LEGAL Matters

LEGAL Matters Consultancy, opinion work, Corporate, civil, banking with litigation expertise.

MAINTENANCE UNDER ISLAM-ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF A WIFE
07/08/2026

MAINTENANCE UNDER ISLAM-ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF A WIFE

07/08/2026

Maintenance:
History bearers witness that Islam elevated the status of a wife and bestowed upon her valuable rights of claiming maintenance and dower as well from her husband. The husband is under obligation to maintain his wife in Islam is based on social contract of marriage. The provision of maintenance to the wife is an obligation, which is an essential ingredient of marriage and has to be paid by the husband to his wife during the term of marriage and even thereafter under certain circumstances.

06/08/2026

VALUATION OF SUBJECT MATTER OF SUIT
PLD 2026 PESH. 129
Defendant was aggrieved that suit was initially valued to an amount of over fifty million, but said valuation was altered by trial court upon an application filed by the plaintiff; which judgment was maintained District Court. In view of section 6 CPC, as inserted by KP CPC (Amendment Act) 2020, it is obvious that if rupees fifty million, then the suit is to be filed in the court of civil judge; and if the value of the suit is more than aforesaid maximum limit, the suit is to be filed before the District Judge. The amount or value of the subject matter of suit is not to be ascertained by a litigant through same abstract guess work, or so; for valuing a suit for the purpose of court fee the special law that governs the matter is Court Fee Act, 1870. Likewise for the purpose of ascertaining the jurisdictional value of the case,it is the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 which provides a complete guide and structure for computation of the amount or value of subject matter of the suit. The preamble of Suits Valuation Act, 1887 clearly envisages that the said Act is promulgated to "prescribe the mode of valuing certain suits for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts with respect thereto." Thus it is settled that whenever a litigant or his counsel ha sto ascertain amount of value of subject matter of suit for purpose of jurisdiction he has to do that in accordance with the Suits Valuation Act, 1887; the mechanism which is to be adopted and gone through for this object is detailed in section 3 & 8. It is for the plaintiff to fix value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction in valuation clause of plaint. In present case it appears that suit was initially valued to an amount over fifty million rupees, but that valuation was altered by trial court upon an application filed by plaintiff. If a suit is valued initially at higher amount and is found later during trial to be over valued beyond its jurisdiction, trial court can still bring valuation to its correct limit after such inquiry as it may deem fit and then proceed with the case accordingly. Therefore, the findings of the court below were in accordance with law and no patent illegality or jurisdictional defect was found in the same. constitutional petition was dismissed.

06/08/2026

CHARGEABILITY OF STAMP DUTY
PLD 2026 HC (AJ&K) 36
plea of decree holder was that a she stepped into the shoes of vendee, so no stamp duty was leviable. It is a bedrock precept of law that right of pre-emption is not a right of re-purchase but simply a right of substitution by reason of a legal incident to step into the shoes of vendee in respect of all rights and obligations arising from the sale under which he has derived his title. The right of pre-emption is nothing more and less than the substitution of pre-emption for vendee. Therefore the pre-emptor has got all the rights which were available to the vendee, the obligations of the vendee also transfer to pre-emptor. In ordinary course of law when a suit for possession on basis of right of prior purchase succeeds, the pre-emptor is substituted in place of vendee and his name is entered in revenue record in view of decree of the court without any stamp duty. Though present case is slightly divergent because the plot which was pre-empted/decreed (plot in question) was situated in the housing society and under bylaws of every housing scheme, on transfer of plot, stamp duty is imposed in normal routine but as plot in question was transferred to petitioner/decree holder as result of decree no stamp duty was liable because he turned into an owner by reason of legal incident, so demanding of stamp duty was anamolous. Even otherwise, plot was transferred to vendee in 2012 whereas at relevant time no stamp duty was liable to be paid as Stamp Act was enforced in AJ&K vide Notification dated 25-6-2014 and obviously vendee paid all dues at relevant time which could not be claimed, which fact of payment of all dues was also proved from the script dated 17-1-2018 addressed to Deputy Commissioner (Chairman Allotment Committee) by secretary allotment committee as it had been mentioned in said letter that Art. 63(A) of Stamp Act, 1899 was not attracted. High Court set the impugned notices and all subsequent proceedings in furtherance of said audit objection were set aside at naught by declaring the same as anomalous, void ab initio and coram non judice. Writ petition was allowed.

06/08/2026

PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
PLD 2026 SC 269
Respondents claim to be owners in possession of suit land purchased from an earlier allottee and alleged that subsequently the land purchased from an earlier allottee and alleged that subsequently the land could not be allotted to appellants/defendants by settlement Authorities. Suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was decreed by trial court in their favour but lower appellate court dismissed the suit. High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by lower appellate court and restored that of trial court passed in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. Respondents/plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and possession. Such relief could not be granted unless respondents/plaintiffs had discharged burden of proving primary transaction, namely prior allotment, proving conferment of proprietary rights upon earlier allottee by bringing on record any document in such respect. When foundational document was not produced, respondents/plaintiffs could not succeed merely on the basis of mutation entries or oral assertions. Courts were under a solemn obligation to jealously guard public property and to ensure that entries in revenue record, alleged allotments, or fiscal mutations would not become instruments for unlawful deprivation of State land through defective proof, procedural lexity or collusive conduct. Supreme Court set aside judgment and decree passed by High Court and restored that of lower appellate court, consequently, suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs stood dismissed. Appeal was allowed.

Profile Bushra Zia Advocate High Court email: bushrazia897@gmail.commob: +9203004137005[Partner in Law Firm]I have 18 ...
05/08/2026

Profile

Bushra Zia
Advocate High Court
email: [email protected]
mob: +9203004137005
[Partner in Law Firm]
I have 18 years of experience in dealing with Corporate, Tax, Banks, Oil companies, SECP work, FBR, Family and Property matters. In addition to that I am handling litigation of Banks, Oil Company, SECP & FBR framework, civil and family litigation, last but not the least providing contract drafting services in all fields as well as in e-commerce also.
I have keen interest in promoting legal awareness and develop strong educational system in Pakistan.
Areas of Practice:
• Banking & Corporate
• Real Estate
• Family & Succession
• Constitution
• FBR & Customs
• IP, Trade Marks, Copyrights

Services:
• Recovery Suits
• Tax and Customs matters; IP registrations TM, copy rights infringements
• Formation, registration, incorporation, statutory returns with SECP & FBR registrations
• Property registrations, sale deeds, gift deeds, Power of attorney, relinquishment deeds.
• Succession Certificates, Letters of Administration
• Family suits, guardianship certificates, divorce, Khula
• Constitutional matters
• Contract drafting, reviewing and vetting

Experience:
Panel Advocate 2019 -present NBP


Panel Advocate 2020- present PSO


Proprietor
B&S Associates – Logistic Services
2016 – present
Experience:
• Worked as Senior Associate with ZH Associates, Abrar Hasan & Co, Liaquat Merchant Associates, Minot & Mirza, Nafees Sidiqui Law Associates
• Worked in Lhr with Kazmi & Kazmi, Jahanzeb Khan Bharwana & Co
• Worked as Deputy Director, L*D, State Bank of Pakistan



Certifications & Workshops:

• ADRI-Crowther Accredited Mediator (Civil & Commercial Mediation Training June 2025)
• Sales & Income Tax Certification from CTA in 2023-2024
• Securities and Bank Lending Workshop with NIBAF in 2008
• Islamic Banking with IBD, SBP in 2008

Membership
Punjab Bar Association
Karachi Bar Association
Sindh Bar Council
Enrolled as Advocate High Court

05/08/2026

RIGHT OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION
PLD 2026 ISL. 118
Petitioners approached Election Commission of Pakistan and the President's secretariat from time to time seeking various categories of information, including budget allocations, expenditures, vehicle maintenance, details of POL use, information regarding 2013 general elections, internal audit reports, sanctioned strength of staff, vacant posts, transgender staff data, overseas voters data, and policies relating to online or internet voting by overseas Pakistanis. When this information was not provided, respondent no. 2 filed multiple appeals before the Pakistan Information Commission, which issued several orders directing disclosure. The petitioner (ECP) then filed present writ petitions challenging those PIC orders. The legal issue requiring determination before the High Court was to "whether the PIC possessed jurisdiction to issue binding directions to constitutional bodies, such as ECP and office of the president, for disclosure of information sought by citizens or whether any office under the garb of constitutional protection deny disclosure of information?
In present case while the PIC might have acted with bona fide intention of promoting transparency, it lacked jurisdictional authority to compel disclosure of information from constitutional entities through statutory means. The impugned orders suffered from inherent lack of lawful authority and could not be sustained. The Act did not apply to constitutional bodies including ECP and the office of the president as they were not public bodies within the meaning of section 2(ix) of the Act. Pakistan Information commission being the statutory authority had no jurisdiction to issue binding directions or orders against such constitutional entities. Orders passed by PIC were without lawful authority and same were set aside. Constitutional petitions were allowed in circumstances.

05/08/2026

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
PLD 2026 SC 269
documentary evidence cannot be treated as legally proved merely because it has been exhibited, particularly where mod eof proof remains defective. When a document which is the foundation of claim of party is never produced in evidence, such document remains wholly unproved and mere reference to it during cross examination cannot substitute the strict proof required by law.

05/08/2026

PUBLIC GRAVEYARD BEING A WAQF PROPERTY
PLD 2026 LAH. 382
petitioner challenged the order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner whereby non residents of the area were restricted from burying their deceased in local graveyard and were directed to purchase separate land for burial. The matter arose on the ground that a substantial portion of the graveyard land had been encroached upon leaving only a limited area available for burials. Issue for determination before the High Court was "whether the administration could legally bar non residents from burial in a public graveyard and require them to buy seperate land for burial? Held: impugned order was tainted with blatant absurdity and ludicrous in its entirety as imposition of such a condition wa sfound to be inequitable, harsh and tantamount to infringement of fundamental rights of individuals as to a dignified burial of their dear ones, irrespective of their residential and financial status. The imposition of such discriminatory restriction militated against the principles of fairness an dequal treatment under the law. Land reserved as graveyard for burial of dead body of muslim had attained a sacred character and its sale or imposition of discriminative restriction could become highly problematic, thus, the impugned order was against the spirit of Islam. Graveyard was a public waqf and no exclusive or preferential right could be claimed. There was no distinction in law between a public or private graveyard and a graveyard simpliciter. Impugned order was set aside. Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

04/08/2026

MEDICAL FITNESS
PLD 2026 FSC 114
pursuant to an advertisement for recruitment of constables in Punjab Police the petitioner applied on open merit ans was previously approved by the Recruitment Board but, upon medical examination and expert ophthalmology opinion was declared medically unfit because one eye met 6/6 while the other had reduced visual activity below and prescribed standard; he was therefore denied appointment. Petitioner filed petition which was allowed directing his appointment but the DB in intra court appeal set aside that order and declined his claim on the basis that medical fitness/vision standards under R. 12.16 Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and relevant Standing Orders were mandatory. Issues: whether a candidate declared medically unfit for failing prescribed eyesight standards could be appointed (or alternatively adjusted against another suitable post/considered under disability quotas) despite not meeting the mandatory medical fitness criteria for enlistment as constable?
Authorities were directed to carry out fresh medical examination from another independent hospital for further opinion on the sight of the petitioner to see if he met all medical requirements in terms of his vision to enable him to be employed as a police constable or any other position within the Punjab Police Service. Under the Police Rules, 1934 the petitioner could not be appointed as constable in the Punjab Police Service as he had failed his medical test, in terms of not meeting the required threshold for vision and had not been issued a disability certificate and as such Federal Constitutional Court refraine ditself from interfering with the recruitment policies of the government which was a discipline force and which was expected to examined such issue itself. Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Address

Office No. 301, 3th Floor, Plot No. 35-C, 27th Commercial Street, Phase V, DHA
Karachi
7500

Opening Hours

Monday 09:00 - 18:00
Tuesday 09:00 - 18:00
Wednesday 09:00 - 18:00
Thursday 09:00 - 18:00
Friday 09:00 - 18:00
Saturday 11:00 - 16:00

Telephone

+.9203004137005

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when LEGAL Matters 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 LEGAL Matters:

Shortcuts

Share

Category