Memon & Metai law associates Gambat

16/06/2025

2025 SCMR 653
It is settled principle of law that contents of plaint or written statement do not equate evidence rather the same have to be proved by leading strong and cogent evidence in the shape of oral (witness(es) to depose on oath and also face the cross examination of the rival party) as well as documentary evidence. Moreover, evasive denial is no denial rather it has been disapproved, because Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Order VIII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 require specific denial of each allegation of fact.

15/06/2025

📜 اگر نکاح نامہ میں بیوی کے نام پر جائیداد لکھی گئی ہو، تو وہ بیوی کی ملکیت تصور کی جائے گی۔
شوہر نہ اسے بیچ سکتا ہے اور نہ ہی عدالت کسی مقدمے میں نیلام کر سکتی ہے۔
یہ فیصلہ سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے 2016-SCMR-2170 میں دیا۔

13/06/2025

"شوہر اگر نکاح نامہ میں حق مہر، مکان، جائیداد وغیرہ بیوی کو دینے کا ذکر کرے، تو وہ اس کا پابند ہوتا ہے۔ اگر کسی معاملے میں ابہام ہو تو اس کی تشریح عورت کے حق میں کی جائے گی۔"
(2024 SCMR 1078)

---

"If the husband agrees in the Nikahnama (marriage contract) to give dower (Haq Mehr), house, property, etc., to his wife, he is legally bound to fulfill that commitment. In case of any ambiguity, the interpretation shall favor the woman."

(2024 SCMR 1078)

12/06/2025

2025 SCMR 584
If a document is produced as evidence but is only categorized as "marked" or "identified", such document cannot be considered valid evidence, as the mandatory requirement of law has not been fulfilled.

04/03/2025

https://caselaw.shc.gov.pk/caselaw/view-file/MTQ5MzI1Y2Ztcy1kYzgz

18/12/2024

اگر دو فریقین کے درمیان دعویٰ استقرایہ و قبضہ میرٹ کے بغیر خارج کر دیا جائے ، تو بعد ازاں ان فریقین میں کوئ بھی فریق اس اراضی کی بابت تقسیم کا دعوی کرسکتا ہے، اور وہ کسی صورت ممنوع نہ ہے۔
*Shared by Advocate Qaisar Farooq*

The suit of the petitioners for partition of their property was dismissed for being barred by Rule 11 of Order VII as res-judicata and thereby their plaint was rejected. The earlier suit for which the present suit for partition has been dismissed/rejected was for a declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and that admittedly was not decided on merits but that would not bar the subsequent suit for partition. The right of partition of one’s property is an independent right and cannot be considered as a subsequent suit being barred by the principal of res-judicata. The learned counsel for the respondents tried to make out a case by arguing that the suit of the petitioners is also barred by Order II Rule 2 of CPC and they were required to ask for partition of their share in the suit property in the earlier round of litigation. We are afraid, the argument of learned counsel for the respondents appears to be based on some misconception of law. The right of partition is an independent right and cannot be connected with any previous suit even with regard to the same property and cannot be declared as barred by Rule 11 of Order VII CPC.
Suit for Possession/Through Partition
C.P.L.A.159-P/2014
Zakirullah (decd.) thr. LRs & others v. Muhammad Rehman & others
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel
21-11-2024
18-12-2024
2024 SCP 407

02/06/2024

29/04/2024