https://www.facebook.com/861705753843024/

Mehar Legal Aid and co., Office No. 34 3rd floor ali Plaza 3 moazang road, Lahore (2026)

Q: What is the address?

Office No. 34 3rd Floor Ali Plaza 3 Moazang Road

23/04/2025

📚 Legal Citation Past conduct of parties is not factual for the restoration of Suit
Citation: 2025 SCMR 395

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Judges: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

Parties: Faryal Arif Latif (Petitioner) vs. Arif Latif (Respondent)

Civil Petitions: No. 3597-L of 2023 and No. 8-L of 2024

Date of Decision: 31st October, 2024

Appeal From: Orders of Lahore High Court dated 13.10.2023 and 30.11.2023

⚖️ Legal Principles
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is a procedural law to ensure just, fair, and efficient administration of justice. Its rules are meant to facilitate justice, not hinder it.

Reference Case: Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey (1883) ILR 5 All 163

(b) Order IX, Rules 8 & 9 of CPC
Concerns restoration of suits dismissed for non-prosecution.

A party's past conduct can be considered for costs or warnings but is not sufficient alone to reject a restoration application.

If sufficient cause for non-appearance is proven for the date of dismissal, restoration should be allowed.

Key Point: The High Court correctly restored the suit, and the Supreme Court upheld that there was no illegality or perversity, so the leave to appeal was refused.

(c) Administration of Justice
Courts must prioritize substantial justice over procedural technicalities.

The judicial process must offer ample opportunity for hearing, which is integral to a fair trial.

Technical objections should be construed liberally to ensure justice isn’t defeated.

Reference Case: Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382

🧾 Judgment Summary
The petitioner challenged the restoration of a civil suit dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner argued the trial court should have assessed the respondent's past conduct. However, the Supreme Court ruled that:

The trial court is not bound to examine past conduct unless it affects the sufficient cause shown for non-appearance.

Restoration was rightly granted by the High Court.

There was no legal error in the High Court’s decision.

Hence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

13/04/2025

"All praise to Allah! I'm overjoyed to announce that I've reached a major career milestone - I'm now officially enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan!

10/04/2025

📢 Presumption of Judicial Correctness ⚖️

🔹 Case: 2025 SCMR 361

🔹 Issue: Review of consent order passed by the High Court

🔹 Ruling: The Supreme Court held that mere allegation of wrongful consent by the petitioner’s counsel—without affidavit or supporting evidence—cannot justify a review of a judicial order. Courts presume correctness of their proceedings, and only error apparent on the record can justify review.

28/03/2025

📢 Supreme Court of Pakistan on Limitation in Ex*****on Matters ⚖️

🔹 Case: 2025 SCMR 298
🔹 Issue: Objections against the sale of mortgaged property were filed 3 years after the auction.
🔹 Ruling: As per Article 166 of the Limitation Act, 1908, such objections must be filed within 30 days of the auction. The Supreme Court held the petition time-barred and dismissed the appeal.

✅ Key Takeaway: Delay in filing objections in ex*****on proceedings is fatal. Courts will not entertain time-barred claims.

*****onMatters

26/03/2025

"⚖️ Supreme Court Strikes Down 22-Year-Old Grievance Claim!"

Judgment – 2025 SCMR 269

🔹 Case: Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal

🔹 Issue: Whether a grievance petition filed after 22 years is maintainable?

🔹 Court's Ruling:

✅ Limitation is mandatory under Section 25A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 – grievances must be filed within the prescribed period.

✅ No extension in limitation merely because the employer responded to a time-barred grievance.

✅ Labour Courts and High Court failed to apply the correct law on limitation; their decisions were set aside.

✅ Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal’s judgment restored, reinforcing that timely legal action is crucial.

📌 Key Takeaway: Delay in filing grievances cannot be justified indefinitely—workers must act within the statutory period.

24/03/2025

Summary of 2025 SCP 80 – Pay Protection Case

✅ Employees of autonomous bodies are not considered civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

✅ Pay protection is not an absolute right; it is subject to Finance Division policies and adoption of BPS.

✅ Judicial review cannot override established service rules and policies.

✅ The Supreme Court maintains strict adherence to precedent, ensuring consistency in service laws.

24/03/2025

Topic Family/Dissolution of Marriage on the Ground of Khulla
summary of the case Murad Khan vs. Mst. Humaira Qayyum (2025 SCP 93 Khula):

Case Overview
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan (Appellate Jurisdiction)

Case Number: C.P.L.A. No. 923-P of 2023

Date of Hearing: 17.02.2025

Justices Presiding:

Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi, CJ

Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui

Mr. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb

Petitioners: Murad Khan and others

Respondent: Mst. Humaira Qayyum

Background
Mst. Humaira Qayyum filed a suit for dissolution of marriage (khula), recovery of maintenance, gold ornaments (4 tolas), and dowry articles on 12.05.2015.

Family Court’s Decision:

Granted maintenance at Rs. 3,000 per month from January 2015.

Allowed recovery of 4 tolas of gold or its market value.

Appellate Court’s Decision (30.08.2019):

Reversed Family Court’s ruling regarding gold ornaments.

Modified the decision regarding dowry articles.

Peshawar High Court’s Judgment (13.10.2023):

Modified the appellate court’s ruling.

Held that the respondent was entitled to maintenance at Rs. 10,000 per month from the suit filing date till the end of her iddat period.

Confirmed 4 tolas of gold as her legal right.

Supreme Court’s Ruling (17.02.2025)
The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction.

The High Court should have remanded the matter to the appellate court instead of substituting its own findings.

The case is remanded back to the appellate court to decide:

Entitlement of the respondent to 4 tolas of gold.

Higher quantum of maintenance.

The appellate court is directed to decide within three months.

Key Legal Points
Article 199 of the Constitution: The High Court can issue a writ of certiorari if a lower court’s decision involves jurisdictional errors or legal misinterpretations.

Judicial Review Limitation: The High Court cannot act as an appellate court and substitute its own findings; it can only quash the order and remand the case for reconsideration

21/03/2025

Case Title:
The Executive Director (P&GS) State Life, Principal Office Karachi & Others vs. Muhammad Nisar, Area Manager, State Life Corporation of Pakistan, Peshawar Zone

Bench:
Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan

Facts of the Case:
The respondent (Muhammad Nisar), an employee of State Life Corporation, sought a change in his date of birth close to his retirement.
His original CNIC (issued in 2002) and passport recorded 22.09.1964 as his date of birth. However, his new CNIC (issued in 2023) recorded 22.09.1966 as the date of birth.
He applied for a correction in his service record based on his matriculation certificate from 1983, arguing that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded earlier.
The State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, explicitly state that a date of birth once recorded at the time of joining service cannot be altered, except in cases of clerical errors, and only within two years of initial appointment.
The employer had issued a circular stating that no correction in the date of birth would be allowed after a significant number of service years had been completed.
Legal Issues:
Whether an employee can seek a correction in the date of birth after a significant period of service?
Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable in such matters?
Court’s Findings:
(a) State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973:
The court emphasized that an employee is obligated to provide their correct date of birth at the time of joining.
Since the respondent himself mentioned 22.09.1964 on multiple official records, his later request for correction was contradictory and unjustified.
The delay in applying for the correction made his request inadmissible under State Life’s regulations.
(b) Constitutional Petition & Article 199 of the Constitution:
The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 is meant for clear violations of law or government action, not for factual disputes requiring evidence.
"Adequate remedy" means the respondent should have pursued a civil suit rather than a constitutional petition.
Since the matter involved controverted questions of fact, the correct forum was a civil court, not the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment.
The writ petition filed by the employee was dismissed as incompetent.
The respondent could not seek a correction in his date of birth at a late stage due to both regulatory restrictions and maintainability issues in constitutional jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways:
Employees must ensure the accuracy of their date of birth at the time of joining; late changes are generally impermissible.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be used to resolve disputed facts; the proper remedy is a civil suit.
Government and corporate regulations regarding service record corrections must be strictly followed.

19/03/2025

📜 Supreme Court of Pakistan – 2025 SCMR 231

🔹 Case: Taj Wali Khan vs. Hukam Khan (Deceased) through L.Rs.
🔹 Issue: Pre-emption suit dismissed due to limitation.
🔹 Judgment:
✅ The Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the pre-emptor.
✅ However, the Peshawar High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, dismissed the suit on limitation grounds.
✅ The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling, holding that:

Mere assertion of fraud in pleadings is insufficient; it must be proven with full particulars and evidence.
Limitation laws apply strictly—a pre-emption suit filed beyond the prescribed time is barred.
✅ Final Verdict: Appeal dismissed.
⚖️ Key Takeaway: Pleading fraud without proper particulars and evidence is not enough. Limitation laws must be strictly followed in pre-emption cases.

17/03/2025

📜 Supreme Court of Pakistan – 2025 SCMR 215

🔹 Case: Sharif Ahmad vs. Rashid Ahmad & Others
🔹 Issue: Dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court for non-prosecution.
🔹 Judgment:
✅ The Supreme Court ruled that only cases where the revisional court assumes suo motu jurisdiction should not be dismissed for non-prosecution.
✅ The petitioner’s plea was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
✅ Key Precedents: Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1970 SC 1) & Farman Ali v. Muhammad Yousaf Ali (PLD 1992 SC 330).

⚖️ Key Takeaway: Courts may dismiss revision petitions for non-prosecution unless the revisional court has taken up the matter suo motu.

14/03/2025

📜 Supreme Court of Pakistan – 2025 SCMR 206

🔹 Case: Bashir Ahmed Anjum vs. Province of Punjab
🔹 Issue: Incorrect interpretation of Section 8(5) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, due to a wrongly published gazette notification.
🔹 Judgment:
✅ The Supreme Court ruled that courts must rectify errors that lead to injustice.
✅ The principle "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (no one should suffer due to a court's mistake) was upheld.
✅ The Service Tribunal’s decision was overturned, and the case was remanded for reconsideration.

⚖️ Key Takeaway: Courts and tribunals have a duty to ensure justice by correcting mistakes in legal interpretations.

27/02/2025

💰 Foreign Remittances & Withholding Tax in Pakistan (FY 2023-24) | Key Updates

Understanding the tax implications of foreign remittances in Pakistan is crucial for both senders and recipients. As per the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and FBR notifications, here’s what you need to know:

🔹 📜 Tax Deduction on Foreign Remittances
✅ 2% Tax for Filers – Individuals who file income tax returns.
✅ 5% Tax for Non-Filers – Higher tax for those not on the active taxpayer list.
✅ Tax is deducted at the time of remittance by banks and exchange companies.

🔹 📢 FBR’s Latest Notification (S.R.O. 608(I)/2023)
📌 Confirms the 2% and 5% tax rates and outlines the tax deduction procedure.

🔹 🛡️ Exemptions & Relief
✔️ Pakistan Remittance Initiative (PRI) provides incentives for formal remittances.
✔️ Remittances for family maintenance or personal use are not subject to additional taxation beyond withholding tax.

🔹 ⚖️ Legal Framework
📖 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Section 4(1)(i)) governs tax on foreign remittances.

🔹 🏦 Practical Implications
🔸 Banks & exchange companies must deduct and deposit the tax with the FBR.
🔸 Filers can claim tax credit when filing their annual tax returns.

🔹 📈 Recent Developments
🚀 The government is promoting formal remittance channels to boost foreign exchange reserves, keeping tax rates stable for FY 2023-24.

📌 Key Takeaway: If you’re sending or receiving foreign remittances, ensure you use formal banking channels and file your tax returns to benefit from lower tax rates!

💬 Have questions about foreign remittances? Drop them in the comments! 👇

Mehar Legal Aid and co.

23/04/2025

13/04/2025

10/04/2025

28/03/2025

26/03/2025

24/03/2025

24/03/2025

21/03/2025

19/03/2025

17/03/2025

14/03/2025

27/02/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category