entertained by the institution office at the first instance. The case in hand came in the background of a review petition for restoration of a CMA, which had been earlier dismissed on maintainability and non-prosecution. The petitioner had filed more than three CMAs and almost all of them had been dismissed on maintainability as well as non-prosecution. He kept filling CMAs for restoration of the same, instead of a review petition. The principle of law is that when a petition is dismissed for non-prosecution as well as on maintainability, review should be filed instead of restoration application. The petitioner opted for the other way around and adopted a wrong track to get the desirable relief. His application was dismissed by the Registrar,which was subsequently dismissed by a judge in chamber in chamber appeal. The petitioner filed a review petition against both of the orders passed on the administrative side. The Court referred to two of its previous judgments mentioned above and held that review under Article 188 of the Constitution is entertainable against a judicial order alone. An administrative order is not covered under this Article. Neither the law or any rule of the Supreme Court Rules envisages such a provision which supports a review petition against an administrative order. Thus, a petition which does not get support from any law, must not be entertained by the institution office at the first instance. Click to downloadย 

๐€ ๐๐ž๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐…๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฌ๐œ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐š๐ง๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐‹๐š๐ฐ ๐จ๐ซ ๐‘๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ž๐ฌ, ๐Œ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐›๐ž ๐„๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ญ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ž๐ ๐›๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Ž๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ข๐œ๐ž/๐ˆ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ซ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ก: ๐’๐‚ Read More ยป

๐ˆ๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐๐ข๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐’๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ”(๐Ÿ) ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐€๐ง๐ญ๐ข ๐“๐ž๐ซ๐ซ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐€๐œ๐ญ, ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ• โ€”๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ง๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐œ๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐žโ€” ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ: ๐‰๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐‰๐š๐ฆ๐š๐ฅ ๐Š๐ก๐š๐ง ๐Œ๐š๐ง๐๐จ๐ค๐ก๐š๐ข๐ฅ

๐ˆ๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐๐ข๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐’๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ”(๐Ÿ) ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐€๐ง๐ญ๐ข ๐“๐ž๐ซ๐ซ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐€๐œ๐ญ, ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ• โ€”๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ง๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐œ๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐žโ€” ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ: ๐‰๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐‰๐š๐ฆ๐š๐ฅ ๐Š๐ก๐š๐ง ๐Œ๐š๐ง๐๐จ๐ค๐ก๐š๐ข๐ฅ The Supreme Court in a recent judgment has reemphasised that in order to bring a crime within the purview of terrorism as defined in section 6 (1) of the ATA, 1997, it is not enough to show that the crime is so heinous, rather the prosecution has to prove that the crime attracts any of the ingredients of the definition of terrorism.ย  In short, the Court held that heinousness of a crime per se does not make the crime an act of terrorism, rather it is to be proved that the crime attracts any of the ingredients of terrorismย  as defined in the Act. In the case in hand, the Petitionerย  was accused of abduction for ransom. The prosecution had proved his case beyond any doubt, but they had charged the accused under 7 ATA in addition to section 365-A of the PPC. The Court held that mere kidnapping for ransom is not an act of terrorism. It must be coupled with the intention of causing terror in the society in order to bring it within the ambit of 7 ATA. The Court further clarified that the Government has power to include any offence within the Third Schedule of the Act to make it triableย  by the Anti Terrorism Courts for the purpose of speedy trial. It implies that the ATCsย  have dual powers: to adjudicate cases of terrorism andย  those which are mentioned in the Third Schedule of the Act. The Court held that inclusion of an act within the Third Schedule does not make it act of terrorism. It is to be shown that there is any nexus of the act with the ingredients of terrorism in order to make it an act of terrorism. The Court at the end concluded that the kidnapping by the accused did not involve an element of terrorism neither the accused did so with the intent to cause terror within the society. Thus, being so the case, the Courtย  altered the charge of the accused from 7 ATA to that of simple offence under section 365-A PPC. Click to Downloadย 

๐ˆ๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐๐ข๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐’๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ”(๐Ÿ) ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐€๐ง๐ญ๐ข ๐“๐ž๐ซ๐ซ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐€๐œ๐ญ, ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ• โ€”๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ง๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐œ๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐žโ€” ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ: ๐‰๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐‰๐š๐ฆ๐š๐ฅ ๐Š๐ก๐š๐ง ๐Œ๐š๐ง๐๐จ๐ค๐ก๐š๐ข๐ฅ Read More ยป

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐”๐ฉ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ฌ ๐š๐ง ๐„๐ฅ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐‚๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐‰๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ก๐ž๐ซ๐ž๐ข๐ง ๐”๐ง๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐š๐ฅ ๐“๐ฎ๐ซ๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐š๐ฌ ๐€๐œ๐œ๐ž๐ฉ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐š๐ฌ ๐š ๐’๐จ๐ฅ๐ž ๐‘๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐‘๐ž-๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ .

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐”๐ฉ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ฌ ๐š๐ง ๐„๐ฅ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐‚๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐‰๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ก๐ž๐ซ๐ž๐ข๐ง ๐”๐ง๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐š๐ฅ ๐“๐ฎ๐ซ๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐š๐ฌ ๐€๐œ๐œ๐ž๐ฉ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐š๐ฌ ๐š ๐’๐จ๐ฅ๐ž ๐‘๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐‘๐ž-๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ . The Supreme Court held in an election appeal that the Election Commission holds powers under section 9 of the Election Act, 2017, to order re-poll at one station or stations, or the whole constituency if there are sufficient material available on record which indicates grave illegalities or irregularities in conducting the election. In the case in hand, the total turnout of certain polling stations was abnormal and unusual. In the first phase of election, there was almost zero turnout in those polling stations, but after the Election Commission ordered re-election on certain stations, there was experienced more than 80 percent turnout at some stations. The same was challenged before the ECP, contending that the turnout was unusual and abnormal as there was a terrorist attack which resulted in zero turnout in the first phase of election. How such abnormal turnout of 80% be expected at such stations in the second round of election. The ECP ordered to conduct re-poll at those stations. The Court upheld the decision of the ECP when challenged it in appeal holding that the abnormal turnout is such a reason which can be made foundation for re-poll. Click to Download

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐”๐ฉ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ฌ ๐š๐ง ๐„๐ฅ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐‚๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐‰๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ก๐ž๐ซ๐ž๐ข๐ง ๐”๐ง๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐š๐ฅ ๐“๐ฎ๐ซ๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐š๐ฌ ๐€๐œ๐œ๐ž๐ฉ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐š๐ฌ ๐š ๐’๐จ๐ฅ๐ž ๐‘๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐‘๐ž-๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ . Read More ยป

๐‰๐ฎ๐๐ข๐œ๐ข๐š๐ฅ ๐ƒ๐ž๐ฅ๐š๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง ๐ƒ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐š๐ฅ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐‚๐š๐ฌ๐ž๐ฌ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐’๐จ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฒ ๐”๐ฆ๐ž๐ซ ๐ˆ๐ฃ๐š๐ณ ๐†๐ข๐ฅ๐š๐ง๐ข, ๐€๐๐ฏ๐จ๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐’๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ

๐‰๐ฎ๐๐ข๐œ๐ข๐š๐ฅ ๐ƒ๐ž๐ฅ๐š๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง ๐ƒ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐š๐ฅ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐‚๐š๐ฌ๐ž๐ฌ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐’๐จ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฒ ๐”๐ฆ๐ž๐ซ ๐ˆ๐ฃ๐š๐ณ ๐†๐ข๐ฅ๐š๐ง๐ข, ๐€๐๐ฏ๐จ๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐’๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ Why does judicial delay happen? Who benefits, and who lose? How can it be fixed. There are the questions which our Partner Umer Ijaz Gilani has addressed in a policy paper recently published. At the cross-section of social science and law, this paper explores an alternative hypothesis about judicial delay and proposes a novel solution for dealing with it. We would welcome comment both from experts in law reform and economics.   https://pide.org.pk/research/reflections-on-the-political-economy-of-judicial-delay-in-pakistan/

๐‰๐ฎ๐๐ข๐œ๐ข๐š๐ฅ ๐ƒ๐ž๐ฅ๐š๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง ๐ƒ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐š๐ฅ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐‚๐š๐ฌ๐ž๐ฌ ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐’๐จ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฒ ๐”๐ฆ๐ž๐ซ ๐ˆ๐ฃ๐š๐ณ ๐†๐ข๐ฅ๐š๐ง๐ข, ๐€๐๐ฏ๐จ๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ž ๐’๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ Read More ยป

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ž๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐Ž๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ข๐œ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ ๐Œ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐›๐ž ๐ƒ๐ž๐œ๐ข๐๐ž๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐‘๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐จ๐ง๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐“๐ข๐ฆ๐ž. ๐Ž๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฌ๐ž, ๐ˆ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐€๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ซ ๐š๐ ๐จ๐ง๐ฒ, ๐…๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ƒ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ง๐๐ž๐ง๐œ๐ž. ๐“๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐Œ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐„๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐œ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ซ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ.

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ž๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐Ž๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ข๐œ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ ๐Œ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐›๐ž ๐ƒ๐ž๐œ๐ข๐๐ž๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐‘๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐จ๐ง๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐“๐ข๐ฆ๐ž. ๐Ž๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฌ๐ž, ๐ˆ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐€๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ซ ๐š๐ ๐จ๐ง๐ฒ, ๐…๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ƒ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ง๐๐ž๐ง๐œ๐ž. ๐“๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐Œ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐„๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐œ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ซ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ. The Honorable Supreme Court has recently decided a service matter which was pending for disposal before the Sindh High Court Judicial Service Tribunal for almost 19 years. In the meantime, some of the respondents had either died or retired from service and it had become difficult to decide the seniority issue. The Supreme Court held that service related issues are very serious issues, especially that of seniority. If a judicial officer’s seniority is withheld or it is not decided within reasonable time, this must add to his/her agony and frustration. The officer would not be able to work with peaceful and free mind. He/she will get frustrated and this would affect his/her progress and capacity, something which is not good for progress of the judicial institution. The Court thus remanded the matter to the Tribunal and directed to fix a time period for disposal of such service matters. Click to Download

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ž๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐Ž๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ข๐œ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ ๐Œ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐›๐ž ๐ƒ๐ž๐œ๐ข๐๐ž๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐‘๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐จ๐ง๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐“๐ข๐ฆ๐ž. ๐Ž๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฌ๐ž, ๐ˆ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐€๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ซ ๐š๐ ๐จ๐ง๐ฒ, ๐…๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ƒ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ง๐๐ž๐ง๐œ๐ž. ๐“๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐Œ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐„๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐œ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ข๐ซ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ. Read More ยป

๐ˆ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐๐จ๐ง-๐š๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐•๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐‚๐ก๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ ๐‚๐š๐ฌ๐ž, ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ก๐š๐ฌ ๐ƒ๐ข๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐”๐ง๐ข๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ž๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐…๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Š๐ž๐ฒ ๐•๐š๐œ๐š๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ˆ๐ง๐œ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐•๐‚.

๐ˆ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐๐จ๐ง-๐š๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐•๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐‚๐ก๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ ๐‚๐š๐ฌ๐ž, ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ก๐š๐ฌ ๐ƒ๐ข๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐”๐ง๐ข๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ž๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐…๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Š๐ž๐ฒ ๐•๐š๐œ๐š๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ˆ๐ง๐œ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐•๐‚. The Court also directed them to provide details of the fund they generate themselves and the amount they are provided from the public exchequer. All provinces, including the Capital Territory, have provided the Court with the total number of theย  public sector universities situated within their jurisdiction along with the number of universities where the position of the Vice Chancellor is either vacant or being run through an acting vice chancellor. The universities and other respondents were directed to file comments and other details by the next date of hearing. Click to Download

๐ˆ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐๐จ๐ง-๐š๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐•๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐‚๐ก๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž๐ฅ๐ฅ๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ ๐‚๐š๐ฌ๐ž, ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ก๐š๐ฌ ๐ƒ๐ข๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐”๐ง๐ข๐ฏ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ž๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐…๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐Š๐ž๐ฒ ๐•๐š๐œ๐š๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ˆ๐ง๐œ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐•๐‚. Read More ยป

Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC Requires the Applicant to Deposit up to 20% amount on the Direction of the Court, not without Direction at the time of Filling Application.

Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC Requires the Applicant to Deposit up to 20% amount on the Direction of the Court, not without Direction at the time of Filling Application. ๐๐š๐œ๐ค๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐: Once an immovable property has been sold in pursuance of execution of a decree, and a person feels aggrieved of it and wants to file an application before the court to set the sale aside, he needs to file such an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC along with certain amount not exceeding 20% of the total sum of the sale. The question is whether the said amount needs to be deposited while filing the application or it should be deposited on the direction of the court. The issue of deposit of the amount with or without direction of the court has been a point of debate of judicial pronouncements. Different High Courts held that the amount needs to be deposited on the direction of the court, not otherwise. However, the Supreme Court held inย  Habib and Company v. MCB (PLD 2020 SC 227), that it is mandatory to deposit the amount first to entertain the application. Otherwise the application will not be entertained. The Supreme Court constituted a larger bench for the interpretation of proviso to said rule,which is reproduced herein below: “…Provided further that no such application shall be entertained unless the applicant deposits such amount not exceeding twenty per cent of the sum realised at the sale, or furnishes such security, as the Court may direct.” The larger bench of the SC revisited its earlier view and set aside it, holding that it is not necessary that an applicant shall deposit the amount to entertain the application. The Court held that the phrase “not exceeding 20%” implies that it is up to the court to determine the amount first and then direct the applicant to deposit it. The proviso does not require the applicant to deposit it while filing the application or even at a later stage but without the court’s direction. The SC further held that clauses (a) and (b) of Section 19(7) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 (โ€œOrdinanceโ€) are not in contradistinction with Order XXI Rule 90, rather, the later is complementary to the former. CPC is not applicable to the Banking Courts where the Ordinance provides a procedure, otherwise it is applicable. If a provision of the CPC Complements a provision or a section of the Ordinance, the Banking Court shall adopt it and follow the procedure in the complementary provision. Click to Download  

Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC Requires the Applicant to Deposit up to 20% amount on the Direction of the Court, not without Direction at the time of Filling Application. Read More ยป

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐ƒ๐ซ๐š๐Ÿ๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐จ๐ง ๐€๐ซ๐›๐ข๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐€๐œ๐ญ, ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ’

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐ƒ๐ซ๐š๐Ÿ๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐จ๐ง ๐€๐ซ๐›๐ข๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐€๐œ๐ญ, ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ’ Recently, a committee under the supervision of Honorable Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah of the Supreme Court has prepared a draft brill on arbitration law, which is not only up-to-date but comprehensive as well. The court intervention in arbitration has been minimised to the greatest possible extent in the new law. Parties no longer need to approach the courts as a first instance to initiate arbitration proceeding, as was the case with the previous Act of 1940. The Act introduces an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of arbitrator/s who are responsible to initiate the proceeding. Additionally the Act also sets a mandatory time frame of one and a half year for deciding the disputes by the Tribunal. There is no provision in the new law empowering a party to stay the arbitration proceeding. However, on the contrary, there is a provision which provides for staying proceeding in the court by the court if the opposite party has filed a case in the court. Another salient feature of the new law is that it leaves most matters to the parties to decide with mutual understanding that how to proceed with the case; which procedure is to be adopted; how evidence is to be led; and whether oral arguments are to be made or if written submissions suffice. These, along with most other issues, are to be decided by the parties with mutual consent. The new law caters to both domestic and international need, requirement and standard overall. The Bill has been handed over to the Ministry of Law and it may soon become a new law in the form of an Act. Click to Download the Bill

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐ƒ๐ซ๐š๐Ÿ๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐จ๐ง ๐€๐ซ๐›๐ข๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐€๐œ๐ญ, ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ’ Read More ยป

Scroll to Top