Summary: In the light of analogy in Section 4 of the Ordinance, 1961, they would be entitled to get the share in the legacy of their grandmother, which they would have inherited in case their father Mumtaz Ali was alive at the opening of succession of deceased Mulakh Bano. 93Crl. Appeal 15580/20 Muhammad Iqbal Bali Jhatal etc. Vs The State etc Justice Abher Gul Khan 03-12- 2025 2025 LHC 7266

Summary: Held: The order of remand should not be passed as a matter of course. An Appellate Court is duty- bound to examine whether such a course would meaningfully advance the cause of justice or merely prolong the litigation. In the present case, findings on merits already stand recorded against the respondents after a full trial. A remand, in such circumstances, would only subject the parties to another round of avoidable proceedings. Even if the issue of limitation was to be decided in favour of the respondents, their suit would nonetheless require adjudication on merits on the basis of evidence?an exercise already undertaken by the Trial Court. The appropriate course, therefore, was reappraisal of the evidence by the Appellate Court below itself rather than a remand. The Appellate Court below failed to appreciate that the remand ordered by it would serve no useful purpose and would, instead, defeat the objective of expeditious justice. 92Civil Revision- Civil Revision (Against Decree) u/s. 115, C.P.C. 519-20 MST. KAYANAT MUMTAZ ETC VS MST. SARWAR SULTAN ETC Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf 03-12- 2025 2025 LHC 7304

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 189 [as amended by the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025]-Judgment of Federal Constitutional Court-Binding effect-Principle-Any decision rendered by Supreme Court, under Article 189 of the Constitution [as amended by the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, which resolves a question of law or enunciates a principle of law, is binding upon all other Courts within Pakistan, with the exception of the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan-Such exception arises from the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, which establishes that decisions issued by Federal Constitutional Court are binding on all Courts in Pakistan, including Supreme Court itself-All Courts in Pakistan are Constitutionally mandated to adhere to the judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S. 11-Res judicata, principle of-Object, purpose and scope-Principle of res judicata, which is fundamental to rule of law, dictates that once a matter has been conclusively adjudicated by a competent Court, it should not be reopened or re-litigated-This principle is essential for maintaining integrity of judicial decisions and ensuring public confidence in the legal system. (c) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973)- -S. 22-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. III, R. 4-Counsel and client-Wakalatnama-Scope-No statutory law explicitly defines-Wakalatnama-, however, in light of the provisions of Order III, Rule 4, C.P.C., in conjunction with Section 22(3) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, it can be reasonably concluded that a Wakalatnama is a written document signed by a person or by their recognized agent, or by another person duly authorized by them, appointing an advocate to appear or act on their behalf in any Court-Appointment of an advocate through Wakalatnama grants that advocate an authority to represent and act for the appointing party in any Court. (d) Constitution of Pakistan-

Summary: ----Art. 189 [as amended by the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025]---Judgment of Federal Constitutional Court---Binding effect---Principle---Any decision rendered by Supreme Court, under Article 189 of the Constitution [as amended by the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, which resolves a question of law or enunciates a principle of law, is binding upon all other Courts within Pakistan, with the exception of the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan---Such exception arises from the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025, which establishes that decisions issued by Federal Constitutional Court are binding on all Courts in Pakistan, including Supreme Court itself---All Courts in Pakistan are Constitutionally mandated to adhere to the judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 11---Res judicata, principle of---Object, purpose and scope---Principle of res judicata, which is fundamental to rule of law, dictates that once a matter has been conclusively adjudicated by a competent Court, it should not be reopened or re-litigated---This principle is essential for maintaining integrity of judicial decisions and ensuring public confidence in the legal system. (c) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973)--- ----S. 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. III, R. 4---Counsel and client---Wakalatnama---Scope---No statutory law explicitly defines “Wakalatnama”, however, in light of the provisions of Order III, Rule 4, C.P.C., in conjunction with Section 22(3) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, it can be reasonably concluded that a Wakalatnama is a written document signed by a person or by their recognized agent, or by another person duly authorized by them, appointing an advocate to appear or act on their behalf in any Court---Appointment of an advocate through Wakalatnama grants that advocate an authority to represent and act for the appointing party in any Court. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 185(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Findings of facts---Re-assessment---Petitioners were aggrieved of setting aside of judgment by High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 12(2), C.P.C.---Validity---High Court after thoroughly deliberating upon facts and circumstances of the case had rightly accepted applications under Section 12(2), C.P.C.---It was not within the purview of Federal Constitutional Court to reassess findings of fact recorded by High Court unless it could be demonstrated that such findings were manifestly against evidence, so patently improbable that acceptance would result in a grave miscarriage of justice or if there had been any misapplication of principles related to appreciation of evidence---Petitioner failed to show that findings of High Court were physically impossible to warrant interference---Substantial burden was on the petitioner to demonstrate that the findings recorded by High Court were unsustainable on record, even if an alternative view could also be conceivable---Federal Constitutional Court declined to interfere, as petitioner failed to identify any legal, procedural, or jurisdictional error, defect, or flaw in the judgment---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Nemo for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd December, 2025. ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.--- Through this order, we intend to adjudicate C.P.L.As. Nos. 962, 963, and 964 of 2023 collectively, as they involve common questions of law and arise from the same impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.

Summary: Balochistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss. 3, 30, 121 & 173---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115, O.VII, R.11 & O.XXVI, Rr. 9, 10, 18---Suit for declaration and injunction---Rejection of plaint---Demarcation proceedings---Urban property / building site---Revenue authorities, jurisdiction of---Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was rejected by Trial Court due to bar of S.172 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Revenue officer / official designated under Land Revenue Act, 1967, could not demarcate any urban property or the property that had gained character of building site---Trial Court rejected claim of petitioner / plaintiff as barred under S.172 Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the order was upheld by Lower Appellate Court mainly relying on S.172 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967---Both the Courts below failed to consider provision of S.3 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which excluded jurisdiction of revenue authorities---Provision of S.172 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, excludes jurisdiction of Civil Court in the matters that are solely within the authority of revenue officers---Matter was outside the jurisdiction of revenue authorities and the suit was properly filed before Civil Court---Civil Court is the most appropriate forum to resolve dispute between parties permanently by following the provisions of O.XXVI, Rr. 9 & 10, C.P.C., or O.XXVI, R.18, C.P.C. enabling Trial Court to conduct site inspection / demarcations under its authority, with the assistance of some expert revenue officials---Both the Courts below being unaware of their jurisdiction as provided by law proceeded to decide the matter without considering its legality---High Court set aside the orders passed by two Courts below as there were material illegalities and irregularities---High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to decide the suit after appointing Local Commission assisted by revenue staff in order to determine boundaries of suit property---Revision was allowed, in circumstances. Dr. Jalal Khan v. Qazi Naseer Ahmed, District Deputy Officer (Revenue), Kharian District Gujrat and 6 others 2005 MLD 814; Khizar Hayat and another v. Pakistan Railways through Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Lahore and 2 others 2006 CLC 1028; Pervez Ahmed Khan Burki and 3 others v. Assistant Commissioner Lahore Cantt and 2 others PLD 1999 Lah.31; Muhammad Sadiq and another v. Abdul Aziz and another 1990 CLC 1387 and Abdul Majeed v. Province of the Punjab and others PLD 2006 Lah.741 rel. Muhammad Saleem Lashari and Rehan Khan Babar for Petitioner. Chaudhry Hasan Murtaza Mann, Mehta Rajesh Nath Kohli and Qazi Najeeb-ur-Rahman for Private Respondents. Arbab Nasruminallah, Additional Advocate General for Official Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd October, 2025. MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN TAREEN, J.--- This common order shall dispose of Constitutional Petition No.478/2024 and Civil Revision Petition No.210/2022, as in both these petitions, subject matter is the same.

Summary: Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance No.VIII of 2001) Mental health jurisdiction is a shield for the vulnerable, not a sword for the greedy. Judicial examination affirmed the father's competence thrice. Property conflicts cannot masquerade as guardianship claims. Appeal dismissed in circumstances. 100Writ Petition- Service- Miscellaneous 8215-25 HAFIZ AHMED RAZA VS GOVT. OF PUNJAB ETC. Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain 02- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 7020

Summary: 1. In a suit for pre-emption, proving the chain of source of information is essential. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a series of pronouncements, has consistently discussed and affirmed this requirement, and it now stands as a settled principle of law that the chain of source of information must be established. Latest in the series is 2024 SCMR 692. 2. Specific portion of house where the information was received by the pre-emptor is not mentioned in the plaint. 3. Personal service of the respondent is necessary to prove Talb-i-Ishhad. 98STR (Sales Tax Reference) 71-22 CIR MULTAN VS M/S REDCO ENTERPRISES FAISALABAD Mr. Justice Asim Hafeez 02- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 7310

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)- -S.17-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199-Custody of minor-Minor brought up by foster parents-Guardian court handing over custody to real parents-Legality-Welfare of minor, importance of- ‘Voice of the child’/ ‘Intelligent preference of child’, consideration of-Minor preferring staying with foster parents-High Court handed back custody of minor to foster parents-Facts: Respondents Nos. 3 & 4 (real parents) had, by consent, handed over custody of their minor son (about 13 years old) to the petitioners (foster parents/close relatives) who brought him up for about 9 years; the real parents filed an application for custody, which was allowed by the Guardian Court (with a meeting schedule), and the appeal was dismissed by the District Court, whereupon the petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction-Issue: -Whether the Guardian Court and Appellate Court acted illegally or with material irregularity by granting custody to the biological parents without meaningfully ascertaining and weighing the minor’s ‘intelligent preference’?-Held: High Court while weighing upon the intelligent preference of the minor/voice of the child asked the minor as to his preference that which set of parents he wishes to reside with, upon which he in unequivocal and clear terms deposed that he wished to reside with the petitioners (foster parents)-Courts below also ignored the fact that respondent No.4 was a multi-married man having thirteen children and it would not have been safe to send the minor to such a big family who were all alien to him-Welfare of the minor lay with the petitioners (foster parents)-Courts below wrongly handed over custody of minor to real parents-Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)- -S.17-Custody of a minor-Appointment of a guardian-Guidelines provided-The primary and the fore most consideration for taking a decision qua custody of minor is his/her welfare-While determining the welfare of the minor, factors to be considered include the age, sex and religion of the minor, character and capacity of the proposed guardian, his/her nearness of the kin with the minor, wishes, if any, of the deceased parents (if the parents of the minor are not alive) and the existing relationship of the proposed guardian with the minor-Apart from the above, the court can consider the intelligent preference of the minor, if the minor is old enough-The courts while determining the welfare of the minor can ignore the fact that father is the natural guardian or the mother has the right of Hizanat. Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen and others 2022 SCMR 2123; Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad and others PLD 2020 SC 508; Rashid Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Islamabad (East) and others PLD 2022 SC 32; Mir Bat Khan v. Mst Sherin Bibi and others 2019 SCMR 520; Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343; Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1839; Badruddin Roshan v. Mst. Razia Sultana and another 2002 SCMR 371; Mst. Nighat Firdous v. Khadim Hussain 1998 SCMR 1593 and Dr. Muhammad Asif v. Dr. Sana Sattar and others CRP No.458 of 2024 in CPLA No. 2514 of 2014 rel. (c) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)- -S.17-Custody of a minor-Minor brought up by foster parents-Real parents claiming custody-Welfare of minor, consideration of-Scope-When a comparison is made between the real parents and the foster parents qua custody of the minor, the real parents have a preferential right, however the primary consideration for determining the custody of the minor is his welfare.

Summary: ----S.17---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Custody of minor---Minor brought up by foster parents---Guardian court handing over custody to real parents---Legality---Welfare of minor, importance of--- ‘Voice of the child’/ ‘Intelligent preference of child’, consideration of---Minor preferring staying with foster parents---High Court handed back custody of minor to foster parents---Facts: Respondents Nos. 3 & 4 (real parents) had, by consent, handed over custody of their minor son (about 13 years old) to the petitioners (foster parents/close relatives) who brought him up for about 9 years; the real parents filed an application for custody, which was allowed by the Guardian Court (with a meeting schedule), and the appeal was dismissed by the District Court, whereupon the petitioners invoked constitutional jurisdiction---Issue: “Whether the Guardian Court and Appellate Court acted illegally or with material irregularity by granting custody to the biological parents without meaningfully ascertaining and weighing the minor’s ‘intelligent preference’?”---Held: High Court while weighing upon the intelligent preference of the minor/voice of the child asked the minor as to his preference that which set of parents he wishes to reside with, upon which he in unequivocal and clear terms deposed that he wished to reside with the petitioners (foster parents)---Courts below also ignored the fact that respondent No.4 was a multi-married man having thirteen children and it would not have been safe to send the minor to such a big family who were all alien to him---Welfare of the minor lay with the petitioners (foster parents)---Courts below wrongly handed over custody of minor to real parents---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----S.17---Custody of a minor---Appointment of a guardian---Guidelines provided---The primary and the fore most consideration for taking a decision qua custody of minor is his/her welfare---While determining the welfare of the minor, factors to be considered include the age, sex and religion of the minor, character and capacity of the proposed guardian, his/her nearness of the kin with the minor, wishes, if any, of the deceased parents (if the parents of the minor are not alive) and the existing relationship of the proposed guardian with the minor---Apart from the above, the court can consider the intelligent preference of the minor, if the minor is old enough---The courts while determining the welfare of the minor can ignore the fact that father is the natural guardian or the mother has the right of Hizanat. Raja Muhammad Owais v. Mst. Nazia Jabeen and others 2022 SCMR 2123; Mst. Beena v. Raja Muhammad and others PLD 2020 SC 508; Rashid Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Islamabad (East) and others PLD 2022 SC 32; Mir Bat Khan v. Mst Sherin Bibi and others 2019 SCMR 520; Shabana Naz v. Muhammad Saleem 2014 SCMR 343; Mehmood Akhtar v. District Judge, Attock and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1839; Badruddin Roshan v. Mst. Razia Sultana and another 2002 SCMR 371; Mst. Nighat Firdous v. Khadim Hussain 1998 SCMR 1593 and Dr. Muhammad Asif v. Dr. Sana Sattar and others CRP No.458 of 2024 in CPLA No. 2514 of 2014 rel. (c) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----S.17---Custody of a minor---Minor brought up by foster parents---Real parents claiming custody---Welfare of minor, consideration of---Scope---When a comparison is made between the real parents and the foster parents qua custody of the minor, the real parents have a preferential right, however the primary consideration for determining the custody of the minor is his welfare. Shoaib Akram Bhalli for Petitioners. Ch. Ali Hassan Jajja for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Date of hearing: 28th November, 2025.