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.

• NEWNUSRAT AFTAB Versus RABEAH HUSSAIN2025 PLD 366 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed SIBT HASSAN Versus SABA BATOOL2025 PLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• NEWFARAZ IQBAL JAMIL Versus The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2025 PLD 352 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• NEWMAG APARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2025 PLD 347 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ADIL NAWAZ BHATTI Versus CHAIRMAN UNION COUNCIL NO. 116-EME2025 PLD 340 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-30Read full judgment →
• NEWSAKHAWAT HUSSAIN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2025 PLD 332 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
• NEWKASHIF LAW BOOK HOUSE Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2025 PLD 311 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• NEWBILAWAL GULL BUILDERS Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2025 PLD 293 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-05Read full judgment →
• NEWSABIR ALI Versus MUNAWAR2025 PLD 286 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• NEWFAYSAL BANK LIMITED Versus DYNASEL LIMITED2025 PLD 263 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. MISBAH IFTIKHAR Versus Mst. ALEESA2025 PLD 249 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• NEWState Versus MUHAMMAD ALTAF Ch. Asghar Ali Gill, Deputy Prosecutor General2025 PLD 235 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-14
  plea of guiltintermediary stage confessionnarcotics controlquantum of sentencewaiver of trialratio decidendiobiter dictasentencing policy
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  The State filed an appeal under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 challenging a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC convicting the respondent under Section 9(c) of the Act and sentencing him to fifteen months of rigorous imprisonment upon an amended plea of guilt. The core legal questions addressed were whether an accused can plead guilty at an intermediary stage of a trial after initially denying the charge, and whether a lenient sentence is justified upon such a plea. The Lahore High Court held that there is no specific statutory prohibition preventing an accused from admitting guilt at any stage of a trial to waive their right to a protracted trial, provided the court ensures the admission is voluntary and not for capital or life imprisonment offenses. The court further held that an accused who willingly confesses should be treated more leniently regarding the quantum of sentence to reduce prosecution costs. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person plead guilty at an intermediary stage of a trial after initially denying the charge under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the recording of a plea of guilt mid-way through a criminal trial vitiates the conviction or can be legally sustained?
  • Is an accused who voluntarily confesses guilt entitled to a more lenient sentence in terms of quantum?
  • What is the distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta regarding observations on procedural stages of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed HASSAN MURTAZA Versus Mst. MARIYA BANO KHAN2025 PLD 207 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-24Read full judgment →
• NEWZ. A. CORPORATION Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce, Islamabad2025 PLD 200 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01Read full judgment →
• NEWPERVAIZ ABBASI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2025 PLD 191 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed SHOUZAB IMRAN KAZMI Versus Syeda IFFAT BUKHARI2025 PLD 18 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• NEWNASIR MAHMOOD Versus ZAFAR IQBAL2025 PLD 171 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-18Read full judgment →
• NEWSADIQ POULTRY FARMS (PVT.) LIMITED Versus FIRST HABIB MODARABA, A SUBSIDIARY OF HABIB METRO BANK2025 PLD 161 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD IMRAN Versus SAMINA KOUSAR2025 PLD 152 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ATIF Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN2025 PLD 146 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-15Read full judgment →
• NEWDILSHAD AKBAR Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE2025 PLD 137 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. AFIA AMBRINE Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT2025 PLD 124 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-13Read full judgment →
• NEWTAHIR MEHDI IMTIAZ AHMAD WARRAICH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Home Department2025 PLD 112 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• NEWAZKA WAHID Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore2025 PLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-09Read full judgment →
• NEWBRIGADIER (R) QAISER SHAHZAD Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU2026 PLD 215 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-10-21
  National Accountability Ordinance 1999Master of the RosterBench compositionFreezing of propertyAppellate jurisdictionIntra-court appealJudicial administration
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This matter concerns an application seeking the transfer of an appeal against an interlocutory order of an Accountability Court to a Single Bench of the High Court. The core legal question is whether an appeal against an order confirming the freezing of property under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, must be heard by a Division Bench or if it may be heard by a Single Bench. The Court held that the Chief Justice, as the Master of the Roster, possesses the exclusive administrative prerogative to constitute Benches and allocate judicial business under Article 202 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It determined that appeals under the Ordinance are governed by a specific statutory scheme requiring a Division Bench, and that litigants possess no vested right to demand a particular Bench composition. Furthermore, the Court clarified that such statutory appeals are self-contained, precluding any intra-court appeal. The key principle laid down is that the distribution of judicial business is an administrative function of the Chief Justice, and judicial orders cannot encroach upon this constitutional authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a litigant have a vested right to have their case heard by a specific Bench or a Bench of a particular numerical strength?
  • Is the Chief Justice's authority to constitute Benches and allocate cases an administrative or judicial function?
  • Are appeals filed under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, subject to intra-court appeal?
  • Can a Bench of the High Court issue judicial orders directing the categorization or fixation of cases?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMANZOOR QADIR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Cabinet Secretary2026 PLD 209 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-18
  territorial jurisdictionExit Control ListPassport Control ListProvisional National Identification ListAccountability Courtexemption from personal appearancesplitting cause of actionjudicial comityforum shopping
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the removal of the petitioner's name from the Exit Control List (ECL), Passport Control List (PCL), and Provisional National Identification List (PNIL) to enable him to travel abroad for medical treatment. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had filed a Reference against him, which was pending before the Accountability Court in Karachi, Sindh. The respondent raised preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction and forum shopping, pointing out that parallel proceedings were pending before the High Court of Sindh.

  The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition as misconceived and not maintainable. The Court held that the mere administrative presence of federal offices within its territorial limits does not confer jurisdiction when the dominant object and primary cause of action arise elsewhere. Furthermore, because a criminal trial is pending before the Accountability Court, any question regarding exemption from personal appearance or permission to travel abroad falls within the exclusive statutory domain of the trial court under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and cannot be bypassed via writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a federal government office within a High Court's territorial limits confer jurisdiction under Article 199 when the primary cause of action arose in another province?
  • Can an accused facing trial before an Accountability Court seek permission to travel abroad via a constitutional petition under Article 199 without first applying for exemption under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it permissible for a litigant to split reliefs arising out of the same cause of action across two different High Courts simultaneously?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWALI KHAN Versus State2026 PLD 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2026-05-05
  unsound mindmental capacitytrial competencycriminal responsibilitymandatory inquiryCode of Criminal Procedureremand
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the Trial Court's failure to adhere to the mandatory statutory procedure regarding an accused's plea of unsound mind. During the trial, the appellant raised a defense of mental incapacity, which the Trial Court ignored for the purpose of determining trial competency but subsequently utilized as a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence. The Islamabad High Court held that the Trial Court committed a material illegality by bypassing the mandatory inquiry prescribed under sections 464 and 465, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established the principle that when a plea of lunacy is raised, the Trial Court is under a mandatory legal obligation to conduct a formal, objective inquiry to determine the accused's mental capacity to stand trial. It cannot treat such a plea as a mere sentencing consideration without first adjudicating the issue of competence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision following the prescribed statutory procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Trial Court have a mandatory duty to conduct an inquiry under sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a plea of unsound mind is raised?
  • Can a Trial Court use an unverified plea of unsound mind as a mitigating factor for sentencing without first determining the accused's mental capacity to stand trial?
  • Is the failure of a Trial Court to follow the statutory procedure for determining an accused's mental capacity a mere irregularity or a material illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSHAFQAT HUSSAIN Versus ABDUL HAMEED2025 PLD 97 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed MUHAMMAD ALI BOKHARI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad2025 PLD 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• NEWHIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION through Project Director, Islamabad Versus Dr. NOUSHEEN IRAM2025 PLD 41 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD SHAHID Versus State2025 PLD 35 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
• NEWAMAN ULLAH KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law2025 PLD 274 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• NEWDoctor NAUMAN HAMID NIAZ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2025 PLD 24 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-21Read full judgment →
• NEWZAVER PETROLEUM CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED Versus SAIF ENERGY LIMITED2025 PLD 219 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• NEWSHAHID HUSSAIN KHAWAJA Versus State2025 PLD 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-12-23
  post-arrest bailtax fraudSales Tax Act 1990tax assessmentsimultaneous civil and criminal proceedingsactus reusprohibitory clausedue process
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This post-arrest bail application arose from an FIR registered against a taxpayer company and the petitioner, a bank branch manager accused of aiding tax fraud by opening bank accounts. The petitioner contended that no tax liability had been assessed under Section 11 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, rendering pre-trial arrest illegal, and that the offenses did not fall under the prohibitory clause. The court held that while civil and criminal proceedings may generally run simultaneously, criminal liability under Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 is contingent upon a prior determination of tax due under Section 11. Without an adjudication establishing tax liability, the actus reus for tax fraud cannot exist. The court affirmed that pre-trial arrest and detention prior to formal tax assessment constitute a colorable exercise of authority and violate fundamental rights under Articles 9, 10A, 14, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings or arrests for tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act 1990 be initiated prior to the determination and assessment of tax liability under Section 11?
  • Does the failure to assess tax liability prior to criminal prosecution under the Sales Tax Act 1990 violate Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Under what circumstances must criminal proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of civil litigation on the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWARSHAD SHARIF, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST/ANCHOR ARY COMMUNICATIONS (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, President of Pakistan Consitutional Avenue, Islamabad2025 PLD 177 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-08-26Read full judgment →
• NEWANWAR MANSOOR KHAN Versus SPECIAL COURT, ISLAMABAD through Registrar, Islamabad2025 PLD 168 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• NEWMOHSIN ABBAS Versus SUZUKI MOTORS COMPANY LTD.2025 PLD 14 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-23
  consumer protectionunfair trade practicenon-delivery of goodsfuture goodspurposive interpretationconsumer court jurisdictioncompensation
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a consumer complaint by the Consumer Court, which had ruled that a dispute regarding the non-delivery of booked vehicles fell outside its jurisdiction, classifying the vehicles as 'future goods' under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The Islamabad High Court examined whether the appellant qualified as a 'consumer' and whether the non-delivery of goods constitutes an 'unfair trade practice' under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995. The Court held that the Consumer Court erred by borrowing definitions from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, as consumer protection statutes must be interpreted purposively and independently to safeguard consumer interests. It determined that the non-delivery of goods after payment constitutes an unfair trade practice and that the consumer court has jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the power to award compensation under Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, is independent of criminal conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for a decision on merits after recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-delivery of goods by a trader after receiving payment constitute an unfair trade practice under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  • Can a consumer court rely on definitions from the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, to interpret the scope of the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  • Is the power of the Consumer Court to award compensation under Section 9(3) of the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, conditional upon a criminal conviction?
  • Does the definition of 'consumer' under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, include a person who has paid for goods that are yet to be delivered?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWCHINA MOBILE PAKISTAN LIMITED (CMPAK LTD./ZONG) Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication2025 PLD 130 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• NEWPAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION LIMITED Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHERWANI2025 PLD 116 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• NEWDr. FARHAT ULLAH BAKHSH Versus EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE/ ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-III (EAST), ISLAMABAD2025 PLD 106 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-01Read full judgment →
• NEWThe STATE OF LIBYA Versus CIVIL JUDGE (WEST), ISLAMABAD2025 PLD 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• NEWRAJ WALI Versus RESHAM JAN (widow)2026 PLD 58 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-02-18
  specific performanceagreement to selllimitationregistration of documentsdeclaration and possessionunregistered sale deed
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over land and shops where the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration and possession, claiming the defendants/appellants were in temporary possession under a fifteen-year agreement. The appellants filed a cross-suit for specific performance based on an unregistered agreement to sell dated 15.11.1973. The trial court dismissed the respondents' suit and decreed the appellants' cross-suit. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, dismissing the cross-suit. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, in dismissing the appeal, held that an unregistered agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights and cannot be equated to a registered sale deed. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the suit for specific performance, filed thirty-five years after the alleged agreement, was hopelessly barred by the three-year limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court emphasized that statutory limitation periods cannot be waived or condoned unless a valid exception is established.

  Questions settled

  • Can an unregistered agreement to sell be treated as a registered sale deed to confer ownership rights over immovable property?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can a court condone or lift the statutory barrier of limitation for a suit filed decades after the cause of action accrued without a valid exception?
  • Does Article 81 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 dispense with the requirement of examining attesting witnesses if the executant admits execution of the document?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWNADEEM EHSAN KHAN Versus BOARD OF REVENUE through Registrar2026 PLD 55 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-01-20
  writ petitiondoctrine of lachesrevenue lawalternate remedyconstitutional petitionlimitation period
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This writ petition, filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, challenged orders passed by revenue authorities, including the Member Judicial Board of Revenue. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition given the availability of an alternate remedy and whether the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches due to delayed filing. The Court held that a revision petition before the Full Board of Revenue is only competent under Section 7(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993, when the Member Board of Revenue reverses or modifies a subordinate order; as the impugned order merely upheld the previous decision, the objection regarding an alternate remedy was rejected. However, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, ruling that it was hit by the doctrine of laches. It established the principle that constitutional petitions must be filed within a reasonable time, generally not exceeding three months, and any delay beyond this period must be specifically and adequately explained to avoid dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a revision petition before the Full Board of Revenue competent when the Member Board of Revenue merely upholds a subordinate order?
  • What is the reasonable time limit for filing a constitutional petition before the High Court?
  • Does the failure to explain a delay in filing a constitutional petition render it liable to dismissal under the doctrine of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSHABNUM KOUSAR Versus AFTAB AHMED2026 PLD 49 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-12-06
  specific performanceagreement to sellburden of proofconsiderationpleading of fraudcivil appealcontract law
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This matter concerns appeals against a trial court judgment dismissing a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and decreeing a counter-suit for declaration and cancellation of said agreement. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff proved the payment of consideration for the agreement to sell and whether the agreement was enforceable as a contract for specific performance. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the payment of consideration, as the marginal witnesses were not produced, and the evidence of the petition writer and notary public was insufficient to establish the actual transfer of funds. Furthermore, the Court established that an agreement to sell lacking a clause granting the right to seek a court decree upon the donor's failure to execute a sale deed is unenforceable. Additionally, the Court noted that an agreement where full consideration is paid with no future obligations is a defective sale deed, not a contract for specific performance. Finally, the Court emphasized that allegations of fraud must be supported by specific particulars as required by procedural law.

  Questions settled

  • Is an agreement to sell enforceable as a contract for specific performance if it lacks a provision allowing the plaintiff to obtain a court decree upon the defendant's failure to execute a sale deed?
  • Can a suit for specific performance be decreed if the plaintiff fails to produce marginal witnesses to prove the payment of consideration?
  • Does an agreement to sell where the entire consideration is paid and no future obligations remain constitute a valid contract for specific performance?
  • Is a suit liable to be dismissed if the plaintiff pleads fraud without providing the necessary particulars of the alleged fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWTRANSPORT OPERATOR UNION Versus CHAIRMAN TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD2025 PLD 35 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• NEWGOHAR ZAMAN Versus BABAR-UR-REHMAN2025 PLD 31 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-09-20
  criminal revisionlimitation periodlachestime-barredprocedural lawjudicial discretioncondonation of delay
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhimber, regarding a complaint filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The central legal question addressed is whether a criminal revision petition before the High Court is subject to any specific period of limitation, given that the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, are silent on the matter. The Court held that while no statutory limitation period is explicitly prescribed, the principle of vigilance and the rule against laches necessitate that such petitions be filed within a reasonable time. Drawing an analogy from the ninety-day limitation period for civil revision petitions and constitutional petitions, the Court established that a criminal revision petition must be filed within ninety days of the impugned order. Any delay beyond this period requires a sufficient explanation to justify condonation. Applying this principle, the Court dismissed the instant petition as time-barred, having been filed 105 days after the impugned order without explanation, and directed the government to amend the relevant procedural laws to address this legislative lacuna.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a statutory period of limitation for filing a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir?
  • What is the reasonable time limit for filing a criminal revision petition in the absence of an express statutory provision?
  • Can a court condone the delay in filing a criminal revision petition if the petitioner fails to provide a sufficient explanation?
  • Does the principle of laches apply to criminal revision petitions filed after an inordinate delay?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSAKEENA BEGUM (widow) Versus ABDUL KHALIQ2025 PLD 25 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-01-23Read full judgment →
• NEWMir MUHAMMAD FARID Versus EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE/ SESSIONS JUDGE DISTRICT MUZAFFARABAD, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR2025 PLD 18 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-10-17Read full judgment →
• NEWSyeda FOUZIA JALAAL SHAH Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law and Justice, Islamabad2025 PLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD SALEH BHOTANI Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER2026 PLD 333 · Federal Constitutional Court · 2026-02-04
  election recountingsanctity of ballotelection petitionadministrative actannulment of proceedingsElection Commission of Pakistanleave to appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This petition challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a challenge against an Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) order for vote recounting. The core legal question concerned the validity of the ECP's recounting order, issued following a prior Supreme Court order that had annulled all previous proceedings related to the election dispute. The petitioner argued that the ECP’s order violated the Supreme Court's mandate by relying on annulled processes. The Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition. It determined that the term 'proceedings' is comprehensive, encompassing all steps taken in a cause; therefore, the annulment of proceedings by the Supreme Court rendered the subsequent ECP reliance on those annulled processes legally unsustainable. The Court set aside the impugned orders, directing the ECP to decide the recounting applications afresh, strictly adhering to the Supreme Court's prior directions. The judgment emphasizes that recounting is an administrative act requiring substantive material evidence of illegality and should be exercised sparingly to maintain the sanctity of the ballot, avoiding roving inquiries.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'proceedings' in a judicial or quasi-judicial context encompass all steps taken towards the progress of a cause?
  • Can the Election Commission of Pakistan rely on recounting processes that were part of proceedings previously annulled by the Supreme Court?
  • Is the power to order a recount of votes an administrative act that must be exercised sparingly based on material evidence of irregularity?
  • Does an appeal lie before the Supreme Court against an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan that does not constitute a formal declaration under Section 9(1) of the Elections Act 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWThe CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA Versus BAYAZID KHAN KHAROOTI2026 PLD 330 · Federal Constitutional Court · 2026-03-05
  executive authorityrule of lawcivil service benefitspensionary benefitsultra viresRules of Businessconstitutional governance
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This matter concerns a challenge to a government notification granting lifetime perks and privileges to retired Chief Secretaries of Balochistan and their widows. The core legal question was whether the executive government possessed the legal authority to extend such benefits via notification without statutory backing. The Court held that all executive actions must be firmly rooted in law and traceable to a specific legal source. Upon reviewing the Balochistan Rules of Business, 2012, the Court determined that the Services and General Administration Department lacked the competence to issue the notification, as matters concerning pensionary benefits and civil service conditions fall exclusively within the domain of the Finance Department. Furthermore, the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989 limit post-retirement benefits to those prescribed by law. The Court affirmed the principle that no executive action can be justified unless sanctioned by law, upholding the High Court's decision to strike down the notification for lacking legal basis and jurisdictional competence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the executive government have the authority to grant post-retirement perks to civil servants through a notification without specific statutory backing?
  • Under the Balochistan Rules of Business 2012, does the Services and General Administration Department have the competence to determine pensionary benefits for civil servants?
  • Is an executive action valid if it lacks a clear foundation in existing law or statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWJAVED IQBAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA2026 PLD 322 · Federal Constitutional Court · 2026-02-23
  public sector companychief executive officerstatutory appointmentre-appointmentprocedural compliancevoid ab initiocontractual tenure
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This petition challenges a Peshawar High Court judgment upholding the termination of the petitioner's tenure as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a public sector company. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's re-appointment was validly executed under the governing statutory framework and whether the government possessed the authority to terminate his contract. The Court held that the appointment of a CEO in a public sector company is a statutory creation governed strictly by the Companies Act, 2017, and relevant guidelines. It determined that the petitioner's re-appointment failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, such as open advertisement and competitive selection, rendering the appointment void ab initio. The Court affirmed that statutory offices of fixed tenure expire by efflux of time, and re-appointment requires a fresh, compliant exercise of power. Furthermore, it held that in companies where the government holds majority voting rights, it retains the statutory power to remove the CEO. The judgment reinforces the principle that public appointments must adhere strictly to prescribed statutory procedures, and failure to do so precludes any claim to a legally enforceable right to office.

  Questions settled

  • Does the re-appointment of a Chief Executive Officer in a public sector company require compliance with open and transparent competitive processes?
  • Can a Chief Executive Officer claim a vested right to hold office if the initial appointment or re-appointment was made in violation of mandatory statutory procedures?
  • Does the government have the power to remove a Chief Executive Officer of a company where it holds more than seventy-five percent of the voting rights?
  • Is the concept of 'extension' of tenure recognized under the Companies Act, 2017 for the position of a Chief Executive Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSECRETARY HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD2026 PLD 318 · Federal Constitutional Court · 2026-03-09
  administrative lawallotment cancellationdue processnatural justicemisuse of authoritypublic functionariesSection 24-A General Clauses Act
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that restored the allotment of a plot to the respondent, which had been cancelled by the Housing and Town Planning Department. The core legal question concerned whether the administrative cancellation of the plot allotment was lawful, given that the grounds for cancellation—non-payment, failure to construct, and unauthorized transfer—were negated by subsequent government policy extensions and a failure to serve the required show-cause notice. The Court held that the cancellation was arbitrary and unlawful, as the government had extended deadlines for payment and construction and authorized transfers, rendering the original grounds for cancellation invalid. Furthermore, the failure to serve the show-cause notice violated due process. The Court affirmed the principle that public authorities must exercise their powers reasonably, fairly, and in accordance with the law, as mandated by Article 4 of the Constitution and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding the litigation frivolous and the administrative action a misuse of authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does an administrative authority have the power to cancel an allotment on grounds that have been superseded by subsequent government policy extensions?
  • Is an administrative action taken without serving a mandatory show-cause notice sustainable in law?
  • What is the scope of the duty of public authorities to act reasonably and fairly under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWDr. SADAF USMAN Versus AHMED YAR2026 PLD 117 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-06-14
  civil revisionmedical negligencedamages in tortgeneral damagesspecial damagesres ipsa loquiturjoint tortfeasorsvicarious liabilitypost-mortem examination
  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 arose from concurrent judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts decreeing the respondent's suit for recovery of Rs. 50 million as damages on account of medical negligence resulting in the death of his wife. The core legal questions pertained to whether the petitioner gynecologist committed actionable professional negligence in managing the patient's low platelet count and postpartum hemorrhage; whether the absence of a post-mortem or non-joinder of the hospital barred liability; and the appropriate legal principles for quantifying general versus special damages in tort. The High Court affirmed the concurrent findings of negligence, invoking the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and holding that joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable, allowing a plaintiff to sue the principal wrongdoer alone. However, the Court modified the quantum of damages, ruling that while special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved, general damages must remain strictly compensatory rather than punitive. The damages were accordingly reduced from Rs. 50 million to Rs. 1 million.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to conduct a post-mortem examination is fatal to a claim of medical negligence where the cause of death is established and the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies?
  • Can a plaintiff maintain a suit for medical negligence against the treating doctor alone without joining the hospital or other assisting medical staff as necessary parties?
  • What legal distinction governs the pleading, proof, and assessment of special damages versus general damages in an action founded on tortious negligence?
  • Whether general damages awarded for mental torture and suffering can be punitive in nature rather than compensatory?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWGHULAM ALI KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Interior Pak Secretariat, Constitutional Avenue Islamabad2026 PLD 111 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-07-31
  Constitutional petitionSardari systemFundamental rightsEquality before lawAggrieved personCustomary lawIssuance of CNIC
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, sought a judicial declaration recognizing the petitioner as the Chieftain (Sardar) of the Kharoti tribe. The petitioner further requested that his attestation be deemed sufficient for his tribesmen to obtain official documents like CNICs and domicile certificates, alleging discrimination against his tribe. The core legal questions were whether the court could declare a person a 'Sardar' and whether the petitioner qualified as an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The court held that the 'Sardari' system was abolished by the System of Sardari (Abolition) Ordinance 1976. Furthermore, the court ruled that any custom or usage supporting the Sardari system is repugnant to the fundamental rights of equality before the law and equal treatment, as enshrined in Articles 4, 25, and 2-A of the Constitution, and is therefore void under Article 8(1). The court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of fundamental rights or status as an aggrieved person.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court issue a declaration under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 recognizing a person as a tribal Chieftain or Sardar?
  • Is the custom of the Sardari system consistent with the fundamental rights of equality before the law and equal treatment under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the System of Sardari (Abolition) Ordinance 1976 render the institution of Sardari void?
  • Under what circumstances can a petitioner be considered an aggrieved person for the purpose of filing a constitutional petition under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus Mst. BIBI SAFIA2026 PLD 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2026-04-07
  civil revisioninheritance claimlimitationcross-objectionspresumption of documentsproper custodyQanun-e-Shahadat
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This civil revision petition challenged an appellate court judgment that decreed the respondent's suit for an inheritance share in a shop. The core legal questions concerned whether a suit was barred by limitation despite the trial court's prior finding to the contrary, and whether a 1965 contract was sufficiently proved as a title deed. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where a trial court decides an issue like limitation against a party, that party must challenge the finding through an appeal or cross-objection; failing to do so renders the finding final and unassailable in revision. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a document over thirty years old, produced from proper custody, attracts a presumption of execution under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court emphasized that the scribe’s testimony and the document's age sufficiently established its validity. Consequently, the Court upheld the appellate decree, ruling that the petitioner could not re-litigate factual findings that remained unchallenged in the lower appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a trial court's finding on limitation in a civil revision petition if they failed to file an appeal or cross-objection against that finding in the appellate court?
  • Does a document over thirty years old, produced from proper custody, carry a presumption of valid execution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is the testimony of a scribe sufficient to prove the execution of a contract under the Evidence Act, 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWNIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus State2025 PLD 92 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-23
  Criminal RevisionSection 540 Cr.P.CAcquitted AccusedProsecution WitnessCompromiseQatl-i-amdAccomplice Testimony
  AI summary & questions settled

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

  This criminal revision petition challenged the Trial Court's dismissal of an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to summon an acquitted co-accused as a prosecution witness. The petitioner, having previously compromised the offence with the co-accused under Section 345(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, argued that the acquitted individual was a competent witness. The core legal question was whether an accused acquitted via compromise could be compelled to testify as a prosecution witness under the court's discretionary powers in Section 540. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution cannot use Section 540 to circumvent the specific statutory mechanisms provided for turning an accused into a witness, namely Sections 337, 338, and 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that when the law prescribes a specific manner for obtaining evidence from an accused, that procedure must be strictly followed. Consequently, an accused acquitted through compromise cannot be summoned as a prosecution witness, as such practice would undermine the established legal framework for accomplice testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused acquitted through a compromise under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be summoned as a prosecution witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit the court to bypass the specific statutory mechanisms for examining an accused as a witness?
  • Is a confession made before the police admissible as evidence against a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWNAFEESA REHMAN Versus The ELECTION TRIBUNAL BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA2025 PLD 9 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-02-07Read full judgment →
• NEWUMAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department2025 PLD 87 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-11-01Read full judgment →
• NEWSAJJAD AHMED Versus GUL SIMA2025 PLD 43 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. FARZANA (widow) Versus ABID KHAN2025 PLD 37 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-19Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed MATIULLAH AGHA Versus Haji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN alias Haji MUHAMMAD HASSAN2025 PLD 28 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-10-24Read full judgment →
• NEWMUNAWAR KHAN Versus The GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2025 PLD 25 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-17Read full judgment →
• NEWHAJJ ORGANIZERS ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN (HOAP) BALOCHISTAN ZONE Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad2025 PLD 13 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
• NEWYAR MUHAMMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary, Local Government Civil Secretariat, Quetta2025 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-12Read full judgment →
• NEWPAKISTAN BEVERAGES LIMITED Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL2025 PLC 73 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• NEWGUL MUHAMMAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance Department, Islamabad2025 PLC 30 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
• NEWPAKISTAN CHEMICAL AND ENERGY SECTOR SKILL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Versus RAB NAWAZ2025 PLC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• NEWNATIONAL RURAL SUPPORT PROGRAM (NRSP) through Programme Officer HR NRSP, Bahawalpur Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, FULL BENCH AT LAHORE2025 PLC 54 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• NEWPAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus ABDUL RASHEED2025 PLC 106 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-12Read full judgment →
• NEWPACKAGES LIMITED Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL2025 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
• NEWMUZAMMAL KHAN Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE2025 PLC(CS) 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• NEWGOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Additional Chief Secretary Development, P&D Department, Quetta Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR2025 PLC(CS) 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD NASIR ISMAIL Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Lahore2025 PLC(CS) 723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• NEWPAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Chairman Pakistan Railways, Islamabad Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN2025 PLC(CS) 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-11Read full judgment →
• NEWAAMIR AKBAR Versus ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR2025 PLC(CS) 675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-04Read full judgment →
• NEWCHAIRMAN, NADRA, NADRA HEADQUARTER, ISLAMABAD Versus ABDUL MAJEED2025 PLC(CS) 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• NEWFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad Versus MUHAMMAD ATIQ-UR-REHMAN2025 PLC(CS) 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-05Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. ANITA ANAM Versus GENERAL PUBLIC2025 PLC(CS) 575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-02Read full judgment →
• NEWSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE Versus ALI AHMAD KHAN2025 PLC(CS) 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-23Read full judgment →
• NEWGOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore Versus ZAKA ULLAH2025 PLC(CS) 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-20Read full judgment →
• NEWTARIQ KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (NORTH) FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD2025 PLC(CS) 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-07Read full judgment →
• NEWGOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Agriculture, Peshawar Versus TAHIR MUSHTAQ2025 PLC(CS) 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD HASSANULLAH (OMG/B-18), ACTING ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BALOCHISTAN Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA2025 PLC(CS) 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
• NEWSECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, FINANCE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR2025 PLC(CS) 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-12-12Read full judgment →
• NEWNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President, Karachi Versus ROZ-UD-DIN2025 PLC(CS) 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• NEWDr. KHALID IQBAL TALPUR Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH2025 PLC(CS) 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• NEWMOHSIN RAZA GONDAL Versus SARDAR MAHMOOD2025 PLC(CS) 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-13Read full judgment →
• NEW2025 PLC(CS) 3002025 PLC(CS) 300 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ARIF Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2025 PLC(CS) 93 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
• NEWDr. ABDUL ALEEM UQAILI Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH Abdul Karim Lakhiar2025 PLC(CS) 83 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
• NEWABDUL LATEEF Versus SERVICES, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND CO-ORDINATION DEPARTMENT2025 PLC(CS) 732 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-26Read full judgment →
• NEWGHULAM MUSTAFA MALLAH Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Works and Service Department, Sindh Sohail Ahmed Khoso , Ali Raza Baloch2025 PLC(CS) 68 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
• NEWZAKIR HUSSAIN SAMO Versus The PROVINCE OF SINDH2025 PLC(CS) 634 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-18Read full judgment →
• NEWENGINEER ANWER ALEEM Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH2025 PLC(CS) 580 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• NEWADIL Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH2025 PLC(CS) 55 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-15Read full judgment →
• NEWZEESHAN Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH2025 PLC(CS) 547 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• NEWNADEEM ABBAS MALLAH Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Schools Education Department2025 PLC(CS) 520 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• NEWMs. FIRDOS NOOR MALIK Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Education and Literacy Department Sindh Secretariat, Karachi2025 PLC(CS) 42 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →