Case Law study

Case Law study In this page I will Share important points discussed in recent published judgments of High Court and Supreme Court.

I will also try to Share Full judgement in shape of pictures

23/06/2026

درخواست یکطرفہ کارروائی ختم کرنے کے لیے حدودِ وقت (limitation) 30 دن نہیں بلکہ 3 سال ہے (آرٹیکل 181 کے تحت)۔
عدالت عالیہ کا تجزیہ:

1. آرڈر IX، رول 7 کی تشریح:
· اس رول کے تحت اگر کوئی مدعا علیہ (جس کے خلاف یکطرفہ کارروائی ہو چکی ہو) بعد میں آ کر معقول وجہ پیش کرے تو عدالت اسے جرمانے یا دیگر شرائط پر مقدمے میں شامل ہونے کی اجازت دے سکتی ہے۔
· اس رول میں کوئی خاص مدتِ حد (limitation period) مقرر نہیں ہے۔
2. حدودِ وقت کا قانون:
· سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے محمد یوسف بھنڈی بمقابلہ ایم/سی اے جی ای اینڈ سنز (PLD 2024 SC 864) کے مطابق، آرڈر IX، رول 7 کے تحت درخواست کے لیے آرٹیکل 181 (جو 3 سال کی مدت دیتا ہے) لاگو ہوتا ہے، نہ کہ 30 دن۔
· لہٰذا نظرثانی عدالت کا 30 دن کا قیاس غلط تھا۔
3. یکطرفہ کارروائی بمقابلہ یکطرفہ فیصلہ (decree):
· موجودہ کیس میں یکطرفہ فیصلہ نہیں ہوا تھا، صرف کارروائی یکطرفہ تھی۔
· سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے پولیس ڈیپارٹمنٹ بمقابلہ جاوید اسرار (1992 SCMR 1009) کے مطابق، جس شخص کے خلاف یکطرفہ کارروائی ہو، وہ عدالت سے باہر نہیں ہو جاتا اور بعد میں بھی مقدمے میں شامل ہو سکتا ہے۔
4. نظرثانی کا دائرہ کار (Revisional jurisdiction):
· نظرثانی عدالت صرف اس وقت مداخلت کر سکتی ہے جب کوئی قانونی غلطی، نااہلی، یا عدالتی دائرہ اختیار سے تجاوز ہو۔
· یہاں ٹرائل کورٹ نے اپنے اختیار کا صحیح استعمال کیا تھا، اور نظرثانی عدالت نے بغیر کسی بنیاد کے مداخلت کی۔

07/03/2026

2025 SCMR 1454
رجسٹرڈ نکاح نامہ معتبر سمجھا جاتا ہے نکاح کے گواہوں کو پیش کرنے کی ضرورت نہیں۔
نکاح نامے کی زبانی تردید کی کوئی حیثیت نہیں۔

07/03/2026

2024 SCMR 1292

بچوں کا عبوری خرچہ نان ونفقہ ادا نہ کرنے اور تاخیری حربے استعمال کرنے پر سپریم کورٹ نے باپ پر ایک لاکھ روپیہ جرمانہ عائد کردیا ۔

Interim maintenance -
Father failing to comply with order for payment of maintenance to the minors --- Contumacious conduct --- Costs , imposition of --- Family Court , in accordance with Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act , 1964 , had the lawful authority to strike off the defence of the petitioner ( father ) and decree the suit for maintenance on the basis of averments in the plaint and other supporting documents on record of the case , once the petitioner failed to pay the interim maintenance allowance by fourteenth day of each month during the pendency of proceedings --- Petitioner was also put to notice by the Family Court to clear the arrears of interim maintenance allowance otherwise the provisions of Section 17-A of the Act would be invoked , which the petitioner failed to comply with -- Moreover , the determination of the amount of maintenance by the Family Court was neither arbitrary nor capricious --- Hence , the High Court had rightly declined to interfere with the findings of the Family Court with regard to the quantum of maintenance allowance --- In view of the callous disregard of the petitioner for the court order to pay interim maintenance and his attempts to delay the payment of decreed maintenance allowance for his minor children , the Supreme Court imposed costs on the petitioner in the sum of Rs . 1,00,000 / - ( Rupees one hundred thousand only ) to deter such conduct in the future with the direction that the costs shall be recovered by the executing court as part of the decree for maintenance.

07/03/2026

2025 PCrLJ 644
Hostile witness---Scope---Discretion of Court---Application of the petitioners to declare the defence witnesses as hostile witnesses was declined---Validity---Petitioners moved an application under S.540 , Cr.P.C for summoning the defence witnesses, which was allowed, resultantly, they appeared as DWs 3 to 4---However, during recording of examination in chief of said witnesses, defence counsel requested the Trial Court to declare them as hostile, but his request was turned down---In a situation, where at the time of recording evidence, the integrity of a witness was shaken up to such an extent that he was causing damage to the case of the party, who produced him, then, in such eventuality, the provisions of S.150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat O.1984, would come into play, according to which, the Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who called a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party---It was true that the provisions of the Article conferred powers on Court to permit a party who called a witness to put any question, which may be put in cross-examination, but it was equally true that such discretion must be exercised with due care, keeping in view the interests of both the parties so that no one would be prejudiced from the order of the Court---Statements of the DWs were perused and according to their statements, though, they had signed/thumb impressed the affidavits, however, they did not read its contents---Nothing was observed in their statement that either they had made any deviation from their earlier statements or attempted to conceal material facts as the record told that during investigation of the case one of the petitioners submitted an application to the District Police Officer concerned, which was marked to Police Officer/witness---Said witness during cross-examination stated that during inquiry, the accused party produced three witnesses in defence and they submitted thei

29/01/2026

Expressions "ultra vires" and "intra vires"---Meaning, concept and scope---The terms "intra vires" and "ultra vires" are both Latin phrases, and diametrical opposites---The expression ultra vires means "beyond the powers"---If an act entails legal authority and it is done with such authority, it is symbolized as intra vires, that is, within the precincts of powers, but if it is carried out shorn of authority, it is ultra vires.
CPLAs Nos. 407-k 499-k of 2021
Saad Ali Vs FOP
2026 SCMR 22

28/11/2025

PLD 2021 SC 894
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Cancellation of Pre-arrest bail on ground of non-appearance
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ملزم کی درخواست ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری ملزم کی غیرحاضری کی بنیاد پر خارج ھو جانے پر ملزم کی جانب سے دوبارہ درخواست ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری صرف اس صورت میں دائر کی جا سکتی ھے اگر ملزم اپنی غیرحاضری کی معقول وجوہات
بیان کرے
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Maintainability of the second pre-arrest bail petition after dismissal of the first pre-arrest bail petition for non-appearance of the accused and lack of his satisfactory explanation for his non-appearance in the earlier pre-arrest bail petition.

If a pre-arrest bail petition is dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner under Section 498-A CrPC, the second pre-arrest bail petition is maintainable only if the petitioner furnishes satisfactory explanation for his absence in the first petition. Only if the explanation is found satisfactory can the Court proceed further and decide the second petition on merits. However, if the explanation is found to be unsatisfactory, the second petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

Address

Abbottabad

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Case Law study posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category