ZRC Law Associates

ZRC Law Associates ZRC Law Associates is one of the best leading Law Firms in town. We provide best legal services and

It is by now well settled that even where the vendor is alleged to have avoided ex*****on of the sale deed, the vendee s...
30/04/2026

It is by now well settled that even where the vendor is alleged to have avoided ex*****on of the sale deed, the vendee seeking specific performance is expected to establish her continuous readiness and willingness not only through pleadings but also through tangible evidence, which may include deposit of the balance amount or proof of financial capacity. Failure to satisfy this essential requirement disentitles a party from claiming the discretionary relief of specific performance. In the present case, the absence of any such effort or evidence on the part of the respondent further reinforces the conclusion that the mandatory ingredients for grant of such relief have not been fulfilled.

It may further be observed that although there is no absolute requirement under the Specific Relief Act, 1877 compelling a plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration at the time of filing of a suit for specific performance, yet the relief itself being discretionary and founded on equitable principles cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The plaintiff is not only required to aver readiness and willingness in the pleadings but must also substantiate the same through tangible and credible evidence demonstrating his financial capacity to perform his part of the contract. Production of material such as pay orders, bank statements or other reliable evidence assumes significance in this regard so as to satisfy the Court that the claim is bona fide and not a device to cover up default or to gain time to arrange funds. In the present case, no such evidence has been brought on record. It is also to be kept in view that with the passage of time the value of money depreciates while that of immovable property generally appreciates; therefore, Courts, while exercising equitable jurisdiction, are required to balance the interests of both parties. The complete absence of any effort on the part of the respondent to secure or deposit the balance consideration further militates against the grant of discretionary relief of specific performance.

In the absence of proof of readiness and willingness, the imposition of interest on the alleged balance consideration amounts to rewriting the contract between the parties, which is impermissible in law, particularly in a case where the very existence of the agreement is doubtful.

It is by now well settled that the relief of specific performance is discretionary and equitable in nature. A party seeking such relief must come to the Court with clean hands and must demonstrate through unimpeachable evidence that he / she was always ready and willing to perform his / her part of the agreement.

Civil Revision No.581-D of 2018
Muhammad NadeemVersusAnees Akhtar
Date of hearing: 16.04.2026.

لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جہاں قتل کا مقدمہ Unwitnessed Occurrence ہو، یعنی وقوعہ کسی نے اپنی آنکھوں سے نہ دیکھا ہو،...
30/04/2026

لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جہاں قتل کا مقدمہ Unwitnessed Occurrence ہو، یعنی وقوعہ کسی نے اپنی آنکھوں سے نہ دیکھا ہو، اور Prosecution کا سارا مقدمہ صرف Extrajudicial Confession پر مبنی ہو، وہاں صرف الزام کی بنیاد پر ملزم کو جیل میں نہیں رکھا جا سکتا۔

مقدمہ میں FIR 14.09.2025 کو درج ہوئی، جبکہ مقتول کی شناخت 21.10.2025 کو ہوئی۔ اس کے بعد 22.10.2025 کو ایک Supplementary Statement کے ذریعے پہلی بار ملزمان کے خلاف Extrajudicial Confession سامنے لایا گیا۔ عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ ایک ماہ سے زائد تاخیر سے سامنے آنے والا ایسا material شکوک پیدا کرتا ہے۔

عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ Extrajudicial Confession ایک weak evidence ہے، کیونکہ اسے آسانی سے گھڑا یا arrange کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ اس کی truth اور evidentiary value کا فیصلہ ٹرائل کے دوران ہوگا، اس لیے صرف اسی بنیاد پر Bail deny نہیں کی جا سکتی۔

عدالت نے مزید قرار دیا کہ جب اہم incriminating material بعد میں Supplementary Statement کے ذریعے سامنے آئے، تو یہ کیس کو Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. کے تحت Further Inquiry میں لے جاتا ہے، کیونکہ یہ محض suspicion پیدا کرتا ہے، جرم ثابت نہیں کرتا۔

عدالت نے Presumption of Innocence کا اصول بھی دہرایا اور کہا کہ ہر ملزم اس وقت تک بے گناہ تصور ہوتا ہے جب تک جرم ثابت نہ ہو جائے۔ صرف offence کی seriousness کی وجہ سے کسی کی liberty سلب نہیں کی جا سکتی۔

ان وجوہات کی بنیاد پر عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ مقدمہ Further Inquiry کا ہے، لہٰذا Petitioners Post-Arrest Bail کے مستحق ہیں۔ یہ فیصلہ واضح کرتا ہے کہ weak اور delayed evidence کی بنیاد پر کسی شخص کو مسلسل حراست میں نہیں رکھا جا سکتا۔

It is a well-settled principle of law that an agent is under a fiduciary obligation and cannot lawfully deal with the pr...
30/04/2026

It is a well-settled principle of law that an agent is under a fiduciary obligation and cannot lawfully deal with the property of the principal for his own benefit or in favour of his close relatives without the prior knowledge, consent, or specific authorization of the principal, and any such self-serving transaction is liable to be repudiated.
Civil Revision No.950-D of 2025
Abdul Shakoor & othersVersusGhulam Muhammad (deceased) through his Legal Heirs & others
2026 LHC 2690

Reliance on findings in criminal case, while dealing with civil matter, between the same parties.... Articles 55 to 57 o...
30/04/2026

Reliance on findings in criminal case, while dealing with civil matter, between the same parties....
Articles 55 to 57 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order-1984.

Article 56 of the QSO reads that judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Article 55 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. Article 55 of the QSO provides that a final judgment or order or decree by the competent Court inexercise of (i) probate, (ii) matrimonial, (iii) admiraltyand (iv) insolvency jurisdiction are relevant when it confers upon or takes away any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.

Article 57 of the QSO provides that judgment, order or decree other than those mentioned in Articles 54, 55 and 56 are irrelevant unless existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this order. The same provision existed as section 43 in the Evidence Act-1872.

The QSO is clear that opinion of a Judge in one case can be relevant for another only when given in the cases specifically referred to in the QSO and in no others. The judgment referred by the learned Appellate Court given in the criminal jurisdiction is related to the specific subject matter and it cannot be relied upon in the civil proceedings or for that matter family cases. It is elementary that each case must be decided on the evidence recorded in it and evidence in another case cannot be taken into account in arriving at the decision. Even in the civil cases this cannot be done unless the parties have agreed that the evidence in one case may be treated as evidence in the other.

The above are settled and recognized principles of law. Though Section 17(1) of the Family Courts Act-1964 provides that provisions of QSO and the Code, except Sections 10 and 11 are not applicable and the learned Family Courts are permitted to adopt their own procedure, however, judgment-in-appeal lacking of discussion of the evidence led in that particular case and logical reason to reach the conclusion, is unsafe to be left in the field.

Compliance of Order XLI Rule 31 of the the Code of Civil Procedure-1908.

WP.11961-16
IJAZ HAMED VS ADILA IJAZ ETC.
Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad
2026 LHC 2699
Approved for reporting.Announced in open Court on 30.04.2026

30/04/2026

PLJ 2026 Lahore 303
The doctrine underlying Section 11 CPC is founded on the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, signifying that it is in the interest of the State that litigation should have an end. It also embodies the equitable principle expressed in the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa, which means that no person should be vexed twice over the same cause of action. Merely because the petitioner has attempted to present the relief in a different form does not alter the essential identity of the cause of action or the matter directly and substantially in issue. The principle ensures that disputes already adjudicated are not reopened, thereby safeguarding the stability of the parties’ rights and obligations.

This rule is further reinforced by the maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur, which mandates that a matter once judicially decided must be accepted as conclusively determined between the parties. Thus, the doctrine serves a dual purpose, it safeguards the parties from multiplicity of proceedings and at the same time, conserves valuable judicial time, a public resource, enabling the court to devote its attention to other deserving litigations awaiting adjudication.

The principle of res judicata is not merely a procedural rule, it is grounded in public policy and is often described as the “principle of peace,” as it aims to bring finality to litigation and maintain stability in legal relationships. Finality is attached to conclude decisions and past and closed transactions cannot be reopened at the whim of a dissatisfied litigant.

C.R. No.5420 of 2026
Anwar-ud-Din Versus Muhammad Arshad

30/04/2026

وراثت کا دعویٰ 34 سال بعد؟ — لاہور ہائیکورٹ کی اہم وضاحت
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے اپنے حالیہ فیصلے *2025 PLD 581* میں یہ واضح کر دیا ہے کہ وراثت کے نام پر دہائیوں پرانی رجسٹرڈ دستاویزات کو جب چاہیں چیلنج نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ اگر مورث (والدین/بزرگ) اپنی زندگی میں کسی ٹرانزیکشن (جیسے گفٹ یا فروخت) کو چیلنج نہیں کرتے، تو بعد میں آنے والے وارث محض وراثت کا سہارا لے کر اس تاخیر کو جواز فراہم نہیں کر سکتے—خاص طور پر جب تیسرے فریق کے حقوق پیدا ہو چکے ہوں۔

اہم بات یہ ہے کہ یہ کوئی نیا قانون نہیں بلکہ پہلے سے طے شدہ قانونی اصولوں جیسے **acquiescence، waiver اور estoppel** کی reaffirmation ہے۔ یہ اصول پہلے بھی PLD 2014 SC 167 میں تفصیل کے ساتھ بیان کیے جا چکے ہیں، جہاں عدالت نے واضح کیا تھا کہ ہر کیس اپنے مخصوص حقائق اور حالات کے مطابق فیصلہ کیا جاتا ہے۔

عدالت نے اس کیس میں 34 سال کی تاخیر کو غیر معمولی قرار دیتے ہوئے دعویٰ ناقابلِ سماعت قرار دیا، اور اس بات پر زور دیا کہ قانون ایسے افراد کی مدد نہیں کرتا جو اپنے حقوق کے حوالے سے طویل عرصے تک خاموش رہیں۔ مزید برآں، جہاں جائیداد آگے فروخت ہو کر تیسرے فریق کے حقوق مستحکم ہو جائیں، وہاں پرانے دعوؤں کو کھولنا قانونی استحکام کے خلاف سمجھا جاتا ہے۔

تاہم، عدالت نے یہ بھی واضح کیا کہ کچھ استثنائی حالات (مثلاً ثابت شدہ دھوکہ دہی، جائیداد پر مسلسل قبضہ، یا آمدن کا تسلسل) میں قانونِ میعاد مختلف انداز میں لاگو ہو سکتا ہے—لہٰذا ہر کیس کو اس کے اپنے میرٹس پر دیکھنا ضروری ہے۔

وراثت ایک حق ضرور ہے، لیکن اس کے حصول کے لیے بروقت قانونی اقدام لازمی ہے۔ طویل خاموشی اکثر حق سے دستبرداری (waiver) یا رضامندی (acquiescence) تصور کی جا سکتی ہے۔

LEGAL EFFECT OF RESTRUCTURING OF FINANCIAL FACILITIES............... Restructuring, as recognized under the law and sett...
30/04/2026

LEGAL EFFECT OF RESTRUCTURING OF FINANCIAL FACILITIES...............
Restructuring, as recognized under the law and settled judicial principles, constitutes a fresh arrangement of an already admitted liability. It does not involve any new disbursement; rather, it is a mechanism whereby the acknowledged outstanding amount is converted into a demand finance facility with a revised repayment schedule. Such restructuring is only undertaken upon default or inability of the borrower to repay, and is granted upon the borrower's categorical admission of liability. It is by now settled jurisprudence that in cases of restructuring/rescheduling, the financial institution is not required to produce statements of account prior to the restructuring agreement, as the liability stands admitted and acknowledged by the borrower. By agreeing to restructuring, the bank merely deferred its immediate right of recovery and enforcement, granting concessionary terms to facilitate repayment. The legal consequence thereof is a clear and binding acknowledgment of liability, which operates as an estoppel against the borrower from subsequently disputing either the existence or the quantum of the debt. The plea that no liability survives after restructuring is, therefore, wholly misconceived and contrary to the settled principles governing financial and banking transactions.

PLEA OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS................
The plea regarding non-compliance with statutory requirements is also without merit. The plaint is accompanied by all requisite documents, including finance agreements, restructuring instruments, and the certified statement of account, as mandated under Section 9 of the Ordinance, 2001. The suit has been instituted through a duly authorized attorney of the plaintiff-bank, supported by a valid Power of Attorney available on record. No concrete deficiency has been pointed out by the defendants to render the institution of the suit defective. The law is well settled that technical objections, in the absence of demonstrable prejudice, do not defeat a claim otherwise validly instituted. The superior Courts have consistently held that substantial compliance with statutory requirements is sufficient where the liability stands otherwise established through documentary evidence. The Court holds that the plaintiff-bank has strictly complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 9 of the Ordinance, 2001, by placing on record all relevant financing documents, restructuring instruments, and certified statement of account. The suit has been instituted through a duly authorized attorney, and no material illegality or procedural defect has been demonstrated by the defendants. It is well settled that technical objections, in the absence of demonstrable prejudice or failure of justice, cannot defeat a claim otherwise supported by unimpeachable documentary evidence. Accordingly, the objection regarding non-compliance is devoid of legal force and substance.

It is a settled proposition that a general or evasive denial of liability does not suffice to rebut the statutory presumption attached to a certified statement of account. The law requires a defendant to point out precise discrepancies and support such objections with credible material, failing which the account statement must be accepted as correct.

COS No.13 of 2022
National Bank of PakistanVersusM/s Hussain Mills Limited & others
2026LHC2620

30/04/2026

PLJ 2026 SC CrC 119
2025 SCMR 1967
It is a settled proposition of law that in cases falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of post-arrest bail is restricted to the exceptions enumerated therein, namely:

(i) under the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., where the accused is a woman, minor, or a sick or infirm person;

(ii) under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., where there is an unreasonable delay in the conclusion of the trial, not attributable to the accused; and

(iii) under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., where the case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. However, upon (naeem)tentative assessment of the available material, the petitioner’s case does not appear to qualify as one of further inquiry so as to bring it within the purview of Section 497(2),Cr.P.C.

It is a settled proposition of law that where there appear reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
At the bail stage, deeper scrutiny of material available on record is unwarranted, as that would affect the merits of the case at the trial. However, a (naeem)tentative assessment of material available on record prima facie connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence which falls within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Crl.P.L.A.1425/2024
Ghazi Arab v. The State

📌 ہبہ واپس لینے کا قانون مکمل وضاحتقانون کے مطابق ہبہ (Gift) ایک ایسا عمل ہے جس میں کوئی شخص اپنی مرضی سے اپنی جائیداد ی...
29/04/2026

📌 ہبہ واپس لینے کا قانون مکمل وضاحت

قانون کے مطابق ہبہ (Gift) ایک ایسا عمل ہے جس میں کوئی شخص اپنی مرضی سے اپنی جائیداد یا مال کسی دوسرے شخص کو بغیر کسی معاوضے کے دے دیتا ہے۔ لیکن اکثر لوگوں کے ذہن میں یہ سوال ہوتا ہے کہ کیا ہبہ دینے کے بعد اسے واپس لیا جا سکتا ہے یا نہیں؟

اس حوالے سے عدالتوں نے واضح اصول مقرر کیے ہیں۔

اگر کوئی شخص ہبہ کرتا ہے لیکن ابھی تک اس جائیداد یا چیز کا قبضہ (Possession) وصول کنندہ کو نہیں دیا گیا، تو ایسی صورت میں دینے والا (Donor) کسی بھی وقت اپنا ہبہ واپس لے سکتا ہے۔ یعنی جب تک قبضہ منتقل نہیں ہوتا، ہبہ مکمل نہیں سمجھا جاتا اور اسے منسوخ کرنا آسان ہوتا ہے۔

لیکن صورت حال اس وقت بدل جاتی ہے جب ہبہ کے ساتھ ساتھ قبضہ بھی دے دیا جائے۔ جیسے ہی وصول کنندہ کو جائیداد کا قبضہ مل جاتا ہے، ہبہ مکمل ہو جاتا ہے۔ اب دینے والا اپنی مرضی سے یا زبانی طور پر ہبہ واپس نہیں لے سکتا۔

ایسی صورت میں اگر دینے والا ہبہ واپس لینا چاہے تو اسے باقاعدہ عدالت سے رجوع کرنا ہوگا اور عدالت سے ڈگری (Decree) حاصل کرنا ہوگی۔ بغیر عدالتی حکم کے ہبہ واپس لینا قانونی طور پر ممکن نہیں ہوتا۔

یہ اصول عدالت نے Civil Revision No. 19028 of 2026 (Ghazanfar Ali vs Noor Fatima) میں بھی واضح کیا، جہاں فیصلہ دیا گیا کہ قبضہ دینے کے بعد ہبہ صرف عدالت کے ذریعے ہی منسوخ کیا جا سکتا ہے، ذاتی طور پر یا زبانی دعویٰ کافی نہیں ہوتا۔

لہٰذا عام لوگوں کے لیے یہ سمجھنا بہت ضروری ہے کہ ہبہ صرف دینے کا نام نہیں بلکہ قبضہ کی منتقلی اس کا اہم ترین حصہ ہے۔ ایک بار قبضہ دے دیا جائے تو پھر معاملہ مکمل طور پر قانونی دائرے میں آ جاتا ہے اور اس میں تبدیلی کے لیے عدالت کی مداخلت لازمی ہو جاتی ہے۔

ہبہ واپس لینے کا حق موجود ہے، لیکن اس کی حدود ہیں۔
قبضہ سے پہلے آسانی، اور قبضہ کے بعد صرف عدالت ہی راستہ ہے۔

28/04/2026

Irregular Electricity Bills
Irregular electricity bills -- wilful harm, mental agony and

suffering--proof--damages--appellant, electricity supply company continuously issued wrong meter reading and bills to respondent--Trail court ordered electricity company to pay damages to respondent for causing wilful harm and financial loss--Validity--Right of being compensated legally could not be obtained without resort to available legal remedies--Plea of Electricity Company that respondent had no cause of action carried no weight---Issuance of wrong meter readings was not disputed by company hence they could not come with the plea that respondent had not suffered mental agony by acts of their officials-- Proof of suffering and agony could not be demeaned in shape of written documents but may well be proved by circumstances--Respondent established continuity of wrong action on part of appellants as well as his approaches for redressal -- Company legally could not take an exception to prove bona fide of its actions--Burden was upon company and a failure in such regard would always burden it to bear consequences as failure therefor burdened them to compensate the aggrieved--High court declined to interfere in order passed by trail court and lower appellate court as prima faice there appeared no illegality in Judgment and decree of court below--Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2020 YLR 1026 Sindh

Section 3, 4 and 17 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The charge cannot be framed without providing opportunity ...
28/04/2026

Section 3, 4 and 17 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The charge cannot be framed without providing opportunity of preliminary hearing to the alleged contemnor under Section 17 (3) of the aforesaid Ordinance.

اس نوٹیفکیشن کے ممبر بورڈ آف ریونیو والے نگرانی کے کیس بھی ختم ہو جائیں گے؟؟؟ قانونی ماہرین اپنی رائے کمنٹ کریں؟GOVERNME...
28/04/2026

اس نوٹیفکیشن کے ممبر بورڈ آف ریونیو والے نگرانی کے کیس بھی ختم ہو جائیں گے؟؟؟ قانونی ماہرین اپنی رائے کمنٹ کریں؟

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
BOARD OF REVENUE
Registrar Office Dated: 9th April, 2026
Advocates Of Pakistan
To.
1. All Commissioner in the Punjab
2. All Addl Commissioner Punjab
Subject: THE PUNJAB LAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE 2026
Kindly refer to the subject cited above and to the following amendment made in section 161 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967: "Provided further that an appeal in the matters relating to partition, shall only lie, against the original order, before the Collector of the District whose decision thereon shall be final."
2. I am directed to request that 2nd appeals in partition cases pending before the courts of Divisional Commissioners/Additional Commissioners, complete in all respects, should be forwarded to the Registrar. Board of Revenue. Punjab for further proceedings as per law.

(REGISTRAR - BOR) REGISTRAR - BOR REGISTRAR
CC:
A copy is forwarded for information and necessary action to the -

1. PS to SMBR BOR Board of Revenue.
2. BOR PS to Member IT-BOR (PS to Member IT) Board of Revenue
3. BOR PA to Secretary Revenue BOR (Revenue) Board of Revenue

Address

Chamber # 14, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali Block, Session Courts
Gujranwala
52250

Opening Hours

Monday 09:00 - 16:00
Tuesday 09:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 09:00 - 16:00
Thursday 09:00 - 16:00
Friday 09:00 - 16:00
Saturday 09:00 - 16:00

Telephone

+923436000034

Website

Alerts

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

Contact The Practice

Send a message to ZRC Law Associates:

Shortcuts

Share

Category