https://www.facebook.com/165277510992579/

Legal solutions pro, Office No. G-14 lawyers complex gujar khan Disst Rawalpindi, Gujar Khan (2026)

Q: What is the address?

Office No. G-14 Lawyers Complex Gujar Khan Disst Rawalpindi

28/10/2025

2022 CLC 1461

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114---Suit for specific performance---Estoppel ---Non-deposit of sale consideration by plaintiff---Scope---Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Trial Court decreed the suit---Appellate Court directed the plaintiff to pay a certain amount as enhanced consideration amount within 30 days failing which the appeal filed by defendant would be deemed to have been accepted---Plaintiff filed an application before the Appellate Court seeking permission to deposit the enhanced consideration with certain delay, which application was dismissed---Meanwhile, defendant had filed a revision petition before the High Court---Plaintiff intentionally concealed the dismissal of his application and filed cross-objection before the High Court---Validity---Plaintiff had voluntarily and expressly showed his willingness to pay the decretal amount which amounted to an admission of his liability---Admission, even implied, by a party, before the court during the judicial proceedings had to be given sanctity while applying the principle of Estoppel as well as to respect moral and ethical rules and if retraction therefrom was allowed as a matter of right, then it would definitely result into distrust of the public litigants over the judiciary and would damage the sacred image of the courts that they were not capable to implement the orders passed by them in the judicial proceedings---Any such admission even implied or statement given before the court of law would operate as legal Estoppel and Estoppel by conduct against a party making such admission or giving such a statement or understanding---Dismissal of plaintiff's application had created legal right in favour of defendant---Plaintiff could not have assailed the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court before the High Court---Cross-objection was dismissed---Appeal filed by defendant before Appellate Court was deemed to have been accepted---Revision petition was dismissed being infructuous

23/10/2025

2024 YLR 2491
When the compromise between the parties was developed during the course of arguments and the terms thereof were duly recorded in the order and it was also held that in case of failure to abide by the compromise, the civil revisions are liable to be dismissed, the applicants/petitioners cannot take a somersault by asserting that the petitions were part heard and proceedings were never concluded and on misrepresentation of the respondents side, the decision was rendered inasmuch as such assertions do not fall under the purview of Section 12(2) CPC, more particularly, when the counsels, who appeared on the date of passing of the impugned order, never supported the said assertions by way of an affidavit and amounts to an assault on the sanctity of judicial proceedings under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 which act is liable to be deprecated in strongest terms possible.
Civil Petition/CM-U/S. 12(2). C.P.C
22-C-22
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS
MST. BASHIRAN BIBI ETC

23/10/2025

PLD 2022 Supreme Court 686

Needless to say that Nikahnama is a deed of marriage-contract entered into between the parties, husband and wife, and the contents of its clauses/columns, like clauses of other contracts, are to be construed and interpreted in the light of intention of parties. The High Court has rightly ascertained the intent of the parties for mentioning four Kanal agriculture land in column No.16 of the Nikahnama, irrespective of its placement in a particular column. It is a matter of common knowledge that the persons who solemnize Nikah or the Nikah Registrars are mostly laymen, not well-versed of legal complications that may arise from mentioning certain terms agreed to between the parties in any particular column of the Nikahnama. Therefore, it becomes the foremost duty of courts dealing with disputes arising out of the terms entered in the Nikahnama, to ascertain the true intent of the parties and give effect thereto accordingly, and not be limited and restricted by the form of the heading of the particular columns wherein those terms are mentioned.
We, on our own independent appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case, agree with the finding of the High Court,
which is not only supported by the contents of the compromise deed dated 18.12.2012 executed by both the petitioner and the respondent, but also by the contents of the entries of columns No. 13 and 16 of the Nikahnama. The figures (1) and (2) mentioned in columns No.13 and 16 respectively leave little room to guess what the true intention of the parties was; they clearly show that both (1) seven tola gold ornaments mentioned as dower in column No.13 and (2) four Kanal agriculture land mentioned in column No.16 were the dower. The figures (1) and (2) need not be mentioned if only one of them was to be payable as dower. Further, seven tola gold ornaments and four Kanal agriculture land have no parity of value to be agreed as an alternate of each other. Therefore, the finding of the High Court on the issue of dower is perfectly correct and is in consonance with the principles of law enunciated by this Court in the cases of Asma Ali and Yasmeen Bibi. As for the claim of the respondent for her maintenance, the Family Court and the District Court held that since the respondent is not residing with the petitioner she is not entitled to maintenance. The High Court has overturned these findings and held the respondent entitled to receive maintenance from the petitioner, while observing that the respondent showed her willingness to go with the petitioner during hearing the petition, but the petitioner, who had contracted second marriage, flatly refused to take her to his house. We find nothing wrong in the decision of the High Court. A wife who is willing to, but cannot, discharge her marital obligations for no fault of her own, rather is prevented to do so by any act or omission of her husband is legally entitled to receive her due maintenance from her husband, and the latter cannot benefit from his own wrong.
As per Section 2 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, the questions regarding dower are to be decided, subject to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, in accordance with Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) in cases where the parties are Muslims. It hardly needs reiterating that the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) are the primary sources of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) in Islam. The payment of dower (mahr) at the time of marriage was a customary practice in Arabia before the advent of Islam, but it was paid to the guardians of the bride, such as, her father or other male relative, as bride-price and the bride herself did not receive a penny of it. This practice of paying dower as bride-price to the male guardians of the bride was reformed by the Islam through the Quranic commands6 of paying dower as the bride-wealth to the bride herself, who becomes the sole owner of it. The Holy Quran also forbids the Believers to take back anything from their wives out of the paid dower even it be a great sum. In Islam, the payment of dower to bride at marriage is an obligation that is imposed by the God Almighty, and is thus an intrinsic and integral part of a Muslim marriage. It is considered an obligatory bridal gift offered by the bridegroom to the bride graciously as a manifestation of his love and respect for her. Some Muslim men compliment the obligatory bridal gift, dower, with other gifts and presents as per their financial capacity. Under the Islamic law a wife’s right to be maintained by her husband is absolute so long as she remains faithful to him and discharges, or is willing to discharge, her own matrimonial obligations. A Muslim husband is bound to maintain his wife even if no term in this regard is agreed to between them at the time of marriage or she can maintain herself out of her own resources. The Holy Quran enunciates that men are the protectors and maintainers of women because the God Almighty has given the one more strength than the other and because they support them from their money. And the Holy Prophet of Islam (pbuh) has instructed Muslim men to provide their wives with maintenance in a fitting manner and declared it to be the right of the women.

29/09/2025

2025 YLR 1217
Fraud, allegation of---Details of particulars of the fraud missing---Effect---Plaintiff/lady instituted the suit against her (four) nephews/ defendants and brother/defendants with the averments that she being the daughter of deceased was entitled to inheri: 1/6 share from the estate of her late father and gift-deeds/mutations in favour of defendants were illegal and fraudulent---Claim of the lady was concurrently rejected---Validity---Although the petitioner / plaintiff pleaded not only old age and bad health of her father but also alleged fraud committed with him with regard to all these transactions but she neither proved her father's physical or mental incapacity/incapability through strong oral as well documentary evidence nor the allegation of fraud---Petitioner / plaintiff who asserted fraud in the commission of transactions had to prove the same---Provision of O.VI R.4, C.P.C. mandates the mention of detailed particulars of the fraud---Mere vague assertion of the petitioner/plaintiff that a fraud had been practiced upon her and she had been deprived of her share in estate of her deceased father, without narrating full particulars of fraud in the pleadings, the circumstances in which the fraud was committed and without a positive attempt on her part to substantiate the same to the satisfaction of the court, was of no consequence rather would be considered as whimsical attribution---In the present case, no defects had been pointed out by the petitioner (lady/plaintiff) in order to seek۔

28/08/2025

Ammendments in
2025 CLC 1439
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

After analyzing various decisions on the subject including the above referred judgments some important factors, which are only illustrative and not exhaustive, that can be kept in my mind while dealing with the application for amendment are

(i) the intention of the applicant seeking to amend pleadings;

(ii) the question of limitation if applicable

(iii) refusal or acceptance of amendment should not lead to injustice or injury to opponent side;

(iv) efforts should be made to avoid multiplicity of litigation; (v) the nature of the suit and cause of action originally set-up and

(vi) if the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determination of the real question in controversy between the parties provided subject matter of suit remains unchanged.
Writ PetitionNo.4183 of 2022
Maqbool Ahmad versus Addl. District Judge and others.

26/08/2025

2025 CLC 1030
It is a settled principle of law that when a Court reaches to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation, there is no need to dilate upon further on merits of the case.
On presentation of a plaint before a Court, it is first and foremost as well as bounden duty of such Court to see whether the suit is maintainable, not barred under any law and whether the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter or lis before it.

WP-56215/19
Adeel Manzar etc Vs Mst.Naeem Akhtar etc

21/08/2025

PLD 2025 SC 582
عدالتی نظام میں آرٹیفیشل انٹیلیجنس یعنی مصنوعی ذہانت کے استعمال پر سپریم کورٹ کا تفصیلی فیصلہ

Nature and Purpose of Rent Proceedings
----------------------------
Use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) – An Innovative Road Ahead
----------------------------
Use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”)8 to Enhance Judicial & Institutional Efficiency .
Judicial Efficiency.
Administrative Efficiency

----------------------------
Gaps in the AI Systems – A Warning.
----------------------------
Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), Judging & Fair Trial .
----------------------------
Judging with AI – A Note of Caution.
----------------------------
The Enduring Role of Mediation and ADR in the AI Era
----------------------------
C.P.L.A. No. 1010-L/2022
Ishfaq Ahmed Versus Mushtaq Ahmed, etc

21/08/2025

PLD 2025 SC 541
PLJ 2025 SC 307
A father, who has never met his minor daughter and resides abroad since her birth, cannot claim custody of minor on the sole ground of being natural guardian when natural mother of minor has contracted a second marriage.
In the event of remarriage of either or both parents, the Court must consider the surrounding circumstances of both parties, including their educational qualifications, financial status, character, and ability to care for the minor. Due weight is also given to the emotional attachment of the minor.
While it has been settled that a mother’s second marriage, even to a person stranger to minor, does not in itself disqualify her from custody of the minor, provided that the welfare of the minor is best served by her continued care. It is significant to note that the petitioner himself has contracted a second marriage and is residing abroad. Furthermore, upon a specific query posed by this Court during the course of arguments regarding the frequency of his visits to Pakistan, the petitioner admitted that he visited Pakistan only after a lapse of four years and, even then, did not file any application seeking visitation rights in respect of the minor. This conduct further reflects the petitioner’s lack of genuine interest in the welfare and upbringing of the minor. It is further an undisputed fact that the petitioner has no surviving parents. Considering that the petitioner is residing abroad and has contracted a second marriage, it raises serious concerns as to who would assume responsibility for the minor’s day-to-day care, supervision, and emotional needs in his absence.

It is a settled principle of law that the welfare and best interests of the minor(s) shall be the prime and overriding consideration in determining an application for custody, with no other factor taking precedence.

The expression "welfare of the minor" includes the minor’s moral, spiritual, physical, psychological, educational, and material wellbeing. It further encompasses considerations relating to the minor’s health, academic progress, religious upbringing, and overall emotional development. In determining welfare, due weight must also be given to the minor’s happiness and emotional attachment to the proposed custodian.
It is the duty of the Court to ensure that the welfare of the minor is of paramount concern, and that the actions of the litigating parties are not motivated by personal vendettas, vanity, or emotional desires for affection, but solely in the best interest of the minor. In matters concerning the custody of a child, the Family Court is not obliged to delve into the intricacies or technicalities of the case but must focus on determining what is in the best interest of the minor.
Under Islamic law, the father is generally entitled to custody of a boy after the age of seven years and of a girl after puberty.
The concept of the welfare of the child is internationally recognized as being embodied in the principle of the "best interests of the child." This principle, affirmed under Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 (“UNCRC”) serves as a paramount consideration in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private institutions, courts of law, or administrative authorities.
C.P.L.A.3920/2024
Asjad Ullah v. Mst. Aisa Bano and others

21/08/2025

PLD 2025 SC 572
The jurisdiction of the High Court in family cases. ...................
The issue regarding the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction in issuing orders related to family law cases under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution— orders of certiorari—has been extensively examined and clarified by this Court over time. It is now well-established that the High Court can issue an order of certiorari to rectify jurisdictional errors committed by subordinate courts in family law matters. Such errors can arise when Family Courts or First Appellate Courts issue decisions without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or fail to exercise their jurisdiction altogether. Moreover, a certiorari order is applicable when a Family Court or First Appellate Court acts in an illegal or improper manner while exercising its jurisdiction. This includes situations where the court makes determinations without providing an affected party the opportunity to be heard or where the procedural methods employed contravene the fundamental principles of natural justice. It is crucial to recognise that the High Court's jurisdiction to issue certiorari is fundamentally supervisory, meaning it does not possess the authority to function as an appellate body. This supervisory role imposes clear limitations: specifically, it prohibits the High Court from reevaluating or questioning factual findings made by subordinate courts based on their assessment of evidence. The High Court does not engage in reviewing or reweighing evidence that underlies the decisions made by the Family Court or its First Appellate Court. Instead, it may only nullify a decision it finds to be beyond the jurisdiction or grossly erroneous without imposing its own conclusions in place of those reached by the lower courts. Furthermore, certiorari orders can be granted solely when a clear error of law is evident on the face of the record; however, this does not extend to addressing errors of fact, regardless of their severity. Issues pertaining to the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence presented on specific points and the factual inferences drawn from such findings are relegated exclusively to the purview of the Family Court or its First Appellate Court. These particular matters cannot be contested before the High Court. In summary, within the specified constraints, the High Court's authority under Article 199 to issue certiorari orders in family cases can be exercised legitimately and effectively, maintaining a balanced judicial supervision while respecting the intention of the Family Courts Act of 1964.
Similarly, in cases arising from an order of certiorari, the Supreme Court ordinarily exercises restraint, opting not to intervene in the determinations made by lower courts, including the High Court. This principle of restraint is followed unless the Supreme Court discovers substantial grounds that warrant further examination—grounds that the High Court could have appropriately addressed in its deliberations. By maintaining this approach, the Supreme Court upholds the underlying principles of the Family Courts Act of 1964, which underscores the importance of resolving family disputes promptly and efficiently. At the same time, it ensures that any critical legal oversights or injustices are thoroughly rectified, thereby balancing the need for expediency with the imperative of justice within the family law context.

A comprehensive examination of the preamble, section 2(d), section 5, and the schedule of the Family Courts Act of 1964 provides substantial clarity on two foundational principles that underlie the legal framework governing the Family Court. Firstly, it becomes clear that the jurisdiction of the Family Court is not contingent upon the identities of the individuals or persons involved; instead, it is fundamentally defined by the nature of the subject matter presented in the suit. This means that any dispute that pertains to the categories outlined in the schedule of the Family Courts Act of 1964 can be brought to the Family Court, regardless of who the parties are. This broad approach is designed to ensure that a diverse array of family-related disputes—ranging from matrimonial issues to child custody arrangements—can be addressed in a specialised forum tailored to handle sensitive familial matters. Secondly, the legislation does not specify particular individuals or persons who possess the exclusive right to initiate or defend actions in the Family Court. As such, it follows that any person demonstrating a legitimate interest in seeking legal remedies pertinent to the matters enumerated in the schedule of the Family Courts Act of 1964 is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Family Court. This inclusivity also encompasses any person against whom a cause of action regarding such disputes is alleged to exist and who is called upon to defend it.

C.P.L.A.4582/2023
Muhammad Shakeel and others v. Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and others

15/08/2025

Concurrent findings cannot be treated as sacrosanct if found erroneous.
--‐---------------
If the concurrent findings recorded by the lower fora are found to be in violation of the law, or based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, they cannot be treated as so sacrosanct or sanctified that they cannot be reversed by the High Court in its revisional or constitutional jurisdiction or in a second appeal, as a corrective measure, come what may. Where glaring errors, non-reading or misreading of evidence, or any legal and jurisdictional issues arise, the stumbling block of the doctrine of concurrent findings cannot shield flawed or erroneous decisions. Undoubtedly, the Trial Court possesses the distinctive position to adjudge the trustworthiness of witnesses and the cumulative effect of evidence led in the lis. The Appellate Court accords deference to such findings, which are not overturned unless found erroneous or defective. It is also not within the domain or function of the Appellate Court and/or the High Court to re-weigh or re-interpret the evidence, but they can examine whether the impugned judgment or order attains the benchmark of an unflawed judgment; and whether it is in consonance with the law and evidence and free from unjust and unfair errors apparent on the face of record, and if the concurrent findings are found to be in violation of law or based on flagrant and obvious defects floating on the surface of the record, then it can be reversed as a corrective measure without undue regard to the fact that the matter culminated in concurrent findings. This reminds us of the renowned idiom "to err is human," which suggests that making mistakes is a natural part of being human. The purpose of providing the right of appeal or revision is to test and comprehend the wholeness, soundness, and integrity of the judgment or order under challenge, and not to ingenuously or straightforwardly affirm it merely because it rests on concurrent findings, unless it satisfies the acid test of being in accordance with the applicable law and devoid of misreading or nonreading of evidence.
C.P.L.A.770-K/2022
Habib Rehman & others v. Abdul Karim deceased through legal heirs & others
2025 SCMR 1262

13/08/2025

PLD 2023 Peshawar 130

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984.
Art . 150 --- Declaration of a witness as hostile --- Powers of the Trial Court --- Scope --- Trial Court dismissed an application moved by the petitioner/complainant for declaring one of prosecution witnesses a hostile witness --- Contention of the petitioner/complainant was that the replies given by the said prosecution witness (police official) to a few questions , having been put to him during his cross - examination , would favour the defence --- Ileld , that the witness could be declared as a hostile witness by the Court under Art . 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 (the Order 1984) , however , the same (Article) had conferred discretion upon the Trial Court in said regard --- Trial Court was to permit the person who had called a witness to put any question to him (witness) , which actually was to be put in cross-examination by the adverse party --- Only controversy , in the present case , was that at what stage of the proceedings said mandate of the Trial Court was to be attracted --- Record revealed that the witness - in - question recorded his examination-in-chief prima facie supporting the version of the prosecution and thereafter the defense started cross-examination of the said witness ; and it was in the middle of his cross-examination when the petitioner/complainant made a request to declare him a hostile witness which request was turned down --- Party could ask the Court to declare a witness as hostile when it was its witness , however , once the witness had completed the process of examination-in-chief and the moment when the opposite party had started cross - examination then such witness did not remain the party's witness ; and thus at such stage (i.e. cross-examination) it could not ask the Court to declare him as a hostile witness --- Party could ask for declaring the witness as hostile when the opposite party had not started the cross-examination but once cross-examination had commenced then such request could not be entertained as after putting the first question in the cross - examination the said witness did not remain the witness of the prosecution/complainant --- Trial Court had rightly turned down the request/application of the petitioner/complainant for declaring the prosecution witness as hostile.

07/08/2025

Document s---Photocopy---Scope---Photocopy of any Document cannot be exhibited and read in evidence except as a secondary evidence---In absence of any evidence with regard to loss of any Document , photocopy of the same, even if taken on record and exhibited without any objection, would not qualify the Document as admissible in evidence.
2025 MLD 1165

Legal solutions pro

28/10/2025

23/10/2025

23/10/2025

29/09/2025

28/08/2025

26/08/2025

21/08/2025

21/08/2025

21/08/2025

15/08/2025

13/08/2025

07/08/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category