Practice and Procedure

Appeal — Party not impleaded in the writ petition-held cannot be made a party in appeal. Ch. Muhammad v. Dy. Collector Excise 1992 SCR 110 (B)
Bail matter-Interference by Supreme Court — This Court does not interfere unless a case is made out that the Shariat Court has exercised discretion against the settled principle of law. Khurshid Ahmad v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 1994 SCR 136 (A)
It is well settled practice of this Court that a decision is only given about live issues and academic questions are not answered — Exceptions. M. Ishaque v. AJK Govt. 1998 SCR 55 (A)
In the present case settled practice was flouted — Case was reserved for judgment by the Division Bench but the judgment was written and signed by the learned Chief justice and announced — The office was directed to communicate the result to the parties — The record was sent along with judgment by the learned Chief Justice to the other member of the Bench who was holding Circuit at Mirpur who signed judgment — This practice in not recognized by law — Before the judgment is announced through short or comprehensive order, the same must contain the signatures of the learned members of the Court — But in the present case the procedure was adopted contrary to the High Court Procedure Rules as well as the settled practice of the Courts. M. ANWAR v. MAQSOOD AHMAD MINHAS and 7 others 2002 SCR 522 (B)
If a thing is to be done in a particular way, it should be done in that way and manner as prescribed or should not be done at all. Azad Govt. v. Faqir Hussain Shah and another 2004 SCR 23 (A)
What is not allowed to be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. State v. Naseer Ahmed & another 2004 SCR 104 (A)
When any act is required to be done in a particular way it must be done according to that way or not at all. State v. Naseer Ahmed & another 2004 SCR 104 (B)
When a particular method of performance of an act is prescribed under an Act or Rules then such act must be performed according to the prescribed method alone or not at all. Habibullah v. D.I.G. Police & 3 others 2004 SCR 378 (B) PLD 1980 Lah.337 ref.
When an act is required to be performed in a particular way it must be done according to the same way or not at all. Accountant General v. Shahid Mehmood & another 2005 SCR 255 (B)
Where a power is conferred to do an act in a particular manner or way, that power is to be exercised in that manner or way alone and it necessarily excludes the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. Hakam Deen v. State & 16 others 2005 SCR 314 (J) AIR 1964 SC 358, PLD 1978 SC(AJK) 37 and PLJ 2001 SC(AJK) 50 rel.
Where a power is conferred to do an act in a particular manner or way, that power is to be exercised in that manner or way alone, and it necessarily excludes the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed — This is a principle of universal application. Hakam Deen v. State and 15 others 2006 SCR 120 (I) AIR 1964 SC 358, PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 37 and PLJ 2001 SC (AJK) 50 rel.
The Courts are free to reach to just decision by evolving or adopting its own a procedure, if there is no other express provision in the field in relation to a matter or proceedings. Hakam Deen v. State and 15 others 2006 SCR 120 (J)
When an act is required to be performed in a particular method, it has to be performed according to the prescribed manner alone — It shall be deemed non-existent if not performed in the manner visualised by law. Syed Ali Asghar Shah v. AJ&K Public Service Comission & 5 others 2008 SCR 133 (C) PLD 1978 S.C. (AJ&K) 37 rel.
When specific provision of Code provides for doing a thing in a provided manner, it cannot be frustrated through filing an application or suits on technical grounds and objections. Azmat Bi & another v. Muhammad Laal 2008 SCR 300 (E)
All the rules of procedure are meant for the sake of administration of justice and they have to serve this very purpose — The technicality of procedure should not be considered for thwarting the intention of law — The basic purpose of procedure in the system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant of rights to the people — The technicality should be avoided. Mst. Hameeda Begum and another v. Mazhar Hussain and 40 others 2009 SCR 27 (C)
The provisions of procedure are meant for the sake of administration of justice and such provisions should be subservient to cause of justice. Mst. Hameeda Begum v. Mazhar H. 2009 SCR 27 (D)
Any document which has been prepared/executed in sheer violation of prescribed procedure of law cannot be declared as a valid document. AJ&K Govt. & 4 others v. Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University & 2 other 2014 SCR 382 (H)
It is settled that the record of courts or any entry in respect of the case recorded by the High Court carries presumption of truth and is admitted to be correct except where a party specifically rebuts the same or the counsel by filing an affidavit. Fazal Hussain v. Muhammad Yousaf & 2 others 2014 SCR 558 (A) Abdul Majid Khan vs. Razia Bibi & others (Civil Appeal No.98/2011, decided on 12.7.2011) & 2013 SCR 12 ref.
The candidates who were at serial Nos.10 and 11 of the merit list prepared by the Public Service Commission, have been appointed prior to the appellants and the appellants never challenged the appointment orders of these candidates. Held: the legality or illegality regarding the appointments of those candidates cannot be looked into by this Court. Naseem Abbas Shah and another v. Imran Shaffi and 6 others 2014 SCR 1022 (E)
Principle of audi alterm Partem — right of hearing — dispensation — Principle — argument that the appellants were appointed and without hearing them, their appointment orders have been set aside which offends the long standing celebrated principle of audi alterm partem. If an opportunity is provided to defend the appointments made through notification dated 6.8. 2011 which has been declared as illegal, how they will justify their orders — Held: When the law on the point is settled and the notification has been issued in clear violation of settled law then acceptance of appeal and remand of case will be an exercise in futility. Molvi Abdul Latif Qari & 366 others v. Azad Govt. & 43 others 2014 SCR 1104 (D) 2000 SCR 293 and District & Sessions Judge Bagh & another vs. Muhammad Wajid (Civil appeal No. 87 of 2012, decided on 10.4.2013), rel.
According to celebrated principle of law the criminal trial courts are not vested with the powers to review their own orders. M. Yousaf v. Arshad Mehmood & another 2014 SCR 1521 (D)
In the jurisdictional matters, even the constitutional Courts have to honour the statutory provisions of the subordinate legislative statute. Ch. Muhammad Aziz v. Faisal Mumtaz Rathore & 15 others 2015 SCR 159 (G) PLD 1988 SC AJK 53 rel.
Writ — dismissed in limine — remedy — It is the practice of the Court that when from the record, it is possible to resolve the controversy, instead of remanding the case, itself decide the case — Under High Court (Procedure) Rule, the writ has to be admitted for regular hearing and thereafter, after providing the opportunity to file written statements to the other party, the writ petition has to be decided — High Court dismissed writ in limine, therefore, the decision by this Court will be a violation of the High Court (Procedure) Rules — case remanded. Tariq Javaid v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 653 (C)
If a thing is provided to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner or not at all. Abid Akram Danish Zaib & 5 others 2015 SCR732 (F) 2012 SCR 213 ref.
It is settled law that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused has committed the alleged offence, the Court is fully empowered to convict the accused — Held: the offence brought on record is insufficient to convict the appellant. M. Rafique v. Aurangzeb 2015 SCR 974 (D)
Family Court — Pleadings — amendment of — Mandatory for the Family Court to serve notice upon the defendant after allowing amendment in the plaint — An opportunity should be provided to file the written statement — Held: without seeking written statement and issuance of notice to the defendant in the amended suit, the decree claimed in the amended plaint cannot be passed. Saleem Akbar Kayani versus Dr. Rehana Mansha Kayani & 4 others 2016 SCR 1 (E)
Writ — amendment of — writ amended — mandatory for the High Court to provide an opportunity to all the respondents to file amended written statement — Held: The judgment recorded without hearing and opportunity to file the amended written statement is not maintainable. Fatima Bibi versus Najma Parveen & others 2016 SCR 15 (C)
Khalsa land — Acquisition of — lease-holder filed reference for compensation — No notice issued to Azad Govt., the owner—decree issued — held: all the proceedings taken/conducted by the Reference Judge are against law and clear statutory provisions — It was enjoined upon the Reference Judge to serve a notice upon Azad Govt., who was party in the line of the respondents — Further held: without serving notice upon the Govt., who is owner of the land, decree in favour of the applicant(lease holder) is a nullity in the eye of law. Collector land acquisition v. Qamar Abbas Rizvi & 4 others 2016 SCR 114 (C)
Statutory rules — if not challenged — effect — the respondent has not challenged the vires of these statutory provisions, thus, resultantly, the statutory provision as existed on the statute book has to be enforced and applied in the matters of determination of terms and conditions. Azad Govt. & 4 others v. Sardar M. Mukhtar Khan 2016 SCR 206 (D)
Statutory provisions — declaring redundant — only if challenged — unless and until these statutory provisions are not specifically challenged or set-aside by the judicial forum while exercising the powers of judicial review, the same cannot be made redundant or inoperative on any other pretext. As the respondent has not challenged the vires of the statutory provisions, therefore, it can be safely held that for determination of the terms and conditions of the office of Ombudsman as existing on the statute, the same has to be applied and enforced. Azad Govt. & 4 others v. Sardar M. Mukhtar Khan 2016 SCR 206 (F)
Statutory rules — vires not challenged — effect — Undoubtedly, the executive order by exercise of judicial powers can be set-aside if it is against law but in the instant case, according to the peculiar facts and circumstances, the statutory provision dealing with the subject matter and the validly enforced law has vested the appointing authority with the powers, the vires of which have not been challenged. Thus, the act of determination of the terms and conditions of respondent as Ombudsman cannot be treated as unlawful or unauthorized. Azad Govt. & 4 others v. Sardar M. Mukhtar Khan 2016 SCR 206 (J)
Statutory provisions — if not challenged — remain operative and effective — the vires of the statutory provisions dealing with the subject have not been challenged by the respondent, therefore, the enforced law will have to be given effect. Until and unless the same is challenged by any aggrieved person and its status is determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction, it will remain operative and effective. AJK Govt. & others v. Syed Khalid Hussain Gillani 2016 SCR 228 (L)
It is duty of the petitioner who filed the writ petition to bring on record necessary facts, figures and material relating to the legal and factual propositions subject matter of the petition and if he fails, he will have to face the consequences. Ghulam Nabi & another v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2016 SCR 286 (B) 1993 SCR 27 & Arif Mehmood & others vs. Municipal Corporation Mirpur & others (Civil PLA No. 165/ 2012, decided on 19. 6. 2013) ref.
Non-furnishing of certified copy — contention that filing of affidavit under rule is sufficient — held: The filing of affidavit verifying the facts relied on is quite distinct requirement, whereas furnishing of certified copy of the impugned order is independently a mandatory requirement. Further held: one can claim exception by satisfying the Court that he has been made helpless in obtaining the certified copies of the impugned order — the petitioner attempted for obtaining the certified copy do not find support from record, thus, has no substance. Ghulam Nabi & another v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2016 SCR 286 (C)
Observation of the High Court — about a person who was not party — without appreciation of material and pleadings — effect — neither the concerned persons were party to that proceedings or have been heard nor the High Court has recorded any findings of facts after due appreciation of the material or pleadings of the parties. Held: The observation is of tentative nature without appreciation of the material or hearing of the parties, merely on the basis of such order, permanent appointment of a person cannot be declared temporary. Ghulam Nabi & another v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2016 SCR 286 (D)
According to the celebrated principle of law, the material factual and legal proposition decided by a special competent forum can only be reviewed in writ jurisdiction, if the law or any principle of law has been violated. M. Iqbal & 14 others v. Custodian & 23 others 2016 SCR 358 (C)
Held: persons who are not party before the Court cannot be granted any relief nor they may be affected by the order of the High Court. M. Tahir v. Syed M. Nazar Iqbal 2016 SCR 586 (B) 2002 SCR 128 rel.
It is the duty of the Court to decide the case after going through the whole record — It is also the duty of the Court to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law while deciding the case — The trial Court as well as the 1^st appellate Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and exercised the same in improper manner — it was enjoined upon the High Court to treat the appeal as revision petition. Muhammad Farooq & 3 others v. Pervaiz Muzaffar & 20 others 2016 SCR 665 (B)
The mandatory provisions of the rules have to be followed and it is enjoined upon the party to act according to the mode provided in the rules and non-compliance of rules merits dismissal of the case. Tanveer Fatima versus Divisional Director Schools & others 2016 SCR 714 (A)
Service Tribunal — evidence — power to provide opportunity of producing — in factual proposition —According to the statutory provision, the Service Tribunal is vested with the powers to provide opportunity to the parties for producing the evidence regarding the factual proposition. Thus, although this Court is vested with the powers to decide the case without remanding the same if there is sufficient material available for determination of such proposition. But in this case, due to lack of availability of sufficient material, in our considered view the matter cannot be conclusively resolved by this Court. Held: Case remanded to the Service Tribunal to decide afresh. Sardar Tariq Mehmood Khan & 21 others versus Barkat Ali & 26 others 2016 SCR 902 (B)
Argument that purchased the land and it was not mortgaged — No document relied by the petitioners or copy of objections/written statement is filed with PLA — when no document is placed on record, how it can be ascertained that what was the case of the petitioners before the Collector. Ghulam Murtaza & 8 others v. Board of Revenue & 11 others 2016 SCR 1297 (B)
Writ — maintainability of — Pendency of a civil suit — writ not maintainable. Ghulam Murtaza & 8 others v. Board of Revenue & 11 others 2016 SCR 1297 (D)
Statement recorded in another case — evidence — The appellants based their case upon the copy of the statement recorded in another case and brought on record a copy of the said statement — Held: under law such copy is not admissible in evidence and cannot be read. Shafqat Hayyat & 3 others v. Muhammad Razzaq & another 2016 SCR 1334 (A) PLD 2012 Lahore 12 rel.
Writ — maintainability of pendency of civil suit — held: when a party files a suit in respect of a matter, such party is debarred from filing the writ petition regarding the same matter. Muhammad Hussain v. Chairman Development Authority & 12 others 2016 SCR 1366(B)
When a particular method for performance of an act is prescribed in an Act or Rules, then such act must be performed according to that way or not at all. Muhammad Riaz & 39 others v. Mst. Farzand Begum & 6 others 2016 SCR 1387 (B) 2012 SCR 213 ref.
—If a judgment is procured while practicing fraud with a party, then such party has to challenge the same by way of a regular suit, but if fraud is committed with the Court, the Court has to act suo motu and undo the wrong. Mst. Nighat Srwar v. Mst. Shabana Kausar & others 2017 SCR 158 (E)
High Court while exercising its discretion has vacated the impugned ex-parte order. Supreme Court normally does not interfere in the discretion exercised in a judicious manner by the Court below— as theex-parte proceedings have been vacated by the High Court, therefore, we are not inclined to disturb the order, specially, when a heavy amount is claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant as damages. Zulfiqar Abbasi v. Sohrab Khan & others 2017 SCR 1066 (A&D)
—An act provided to be done in a particular manner has to
be done in that manner or not at all. The President of AJ&K v. Muhammad Riaz Akhter Choudhary Chief Justice AJ&K 2017 SCR 759 (Q/I)
—It is well settled law that agreement of the parties cannot confer any jurisdiction on a Court which is otherwise not empowered to hear and determine a cause. The President of AJ&K v. Muhammad Riaz Akhter Choudhary Chief Justice AJ&K 2017 SCR 759 (BB)
— AJ&K Council Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2000— Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973—inquiry proceedings—repeal of Act—de-novo inquiry—authority initiated proceedings under Act, 2000— During pendency of appeal before this Court, said Act, repealed— notification of de-novo inquiry clearly speaks that de-novo inquiry has been ordered in continuation of the already initiated proceedings—Held: authority was not legally authorized to initiate denovo proceedings under E&D Rules, 1973— This act of the authority is bad in law and without lawful authority. Chairman AJK Council v. Muhammad Munir Raja & others 2017 SCR 1168 (R)
—it is settled principle of law that in a case where the statute provides a procedure for doing of a thing in a particular manner, that thing should be done in that manner and in no other way or it should not be done at all. Muhammad Sajjad Khan vs Abdul Qadoos Khan & others 2018 SCR 216 (A)
—Review— legal heirs impleaded— objection that application for legal heirs was filed beyond 90 days, thus, legal heirs impleaded cannot be termed as legal heirs of the deceased—Held: if the application filed or the order for impleading the legalheirs was passed against the statutory provisions, then the remedy of review against the said order was available but remedy has not been availed, hence without availing the statutory remedy the non-petitioners are estopped to raise such objection. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661 (A)
—Held: the proceedings conducted before the earlier forum cannot be made part of the proceedings of later Court. Saleem Ahmed &others vs Judge Family Court & others 2018 SCR 860 (A/1)
—According to the settled principle, Court’s proceedings have got presumption of correctness. Azad Govt. & others vs Muhammad Amin 2018 SCR 1006 (B)
—Competency of Appeal before the High Court—Non-furnishing of Court Fee—Objection/allegation on plaintiff about non-furnishing of Court Fee with plaint—objection not raised before the trial Court—On Inquiry ordered by Court found, untrue and was Court Fee was duly filed—Inadvertently sent with record to the High Court—When appeal of the Appellant was not competent, then such argument against the plaintiff was not available to the appellant—the High Court rightly dismissed the appeal— It may be observed here that when the appeal of the appellant was incompetently filed due to non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of furnishing the Court fee then such argument is not available to the appellants. As through the instant appeal the validity of the judgment of the High Court has been challenged and in view of the circumstances of the case (discussed hereinabove) it is an admitted position that the appeal before the High Court was incompetent, therefore, we are satisfied that the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the appeal and has not committed any such illegality which may call for any interference by this Court. Liaqat Ali vs Sher Zaman & others 2018 SCR 1174 (A)
— addition of a party—after institution of lis—effect to the extent of added party. Held: liswill be deemed to be instituted when such party was added as such to lis. Tanvir Tahir v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 91 (B) 1992 SCR 190 ref
—In absence of cross appeal—the judgments of the Courts below cannot be interfered with—land owner not entitled to demand compensation more than the one he had demanded before Collector in pursuance of notice under section 9—this aspect not taken into account by the Courts below—the Reference Judge enhanced compensation— as the appellant has already received more than his claim, therefore, the case of further enhancement has not been made out. Although this aspect of the case has not been taken into account by the Courts below but, as no cross appeal is before us, therefore, we do not intend to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below in this regard. Muhammad Roshan Khan v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 190 (B)
— The Advocates of the Supreme Court should be careful while drafting the petitions and should apply their mind in scrutinizing the record, specially, the mandatory requirement of the rules should be fulfilled. Azad Govt. & others v. Muhammad Ishaq Khan 2019 SCR 383 (B)
—jurisdiction of trial Court for rectification of its order—if a party considers an order out of jurisdiction of a Court, then it must challenge the same at the relevant time and do not acquiesce —if does otherwise, cannot object it afterwards—argument: the trial Court had no jurisdiction to rectify its own order—Held: As the appellant did not challenge the said order of the Court at the relevant time rather he himself by moving applications sought further time to comply with the same; therefore, in our view at this stage this argument is no more available to the appellant. Muhammad Aslam Khan v. Azhar Mehmood & Others 2019 SCR 504 (C)
—interlinked civil and criminal matter—dropping of criminal proceedings pending before criminal Court while deciding appeal under AJ&K Family Courts Act, 1993—Shariat Court has got powers to drop criminal proceedings while hearing interlinked civil matter—when Shariat Court reached conclusion that respondent is legally wedded wife of Muhammad Rashid, then cases registered against them in offence of Zina is not made out. No useful purpose can be achieved from such criminal proceedings; except to put the respondent and her husband in the hardship of facing trial. The Shariat Court, rightly dropped the criminal proceedings while exercising the inherent powers and has not committed any illegality. Tanveer Ahmed v. Aalia Nazir & others 2019 SCR 516 (D)
—filling up of posts—strictly in accordance with provided method and quotas—the selection should be made against the posts lying vacant strictly in accordance with method provided for filling in the post of that very category, i.e. the post fell vacant due to promotion of incumbent on officiating basis, acting-charge basis, due to deputation, lien or to be filled in from promotion quota etc. Noman Javed v. Senior Member Board of Revenue 2019 SCR 539 (B)
—writ—effect of not challenging of subsequent order of cancellation of waiting list—subsequent to filing of writ, the order having effect of material change required to be challenged—claim based on the waiting list prepared in pursuance of NTS Test 2017–Waiting list during pendency of writ was cancelled—it was enjoyed upon the petitioners to challenge the said order of cancellation. The High Court committed no illegality while dismissed the writ petitions. Bushra Sarwar & another v.Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 560 (A)
—two writ petitions before the High Court— different parties and causes of actions—clubbed together and disposed of through consolidated judgement—Single Petition for Leave to Appeal—- Held: Under law, as the causes of action in both the writ petitions were different and the parties were also different so two petitions for leave to appeal have to be preferred before this Court, whereas a single petition for leave to appeal by the different parties having different causes of actions has been filed, therefore, on this score too, the petition for leave to appeal was not maintainable. Bushra Sarwar & another v.Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 560 (C)
—Order of retirement–revocation/amendment of—When the accused civil servant was compulsorily retired from service and the order was conveyed to him then the same cannot be cancelled or amended on the ground of locus potentia. Shoukat Hussain Mughal v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 656 (A)
—Order of retirement—revocation —on the ground that the same was issued contrary to the report of the Inquiry Officer. Held: this was not a sufficient ground for revocation of notification because the authority may or may not accept the report of the Inquiry Officer and can also enhance the punishment suggested by the Inquiry Officer to an accused civil servant. Shoukat Hussain Mughal v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 656 (B)
—judgment of Supreme Court—final—cannot be nullified— [Syed Shabbir Ahmed Bukhari v. Controlling Authority & others 2019 SCR 707 (B)
—when an act is required to be performed in a specific manner, it has to be performed in that manner or not at all. Secretary S&GAD v. Dr. Raja Muhammad Arif & others 2019 SCR 790 (A)
—any action done or order passed without competence or lawful authority has no legal effect and void. Sadaqat Ali v. Headmistress Govt. Girls High School Sathi Bagh & 6 others 2020 SCR 104 (B)
—respondent removed from service—punishment order operated—unless such order is set aside in due process of law while following the remedies provided under law, the victim cannot get rid of such order merely on the basis of some inquiry. Sadaqat Ali v. Headmistress Govt. Girls High School Sathi Bagh & 6 others 2020 SCR 104 (C)
—when an act has to be performed in the specific manner, it should be performed in that manner or not at all and nonperformance in the prescribed manner is void and of no legal effect. Sadaqat Ali v. Headmistress Govt. Girls High School Sathi Bagh & 6 others 2020 SCR 104 (D)
—signature of deceased on dying declaration—alleged as forged one, comparing same with the one affixed on a Nikah Nama—neither plea in this regard raised before the Trial Court, nor application for having opinion of expert was ever moved–Held: plea cannot be accepted at this stage, further, signature may very at times—The learned counsel for the convict during the course of arguments submitted that the signature affixed on the dying declaration are forged and in support of this version placed reliance on a copy of nikahnama of the son of the deceased and submitted that there is a lot of difference between the signatures affixed on both the documents; however, when they were asked; whether such plea had ever been taken before the trial Court or any application was moved for getting the opinion of the expert, they admitted that neither such objection was raised before the trial Court nor any effort for getting the opinion of the expert was ever made. Thus, in such state of affairs we do not intend to accept such plea at this stage; even otherwise, it is not necessary that a person always bears one and the same signature. Iftikhar Khan v. The State & 3 others 2020 SCR 177 (G)
—Appeal was subjudice before the Supreme Court—exparte order and proclamation to this effect was issued by the Registrar—appellant was residing abroad and pursuing case through attorney—notice was served to address of appellant instead of issuance to the attorney—report of process server stated that appellant was living abroad—appeal against ex-parte proceedings—ex-parte proceedings were set aside by the Supreme Court, in circumstances—The perusal of the record shows that the appellant is residing abroad as is visualised from the report of the process server and the leaf of the passport of the appellant, annexed with the appeal. The appellant is prosecuting the case through his attorney and the subject matter of the main case is also the power of attorney as is evident from the leave granting order of this Court, therefore, the issuance of notice on the address of the appellant instead of his attorney, is not justified. The stance of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the substitute service through proclamation having no circulation in U.K. has also substance. In this state of affairs, I am convinced that the counsel for the appellant has assigned sufficient reasons for not filing the concise statement as well as the appeal against the ex-parte order, as no notice had been served upon him. Muhammad Saleem v. Tasleem Mehmood Khan 2020 SCR 251 (A)
—writ petition—subsequent notification cancelled the waiting list, relied by petitioners, issued during pendency of writ petitions, not challenged—it was enjoined upon the petitioners to challenge the subsequent notification also—the High Court committed no illegality while dismissing writ petitions—PLA dismissed. Bushra Sarwar & another V. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2020 SCR 267 (A)
—two writ petitions—consolidated and disposed of through single judgment—single PLA before the Supreme Court—not competent— two writ petitions were filed before the High Court, arising out of different causes of actions by the different parties— the High Court clubbed together both the writ petitions, as having involved common questions of law and the facts in both writ petitions, and disposed of through a consolidated judgment. The single Petition for Leave to Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by parties of both the writ petitions being aggrieved from the judgment of the High Court. Held: As the causes of action in both the writ petitions were different and the parties were also different, then two Petitions for Leave to Appeal had to be preferred before this Court, whereas a single petition for leave to appeal by the different parties having different causes of action has been filed, therefore, on this score too, this petition for leave to appeal was not maintainable. Bushra Sarwar & another V. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2020 SCR 267 (B)
—Bail petitions—directly addressed to the High Court/ Chief Justice—competency of— law provides appellate, revisional or extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction before the High Court and not before the Chief Justice—Held: the High Court was not justified to conduct proceedings on such improperly instituted socalled bail applications/petitions. Asad Muneer Khan V. The State & 16 others 2020 SCR 413 (A)
—Bail—Pandemic COVID-19—the High Court released prisoners while exercising inherent jurisdiction—Held: the action taken by the High Court is without jurisdiction and totally alien to law—the High Court was equipped with no such powers—law provided detailed mechanism for dealing with bail matters—the statutory mechanism cannot be neglected in the garb of health emergency— all steps should have legal backing. Asad Muneer Khan V. The State & 16 others 2020 SCR 413 (G)
— It is settled practice that a decision is only given about live issues. Robkar-e-Adalat V. Liaqat Ali Mir 2020 SCR 431 (B) 1998 SCR 55 rel
—Decree should be executed in letter and spirit—the Court is not bound to execute the decree according to the will of the judgment debtor. Muhammad Shabir Khan v. Mst. Bilqees Fatima & another 2020 SCR 515 (B & C)
—induction in service—syllabus cannot be selected on the sweet will of any person or group of persons– it is prerogative of the relevant department. Rukhsana Aftab & another v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2020 SCR 534 (A)
—Mere on the wish of the someone, a well-reasoned/speaking order passed by the competent forum cannot be annulled. Inhabitants of constituency No.LA-XXVIII Versus Waheed Mughal & 18 others 2021 SCR 144 (E)
—When an act is required to be performed in a particular manner, the same should be performed in that manner or not at all. Muhammad Tanvir Versus Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan 10 others 2021 SCR 672 (D)
—It is settled law that when a provision of law or statute provides a particular manner for performance of an act, then such act must be performed in the prescribed manner alone or not at all. Muhammad Rasheed & others v. Custodian Evacuee Property & others 2022 SCR 247 (D/1)
—When law providesdoings of particular things in a particular way, all other modes of doing it are prohibited. Muhammad Sameeb Khan v. AJ&K P.S.C & others 2022 SCR 552 (B)
—Under law without proper inquiry no penalty can be imposed on a civil servant. Javed Iqbal v. D.G Local Govt. & others 2022 SCR 699 (A) 2007 SCR 387 rel.
—When law provides doing of a particular thing in a particular way, all other modes of doing it are prohibited. Muhammad Sajid khan v. University of Kotli & others 2022 SCR 986 (B)
—Filing of review petitions without justifiable grounds— practice of the Supreme Court declared it as unhealthy practice and abuse of process of Court and showed its disappointment—legal practitioners were cautioned—The Supreme Court declared that the practice of filing review petitions without any justifiable ground is unhealthy and the Court is disappointed that the legal practitioners are indulging themselves in such like practice. The grounds upon which a review may be filed are well-settled and the counsels should be vigilant in this regsard. Review petitions filed without any ground as per law amounts to abuse of the process of the Courts. This practice should be avoided to save the Court’s valuable time, essence of law and people from agony of unnecessary litigation. Kh.Shabir Ahmed & others v. Development Authority & others 2022 SCR 1032 (E)
—Contention by the appellant’s counsel that respondents received compensation amount without protest, so reference was incompetent—Held: the appellant did not challenge the judgment of the Reference Judge before the High Court, hence, such argument is not available to him. Argument repelled. WAPDA v. Muhammad Rasheed & others 2022 SCR 1080 (E)
—Condition incorporated in appointment order was not challenged by the appellants, instead they joined service and no objection was raised by them—prerogative of Govt.—Held: the condition was necessary to be challenged, but the same was not challenged. Rashid Aftab &others v. AJ&K Govt. & others 2022 SCR 1598 (D)
— when law provides doing of a particular thing in a particular way, all other methods of doing it are prohibited. Qasim Iqbal & others v. Azad Govt. & others 2023 SCR 175 (B)
— when a thing is prescribed to be done in a particular manner that should be done in that manner or not at all — Saqib Majeed Raja versus Ch. Latif Akber & others 2023 SCR 913 (C)
— where an Act or Rules prescribe a specific mode for performance of an act, then such act should be performed in that manner or it should not be performed at all in contravention of that manner and any deviation from it, is impermissible. Home Department & 05 others versus Aqib Farooq & 22 others 2023 SCR 1200 (E) 2012 SCR 213, 2018 SCR 48 & PLD 2002 Kar 60 ref.
— where an act or rules, prescribes a specific mode for performance of an act then such act should be performed according to that manner otherwise it should not be performed at all in contravention of that method and any deviation from it is impermissible. Muhammad Jameel Safdar versus Muhammad Iqbal & 11 others 2023 SCR 1035 (H) 2018 SCR 48, 2012 SCR 213 & PLD 2002 Karachi 60 ref.
— Section 467/68/71 & 34 APC — criminal trial — criminal Court gone into controversy whether ‘A’ was competent to transfer land or not — held: it is mandate of civil Court and not the criminal Court — a criminal Court is supposed to point out the commission of offence and not embark upon civil matters — civil litigation between parties admitted — if civil Court ultimately declares the disputed transfer to be valid, then there will be no compensation for the sentence served by the convict — sentence awarded by trial Court converted into sentence already undergone. Ghulam Sarwar vs Ehtesab Bureau & others 2024 SCR 171 (C&D)
—writ petition—non-validation of disables quota— challenge to—writ filed for general direction by the High Court to all departments for observance of disables quota—appointments of contesting successful candidates, not challenged—effect of— Held: Rather than challenging the appointment orders of the successful candidates, the appellant solely filed a writ petition before the High Court, broadly seeking a direction against the respondents to implement 2% quota for disable persons in all departments. At this stage, where the entire selection process has been completed, and candidates have been appointed, it is impractical to set aside the process solely based on the appellant’s apprehensions, especially when he has not challenged the appointment orders. M. Atta-ul-Mustafa vs AJK PSC & 05 others 2024 SCR 442 (G)