Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.

• NEWSIKANDAR AHMED GHOURI Versus Syed RAFAT ABBAS JAFFERI2025 PLD 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-21Read full judgment →
• NEWSULTAN MAHMOOD Versus MUNIR AHMAD2025 PLD 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD RAJAR Versus State2025 PLD 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-14
  direct complaintpreliminary inquirymala fideissuance of processquashment of complaintcriminal revision
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal petition challenges the order of the High Court of Sindh, which allowed a criminal revision application and set aside a trial court's order issuing bailable warrants against the respondents on a direct complaint filed by the petitioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court properly scrutinized the preliminary inquiry report and material under Sections 202 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, before issuing process against the accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the direct complaint was a calculated retaliatory measure filed with mala fide intentions following an earlier FIR registered against the petitioner's party, and that the preliminary inquiry failed to disclose sufficient grounds or prima facie evidence to proceed. The key principle laid down is that trial courts must diligently scrutinize complaints and preliminary inquiry reports under Sections 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to weed out frivolous, vexatious, or mala fide complaints at their inception and protect innocent persons from unnecessary harassment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to consider a preliminary inquiry report before issuing process on a direct complaint?
  • Can a direct complaint filed as a retaliatory measure and without sufficient incriminating material be entertained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the scope and objective of conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWIQBAL ALI KHAN Versus NASEEB ALI KHAN2025 PLD 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• NEWAMEERUDDIN Versus State2025 PLD 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-04
  ocular testimonyvisual acuityreasonable doubtburden of proofwitness credibilityindependent corroborationcriminal appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The appellant, Ameeruddin, challenged his conviction for the murder of four individuals, which had been upheld by the High Court. The primary legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony where witnesses claimed to have observed the incident from a distance of approximately half a kilometer. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the credibility of these witnesses, noting that human visual acuity is insufficient to discern specific details of a crime at such a distance. Furthermore, the Court observed that the co-accused, who were attributed similar roles in the firing, had been acquitted by the Trial Court. Applying the principle that eye-witnesses disbelieved against some accused cannot be relied upon against others without independent corroboration—which was absent in this case—the Court found the prosecution's case suffered from reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can eye-witness testimony be considered reliable when the witnesses claim to have observed the incident from a distance of half a kilometer?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons attributed similar roles require independent corroboration to sustain the conviction of the remaining accused based on the same ocular evidence?
  • What is the impact of human visual limitations on the credibility of eye-witness accounts in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed UZAIR SHAH Versus Mst. SURRIYA BEGUM (late)2025 PLD 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• NEWSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR Versus PARCON ASSOCIATE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS through Muhammad Haroon2025 PLD 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD IRFAN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FEROZWALA, DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA2025 PLD 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE Versus AZAM TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE2025 PLD 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-15Read full judgment →
• NEWMehar BADSHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA2025 PLD 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD DIN Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Population Welfare, Lahore2025 PLD 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-12Read full judgment →
• NEWOIL AND GAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD Versus GAS AND OIL PAKISTAN LIMITED, LAHORE2025 PLD 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-14Read full judgment →
• NEWADIL KHAN BAZAI Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN2025 PLD 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-12Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. SIDRA HAMEED Versus Syed ABDUL MATEEN2025 PLD 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-30Read full judgment →
• NEWFaqir Syed ANWAR UD DIN Versus Syed RAZA HAIDER2025 PLD 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
• NEWAHMED ALI TALPUR Versus SUB-REGISTRAR LATIFABAD, HYDERABAD2025 PLD 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
• NEWDr. FARYAL MAQSOOD Versus KHURRAM SHEHZAD DURRANI2025 PLD 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-23Read full judgment →
• NEWState Versus Chaudhry MOHAMMAD KHAN2025 PLD 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• NEWRaja SHAHZAD AHMED Versus INCHARGE BAGGAGE ROUTING PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINE, LAHORE2025 PLD 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• NEWMalik MAHMOOD AHMAD KHAN Versus Malik MOAZAM MAHMOOD2025 PLD 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-19Read full judgment →
• NEWMISREE KHAN Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR2025 PLD 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-14Read full judgment →
• NEWFEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING AUTHORITY Versus EDNAN SYED2025 PLD 11 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWMUGHALS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED Versus EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION through Director Law, Lahore2025 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• NEWFINANCE DEPARTMENT through Secretary Finance, State of Jammu and Kashmir Versus Dr. WAJID ALI KHAN2026 PLD 49 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-08-29
  Cabinet decisionimplementation of cabinet decisionsRules of Businesssalary enhancementspecial health care allowancepetition for leave to appealadministrative authority
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The instant petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment of the High Court, which accepted the writ petition filed by doctors and medical personnel serving in various hospitals across Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K) seeking implementation of a Cabinet decision regarding enhanced salaries and allowances. The core legal question revolved around whether a Cabinet decision approving salary enhancements and allowances for medical personnel could be bypassed or delayed through the subsequent constitution of a Special Committee. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that once the Cabinet has accorded its approval, the decision is binding and must be implemented promptly in accordance with the Rules of Business, and no subsequent committee or executive authority has the jurisdiction to alter, override, or nullify a valid Cabinet decision. The key principle laid down is that government departments are legally mandated to execute Cabinet decisions without undue delay, and administrative committees cannot be utilized to obstruct or review settled Cabinet approvals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent committee or executive authority possesses the power to alter, override, or nullify a valid Cabinet decision?
  • Are government departments legally bound to promptly implement Cabinet decisions pursuant to the Rules of Business?
  • Does the constitution of a Special Committee after a Cabinet's approval to review salary enhancements constitute a valid administrative exercise?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWARSHAD MEHMOOD Versus NASHAD NAZ2026 PLD 41 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-01-31
  dissolution of marriagecrueltynon-payment of maintenancemarital obligationskhulafamily law
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment and decree of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which had modified a Family Court's decision. The plaintiff-wife had filed a suit for jactitation of marriage or, alternatively, dissolution of marriage on grounds including cruelty, non-payment of maintenance, and non-performance of marital obligations. The Family Court had decreed the suit on the basis of khula in lieu of gold ornaments. On appeal, the High Court accepted the wife's appeal and dissolved the marriage on the grounds of cruelty, non-payment of maintenance, and non-performance of marital obligations. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the husband's desertion, failure to provide maintenance, and neglect of marital duties stood established from the pleadings and the husband's own admissions during cross-examination. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, ruling that non-provision of maintenance constitutes cruelty and serves as a valid independent ground for the dissolution of marriage under section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-payment of maintenance allowance constitutes cruelty for the purpose of dissolution of marriage?
  • Can a marriage be dissolved on the ground of non-performance of marital obligations under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a decree of dissolution based on khula in favor of dissolution on specified statutory grounds based on the evidence on record?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWABDUL WAHID RAFIQUE Versus MUHAMMAD MISKEEN2025 PLD 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-12-23Read full judgment →
• NEWABDUL MAJEED Versus ABDUL SAMMAD2025 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-09-24
  fair trialconfessional statementsummoning material witnessprocedural irregularityinherent powerscriminal revisionduty of magistrate
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This revision petition arises from the dismissal of the petitioner's revision by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, which upheld the trial court's refusal to summon a key prosecution witness, witness No. 18 (the SDM), who had recorded a confessional statement of the accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The trial and high courts had refused the request on the grounds that the confessional statement was not forwarded prior to framing the charge under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the earlier order declining the witness had attained finality. The core legal question was whether technical procedural lapses regarding the delayed transmission of a confessional statement and the failure to challenge an interlocutory order can override the fundamental right to a fair trial and prevent the summoning of a material witness. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that procedural irregularities should not defeat justice, that the statutory duty to forward the statement rested on the Magistrate under Section 164(2), and that courts possess wide powers under Section 540 and Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon material witnesses to unearth the truth. The petition was accepted, the lower court orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to summon the witness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a Magistrate to promptly forward a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can prejudice the prosecution's right to examine the recording Magistrate as a witness?
  • Can a court summon a material witness at any stage of the trial under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to ensure a just decision of the case?
  • Does the High Court have inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to intervene suo motu to correct procedural wrongs and prevent an abuse of the process of law?
  • Can technical procedural rules and the non-challenge of an interlocutory order be allowed to defeat the fundamental right to a fair trial in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWFUIJIAN LUGANG (GROUP) CO. LTD. Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Government of Sindh2026 PLD 359 · Sindh High Court · 2026-05-12
  public procurementinternational competitive biddingnon-responsive bidbid securityjudicial reviewWorld Bank procurement regulationsconstitutional jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of orders declaring the petitioner's technical bid non-responsive in an international competitive bidding process for a canal rehabilitation project. The petitioner alleged that the rejection was arbitrary and that the deficiencies in bid security, bid validity, and authorization were merely curable technicalities. The core legal question was whether the procuring agency acted lawfully in rejecting the bid based on these substantive deviations from the bidding documents, particularly under an internationally financed framework. The Court held that the procurement was governed by World Bank Procurement Regulations, which, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, override inconsistent local rules. The Court determined that the defects—including the use of an incorrect financial instrument, failure to meet the required bid security validity period, unilateral reduction of the bid validity period, and ambiguous authorization—were substantive, not curable, and rendered the bid non-responsive. The Court affirmed that judicial review in procurement matters is limited to cases of patent illegality or mala fide, neither of which was established, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does an international financial agreement override local procurement rules in the event of inconsistency?
  • Can a procuring agency waive substantive defects in a bid such as incorrect bid security or unauthorized documentation?
  • Is a constitutional court empowered to re-evaluate technical determinations made by a procuring agency in the absence of patent illegality or mala fide?
  • Does the failure to comply with mandatory bid validity periods render a bid substantially non-responsive?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSARIM BURNEY WELFARE TRUST INTERNATIONAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2026 PLD 354 · Sindh High Court · 2026-02-19
  constitutional petitionorphaned childrenabandoned childrenNADRA registrationlegal identitybirth certificateCNICparens patriaeunknown parentage
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  Constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 were filed before the High Court of Sindh challenging the denial of birth certificates, Child Registration Certificates, and CNICs to orphaned and abandoned children of unknown parentage residing in shelter homes and orphanages. The core issue concerned whether NADRA and local Union Councils could lawfully insist on parental information, thereby excluding such children from legal identity and registration. The High Court allowed the petitions, holding that the right to legal identity is intrinsically linked to the rights to life and dignity under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution. Under the doctrine of parens patriae, the State is obligated to protect vulnerable segments of society, and administrative procedural hurdles cannot override fundamental rights. The Court directed NADRA, in coordination with Union Councils and the Social Welfare Department, to implement a child-sensitive registration mechanism without insisting on parental particulars upon verification by registered orphanage heads.

  Questions settled

  • Can NADRA and Union Councils insist on parental particulars for the registration of orphaned and abandoned children of unknown parentage?
  • Does the administrative denial of legal identity documents to abandoned children violate fundamental rights under Articles 9, 14, and 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can procedural requirements and administrative formalities override constitutional guarantees regarding child rights and identity under the doctrine of parens patriae?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWASHOK KUMAR Versus State2026 PLD 351 · Sindh High Court · 2026-01-30
  criminal transfer applicationfair triallawyers vandalismprofessional misconducttransfer of trialcourt premises violence
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The applicant/accused sought the transfer of a criminal case from the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South to the Jail Court, Karachi, alleging threats to his life and physical assault by the complainant, an advocate, and his companions within the court premises. The core legal question concerned whether a criminal case should be transferred from the ordinary trial court to a jail court when there are apprehensions of physical violence and altercations involving lawyers within court premises. The Sindh High Court held that to ensure the safety and security of the parties, preserve the dignity of judicial proceedings, and prevent intimidation, the criminal case should be withdrawn from the trial court and transferred to the jail court. The court laid down the principle that every accused person has an inalienable right to a fair trial and protection of life, and that when legal professionals resort to physical force within court premises, it undermines the sanctity of judicial proceedings, constitutes grave professional misconduct, and warrants administrative measures such as the transfer of the trial to a secure location.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be transferred from an ordinary trial court to a jail court when there are mutual allegations of physical altercations between the parties within court premises?
  • Does a lawyer engaging in physical violence against an opponent within court premises commit professional misconduct?
  • What is the extent of an accused person's right to protection of life and limb during judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed MANSOOR AHMED SHAH Versus 2ND CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD2026 PLD 348 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-03
  Constitutional petitionWrit jurisdictionInterim maintenanceFamily CourtInterlocutory orderMaintainabilityAppeal barRevision barSupervisory jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition challenged an interim order of a Family Court directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance and a subsequent order dismissing his application for modification. The petitioner contended that the interim maintenance order was passed without hearing him and that he was unable to pay the amount. The core legal question before the High Court was whether it could interfere with interlocutory orders of a Family Court fixing interim maintenance under Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, through its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, especially given the express bar on appeal and revision under Section 14(3) of the Act. The High Court held that its constitutional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate, and interference is only permissible for illegality, infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional defect. It ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent a statutory bar on appeal or revision, and the adequacy of maintenance is a factual matter requiring evidence, not suitable for writ proceedings. Finding no illegality or jurisdictional defect, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with interlocutory orders of a Family Court fixing interim maintenance through writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does Section 14(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, bar constitutional petitions against interim orders of a Family Court?
  • Is the adequacy of interim maintenance an issue that can be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  • Can a Family Court fix interim maintenance under Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, even on the first appearance of the defendant?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWDr. MASUMA HASAN Versus IMTIAZ ALI KHAN2025 PLD 96 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
• NEWM. SHAHERYAR Versus State2025 PLD 90 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-24
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeconcurrent jurisdictionprohibitory clausemala fidebypass trial court
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed directly before the High Court by the applicant, Muhammad Shaheryar, who was implicated in an FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding dishonoured cheques. The core legal questions pertained to whether the High Court could directly entertain a pre-arrest bail application bypassing the Sessions Court, and whether the applicant had made out a case for pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that while judicial propriety normally requires approaching the Court of First Instance first, the High Court possesses concurrent and co-extensive jurisdiction under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Where compelling circumstances—such as threats or barriers created by the complainant and police—prevent the accused from approaching the lower court, the High Court may entertain the application directly. The court laid down that if an accused establishes compelling circumstances and makes out a case on merits, including the absence of the offense from the prohibitory clause and apparent mala fides, pre-arrest bail can be confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court directly entertain a pre-arrest bail application without the applicant first approaching the Sessions Court?
  • Does the High Court share concurrent and co-extensive jurisdiction with the Court of Session regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can compelling circumstances such as threats or resistance at the lower court justify bypassing the Court of First Instance for pre-arrest bail?
  • What are the primary considerations for granting pre-arrest bail compared to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSOUTHERN NETWORK LIMITED Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Information Islamabad2025 PLD 69 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-14Read full judgment →
• NEWCol. (R) MUKARRAM ALI SHAH Versus State2025 PLD 63 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-03
  dishonoured chequestale chequeSection 489-F PPCcriminal liabilitynegotiable instrumentquashing of proceedingsreasonable time
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to quash proceedings initiated under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether criminal liability under Section 489-F arises when a cheque is presented for encashment years after its issuance, resulting in its return as a stale cheque rather than for insufficient funds. The Court held that the application should be allowed and the proceedings quashed. It reasoned that Section 489-F requires a cheque to be issued for a legally enforceable debt and dishonoured upon presentation. Because the cheque was presented well beyond the reasonable timeframe established by banking customs and the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the bank was not obligated to honour it. Consequently, the dishonour was due to the cheque being stale, not a lack of funds, rendering the criminal charge unfounded. The key principle laid down is that a stale cheque, which a bank is not required to honour, cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution under Section 489-F.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of dishonestly issuing a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to a cheque presented after the lapse of a reasonable time?
  • Can a criminal prosecution be maintained for a cheque that was returned by the bank as stale rather than for insufficient funds?
  • Is a cheque presented more than six months after its issuance considered a stale cheque for the purposes of criminal liability?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWB.R.R. GUARDIAN MODARABA Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice2025 PLD 59 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• NEWMUMTAZ HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR2025 PLD 53 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-15Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD FARHAN WAZIR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence2025 PLD 5 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
• NEWCANTONMENT BOARD CLIFTON Versus NADIM AHMED ANSARI2025 PLD 36 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-06Read full judgment →
• NEWSALEEM BUTT Versus Dr. AFNAN ULLAH KHAN2025 PLD 28 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
• NEWPtrof. Dr. ANEELA ATTA-U-RAHMAN Versus MASHOOQUE ALI2025 PLD 251 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-29Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD MALOOK DHAREJO Versus Mst. MEHNAZ GUL alias ARBAB KHATOON2025 PLD 25 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• NEWRana MUNIR AHMED KHAN Versus JAWAID SARWAR2025 PLD 242 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed MUZAFFAR AHMED ASHRAF Versus ANWAR ALI JANWRI2025 PLD 234 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• NEWABDUL MAJEED TALANI Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Sindh Prisons Department2025 PLD 19 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-15Read full judgment →
• NEWMILLENNIUM MALL MANAGEMENT CO. Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence2025 PLD 187 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-06Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD YASEEN Versus SHAMSHAD ALI2025 PLD 177 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-11Read full judgment →
• NEWPRIME BUILDERS Versus PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD.2025 PLD 166 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-15Read full judgment →
• NEWTRADE SMART SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LTD. Versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN2025 PLD 151 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-13Read full judgment →
• NEWDUR MUHAMMAD MALIK Versus ZAFARULLAH MALIK2025 PLD 15 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• NEWSALAHUDDIN Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH2025 PLD 138 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• NEWYASIR KALWAR Versus Mst. FARZEEN2025 PLD 134 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• NEWALLAH DINO Versus State2025 PLD 128 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11
  criminal appealseparate trialsevidence in separate casesfair trialjuvenile offenderremand of caseconviction vitiated
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  These criminal appeals arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Badin, convicting the appellants for murder and concealment of evidence under sections 302(b), 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. One appellant was tried in a regular sessions case while another juvenile appellant was tried separately, yet the trial court consolidated the matters, passed a single judgment, and convicted the juvenile based on evidence recorded solely in the other case without separately discussing the evidence of his trial. The Sindh High Court held that evidence recorded in one criminal trial cannot be used to convict an accused in a separate trial, as doing so violates the right to a fair trial, the principles of criminal jurisprudence, and Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the cases back to the trial court with directions to re-write separate judgments for each case after independently discussing the respective evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence recorded in one criminal trial be used to convict an accused tried in a separate trial?
  • Does the consolidation of separate trials into a single judgment without discussing the independent evidence of each case vitiate the conviction?
  • Is it permissible under criminal law to use testimony not recorded in the presence of a particular accused for determining his culpability?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWJAVED IQBAL Versus ABDUL RASHEED TAGR2025 PLD 125 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-16Read full judgment →
• NEWKHADIM HUSSAIN Versus State2025 PLD 12 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-26
  positive reportchallancognizance of offencedeleting sectionjurisdiction of magistrateremand of case
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the order of a Magistrate who, upon receiving a positive police report and challan under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, disagreed with the investigating officer by summarily deleting Section 324 and retaining the case for trial before himself. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate possesses the jurisdiction to summarily delete a penal section and disagree with a positive police report recommending trial for that offense. The Sindh High Court held that a Magistrate lacks the jurisdiction to discard the investigating officer's positive recommendation or delete a section upon submission of a challan, as evaluating evidentiary value requires a full trial. The court set aside the impugned order by consent and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate for a fresh order. The key principle established is that a Magistrate cannot summarily delete sections or alter a positive challan report submitted by the police, as the determination of charges is a matter for the trial court upon examining evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the jurisdiction to disagree with a positive police report and delete a section upon submission of a challan?
  • Can a Magistrate summarily discard the evidentiary value of material collected during investigation by an investigating officer?
  • What is the extent of a Magistrate's power to disagree with the opinion of an investigating officer in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWABDUL MATEEN Versus Syed ASIM NISAR2025 PLD 108 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-25Read full judgment →
• NEWAMIR BALOCH Versus SINDH INFORMATION COMMISSION2025 PLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• NEWSHABBIR HUSSAIN Versus PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL through Secretary, Islamabad2026 PLD 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-10-15
  constitutional jurisdictionfundamental rightsright to fair trialdisciplinary proceedingssuspension of licensebar association strikesprofessional misconductlegal practitioners
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by advocates challenging the suspension of their legal practice licenses by the Pakistan Bar Council's Appeal Committee and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council's Executive Committee following their appearance in court despite strike calls by Bar Associations. The core legal questions involve the jurisdictional competence of High Courts under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution over Bar bodies regarding fundamental rights violations, the statutory limits of disciplinary authorities under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973, and the legality of strike calls by Bar Associations vis-a-vis the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extends to the positive enforcement of fundamental rights against private and statutory bodies alike, that neither Bar Associations nor Executive/Appeal Committees possess the statutory authority to summarily suspend advocate licenses outside the prescribed Disciplinary Committee and Tribunal mechanisms, and that strike calls compelling advocates to abstain from court appearances are illegal and subordinate to the non-derogable constitutional right to a fair trial and legal representation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution to entertain a constitutional petition against statutory bodies like Bar Councils for the enforcement of fundamental rights?
  • Does an Executive Committee or Appeal Committee of a Bar Council possess the independent statutory authority to suspend an advocate's license without adhering to the prescribed inquiry mechanism before a Disciplinary Committee and Tribunal?
  • Can a Bar Association or Bar Council legally issue strike calls or directives compelling advocates to abstain from appearing in courts of law?
  • Does non-compliance with a Bar-issued strike call by an advocate constitute professional misconduct rendering them liable to disciplinary action?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWALAUDDIN KHAN Versus MANAGER, FAYSAL BANK, PVT. LTD. MATTA SWAT2026 PLD 179 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-16
  consumer protectionbanking servicesjurisdictionconsumer courtbanking courtforeign currency accountdeficiency in servicestatutory interpretation
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal challenged an order by the Consumer Court which dismissed a customer's complaint against Faysal Bank for lack of jurisdiction. The customer had deposited US Dollars, but the bank refused withdrawal in dollars, instead transferring the amount in Pakistani Rupees to another account. The Consumer Court held that the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Banking Court, citing Section 7(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Peshawar High Court, however, reversed this decision. It held that "banking services" are explicitly included in the definition of "services" under Section 2(n) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997. The Court clarified that the Ordinance of 2001 primarily addresses recovery of credit, loans, and financial defaults, and the bank's refusal to allow withdrawal in the deposited currency did not fall within the definition of "finance" under that Ordinance. Therefore, the Consumer Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and its dismissal was based on a misconstruction of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Consumer Court have jurisdiction over a bank's refusal to allow a customer to withdraw funds in the currency in which they were deposited?
  • Does the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, exclusively cover all disputes between a bank and its customer, including those related to transactional service issues?
  • Can a provincial consumer protection statute apply to banking services where a federal banking recovery ordinance does not specifically cover the dispute?
  • Is a bank's refusal to allow withdrawal in the designated currency of an account considered a "deficiency in service" under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997?
  • What is the scope of "finance" as defined in the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed LEHAZULLAH Versus HOUSING DIRECTOR through Housing Director General2025 PLD 97 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR2025 PLD 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• NEWJUBILEE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Versus FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (FIA) through Director General, Islamabad2025 PLD 71 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-22Read full judgment →
• NEWWAQAS KHAN Versus State2025 PLD 67 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. BENAZIRA BIBI Versus State2025 PLD 62 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-10Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD SAJJAD Versus RAMESH2025 PLD 59 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
• NEWARSALAN ARIF Versus SALMA GUL2025 PLD 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• NEWAMIR SULTAN SAFI, ADVOCATE Versus WAQAS SABIR2025 PLD 50 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• NEWATTAULLAH Versus GHAZANFARULLAH2025 PLD 45 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
• NEWThe GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar Versus HMA PUMPS (PVT.) LTD. PESHAWAR CANTT.2025 PLD 41 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• NEWBALQIAZ ALI SHAH alias ATTA ULLAH JAN Versus WRASHEM GUL2025 PLD 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus State2025 PLD 31 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-06Read full judgment →
• NEWNIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD NAVEED KHAN2025 PLD 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-12Read full judgment →
• NEWSHAZIA TEHMAS KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2025 PLD 125 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-27Read full judgment →
• NEWNASIR MAHMOOD, REGIONAL OPERATIONS' CHIEF, HBL Versus KAMRAN KHAN2025 PLD 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-13
  consumer protectionmaintainability of appealspecial lawmutatis mutandisappellate jurisdictionconsumer courtprocedural law
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns the maintainability of appeals against orders passed by a Consumer Court under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether an order passed under section 15 of the Act, which is civil in nature, is appealable under section 17(2) of the Act, given that the provision incorporates the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and section 404 of the Code restricts appeals to those arising from criminal courts. The Court held that the right to appeal under section 17(2) extends to all orders of the Consumer Court, including those under section 15. The Court reasoned that the reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in section 17(2) is purely procedural, intended to provide a framework for appellate proceedings, and does not incorporate the restrictive bar of section 404 of the Code. The key principle established is that a special law providing an express right of appeal operates independently of general procedural bars, and the phrase 'mutatis mutandis' relates only to procedural adjustments, not substantive limitations.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Consumer Court under section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, appealable to the High Court?
  • Does the reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in section 17(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, incorporate the bar under section 404 of the Code against appeals from non-criminal orders?
  • Does the right of appeal under section 17(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, apply to both civil and criminal natured orders passed by a Consumer Court?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWJUNAID AHMAD Versus State2025 PLD 116 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• NEWAKRAM KHAN DURRANI Versus Malik ADNAN KHAN2025 PLD 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ASHIQ KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD DAUD2025 PLD 103 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-27Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. FALAK SHEHNAZ Versus Mst. FARAH DEEBA2025 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD AHSAN Versus State2026 PLD 663 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-18
  quashing of FIRSection 295A PPCnon-cognizable offenceSection 196 CrPCpreliminary investigationSection 196B CrPCPolice Rules 1934station daily diary
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This writ petition was filed by the petitioner/accused seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 295A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on allegations that he issued a fatwa declaring members of the Shia sect as non-Muslims. The petitioner argued that Section 295A PPC is non-cognizable and subject to the complaint procedure under Section 196 Cr.P.C., rendering the FIR a nullity. The High Court analyzed the statutory scheme governing the recording of information, the distinction between entering substance in the daily diary versus the FIR register, and the interplay between Police Rules 1934 and the Cr.P.C. The Court held that registration of an FIR bearing a non-cognizable penal provision does not by itself justify quashing at the preliminary stage, as errors in penal sections can be rectified by police or prosecutors, preliminary investigation can be sanctioned under Section 196B Cr.P.C., or cognizable offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 may be added. Consequently, the High Court declined to quash the FIR and disposed of the petition with comprehensive procedural directions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere mention of a non-cognizable offence in an FIR provides sufficient grounds for its quashing at the preliminary stage?
  • What constitutes the 'book' prescribed by the Provincial Government for entering the substance of information under Section 154 and Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an investigation conducted into an offence mentioned under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can proceed via preliminary investigation under Section 196B of the Code without prior government sanction?
  • Can a police report in a non-cognizable case investigated without the authorization of a Magistrate be treated as a valid report or complaint under Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWKHALID MEHMOOD Versus SABIR ALI2026 PLD 654 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-17
  revisional jurisdictionspecific performancedecree sheetlimitation periodcondonation of delaydismissal of suitappellate court
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenges the appellate court judgment dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the trial court's dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The core legal question involves whether an appeal can be dismissed as time-barred when the trial court failed to frame a formal decree-sheet following the dismissal of the suit on merits. The Lahore High Court held that the preparation of a decree-sheet is a mandatory requirement and a condition precedent for the exercise of the right of appeal, and limitation commences from the date of the decree. Since no decree-sheet was prepared, the appellate court erred in computing limitation from the date of the order and dismissing the appeal as barred by time. The Court set aside the impugned appellate judgment, directing the appellate court to ensure the preparation of the decree-sheet and decide the limitation issue afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal can be declared barred by limitation when the trial court has failed to draw up a formal decree-sheet?
  • Does the dismissal of a suit for failure to deposit balance sale consideration under the Specific Relief Act amount to a decree or an order?
  • Is the preparation of a decree-sheet mandatory before time for filing an appeal begins to run?
  • What is the legal effect of an appellate court deciding an appeal without a decree-sheet being annexed to the memorandum of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State2026 PLD 649 · Lahore High Court · 2025-09-23
  criminal revisionfamily court jurisdictionillegal polygamy trialappellate forumdistrict judgesessions court jurisdictionMuslim Family Laws Ordinance
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal revision petition challenged the judgments passed by an Additional Sessions Judge and a Family Court in a family complaint concerning the offence of polygamy under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Judge was competent to hear an appeal against a conviction rendered by a Family Court acting as a Judicial Magistrate under the Family Courts Act 1964, or if such an appeal lies exclusively before the District Judge. The Lahore High Court held that pursuant to Section 5 and Section 20 of the Family Courts Act 1964, Family Courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, and under Section 14 of the same Act, appeals from their decisions lie to the District Court, not the Court of Sessions. The Court ruled that any decision rendered by a forum lacking jurisdiction is void under Article 175(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and remanded the matter to the District Judge for fresh disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against a judgment of conviction passed by a Family Court for an offence under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 lies before the Court of Sessions or the District Judge?
  • Does a Court or Sessions possess jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals arising from trials conducted by Family Courts under the Family Courts Act 1964?
  • What is the legal effect of a decision rendered by a court that lacks jurisdiction under Article 175(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWFAUZIA QAYYUM through Special Attorney Abdul Qayyum Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GUJRANWALA2026 PLD 640 · Lahore High Court · 2025-11-03
  civil court jurisdictionrent tribunallandlord and tenantrecovery of rentpost-tenancy disputeconstitutional petitionvacated premises
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition challenges an appellate judgment that directed the return of a plaint for presentation before a Rent Tribunal, asserting that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a Civil Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit for recovery of rent and damages after the tenant has vacated the premises, or if the Rent Tribunal holds exclusive jurisdiction. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 is premised on the existence of a subsisting landlord-tenant relationship and the tenant's continued occupation of the premises. Once the tenant vacates and possession is restored to the landlord, the Rent Tribunal's jurisdiction ceases. Consequently, the Civil Court possesses plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to try such civil disputes, as no express or implied statutory bar exists. The Court set aside the impugned judgment, ruling that the suit for recovery of arrears is maintainable before the Civil Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Rent Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute after the tenant has vacated the premises and the landlord has regained possession?
  • Is a suit for recovery of rent and damages arising from a tenancy agreement maintainable before a Civil Court after the termination of the tenancy?
  • Does the definition of 'tenant' under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 extend to persons who are no longer in occupation of the rented premises?
  • Does a Civil Court have the authority to try a suit for recovery of rent arrears in the absence of an express or implied statutory bar?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ALI ANSARI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2026 PLD 635 · Lahore High Court · 2025-09-23Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD NASEEM Versus ASGHAR ALI TABASSUM2026 PLD 630 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-19
  oral giftinheritancezararfilial dutymutationIslamic jurisprudencecivil revision
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil revision petition arises from a dispute over the estate of the deceased Bashir Ahmed, whose property was transferred to the respondent through four oral gift mutations. The petitioners, who are the deceased's children from a different marriage, challenged the validity of these gifts, alleging fraud and invoking the principle of zarar (harm) under Islamic law, arguing the gifts were intended to deprive them of their inheritance. The Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suit, finding the gifts valid. The core legal question was whether the gifts constituted an invalid transaction under the principle of zarar due to the exclusion of legal heirs. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while a gift intended solely to maliciously deprive legal heirs may be void, a transfer based on natural love, affection, and filial duty—particularly where the donee provided care and support while the petitioners severed ties—is a valid exercise of an owner's autonomy. The Court emphasized that the applicability of the zarar principle is fact-dependent and does not invalidate bona fide gifts made in recognition of personal service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a gift of property by a father to one child to the exclusion of others automatically constitute invalid zarar (harm) under Islamic law?
  • Can a court set aside an oral gift on the basis of zarar when the donor was motivated by the donee's care and support rather than malice?
  • Is a gift transaction valid if the donor transfers property to a child who provided companionship while other heirs severed ties?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. NASREEN AKHTAR Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHICHAWATNI2026 PLD 627 · Lahore High Court · 2026-02-11
  constitutional petitionrecovery of dowry articlesspecial oathadverse inferenceappellate court interferencefamily court
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appellate court's judgment which had set aside the Family Court's decree for the recovery of dowry articles. The core legal question was whether the refusal of a non-claimant (the petitioner's father) to take a special oath offered by the opposing party could by itself form the legal basis for the dismissal of a suit. The Lahore High Court held that refusal to take a special oath does not warrant drawing a conclusive adverse inference against the refusing party, nor can it override the independent appraisal of evidence already available on record. The ratio laid down is that an appellate court cannot reverse well-reasoned findings of a trial court based solely on the refusal of a party's witness or relative to take a special oath without independently reappraising the evidence on record, and such refusal by a non-claimant cannot extinguish the substantive rights of the actual claimant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether refusal to take a special oath by a non-claimant can by itself form the basis for the dismissal of a suit?
  • Does the Oaths Act, 1873 mandate drawing a compulsory adverse inference against a person refusing to take a special oath?
  • Can an appellate court reverse a trial court's findings solely on the ground that a party's witness declined a special oath without independently reappraising the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWNOOR FATIMA Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER2026 PLD 617 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-25
  constitutional petitionconversion to Islamdissolution of marriageChristian marriagesecond marriageIddat periodharassment by policeinterfaith marriagelegal vacuum
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This constitutional petition concerned a Christian woman who, after her marriage to a Christian man, converted to Islam and subsequently married a Muslim man. Her first husband contested the second marriage, arguing that their original union subsisted as no judicial decree of divorce had been obtained, and alleged harassment by police at his instance. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether a married Christian woman's conversion to Islam automatically dissolves her prior marriage, enabling her to lawfully remarry a Muslim man without a formal divorce decree. The Court, considering Islamic and Christian legal perspectives, noted that while conversion does not automatically dissolve a Christian marriage, Islamic law requires dissolution if the non-Muslim husband does not convert within the Iddat period. However, due to disputed facts regarding the intimation of conversion and the commencement of Iddat, the Court declined to determine the validity of the second marriage or potential criminal liability in constitutional proceedings. The petition was disposed of based on the police's assurance to act in accordance with the law, with the Court emphasizing the need for legislative clarity on marriage dissolution upon conversion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conversion of a married Christian woman to Islam automatically terminate her marriage?
  • Can a Christian woman who converts to Islam lawfully contract a second marriage with a Muslim man in the absence of a formal decree of divorce?
  • What is the procedure for dissolution of marriage when a non-Muslim wife converts to Islam and her husband remains a non-Muslim?
  • What is the role of the Iddat period in the dissolution of marriage upon a non-Muslim wife's conversion to Islam?
  • Does the Divorce Act 1869 determine the effect of the conversion of one spouse professing the Christian faith?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWKANEEZ BEGUM Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2026 PLD 610 · Lahore High Court · 2025-12-18
  ad-interim injunctioncase decideddiscretionary powerabuse of processprocedural regulationmaintainability of appealconstitution petition
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This Constitution Petition challenges the orders of the trial court and the appellate court, which recalled an ad-interim injunction granted in a suit for declaration and consequential relief. The petitioner, who had sought an injunction to protect property, repeatedly failed to argue the application, leading the trial court to withdraw the ad-interim relief to regulate its own proceedings. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the appeal against this withdrawal, holding that the order was not a 'case decided' as the main application for interim relief remained pending. The High Court upheld these orders, holding that a court possesses the inherent discretionary power to regulate its own procedure and may withdraw ad-interim relief if a party abuses the process by delaying the adjudication of the pending application. The court affirmed that such procedural orders, which do not finally determine the rights of parties or dispose of the main application, are not appealable. The petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to argue the pending application on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court recall an ad-interim injunction due to the dilatory conduct of a party?
  • Is an order recalling an ad-interim injunction, while the main application for interim relief remains pending, considered a 'case decided'?
  • Does a court have the inherent power to regulate its own procedure by withdrawing interim relief when a party fails to argue the matter?
  • Is an order that does not finally determine the rights of the parties or dispose of a pending application appealable?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMian ZAHEER ABBAS RABBANI Versus State2025 PLD 98 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
• NEWNIAGARA MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED Versus PUNJAB COOPERATIVE BOARD FOR LIQUIDATION (PCBL)2025 PLD 79 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-20Read full judgment →
• NEWHUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Islamabad2025 PLD 7 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-06Read full judgment →
• NEWIMDAD ULLAH Versus State2025 PLD 512 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-25
  child sexual abusechild witnessvoir dire testspecial court jurisdictionanticipatory corroborationhearsay evidence exceptionAnti-Rape Act 2021sexual assault
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment dated 25.08.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian, convicting the appellant under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether a judgment rendered by a judge designated as a Special Court under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021 is valid without explicitly writing the designation under their signature, whether the testimony of a child witness is inadmissible without a preliminary voir dire test, and whether a conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a child sexual abuse victim. The Lahore High Court held that technical misdescription or omission of a formal designation does not vitiate jurisdiction if the court was duly notified, that a voir dire test is not strictly mandatory as long as the court is satisfied with the child's intelligence and ability to give rational answers, and that a child victim's testimony can sustain a conviction without strict corroboration if found reliable. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of a judge to explicitly write their designation as a Special Court under their signature vitiate a judgment rendered under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021?
  • Is a preliminary voir dire test mandatory to assess the competency of a child witness, and is their testimony inadmissible without it?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a child who is a victim of sexual abuse?
  • Are out-of-court complaints made by a child victim of sexual abuse admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWALLAH DITTA Versus NOOR AHMAD2025 PLD 508 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-09Read full judgment →
• NEWMUMTAZ GHANI TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance2025 PLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-21Read full judgment →
• NEWSheikh NADEEM ANWAR Versus ILLAQA MAGISTRATE2025 PLD 496 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• NEWTARIQ MEHMOOD Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD2025 PLD 491 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-11Read full judgment →
• NEWTANVEER AHMED Versus IMTIAZ ANWAR2025 PLD 486 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• NEWUNITED BANK LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD AMJAD HAYAT KHAN2025 PLD 425 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
• NEWRai MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE2025 PLD 405 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-28
  exemption from personal attendanceincapable of remaining before the courtearning livelihood abroadvirtual presencevideo linkcriminal trialupdating construction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, granting permanent exemption from personal appearance to the accused, who was residing and earning his livelihood abroad in a criminal trial under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether earning a livelihood abroad constitutes being 'incapable of remaining before the Court' under Section 540A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby justifying the dispensation of personal attendance and representation through a pleader. The Lahore High Court held that the phrase 'incapable of remaining before the Court' is an enabling, benevolent provision that must be interpreted liberally and can include circumstances such as earning a livelihood abroad, provided the accused is initially before the court. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that modern technological alternatives like video conferencing can be utilized for virtual attendance to ensure expeditious justice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the impugned order of permanent exemption through counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'incapable of remaining before the Court' under Section 540A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 include earning a livelihood abroad?
  • Can an accused seek permanent exemption from personal attendance during a criminal trial through a pleader?
  • Is the use of modern technology such as video link permissible for the virtual attendance of an accused in a criminal trial?
  • Does Section 540A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 require the personal presence of the accused at the time of filing an exemption application?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. RAZIA BEGUM Versus PUBLIC AT LARGE2025 PLD 40 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01Read full judgment →
• NEWJALAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Versus The SECRETARY, C & W DEPARTMENT, LAHORE2025 PLD 379 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-09Read full judgment →