Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Mst. Rabia and another vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1294 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qurat-ul-Ain vs Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar Jalalpur2024 SCMR 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to a High Court order that, in its constitutional jurisdiction, granted interim custody of a minor to the paternal grandmother based solely on the mother's remarriage. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the High Court's order. The Court held that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is barred where an adequate alternative remedy exists, such as the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Court emphasized that a writ of habeas corpus in custody matters is an extraordinary remedy, not to be used as a routine mechanism to bypass the Guardian Court. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a mother's remarriage does not automatically disqualify her from custody; the paramount consideration remains the welfare of the minor. The Court established that High Courts should exercise extreme caution in family matters, avoiding the involvement of law enforcement agencies unless there is evidence of criminality or abduction, and affirmed that custody disputes must be resolved by the competent Guardian Court.
Questions settled- Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to determine child custody when an alternative remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is available?
- Does a mother's remarriage automatically disqualify her from the right to custody of her minor child under Islamic law?
- Under what circumstances may a High Court issue a writ of habeas corpus for the production of a minor?
- Is the text of D.F. Mulla's 'Principles of Mahomedan Law' a binding statutory authority in Pakistan?
- Mst. Qamar Bibi (Late) through her Legal Heirs vs Shahab-ud-Din &2024 LHC 802, 2024 PLJ Lahore 293, 2025 CLC 352 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qaisra Ellahi and another vs Returning Officer etc2024 LHC 119, 2024 CLC 437 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Niyamat vs S.S.P Tharparkar @ Mithi and others2024 SHC 1130 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Criminal Miscellaneous Application was instituted under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, who sought directions for police officials to recover and produce her daughter on grounds of alleged illegal detention by private respondents. The core legal question was whether the alleged detainee was unlawfully restrained so as to warrant habeas corpus directions under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Station House Officer submitted a search report confirming that the daughter was not found at the private respondents' residence. Concurrently, counsel for the private respondents produced an order from a pending constitutional petition before the High Court, which demonstrated that the daughter, being sui juris, had contracted marriage of her own free will and had obtained protective orders against familial harassment. The High Court held that the daughter was not in illegal detention, concluding that the purpose of the application was exhausted. The Court disposed of the application, reserving the applicant's liberty to participate in the pending constitutional petition.
Questions settled- Can an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained where an alleged detainee has appeared before the High Court in a separate constitutional petition affirming a freewill marriage?
- Whether an adult sui juris woman living with her spouse can be treated as being under illegal detention at the instance of her family members under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the filing and pendency of a constitutional petition seeking protection of a freewill marriage render a parallel habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 infructuous?
- Mst. Nishat Mummunka vs Safdar Raza2024 LHC 1942 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nimra Sheikh vs Muhammad Umair Siddiqui and another2024 LHC 2809, 2025 CLC 937 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nighat Rani vs Shah Faisal and others2024 YLR 2211 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Neelofar and others vs Muhammad Khan and others2024 PHC 310, 2025 CLC 145 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nazo Bibi and another vs The State and another2024 MLD 120 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2021 filed against the decision of the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances), Islamabad, which convicted the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 following the recovery of 42 kilograms of charas and 13.2 kilograms of opium from a vehicle. The core legal questions evaluated included whether the non-association of private witnesses invalidates the search under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether the driver on the driving seat is presumed to have control and knowledge of contraband hidden in the vehicle, and whether minor discrepancies in police testimony defeat the prosecution case. The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions. The Court held that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 excludes Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, police officers are competent witnesses, and the driver of a vehicle is in charge and presumed responsible for transported narcotics.
Questions settled- Does the non-joining of private recovery witnesses invalidate a search and seizure under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Is the driver operating a vehicle presumed to be in legal control and possession of narcotics hidden within it?
- Are minor discrepancies in the testimony of official police witnesses sufficient to shatter the credibility of the prosecution case?
- Mst. Nazia vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1094 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nazia and another vs The State2024 MLD 843 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two female applicants, Mst. Nazia and Mst. Sumaiya, who were booked in a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of Charas, ICE, and heroin. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the defense's contention that they were falsely implicated, that the recovery was foisted upon them, and that the prosecution's narrative was doubtful. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the defense's arguments regarding the lack of recovery from the applicants' personal possession and the alleged prior illegal detention by police were not effectively rebutted by the prosecution, thereby creating reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the principle that bail should be granted when reasonable doubt exists regarding an accused's participation in a crime, emphasizing that detention pending trial should not be punitive and that personal liberty is a precious right that should only be curtailed under necessary circumstances.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to rebut defense arguments regarding the circumstances of an arrest and recovery create reasonable doubt sufficient to grant bail?
- Is the object of bail punitive or preventative in nature?
- Should bail be granted as a rule when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mst. Nazeeran and others vs Ali Bux and others2024 SCP 18, 2024 SCMR 1271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute over the validity of registered sale deeds and subsequent mutations. The respondents (original plaintiffs) alleged that the appellants, who were initially lessees of the suit land, had fraudulently fabricated sale deeds and tampered with revenue records while the land was mortgaged to a bank. The core legal questions involved the burden of proof when challenging registered documents, the validity of a contract executed by a minor, and the court's power to visually compare signatures. The Supreme Court held that while a presumption of correctness attaches to registered documents under Articles 85 and 129 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, such presumption is rebuttable. Once the respondents produced evidence of fraud—specifically that one executant was a minor—the burden shifted to the beneficiaries to prove the transaction's genuineness. The Court affirmed that a minor's contract is void ab initio and that courts possess plenary power under Article 84 of the Q.S.O. to compare signatures. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's reversal of the first appellate court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether a mere denial by an executant is sufficient to shift the burden of proof onto the beneficiary of a registered sale deed?
- What is the legal status of a contract or sale deed executed by a minor under Pakistani law?
- Can a trial court exercise powers under Article 84 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order to compare signatures without referring the matter to a handwriting expert?
- Does the failure to mention a prior mortgage in a sale deed affect the credibility and validity of that document?
- Is a de facto guardian of a minor legally empowered to transfer the minor's interest in immovable property?
- Mst. Nazeerah vs The State2024 PCRLJ 937 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by a female accused, Mst. Nazeerah, charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1590 grams of Ice and 560 grams of heroin from her personal possession. The core legal question was whether the applicant, being a woman, was entitled to the concession of bail under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of the same section. The court dismissed the bail application, holding that while the law provides a concession for women, it is not absolute. The court reasoned that the alleged offence, involving the transportation of narcotics, constitutes an organized crime, and there was a reasonable apprehension of the applicant absconding given her residence outside the jurisdiction. The court affirmed the principle that exceptions to granting bail, such as the likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence, apply even to female accused persons seeking relief under the first proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Questions settled- Is the concession of bail for a woman under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 absolute?
- Do the exceptions for refusing bail in non-prohibitory offences apply to female accused seeking bail under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court consider the risk of absconding when deciding a bail application for a female accused charged with drug trafficking?
- Mst. Nasreen Bibi etc. vs Arbab Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. through its Chairman2024 IHC 56, 2024 CLC 529 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseeba vs Saleem Akhtar and 2 others2024 MLD 565 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-09-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Najma Khokhar and another vs P.O Sindh & others2024 SHC 480, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought a direction to the District & Sessions Judge Ghotki to appoint the second petitioner on a post reserved for deceased employees' families, as his father had passed away while serving in the subordinate judiciary. The respondents opposed the petition, stating that the elder son of the first petitioner had already been appointed on the deceased employee quota, and no further appointment could be made. The Sindh High Court held that once a child of a deceased civil servant has been provided a job under Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974, a second appointment on the same deceased quota cannot be claimed. The Court established that public employment must be made strictly on merit through transparent competitive processes, and deceased quota provisions under Rule 11-A are exhausted once a family member has availed of the benefit. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, leaving the petitioner at liberty to apply against open merit vacancies.
Questions settled- Can multiple family members claim appointment under the deceased civil servant quota when one child has already been accommodated?
- Does a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution lie against the administrative decisions of the Administrative Committee of the High Court?
- Are appointments in public offices required to be made strictly through a competitive process on merit?
- Mst. Najma Bibi vs S.H.O., etc2024 LHC 2299, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 964, 2024 MLD 1693 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the recovery of the petitioner’s daughter-in-law from alleged illegal police confinement. The police contended the detenue was lawfully arrested in connection with a robbery case under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon review, the Court found the detention was a retaliatory measure following the petitioner’s previous harassment complaint against the Station House Officer. The Court held that the evidence relied upon by the police—specifically a co-accused's disclosure and a supplementary statement lacking source of information—was insufficient to justify the deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, the Magistrate had mechanically granted judicial remand without prosecutor input. Declaring the detention illegal and a misuse of authority, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant post-arrest bail. The Court established principles requiring magistrates to verify the prosecutor's opinion before granting remand and mandated that investigating officers must substantiate supplementary statements with independent evidence before effecting arrests.
Questions settled- Can a court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail in a habeas corpus petition?
- Is a supplementary statement recorded by the police without disclosing the source of information sufficient to justify an arrest?
- Can a Magistrate grant physical or judicial remand without the opinion of the concerned Prosecutor regarding the sufficiency of material?
- Does the disclosure of a co-accused before the police constitute admissible evidence against another accused?
- Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai vs The State2024 LHC 6207 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the Qatl-i-Amd of her daughter-in-law. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on chance witnesses, delayed recording of statements, and inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court found that the alleged eye-witnesses were 'chance witnesses' who failed to provide a credible reason for their presence at the scene, and their statements were recorded with significant, unexplained delays. Furthermore, the court noted a critical contradiction between the ocular account of manual strangulation and the medical report, which showed no external signs of violence on the neck. The court applied the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, rejecting the testimony of witnesses who had been disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused. The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused merely because a death occurred in their home. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of witnesses who have been disbelieved regarding other co-accused in the same case?
- Does the death of a person within a house automatically shift the burden of proof to the residents to explain the circumstances of the death?
- Can the testimony of 'chance witnesses' be relied upon without independent corroboration of their presence at the scene of the crime?
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in recording a witness's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the statement unreliable?
- Mst. Mussarrat Shaheen vs Mst. Verbeena Khan Afroz and others2024 SCMR 1796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a High Court order that affirmed an eviction decree against the petitioner/tenant in favor of the respondent/landlady. The core legal question was whether a tenant, by asserting ownership of the rented premises and initiating a separate civil suit for declaration, can resist eviction proceedings initiated under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly restored the Rent Controller's order, which was based on established evidence of a landlord-tenant relationship, willful default in rent payment, and the landlady's personal bona fide need. The Court affirmed the principle that a tenant cannot maintain occupancy of rented premises merely by asserting ownership or filing a separate civil suit. The established legal procedure requires the tenant to first vacate the premises and then pursue the civil suit for title; if successful, the tenant may then seek to regain possession. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or infirmity in the High Court's well-reasoned judgment.
Questions settled- Can a tenant resist eviction proceedings by asserting ownership of the premises and filing a separate civil suit for declaration?
- Is a tenant required to vacate the premises before contesting the landlord's title in a separate civil suit?
- Does the initiation of a civil suit for specific performance of a sale agreement provide a legal basis for a tenant to remain in possession of rented premises?
- Mst. Musrat vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Munawar Jan and 6 Others vs Mst. Safaidan and 4 Others2024 LHC 138, 2024 PLJ Lahore 340, 2025 MLD 87 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Misbah Iftikhar and others vs Mst. Aleesa and 3 others2024 LHC 4133, 2024 LHC 5139, 2025 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mehwish and another vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1292 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mehr Bibi vs Aman ullah Jan (deceased) through legal heirs and others2024 PHC 264 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Malala Bibi vs Inspector General of Police, Balochistan, Quetta and another2024 PLC (C.S) 107 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by the widow of a deceased civil servant seeking death compensation under the Death Compensation Policy, 2020, following her husband’s death due to Covid-19. The core legal question was whether the Policy, promulgated on 11 August 2020, applied retrospectively to a death that occurred on 2 June 2020. The Court held that the petition was meritless and dismissed it. The ratio decidendi is that executive policies, notifications, and statutes operate prospectively unless they contain an express provision for retrospective application. As the deceased died prior to the promulgation of the Policy, no legal right to compensation had accrued to the petitioner at the relevant time, meaning she did not qualify as an aggrieved person under Article 199. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's plea of discrimination, noting that the petitioner failed to establish a valid entitlement to the compensation package, rendering the comparison with other cases irrelevant.
Questions settled- Does the Death Compensation Policy, 2020, apply retrospectively to deaths occurring before its promulgation?
- Is a petitioner an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution if the legal right claimed did not exist at the time the cause of action arose?
- Do executive policies and notifications operate prospectively in the absence of express language to the contrary?
- Mst. Kubra Bibi vs Public at Large, etc2024 LHC 4839 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kiran Saba vs Judge Family Court etc2024 LHC 4834 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kiran and Others vs Muhammad Moeez and Others2024 SHC 434 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khursheed Begum and others vs Nib Bank Limited and others2024 SHC 142, 2024 CLD 765, 2024 PLD Sindh 276, 2024 CLD 888 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khursheed Begum & others vs Muhammad Iqbal & others2024 SHC 36 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khan Bibi and 4 others vs Bibi Rahima and 5 others2024 PLJ Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khair-Un-Nisa, etc vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission, etc2024 LHC 2215 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khadeja vs The State2024 PCRLJ 405 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Mst. Khadeja, passed by the trial court under section 302(b) and section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of her husband and concealment of evidence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR, and the standard of proof required in a capital case based on circumstantial evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, recoveries at the appellant's pointation, medical corroboration, and a voluntary, truthful retracted judicial confession. However, considering that the actual fatal blows were inflicted by the co-accused and the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment while maintaining the conviction and other accessory sentences. The key principles laid down relate to the legal tests for acting upon retracted judicial confessions and the strict scrutiny applicable to chains of circumstantial evidence in capital cases.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis of a conviction in a capital case if found to be voluntary and true?
- Whether delay in lodging the First Information Report is invariably fatal to the prosecution case regardless of the surrounding facts and circumstances?
- What are the essential requirements for establishing a reliable chain of circumstantial evidence in a murder trial?
- Does a minor irregularity in recording a judicial confession render the confession inadmissible if its voluntariness and truthfulness remain unaffected?
- Mst. Kausar Khatoon and others vs Inspector General of Police and 42024 PLC (C.S.) 529 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the widows of a deceased police official challenging the withholding of his pensionary benefits and the recovery of alleged embezzled funds. The core legal question was whether departmental disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of penalties could be finalized after the death of a civil servant. The Lahore High Court held that disciplinary proceedings are intended to impose penalties on active employees and necessarily abate upon the death of the civil servant. Consequently, the inquiry finalized after the official's death, which held him responsible for embezzlement, was declared illegal and unsustainable. The court ruled that the respondents could not withhold pensionary benefits based on such post-mortem proceedings. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant stand abated immediately upon their death, rendering any subsequent penalty or recovery order void. The court directed the authorities to release all pensionary benefits to the petitioners, setting aside the impugned orders.
Questions settled- Can departmental disciplinary proceedings continue against a civil servant after their death?
- Does an inquiry finalized after the death of a civil servant provide a legal basis for recovering alleged embezzled funds from pensionary benefits?
- Do disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant abate upon their death?
- Mst. Kanwal Sabir and another vs Humair and others2024 SHC 544 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and another vs Saif Ullah2024 YLR 1731 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Johan Bano and others vs Mehraban Shah & others2024 SCP 137, 2024 SCMR 1096, 2024 PLJ SC 498, 2024 PLJ SC 586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises from a long-standing property dispute concerning an oral exchange of land made in 1945 between the predecessors of the parties, which was later affirmed through an exchange deed in 1980 and reflected in the revenue records (jamabandis and khasra girdawaris) in the column of cultivators. After the death of their predecessor, the petitioners managed to enter an inheritance mutation of the suit land in their own names based solely on ownership entries in the revenue record, prompting the respondents to file a civil suit for a declaration of ownership. The Trial Court decreed the petitioners' suit and dismissed the respondents' suit, but the Appellate Court reversed this decision and decreed the respondents' suit, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court evaluated the concurrent findings of fact, the statutory presumption of truth attached to revenue records under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, and the legal nature of inheritance mutations. The Court held that mutations do not confer title, that long-standing revenue entries carry a presumption of truth which the petitioners failed to rebut, and that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence do not warrant interference. Leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an inheritance mutation by itself create title to immovable property?
- What is the evidentiary value of entries in periodical records of rights such as jamabandis and khasra girdawaris?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts in the absence of a substantial question of law or grave miscarriage of justice?
- Mst. Ishrat Parveen and another vs Syed Azhar Ali and others2024 PLD Sindh 289 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ishrat Bibi vs The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab and another2024 SCP 200, 2024 SCMR 1528, PLJ 2024 SC (Cr.C.) 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arose from a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Mst. Ishrat Bibi, who was implicated in an FIR involving murder and conspiracy charges. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman, was entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), particularly given the rule of consistency, as other co-accused had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court emphasized that the first proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. acts as beneficial legislation, mandating that for women, minors, and the sick or infirm, bail should be granted as a rule and refused as an exception, regardless of the offence category. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the doctrine of parity, holding that where co-accused have been granted bail and the prosecution's case relies on supplementary statements implicating the petitioner without direct evidence of a specific role, the petitioner is entitled to the same relief. The Court concluded that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry, justifying her release on bail.
Questions settled- Does the first proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. mandate the grant of bail to a woman accused of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Can the rule of consistency be applied to grant bail to an accused when co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail?
- Does the doctrine of 'further inquiry' at the bail stage require a tentative assessment of the prosecution's evidence?
- Is the principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 PPC applicable for consideration at the bail stage?
- Mst. Iraj Jawaid vs The State2024 SHC 646 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order dismissing the applicant's complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicant claimed she was a statutory tenant of a tuck shop and was forcibly dispossessed by the respondents. The core legal question was whether the applicant held the status of a statutory tenant or a lawful occupier entitled to invoke the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Sindh High Court held that the agreement between the parties was a franchise agreement, not a rent agreement, rendering the applicant a licensee rather than a statutory tenant or lawful occupier. The court ruled that a licensee cannot be equated with a tenant and lacks standing to initiate proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The key principles laid down are that a franchise agreement creates the status of a licensee rather than a tenant, that protection under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is strictly extended to legal owners and lawful occupiers, and that licensees do not enjoy statutory tenancy protection.
Questions settled- Does a franchise agreement for operating a commercial space create the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can a licensee initiate criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- What constitutes a lawful occupier for the purposes of protection under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Mst. Iqbal Bibi & others vs Kareem Hussain Shah & others2024 SCP 152, 2024 SCMR 1233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hussan Bano and others vs Mst. Muhammadia Bibi and others2024 YLR 2238 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hawa Abdul Razzak vs Abdul Rehman Taar Wala and 2 others2024 YLR 269 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hatul Khatoon vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 630 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Haseena Bibi vs Abdul Haleem, etc2024 SCP 20, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the Family Court and District Judge, which had decreed the recovery of dower and maintenance in favor of the appellant. The core legal question was whether an agreement (Iqrarnama) executed without the wife's participation, which purported to waive her right to dower and the custody of her minor child in exchange for divorce, was legally valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to appreciate the evidence and the law. The Court ruled that dower is a fundamental right under Islamic law, protected by statute, and cannot be waived through agreements to which the wife is not a party. Furthermore, any agreement where a mother purports to waive her statutory right of Hizanat (custody) is void, against public policy, and unenforceable. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the decree for the recovery of dower, affirming that statutory rights regarding dower and child custody cannot be compromised by such agreements.
Questions settled- Can a wife's right to dower be waived through an agreement to which she is not a party?
- Is an agreement by a mother to waive her right to the custody of a minor child legally enforceable?
- Does the principle of estoppel apply against a statutory right like the right to dower?
- Are agreements that contravene public policy regarding child custody void under the Contract Act?
- Mst. Haleema, etc. vs Executive Director, C & C Department Securities &2024 LHC 823, 2024 PLJ Lahore 236, 2025 CLD 324 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Haleema and three others vs Executive Director (C & CD), Securities2024 LHC 1507 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hakeema and another vs P.O Sindh and others2024 SHC 1140 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Sughra and another vs The State2024 SHC 968 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal bail application wherein the applicants, Mst. Ghulam Sughra and Mst. Benazir Agha Tahir, sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No.150 of 2024 registered under Sections 420, 406, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Model Colony, Karachi. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the civil nature of the dispute, an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the applicability of the exceptions under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for female accused and cases requiring further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the inordinate delay in reporting, the existence of parallel civil suits regarding property titles, and the fact that the applicants were women brought their case within the purview of further inquiry and the statutory exceptions. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants. The key principles laid down include that unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution, that purely civil property disputes should not be converted into criminal litigation to exert pressure, and that the case of female accused falls under the protective exceptions of bail provisions.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR makes the prosecution case a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a dispute primarily of a civil nature regarding property title warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal proceedings?
- Are female accused entitled to special consideration for bail under the restrictive clauses of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether parallel civil suits pending adjudication between the parties affect the determination of criminal liability for alleged fraud?
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others vs Pahar Khan and others2024 CLC 1538 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was preferred against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which simultaneously dismissed the petitioners' appeal and their application for producing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question before the High Court was whether an appellate court is legally required to decide a miscellaneous application for additional evidence in the first instance before deciding the main appeal on its merits. The High Court held that whenever a miscellaneous application is pending, the court is obligated to adjudicate upon it first before proceeding to the final disposal of the case; failing to do so vitiates the final decision. Deciding both simultaneously prejudices the matter and improperly disfavors the application, particularly since a joint decision is impossible if additional evidence is permitted. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the appellate judgment, and remanded the matter to decide the miscellaneous application first.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court required to decide an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prior to deciding the main appeal?
- Does the simultaneous dismissal of a pending miscellaneous application and the main appeal render the final appellate judgment and decree defective in law?
- Can a party to an appeal file an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or is that power strictly exercisable suo motu by the appellate court?
- Mst. Farzana Zia and others vs Mst. Saadia Andaleeb and others2024 SCP 118, 2024 SCMR 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court setting aside concurrent findings of the lower courts which had declared a release deed executed by female legal heirs in favour of their brother to be void ab initio. The dispute concerned inheritance of an immovable property in Islamabad left by the deceased father of the parties. The female appellants challenged the release deed, contending it was secured through fraud and misrepresentation under the guise of transferring the property jointly to all legal heirs. The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence, noting the lack of consideration, absence of family settlement, and contradictions in the testimonies of marginal witnesses. The Court held that a release or relinquishment deed and a gift deed possess distinct legal characteristics and cannot be used interchangeably, and that transactions depriving female heirs of inheritance without valid consideration or conscious relinquishment violate both law and Shariah. The Court reaffirmed that a revisional court cannot lightly interfere with well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts.
Questions settled- Whether a release deed executed by female heirs relinquishing their inheritance shares without consideration can be treated as a valid gift?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Does a release or relinquishment deed require valid consideration or a demonstrable family settlement to be legally enforceable against female co-sharers?
- What is the evidentiary significance of marginal witnesses contradicting the due execution and reading over of a release deed allegedly signed by female family members?
- Mst. Farzana Bibi vs Capital City Police Officer, etc2024 LHC 3047, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1211, 2025 PCRLJ 726 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 seeking the recovery of two alleged detenus who were subsequently reported killed in an alleged police encounter. The Lahore High Court addressed the grave constitutional and legal implications of extrajudicial killings, examining whether fake police encounters violate fundamental rights such as the right to life, due process, and human dignity. The court held that extrajudicial killings and fake police encounters are egregious violations of fundamental rights under the Constitution and international law, lacking any legal foundation. The court emphasized that the right of self-defence for law enforcement must be strictly proportional, immediate, and credible, and cannot be used as a guise for unlawful summary executions. Finally, the petition was disposed of with directives ensuring proper investigation through relevant agencies under the applicable legal framework.
Questions settled- Whether extrajudicial killings by law enforcement agencies violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can a fake police encounter be justified under the legal right of self-defence?
- What are the legal requirements and oversight mechanisms required when lethal force is used by police officials?
- Mst. Farhiah Ahmaree vs SHO PS a-Section Sukkur & others2024 SHC 450, 2025 YLR 875 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sukkur, which dismissed her application for the registration of an FIR against the proposed accused. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace correctly dismissed the application on the grounds of a pre-existing civil dispute and the applicant's history of litigation. The Court held that a Station House Officer (SHO) has no authority to refuse to record a statement of a complainant under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regardless of the perceived authenticity or falsity of the complaint. The Court emphasized that the remedy against false FIRs lies in penalizing the informant under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than refusing registration. Consequently, the Court directed the SSP Sukkur to ascertain the factual position regarding the alleged money transaction and, if appropriate, direct the SHO to record the statement, while also allowing for potential legal action against the applicant if the complaint is found to be malicious.
Questions settled- Does a Station House Officer have the authority to refuse to record a statement of a complainant under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are proceedings before an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace quasi-judicial in nature?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy when a false FIR is lodged?
- Mst. Fakhra Ahmed vs Sajid Abbasi & others2024 SHC 992 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Erum Naz W/O Javed & Another vs The State2024 SHC 1246 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a pre-arrest bail application arising out of Crime No.267/2024 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station New Town, Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants made out a case for pre-arrest bail in light of conflicting versions, delayed statements, and varying medical and circumstantial evidence. The Sindh High Court held that while the main applicant, Sikander Javed, was connected to the fatal head injury through eyewitness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and medical evidence, and thus was not entitled to pre-arrest bail, his co-applicant mother, Mst. Erum Naz, lacked specific allegations and was cleared by the police during investigation, warranting confirmation of her bail. The key principle laid down is that at the pre-arrest bail stage, a tentative assessment of the material is undertaken, and discrepancies such as delayed statements require deeper appreciation of evidence during trial rather than resulting in bail by default.
Questions settled- Whether delay per se in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is fatal to the prosecution case at the stage of pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when eyewitnesses implicate the accused and medical evidence corroborates the cause of death?
- Whether an accused let off by the police during investigation and lacking specific allegations is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Mst. Bushra Imran Khan vs Chief Commissioner, Islamabad and others2024 IHC 72, 2024 PLD Islamabad 319 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Salima alias Katkai vs Hasan Bahadar and others2024 PHC 344 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Saira and others vs P.O Sindh through Secretary, Home2024 MLD 1729 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bashul vs The State & others2024 SHC 460 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought registration of an FIR regarding the alleged murder of her son through a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 22-A and B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after the police had previously submitted a report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 indicating suicide. The Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application, concluding the matter stemmed from a matrimonial dispute and was brought to exert pressure. The Sindh High Court examined the role of a Justice of Peace, emphasizing that such an authority must not conduct a detailed inquiry or assume investigative functions, but should only determine whether a cognizable offence is disclosed. The Court noted that an SHO is mandated to record an information regarding a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, with false reports checked by penal provisions such as Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than initial refusal. Disposing of the application, the Court directed the parties to appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police for a proper evaluation of allegations and counter-allegations on merits.
Questions settled- What is the scope of inquiry for an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when deciding an application for the registration of an FIR?
- Does an SHO have the authority to refuse to record a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that the information is false or unverified?
- What is the appropriate legal mechanism to deter the lodging of false First Information Reports under criminal law?
- Mst. Bakht Sahiba and others vs Malak Zada and others2024 PHC 76, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Badami and others vs Mst. Budhee and others2024 MLD 534 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bacha Haram through LRs and others vs Muhammad Sardar Malak2024 PHC 90 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Aziza Khanum alias Shah Pari and another vs Member-II, Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Zargoon Road, Quetta and 5 others2024 YLR 2314 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ayesha vs Mst. Shama, etc2024 LHC 4778 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Asma Shakeel Through Special Attorney Muhammad Khalid and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 610 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Arzu vs District Police Officer, Khanewal and 3 others2024 YLR 1073 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Arfa & one another vs Aftab Muhammad & 02 others2024 PHC 226, 2024 MLD 2026 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Anila Abrar and others vs Government of Sindh & others2024 SHC 184 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Anayat Bibi vs Muhammad Saleem (deceased) through L.Rs.2024 LHC 1683 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Almas Khatoon and another vs P.O Sindh and 10 Others2024 SHC 212 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Alia Sehr vs Mushtaq Ahmed and others2024 CLC 2057 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ali Zoha & another vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 186 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. AksarJan and others vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others2024 SCP 336, 2025 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a long-standing inheritance dispute involving the estate of a deceased Muslim man, where the widows were allegedly deprived of their shares through fraudulent gift mutations and an unsubstantiated, undated agreement (Razi Nama). The core legal questions were whether the purported agreement, which lacked consideration and proper execution, could legally divest a widow of her inheritance rights, and whether the High Court erred in remanding the case on peripheral technicalities rather than addressing the merits of the inheritance claim. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to remand was unjustified, as it overlooked the fraudulent nature of the documents and the clear denial of inheritance rights. The Court restored the original appellate decree in favor of the widow, emphasizing that inheritance rights under Islamic Shariah are absolute upon death. The key principle laid down is that courts must be vigilant in protecting inheritance rights, particularly of females, and must not allow procedural technicalities or fraudulent documentation to facilitate the deprivation of such rights, with the imposition of substantial costs on those employing such tactics.
Questions settled- Can an agreement (Razi Nama) lacking consideration and proper execution be used to divest a legal heir of their inheritance?
- Is a remand order by the High Court justified when the underlying dispute involves clear fraudulent attempts to deprive heirs of their rights?
- Does the court have the authority to impose costs on parties who employ fraudulent tactics to delay the distribution of an estate?
- Mst. AIam Shada vs Government of KPK through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2024 PHC 124 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Afia Ambrine vs Addl. District Judge, Sialkot and 14 Others2024 LHC 3672, 2025 PLD Lahore 124 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Abida Rafique Ghouri through her legal heir Mst. Ambreena Azeem vs Syed Amjad Hussain Gillani and 03 others2024 LHC 1927, 2025 MLD 355 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst Sadia vs Ubaid Afridi and others2024 PHC 66 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →
- Ms. Sumaira Bibi wife of Muhammad Imran vs The State2024 SHC 162 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 1000 grams of heroin and 900 grams of methamphetamine under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant, a woman caught red-handed with a sizeable quantity of narcotics, was entitled to bail under the statutory exceptions and general principles governing bail for women and narcotic offenses. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that despite the general rule favoring bail for women under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, exceptions apply in grave offenses against society where the accused is caught red-handed with commercial quantities of narcotics, no malafides or enmity are established against the raiding officers, and statutory provisions exclude the necessity of private witnesses. The key principles laid down include that bail in narcotics cases must be approached with caution due to the gravity of the crime, that section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is excluded by virtue of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that the rule granting bail to women is not absolute and admits exceptions in appropriate circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the rule granting bail to women accused of criminal offenses is absolute or admits exceptions in narcotics cases?
- Does section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 exclude the application of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding private witnesses?
- Can bail be granted in narcotics cases where a sizeable quantity of prohibited substances is recovered from the accused who is caught red-handed?
- Does the delay in sending chemical analysis samples beyond seventy-two hours vitiate the recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
- Ms. Popular International (Pvt) Ltd. vs M/s. Etisalat Group2024 SHC 342, 2024 CLD 1419, 2024 CLC 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
- Ms. Naheeda Bashir vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 6 others2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 25 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-03-12Read full judgment →
- Ms. Naheeda Bashir and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others2024 F.S.C 14 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Ms. Firdos Noor Malik vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 498, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 42 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought appointment as a Junior Elementary School Teacher (JEST) after qualifying the recruitment test with high marks. The respondents denied her appointment on the technical ground that she failed to submit her Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) Form-D by the advertisement's cutoff date, despite her holding a valid Domicile Certificate issued well before that date. The core legal question was whether the late submission of a PRC, when the candidate's residence status was otherwise established by a timely Domicile Certificate, constitutes a valid ground for disqualification from public employment. The Court held that the refusal to appoint the petitioner was erroneous. Relying on the principle that technical delays in documentation should not override substantive eligibility, the Court ruled that since the Domicile Certificate confirmed the petitioner's residence before the cutoff, the late submission of the PRC was a curable defect rather than an inherent disqualification. The Court directed the authorities to issue an appointment offer, emphasizing that administrative discretion should be exercised to facilitate rather than obstruct the appointment of qualified candidates.
Questions settled- Can a candidate be disqualified from public employment for submitting a Permanent Residence Certificate after the advertisement's cutoff date if they possessed a valid Domicile Certificate issued before that date?
- Does the late submission of a secondary document like a PRC constitute an inherent disqualification for a post when the candidate has otherwise qualified the recruitment test?
- Is the administrative authority required to provide an opportunity to a candidate to cure technical defects in documentation before rejecting their candidature?
- Mrs. Shehla Tariq Saigol vs Federation of Pakistan and 03 Others2024 LHC 3528, 2025 PTD 313 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shamim Barlas, Altaf Hussain, Fayyaz Hussain & Others vs Al-Habib2024 SHC 1250 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shahina Shahid vs Messrs Qamran Construction (Pvt.) Ltd, and another2024 CLC 914 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Rizwana Nawaz vs The Returning Officer Na-163 and 03 others2024 LHC 57 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-05Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Rizwana Akhtar & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1400 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Assistant Audit Officers, filed a constitutional petition seeking a directive to the Auditor General of Pakistan to implement a department letter dated 17.01.2011. This letter extended benefits of seniority restoration, pay, and allowances based on previous decisions of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioners sought promotion to BPS-18, alleging discrimination and mala fide actions, as their colleagues had been promoted. The respondents countered that the petitioners failed to pass the mandatory Subordinate Audit/Account Services (SAS) examination within the prescribed three attempts, leading to their termination and subsequent re-appointment under revised terms that forfeited their past seniority. The High Court of Sindh held that under Civil Service Regulations 418 and 420, failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it cannot enforce FST orders as the FST has its own execution powers, and the petitioners could not claim equity under the Hameed Akhtar Niazi case due to their failure to qualify in the mandatory examinations. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the High Court enforce a judgment passed by the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does the failure of a civil servant to pass a prescribed departmental examination entail the forfeiture of their past service under the Civil Service Regulations?
- Can a civil servant claim the benefit of a judgment in rem regarding seniority and promotion if they failed to meet the mandatory qualification criteria applicable to their post?
- Mrs. Riffat Siraj Munir vs Messrs Moomal Production (Pvt.) Limited2024 CLC 1976 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Faryal Arif Latif vs Mr. Arif Latif2024 SCP 417, 2025 SCMR 395, 2025 PLJ SC 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against orders of the Lahore High Court upholding the restoration of a civil suit. The respondent had filed a civil suit for declaration and possession, which was dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the plaintiff failed to produce documentary evidence due to unarranged records following an administrative transfer of the case file. The Trial Court subsequently restored the suit upon an application filed under Order IX Rule 9, a decision affirmed by the High Court in revision and review. The core legal question addressed is whether sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance to warrant the restoration of a suit dismissed in default, and whether past conduct can override a valid cause shown for a specific default. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the plaintiff established sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of dismissal, and that past conduct alone cannot defeat a restoration application if valid cause is otherwise made out. The Court also emphasized the need for comprehensive case management systems and stage-wise timelines in civil and criminal proceedings to prevent systemic delays.
Questions settled- Whether past defaults and conduct of a party can be used as a sole ground to dismiss a restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when sufficient cause for non-appearance on the specific date of dismissal is shown?
- Does an administrative transfer of a case file from one court to another dispense with the requirement of notice to the parties by the transferee court?
- Whether a court is mandated to consider past failures before restoring a suit dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mrs. Anjum Ara, Shabbir A. Halai vs Shabbir A. Halai, Mrs. Anjum Ara2024 SHC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Anita Nalini Dass vs Muhammad Jumman and 5 others2024 PLD Sindh 43 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-05Read full judgment →
- Mr. Ravendar Kumar vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Cantt. Zone, Rto, Rawalpindi2024 ATIR 2 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mr. Muhammad Saqlain, Naurangabad, D.G. Khan vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2024 FTO 2 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2024-08-12Read full judgment →
- Mr. Muhammad Hassanullah (Omg/B-18), Acting Additional Secretary,2024 SCP 303, 2025 SCMR 134, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from separate petitions for leave to appeal filed by an Acting Additional Secretary and the Government of Balochistan against a High Court judgment. The respondents, civil servants belonging to the Balochistan Secretariat Service, had successfully challenged the petitioner's posting as Acting Additional Secretary under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, despite having already filed an appeal on the same matter before the Balochistan Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants, given the express bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that Article 212 contains a non obstante clause that overrides Article 199, vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Service Tribunal over terms and conditions of service, including transfers and postings, even where questions of mala fide, coram non judice, or violations of fundamental rights are raised.
Questions settled- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in matters concerning the transfer and posting of civil servants?
- Can a civil servant bypass the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by raising grounds of fundamental rights violations or mala fide in a High Court petition?
- Is a High Court competent to entertain a writ petition regarding terms and conditions of service when an appeal on the same matter is pending before the Service Tribunal?
- Moutbar Khan and others vs The State2024 MLD 1313 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Moutbar Khan and Alamdar Hussain, who were charged under Sections 302, 324, 114, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for their alleged abetment in a murder and attempted murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given that they were merely alleged to be present at the scene without specific overt acts or evidence of abetment. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, reasoning that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence of conspiracy, instigation, or aid, and that their implication appeared to stem from their familial relationship with the principal accused amidst existing enmity. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioners' case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the law. The key principle laid down is that mere presence at the scene of a crime, without specific evidence of active participation or abetment, warrants the grant of bail, especially when the prosecution fails to substantiate allegations of conspiracy during the investigation stage.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without evidence of active participation, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of granting bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a familial relationship with the principal accused sufficient evidence to establish abetment in a criminal case?
- Moulvi Abdul Fateh vs Yar Muhammad and others2024 SCP 343, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment granting succession certificates to the respondents regarding the estate of the deceased, Moulvi Abdul Sattar. The petitioner, the deceased's brother, challenged the respondents' status as legitimate children, alleging they were adopted, and argued that the summary nature of proceedings under the Succession Act, 1925, was inappropriate for resolving such disputes. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the respondents had produced substantial oral and documentary evidence, including official records, to establish their parentage. The Court held that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to support his claims. Crucially, the Court affirmed that succession proceedings are summary in nature and not the appropriate forum for challenging paternity. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that a third party, such as a brother, lacks the legal character to challenge the paternity or legitimacy of children in succession proceedings without first obtaining a declaration through a competent civil court. Additionally, only a putative father may challenge paternity within the time limits prescribed by law.
Questions settled- Can a third party challenge the paternity or legitimacy of children during summary succession proceedings?
- Is a succession application under the Succession Act 1925 the appropriate forum for determining disputed questions of title or parentage?
- Does a brother have the legal character to challenge the paternity of his deceased brother's children without a substantive civil suit?
- Moula Bux & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1136 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
- Moonis Elahi vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2024 LHC 160 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
- Molvi Liaqat Ali vs Mohammad Ishaque and others2024 F.S.C 3, 2024 PLD Federal Shariat Court 29 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, which dismissed a direct complaint of Qazf. The petitioner alleged that the respondents publicly leveled false accusations of Zina against him, causing defamation. The trial court dismissed the complaint, citing hearsay evidence and lack of immediate proof. The Federal Shariat Court examined whether the trial court correctly assessed the complaint at the preliminary stage. The Court held that the burden of proof at the preliminary inquiry stage is significantly lighter than at a full trial, and a court should not convert a preliminary inquiry into a full-fledged trial. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial and due process, guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution, requires that a complainant be given a full opportunity of hearing and the chance to produce evidence. Finding that the trial court acted in haste without providing such an opportunity, the Court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Is the burden of proof at the preliminary inquiry stage of a criminal complaint the same as the burden of proof required at a full trial?
- Does the dismissal of a criminal complaint without providing the complainant an opportunity of hearing violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can a trial court convert a preliminary inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into a full-fledged trial?