ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Civil Revision Application No.S- 46 of 1998

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

-.-.--.

Date of hearing : 08-04-2019.

Syed Jaffar Ali Shah Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Qalander Bakhsh Phulpoto Advocate for respondent No.5.

Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Memon State Counsel.

O R D E R.

MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J. This revision application is arising out of the order passed by the appellate Court. Precise facts are that applicant filed the suit for declaration regarding the orders passed under revenue hierarchy, ultimately by Member, Board of Revenue. Plaintiff / applicant’s suit was decreed with no order as to costs. Aggrieved of it respondent No.1 filed civil appeal No. 17 of 1992 which appeal was allowed against the applicant. Though rational and distinguishing stances were referred but in respect of issue No.2, it was observed that it was not within the competence of civil Court to re-open the case decided under revenue hierarchy and specially by the Board of Revenue (vide order dated 25.09.1978 which relates to 50% share of the plaintiff in the suit land). It was also held that it was not within the domain of a civil Court as to whether the objector Arbab was Hari in respect of the land in question and was in possession of land as being Hari, prior to the alleged sale. Hari claimed preferential rights over the property. The appellate Court decided the fate of the suit by virtue of a judgment dated 05.06.1998 which is impugned in these proceedings.

Prior to the filing of the suit, facts are that applicants Ali Muhammad and Shakal entered into a sale in respect of survey No. 723 (2-23) acres. It is claimed that sale was undisputed by virtue of registered instrument. After the execution of the sale deed the applicant Arbab Ali who claimed to be a Hari of disputed land, moved an application as pre-emption case No. 6693-HVC/77 before Deputy Commissioner / Collector Khairpur against one co-owner Ali Muhammad under MLR 115. Shakal son of Gharibo Khan was not arrayed as respondent before Deputy Commissioner in pre-emption case. Without any record or discussion, the applicant Arbab Ali in the pre-emption suit was considered as Hari and the application of pre-emption was accepted and the opponent in pre-emption case namely Ali Muhammad was directed to sell the land to applicant Arbab Ali in the amount shown in the sale deed. The order was passed by Deputy Commissioner on 15.08.1977 and the requisite amount was ordered to be deposited within “30” days. This date is important for further consideration in the matter. Aggrieved of it, one of the purchaser Ali Muhammad moved an application to the Commissioner Sukkur Division Sukkur. At this stage too shakal was not arrayed as party who is the other co-owner. The record shows that undisputedly the matter was referred to the “arbitrators”. Para 4 of the order of the Commissioner Sukkur Division Sukkur provides that before the order could have been passed in the matter (on merit), the parties chose to settle the matter amicably through nekmards of the area. They nominated M/S Haji Shahnawaz Solangi, Dr. Murad Ali Bugti and Haji Mureed Gopang as nekmards as their arbitrators to settle their dispute. This order further provides that these AMEENS decided that one half of the survey number may go to the appellant and one half to the respondent. The Commissioner approved the faisla of the nekmards in the absence of Shakal as he was not party in the proceedings till then. This order provides that half land shall remain with the “appellant” and remaining half to be sold to the respondent by working out the price of the land on the basis of registered sale deed. At this stage when apparently Shakkal was, in the terms of language of the order of the Commissioner, deprived of his entire share, moved an application before Member Board of Revenue. A joint application was then filed by Ali Muhammad and Shakal.

Shakal, however, not pleaded that he never consented or conceded to the appointment of Arbitrators (AMEENS). The Member Board of Revenue again “upset” the order of the Commissioner and ordered that Ali Muhammad’s share i.e 50% (instead of Shakal) in the disputed land be sold to Arbab pre-emptor and remaining 50% share should remain with Shakal. Under Revenue hierarchy, thus the pendulum kept on moving without any reason or rational.

I have heard learned counsel in this respect and perused the record. It is at this stage (after order of Board of Revneue) when one of the applicants i.e Ali Muhammad filed the suit against Arbab and arraying Shakal as party to the proceedings impugning order of the Member Board of Revenue. The suit was decreed in favour of applicant Ali Muhammad. The suit challenged all orders passed under Revenue hierarchy. Arbab Ali then filed an appeal No. 17 of 1992 before 1^st Additional District Judge Khairpur Mir’s which was decided on 05.06.1998. The appeal was allowed in terms of the findings on issue Nos. 2 and 3 that it is exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue officers under Sindh Land Commission rules to declare as to whether any person is owner and / or Haris of the land or otherwise. The appellate Court held that civil Court has no jurisdiction to give findings on both these issues as a result of which suit was dismissed and the Judgment and Decree of the Senior Civil Judge was set aside. Aggrieved of the order of the appellate Court, Ali Muhammad one of the co-owner filed this revision application.

The primarily, the question before this Court is as to whether civil court can maintain a suit in respect of the orders passed under revenue hierarchy . There is no cavil to this proposition that under revenue hierarchy the authority is competent to pass orders but in accordance with law and once the jurisdiction was invoked and / or one surrendered to its domain then a parallel jurisdiction cannot be invoked. However, when the jurisdiction as exercised by the revenue officers who claimed to have passed order under revenue laws have either acted beyond jurisdiction or have acted in a manner which apparently deprived parties of their fundamental rights, the civil Court enjoys powers to take cognizance to upset such findings as reached. Hence the fundamental rights of the parties i.e Ali Muhammad and Shakal were at stake and dealt with in a manner which was beyond their jurisdiction as share of one of the co-owner was dealt with without notice to him. Hence in view of these facts the exclusive jurisdiction shall remain with the civil Court as the authority concerned acted beyond their domain, mandate and statue.

In this matter two co-owners were enjoying the property such as survey No. 723 (2-23) acres, their transaction was challenged by one individual, under pre-emption laws which were then available in the shape of MLR 115 as Haris were given preferential rights as being pre-emptor. Without prejudice to the rights of those pre-emptors under MLR 115 since it is no body’s claim under revenue hierarchy where facts reached finality, that those were not Haris to claim benefit under MLR 115, the matter was referred amicably to Arbitrators. This reference was also not challenged by any of the co-owners, so admittedly the matter went to three AMEENS who were either nominated by the party i.e Ali Muhammad and / or conceded / waived by Shakal to decide the objections of one Arbab Ali who was claiming himself to be Hari. By all means the two co-owners Ali Muhammad and Shakal left their fate at the hands of the arbitrators / AMEENS. It is no where pleaded that those arbitrators acted malafidely or in a manner which is not provided under the law. They attempted to settle the dispute in terms of para No.4 of the order passed by Commissioner sukkur Division. The crux of the decision of Arbitrator was that one half of the survey number may go to the “appellant” and one half to the respondent i.e Arbab. While passing order it cannot be the intention of the Commissioner that one of the co-owner i.e Shakal be deprived of his entire legitimate share. The true interpretation of the order of Arbitrator was that out of entire land, two co-owners i.e Ali Muhammad and Shakal shall enjoy 50% of the property whereas other 50% shall be disposed of / sold to Arbab, who was objecting to sell as being pre-emptor. It is only the conclusion of the commissioner which says that the half portion shall remain with the appellant and remaining half shall be sold to the respondent. Perhaps the Commissioner was ignorant of the facts that the other co-owner was not party to the proceedings as appellant otherwise he would have said appellant and other co-owner. In view of the interpretation as given by the then parties, Shakal along with Ali Muhammad filed a case before Member Board of Revenue as SROR-709 of 1977-78 which again, surprisingly upset the interpretation as on this occasion Ali Muhammad’s share of 50% was ordered to be disposed of / sold to Arbab and remaining 50% paisa share was ordered to remain with Shakal. If the earlier reasoning of Commissioner was not justified as it was in favour of Ali Muhammad, how then this decision whereby Ali Muhammad’s share was ordered to be sold to Arbab, could be termed as lawful and justified.

To my mind the best interpretation that could be attributed is that the two co-owners i.e Ali Muhammad and Shakal shall enjoy 50% of the disputed land jointly in equal proportion whereas the other 50%, as agreed by the Arbitrators / AMEENS be disposed of to Arbab Ali.

The order of the Member Board of Revenue was correctly challenged by Ali Muhammad as none of the forums below i.e Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Member Board of Revenue who could not have deprived one co-owner in totality, instead of proportionate share / in equal proportion. It is these arbitrary decisions which were challenged by the applicant as revenue hierarchy deprived one of the co-owner in each decision.

I do not agree with the findings of the appellate Court wherein the order of the trial Court / Senior Civil Judge was merged, that the civil Court had no jurisdiction in so far as the orders passed by the Member Board of Revenue or any officer under revenue hierarchy is concerned. These officers under revenue hierarchy do not enjoy absolute and / or unfettered jurisdiction. The absolute jurisdiction always remains with the civil Court. As in this matter since the discretion was not exercised lawfully and one of the party was deprived of his share in totality which was neither the mandate of law nor the jurisdiction under the law demands.

It is well settled by now that immunity does not attach to the orders, which were made without jurisdiction or in violation of any provision of law, whenever, there is violation, the Court of justice came to their rescue and save citizens from arbitrary and capricious actions of the State functionaries and save them from unlawful proceedings. Immunity under paragraph 26 of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 was available only to those orders which had been competently passed under the Regulation. The clause ousting jurisdiction of civil Court would become operative only if order brought under challenge passed within the four corners of the Statute and in case of absence or excess of authority, the order passed by a functionary could hardly said to have been passed to claim blanket protection. Government functionaries are vested with the powers to act in accordance with law and if they failed to do so, the order would become, order without jurisdiction and that can be set aside by a Court.

In view of the above this revision application is disposed of in terms of the interpretation as given above that 50% of the land in question i.e S.No. 723 (2-23) acres shall remain with two co-owners namely Ali Muhammad and Shakal, whereas other half of the survey number be sold to the objector. I have also noticed that Deputy Commissioner had ordered to deposit the requisite amount within 30 days on 15.08.1977. Facts revealed that such amount was deposited much beyond the time limit which frustrated the claim and interest of co-owners. The vires of such MLR 115 is not under challenge before us hence no further orders in this regard could have been passed nor the counsels have pleaded for such orders. Admittedly the requisite amount as ordered by Deputy Commissioner was not deposited. It is claimed that only 50% of the amount was deposited with the Mukhtiarkar Kotdiji after faisla / decision given by the Commissioner Sukkur Division Sukkur. Since he was exercising pre-emption right, therefore, the sale price ought to have been deposited then and there. Value of the property kept on increasing whereas the pre-emptor kept the money as well with him. No orders with regard to the extension of time for depositing the sale consideration was filed either with the Civil Court or appellate Court, nor it could have been extended to deprive the co-owner from the value of the property. The matter pertains to year 1977-78. In case the objector is still willing to exercise his right, it could only be done on payment of current value which could only justify the right of pre-emption to be exercised by him since the value of the property has multiplied manifolds. The exercise of evaluating value of land be carried out by the concerned Mukhtiakrar which may not take more than four weeks after issuance of notices to all concerned, in case the pre-emptor so desires. In case of failure to opt such exercise, the sale deed of two co-owners shall remain intact.

The revision application is disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Crl. Transfer Application No. S- 145 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Fresh case.

1. For order son office objection at Flag ‘A’.

2. For hearing of main case.

3. For order on MA No.6740/2018 (stay)

-.-.--.

21-01-2019.

Mr. Manzoor Hussain Balouch Advocate for applicant.

-.-.-.-.-.-.

1. Deferred for the time being.

2&3. The affidavit containing the allegations are taken on record along with documents. Let notice be issued to Additional P.G for 04.02.2019.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Crl. Transfer Application No. S- 144 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Fresh case.

4. For orders on CMA No.6729/2018 (U/A)

5. For order son office objection at Flag ‘A’.

6. For orders on ma No.6730/2018 (Ex)

7. For hearing of main case.

8. For order on MA No.6731/2018 (stay)

-.-.--.

21-01-2019.

Mr. Manzoor Hussain Balouch Advocate for applicant.

-.-.-.-.-.-.

1. Urgency granted.

2. Deferred for the time being.

3. Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.

4&5. The affidavit containing the allegations are taken on record along with documents. Let notice be issued to Additional P.G for 04.02.2019.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

C.P No. S- 849 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

For hearing of case / Priority.

9. For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’.

10. For hearing of main case.

11. For hering of CMA NO.10678/2018 (Stay)

-.-.--.

21-01-2019.

None present. Adjourned.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Civil Revision No. S- 220 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Fresh cases.

12. For orders on office objection No.5 at Flag ‘A’.

13. For orders on CMA 1631/2018 (Ex)

14. For hearing of main case.

15. For orders on CMA NO.1632/2018 (Stay)

-.-.--.

21-01-2019.

None present. Adjourned.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Civil Appeal No. S- 37 of 2017

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Hearing of case / Priority

16. For hearing of main case.

17. For hearing of CMA No.1177/2017 (stay)

-.-.--.

21-01-2019.

None present. Adjourned.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

C.P No. S- 1044 of 2017

C.P No. S- 1045 of 2017

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Hearing of case / Priority

18. For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’.

19. For hearing of main case.

20. For hearing of CMA No.7316/2017 (stay)

-.-.--.

21-01-2019.

Mr. Aijaz Ahmed Advocate holding brief for Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo counsel for the petitioner and on his instructions, he does not press these petitions, which are accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

R.A No. S- 74 of 2017

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

21. For orders on CMA 45/2019 (Condonation)

22. For Non prosecution.

-.-.--.

18-01-2019.

Applicant Gul Muhammad Mahesar present in person.

-.-.-.-.-

1 & 2. The application for condonation of delay is taken on record. It is claimed that this revision is within time.

Notice to respondents as well as Additional A.G for a date to be fixed by office.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

R.A No. S- 73 of 2017

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

23. For orders on CMA 44/2019 (Condonation)

24. For Non prosecution.

-.-.--.

18-01-2019.

Applicant Gul Muhammad Mahesar present in person.

-.-.-.-.-

1 & 2. The application for condonation of delay is taken on record. It is claimed that this revision is within time.

Notice to respondents as well as Additional A.G for a date to be fixed by office.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

R.A No. S- 228 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

For non-prosecution.

Applicant has not complied with office objection at Flag ‘A’.

-.-.-.-.

18-01-2019.

Mr. Achar Khan Gabol Advocate for applicants.

-.-.-.-.-

Learned counsel for applicants seeks one week time to make compliance of office objection. Order accordingly.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

R.A No. S- 227 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

For non-prosecution.

Applicant has not complied with office objection at Flag ‘A’.

Notice issued to applicant

-.-.-.-.

18-01-2019.

None present. Office objection be complied with within one week.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

R.A No. S- 212 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

For non-prosecution.

Learned counsel for appellant has not complied with the office objection at Flag ‘A’

-.-.-.-.

18-01-2019.

None present. As a last chance one more opportunity is granted to applicants and their counsel for compliance of office objection within a period of one week.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

R.A No. S- 206 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

For non-prosecution.

Learned counsel for appellant has not complied with the office objection since 12.11.2018 at Flag ‘A’

-.-.-.-.

18-01-2019.

None present. Adjourned.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

R.A No. S- 83 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

For non-prosecution.

P.F & copies not supplied by learned counsel for applicant for issuing notices to the respondent & Addl.A.G.

-.-.-.-.

18-01-2019.

Mr. Muhammad Qayoom Arain Advocate holds brief for Mr. Nazeer Ahmed Junejo Advocate for applicant and requests for one week time to make compliance of office objection. Order accordingly.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

IInd Civil Appeal No. S-04 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

For non-prosecution.

Learned counsel for appellant has not complied with the office objection at flag ‘A’.

-.-.-.-.

18-01-2019.

None present. Adjourned.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Const. Petition No. D- 303 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Hearing of case.

1. For orders on CMA No.205/2019 (U/A)

2. For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’.

3. For orders on CMA No.2845/2018 (Ex)

4. For hearing of main case.

(Matter already fixed on 13.03.2019)

17-01-2019.

Mr. Ali Raza Balouch Advocate for petitioner.

-.-.-.--.-

1. Urgency granted.

2. Deferred for the time being.

3. Exemption is granted subject to all jut exceptions.

4. Counsel for petitioner submits that they would not press this petition provided their appeal pending before Secretary Food department Sindh Secretariat be heard and decided by the competent authority as available at page 71 of this file. In case such appeal is pending, the same be disposed of after hearing petitioner in accordance with law within 08 weeks. The petition as such served its purpose and is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Const. Petition No. D- 100 of 2019

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Fresh case.

5. For orders on CMA No.401/2019 (U/A)

6. For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’.

7. For orders on CMA No.402/2019 (Ex)

8. For hearing of main case.

9. For orders on CMA 403/2019 (Stay)

17-01-2019.

Mr. Sarfraz A. Akhund Advocate for petitioner.

-.-.-.--.-

1. Urgency granted.

2. Deferred for the time being.

3. Exemption is granted subject to all jut exceptions.

4&5. Although there are certain questions as to maintainability of this petition, since it is claimed that School was raised on an amenity plot meant for park. Counsel to assist as to maintainability of the petition on the next date, however, in the meantime, let notice be issued to the respondents as well as Additional A.G. No further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner on the next date of hearing.

To come up along with C.P No.D-85/2019 on 22.01.2019 to be taken at 9.30 a.m

JUDGE

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Const. Petition No. D- 600 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Hearing of case (Priority)

For orders on CMA No.7279/2018 (151 CPC)

For hearing of CMA No.3937/2018 (S/A)

For hearing of main case.

17-01-2019.

Mr. Zulifqar Ali Sangi Advocate for petitioners.

Mr. Bakhshan Khan Mahar Advocate for respondent No.6.

Mr. Zulifqar Ali Naich Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

Mr. Irfan Ahmed Memon D.A.G.

-.-.-.--.-

This petition was filed by the councilors of Town Committee Halani. It is claimed that all the councilors have voted for no-confidence against the Chairman Town Committee Halani, however, since the Election Commission has disposed of the appeal whereby it is claimed that no-confidence motion was discharged in view of section 27 of Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 therefore, this petition loses its venum . The order of Election Commission is not binding to this bench and this petition shall be heard independently irrespective of any order passed by the Election Commission. It is yet to be seen whether in the absence of any rule in moving of no-confidence motion what would be fate of a resolution of no-confidence motion as moved against the Chairman and was unanimously decided in absence of the rules in prescribed manner. Whether absence of rules would create an effect on the functioning of section 27 of Local Government Act, 2013 is to be seen. The rules may have its prospective effects but it is to be seen that whether such rules can have retrospective effects. Petitioners also intend to challenge the order of Election Commission since they were not arrayed as party in the proceedings. They are at liberty to do so but they do not need any permission from the Court. However, since a short controversy is involved, let this petition be fixed on 13.02.2019. Interim order passed earlier to continue till next date.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Const. Petition No. D- 3856 of 2016

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Hearing of case.

10. For orders on CMA No.383/2019 (U/A)

11. For orders on withdrawal statement.

12. For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’.

13. For hearing of main case.

14. For orders on CMA 10430/2016 (Stay)

(Matter already fixed on 14.02.2019)

17-01-2019.

Mr. Abdul Naeem Pirzada Advocate for petitioners.

-.-.-.--.-

Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions, does not press the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Const. Petition No. D- 95 of 2019

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Fresh case.

15. For orders on CMA No.389/2019 (U/A)

16. For orders on CMA No.390/2019 (Ex)

17. For hearing of main case.

17-01-2019.

Mr. Safdar Hussain Memon Advocate for petitioners.

-.-.-.--.-

1. Urgency granted.

2. Exemption is granted subject to all jut exceptions.

3. Notice to respondents as well as Additional A.G Sindh for 22.01.2019.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Const. Petition No. D- 97 of 2019

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Fresh case.

18. For orders on CMA No.393/2019 (U/A)

19. For orders on office objection at Flag ‘A’

20. For orders on CMA No.394/2019 (Ex)

21. For hearing of main case.

22. For orders on CMA 395/2019 (stay)

17-01-2019.

Mr. Zulifqar Ali Sangi Advocate along with petitioner

-.-.-.--.-

1. Urgency granted.

2. Deferred for the time being.

3. Exemption is granted subject to all jut exceptions.

4&5. Notice to respondents as well as Additional A.G Sindh for 22.01.2019.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Const. Petition No.D- 421 of 2018

Const. Petition No. D-2154 of 2018

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Hearing of case (Priority)

For orders on CMA No.3313/2018 (1 R.10)

For orders on CMA No.4016/2018 (suspension)

For hearing of main case.

17-01-2019.

Mr. Bakhshan Khan Mahar Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Irfan Ahmed Memon D.A.G.

-.-.-.--.-

The scope of this petition is to decide the appeal of the petitioner pending before the Election Commission. A connected petition No. D-2154/2018 was also filed with prayer that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 may not create hindrance in the petitioner’s function and so far as the appeal before the Election Commission is concerned, since it is claimed that the appeal before the election commission filed by the petitioner has already been disposed of, this petition is virtually has become infructeuous, as such the petitioner does not press this petition and according disposed of.

In the connected constitution petition No. D-2154/2018 it is claimed that the officials of Anti-corruption establishment shall not create hinderance in his function. It goes without saying that the official respondents including Anti-corruption establishment shall act in accordance with law and they will not be restrained by this Court from performing their duties. The petition as such has been filed to mislead the Court and accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Const. Petition No.D- 205 of 2017

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Hearing of case (Priority)

For hearing of CMA NO. 1315/2017 (S/A)

For hearing of main case.

17-01-2019.

Mr. Bakhshan Khan Mahar Advocate holds brief for Mr. Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. T. David Lawrence Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

Mr. Irfan Ahmed Memon D.A.G.

-.-.-.--.-

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro Advocate for petitioner is reported to be busy before principal seat at Karachi and request for adjournment is made on his behalf. Mr. Lawrence does not oppose to his personal request.

Adjourned.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR____.

Const. Petition No.D- 946 of 2016

Const. Petition No D- 989 of 2017

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ________________________________________________________________

Hearing of case (Priority)

1. For hearing of CMA No.10675/2017 (1 R.10)

2. For hearing of CMA NO. 2546/2016 (S/A)

3. For hearing of main case.

17-01-2019.

Mr. Sawan Khan Jagirani Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ahmed Ali Shahani Assistant A.G Sindh.

-.-.-.--.-

Mr. Sawan Khan Jagirani Advocate has concluded his arguments to the extent of his clients / petitioners.

Mr. Ahmed Ali Shahani learned Assistant A.G undertakes to place on record enquiry being undertaken by the officials against those who are responsible for the payment of salary of these Lady Health Workers in between 2013-2014. The report be filed with advance copy to petitioners’ counsel.

Since Mr. Qurban Ali Malano is not in attendance, the matter is adjourned to 07.03.2019.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.