The Asim Ehsan Advocate & Legal Consultants

25/04/2026

2025 SCMR 1032

شہادت پیش کرنیکا قطعی آخری وارننگ کے ساتھ ملنے کے باوجود شہادت پیش نہ کی گئی۔
سپریم کورٹ نے سائل کا شہادت پیش کرنے کا حق ختم کرنیکا فیصلہ بحال رکھا
It is evident from record that through speaking order(s) the petitioner was granted with absolute last and final opportunities for production of his evidence with clear cut warnings, the petitioner did not pay any heed to the orders and direction of the trial Court, which shows his adamant attitude towards the orders of the trial Court. The above picture of affairs makes it crystal clear that how the petitioner pursued his case and showed his disobedience and indifferent demeanour towards the orders of the Court; thus, such like indolent person cannot seek (naeem)favour of law, because law favours the vigilant and not the indolent.

Though, it is a settled law that evidence of a party cannot be closed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C for non-production of evidence where the case on the previous date was not adjourned at the request of such party.

For the application of Rule 3 the following conditions must coexist:
a). Adjournment must have been granted to the party at his request;
b). It must have been granted to it for the purposes mentioned in the rule 3;
c). The party who has taken the time defaulted in doing the act - for which he took the time from the court;
d). The party must be present or deemed to be present before the court;
e). That there must be some material on record for decision of the case on (naeem)merits and;
f). That the court must decide the suit forthwith that is within a reasonable time. However, in the instant case, the above portrayal of the facts goes to make it diaphanous that how the petitioner proceeded with the matter and pursued the case. It seems that he intends to proceed with the matter as per his whims and wishes, to carry on entangling his rival(s) as well as the Court without any final determination of rights of the parties and wants to continue his possession over the suit property. Such practice has been discouraged by this Court, because one cannot be allowed to make mockery of law and procedure provided for conducting proceedings in a lis, as the ultimate goal of enactment(s) and procedural law(s) is to determine the rights of the parties as early as possible, so that trust of the litigants could be developed upon the institution(s). In the instant case, more than sufficient opportunities have been (naeem)granted to the petitioner for producing his evidence and despite putting him under caution he did not bother to avail the same. Such like indolent person(s) cannot be allowed to play with the process of the Court and linger on the matter on one pretext or the other, that too, without any plausible and valid reason.

C.P.L.A.No.1033-L of 2024
Muhammad Akram vs Shafaqat Ali

25/03/2026

2025 CLC 785

درخواست گزار نے انگوٹھا جات اور دستخطوں کا موازنہ کرانے کے لیے درخواست دی تھی، تاہم یہ درخواست اس وقت دائر کی گئی جب تمام شواہد ریکارڈ ہو چکے تھے۔ نیچے کی عدالتوں نے درخواست مسترد کر دی تھی، لیکن عدالت عالیہ نے اس فیصلے کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے درخواست منظور کر لی یہ کہتے ہوئے کہ قانون شہادت 1984 کے تحت موازنہ کی درخواست دائر کرنے کے لیے کوئی مخصوص حد نہیں

23/03/2026

2026 SCMR -36
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے اپنے اہم فیصلے میں یہ اصول واضح کیا ہے کہ اگر کسی جائیداد کی خرید و فروخت کے لیے فریقین کے درمیان معاہدہ بیع طے پائے اور خریدار اس معاہدے کے تحت بیانہ (Earnest Money) ادا کر دے، مگر مقررہ مدت کے اندر باقی ماندہ رقم ادا نہ کرے، تو ایسی صورت میں معاہدہ اپنی شرائط کے مطابق خود بخود (Automatically) ختم تصور کیا جائے گا۔ مزید برآں عدالتِ عظمیٰ نے قرار دیا کہ جب خریدار اپنی ذمہ داری پوری کرنے میں ناکام رہتا ہے تو ادا کیا گیا بیانہ ضبط ہو جاتا ہے اور وہ اس کی واپسی کا حقدار نہیں رہتا

09/03/2026

*PLJ 2026 SC 72 & PLD 2025 SC 1039*

سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے بیوی کے بانجھ پن پر شوہر کےحق مہر یا نان نفقہ کی ادائیگی سے انکار کو غیر قانونی قرار دے دیا۔

عدالت میں مقدمے میں شوہر کے رویے پر اظہار برہمی کرتے ہوئے درخواست گزار صالح محمد پر 5 لاکھ روپے جرمانہ بھی عائد کر دیا۔ واضح رہے کہ مقدمے میں شوہر نے بیوی پر بانجھ پن اور عورت نہ ہونے کا الزام لگایا تھا ۔

عدالت نے اپنے فیصلے میں کہا کہ بانجھ پن حق مہر یا نان نفقہ روکنے کی وجہ نہیں۔ خواتین پر ذاتی حملے عدالت میں برداشت نہیں ہوں گے۔ شوہر نے بیوی کو والدین کے گھر چھوڑ کر دوسری شادی کر لی۔ پہلی بیوی کے حق مہر اور نان نفقہ سے انکار کیا گیا۔

سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ عورت کی عزت نفس ہر حال میں محفوظ ہونی چاہیے۔ خواتین کی تضحیک معاشرتی تعصب کو فروغ دیتی ہے۔ مقدمے میں بیوی کی میڈیکل رپورٹس نے شوہر کے تمام الزامات رد کیے ہیں۔ خواتین کے حقوق کا تحفظ عدلیہ کی ذمہ داری ہے۔

سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے میں مزید کہا گیا کہ اس کیس میں 10 سال تک خاتون کو اذیت اور تضحیک کا نشانہ بنایا گیا۔ جھوٹے الزامات اور وقت ضائع کرنے پر جرمانہ عائد کیا گیا۔ عدالت نے مقدمے میں ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلے برقرار
رکھے۔

23/02/2026

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. #
*2025 SCMR 430*

حقِ تقسیم ایک خود مختار حق ہے اور اسے کسی بھی سابقہ مقدمے کے ساتھ، حتیٰ کہ اسی جائیداد کے حوالے سے بھی، منسلک نہیں کیا جا سکتا، اور نہ ہی اسے ضابطۂ دیوانی طریقۂ کار (CPC) کے آرڈر VII کے قاعدہ 11 کے تحت ناقابلِ سماعت (بارڈ) قرار دیا جا سکتا ہے۔

25/01/2026

بیوی پر یہ لازم ہے کہ وہ شوہر کی جانب سے زبردستی علیحدگی (desertion) کو ٹھوس اور قابلِ اعتماد شواہد سے ثابت کرے

2019 CLC 1008

19/12/2025

“If a document is mentioned in the plaint or written statement, (pleadings)it may be produced later—either as additional evidence or during re-examination—but only subject to the other party’s right of cross-examination.”

Party had to first plead facts and pleas in the pleadings and then prove the same through evidence. No one could be allowed to prove its case beyond what was originally set up in the pleadings .Evidence led by a party beyond the scope of pleading was liable to be ignored. (2017 CLC Notes Lahore citation “c” Page 117).
Evidence must be in line of pleadings.

(2017 MLD Karachi 770 citation “b”).

Evidence beyond the scope of pleadings...None of the parties to a judicial proceeding could be allowed to adduce evidence in support of a contention not pleaded by it and the decision of a case could not rest on such evidence.

(2016 PLD SC 730 citation “b”).

Legal Drafting

Legal Consultancy

Tax Matters

Family Matters

Civil Matters

Criminal Matters

Cor

10/12/2025

اگر شوہر نکاح نامہ میں حق طلاق بیوی کو دے دے تو بیوی کسی بھی وقت خود کو طلاق دے سکتی ہے۔ طلاق نوٹس بیوی بھیجے گی۔

PLD 2004 Lahore 77

03/12/2025

لے پالک بیٹی بھی سگی بیٹی کی طرح باپ سے خرچہ نان و نفقہ لینے کی حقدار ہوتی ہے

PLJ 2023 lahore Note 111

Legal Drafting

Legal Consultancy

Tax Matters

Family Matters

Civil Matters

Criminal Matters

Cor

01/12/2025

اسلام آبادہائیکورٹ نے اپنے حالیہ فیصلہ میں قرار دیا ہے کہ ریاست کا کوئی بھی قانون شریعت کے دی گئےاصولوں کے خلاف نہیں ہو سکتا لہذا 15سال کی بچی بالغ تصور ہوتی ہے اور اپنی آزادانہ مرضی سے شادی کر سکتی ہے۔
PLJ 2025 Islamabad 385

24/11/2025

*2025 P Cr. L J 915*
----Ss. 87, 75(2), 369, 435 & 439---Issuance of process (summons, warrants, proclamation)---
Purpose to bring the accused before Trial Court---Order of the Court declaring accused as
Proclaimed Offender ("PO declaring order"), assailing of---Remedy---Recalling of PO declaring
order---Trail Court, powers of---As the accused did not appear before the Trial Court on date
fixed for hearing; Trial court declared him as Proclaimed Offender (PO) carrying out the
proceedings under S.87, Cr.P.C against him ('PO declaring order')---Thereafter, the accused,
while marking his attendance before Trial Court, filed application for recalling of said 'PO
declaring order'---Accused/appellant approached High Court as his application to re-call PO
declaring order was dismissed by the Trial Court---Trial Court declined re-calling of PO
declaring order,primarily, by holding that " Legality and propriety of such an order can be
looked into by Hon'ble High Court being revisable under Ss.435 and 439 Cr.P.C. In view of
above, application stands dismissed."---Validity---Basic and prime purpose of issuance of
process through notice, summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants as well as
proclamation was to bring the accused in the court for facing the proceedings of the case in
accordance with law---When application for re-calling of order dated 09.10.2024 was filed on
behalf of appellant / accused and he (appellant) himself appeared/surrendered before the court
then it was appropriate for the court either to take him into custody as his surety bond was
already forfeited vide PO declaring order (dated 09.10.2024) or to recall the same (PO declaring
order) if reasons were cogent, relevant and plausible for recalling the same, and undoubtedly PO
declaring order (dated 09.10.2024) was not a judgment rather an interim order---Furthermore,
pertinently, even warrant issued by the Court can be cancelled under S.75(2), Cr.P.C.by the
Court which issued it---Application for recalling of order qua issuance of "warrant of arrest" or
"proclamation" of accused is neither entertainable/maintainable nor proceedable without
surrender of the accused in the Court---High Court, with the concurrence of the parties and for
the safe administration of justice set-aside impugned order (dated 14.10.2024) passed by Trial
Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court where the application filed by the appellant /
accused for re-calling of (PO declaring order) dated 09.10.2024 would be deemed as pending
and if appellant surrendered before Trial Court on 11.11.2024 then said application would be
decided through fresh order after hearing all concerned and strictly in accordance with law,
however, if appellant did not surrender before Trial Court on 11.11.2024 then his application
would not be proceedable---Appeal, filed by accused, was disposed of accordingly.
Mehram Ali Bali for Appellant.
Haroon Rasheed, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State (on Court's call).
ORDER
Through this appeal, Muhammad Hussain (petitioner) has impugned the vires of orders dated:
09.10.2024 as well as 14.10.2024 passed by trial court.
2. Brief however necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that Muhammad Hussain (present
appellant) is facing trial as accused in the case arising out of FIR No.386/2023 dated: 24.02.2023
registered under Section: 9(1) 3 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station:
Millat Town, Faisalabad before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad/trial court; appellant
did not appear before the trial court on 09.10.2024, he was declared as proclaimed offender, his surety
bond was forfeited and Station House Officer was directed to enter name of the accused in the register
of proclaimed offenders; relevant portion of said order is hereby reproduced:-
"Accused has absented himself from the court deliberately. It is pertinent to mention here that it is
well in knowledge of the accused that his case is pending adjudication in the court and despite
having knowledge he has not appeared in court which shows his irrelevant conduct towards
court proceedings. Nor he himself nor on behalf of the accused has brought in knowledge to
the court regarding reasons of his absence. His conduct does not entitle any leniency. It is
primary duty of the accused to appear before the court on each and every date. Therefore,
reliance is place on PLD 1978 SC (sic), today I dispense proclamation under section 87 Cr.P.C
and declare him as proclaimed offender. His surety bound is forfeited and separate proceedings
are prepared under section 514 Cr.P.C against surety. S.H.O concerned is directed to enter the
name of accused in the register of proclamation offender.
Thereafter present appellant filed application for recalling of said order dated 09.10.2024 and
marking his attendance before trial court (copy of said application is available at pages No.20-21 of
instant appeal) which was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2024 passed by trial court (copy of said
order is available at page No.23 of this appeal) and relevant portion of the same is hereby
reproduced:-
"Perusal of record reveals that accused was facing trial before this court in case FIR No.386 dated
24.02.2023 under section 9(i)3C CNSA 1997 registered at Police Station Millat Town,
Faisalabad, who absented himself from the court resulting into carrying out the proceedings
under section 87 Cr.P.C against him and he was declared proclaimed offender on 09.10.2024.
Legality and propriety of such an order can be looked into by Hon'ble High Court being
revisable under sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. In view of above, application stands dismissed."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy Prosecutor General (on Court's call)
submit in unison that impugned order dated 14.10.2024 is not in accordance with law and it would be
appropriate to set-aside the same and refer matter back to the trial court for re-deciding said
application through fresh order.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going
through the available record appended with this appeal it has been noticed that vide order dated
09.10.2024 (mentioned above), appellant has been declared proclaimed offender and his surety bond
has been forfeited. It is trite law that basic and prime purpose of issuance of process through notice,
summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants as well as proclamation is to bring the accused in
the court for facing the proceedings of the case in accordance with law. When application for recalling of order dated 09.10.2024 was filed on behalf of appellant and if he (appellant) himself
appeared/surrendered before the court then it was appropriate for the court either to take him into
custody as his surety bond was already forfeited vide order dated 09.10.2024 or to recall
aforementioned order dated 09.10.2024 if reasons were cogent, relevant and plausible for recalling the
same and undoubtedly order dated 09.10.2024 is not the judgment rather an interim order;
furthermore, it is also relevant to mention here that even warrant issued by the Court can be cancelled
by the Court which issued it and Section 75 Cr.P.C. is hereby reproduced for ready reference in this
regard:
"75. Form of warrant of arrest. (1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this Code shall
be in writing, signed by the presiding officer, or in the case of a Bench of Magistrates, by any
member of such Bench; and shall bear the seal of the Court.
(2) Continuance of warrant of arrest. Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled
by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed."
It goes without saying that application for recalling of order qua issuance of "warrant of arrest" or
"proclamation" of accused is neither entertainable/maintainable nor proceedable without surrender of
the accused in the Court. Therefore, with the concurrence of learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Deputy Prosecutor General and for the safe administration of justice, afore-mentioned order dated
14.10.2024 passed by trial court is hereby set-aside, matter is remanded to the trial court where
aforementioned application filed by the appellant for re-calling of order dated 09.10.2024 will be
deemed as pending and if appellant will surrender before trial court on 11.11.2024 then said
application would be decided through fresh order after hearing all concerned and strictly in
accordance with law. However, if appellant will not surrender before trial court on 11.11.2024 then his
application (mentioned above) would be not proceedable (as discussed above) and law will take its
own course in furtherance of order dated 09.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Faisalabad/trial court. With this observation, this appeal stands disposed of.
MQ/M-3/L Order accordingly.
;

Legal Drafting

Legal Consultancy

Tax Matters

Family Matters

Civil Matters

Criminal Matters

Cor

24/11/2025

قانون میں دی گئی عمر سے کم عمری کی شادی کی قانونی و شرعی حیثیت کے بارے اسلام آباد ہائیکورٹ کا نہایت معلوماتی رہنما فیصلہ
PLJ 2025 Islamabad 385

Under Muslim Personal Law, puberty was presumed at age of fifteen, and once attained, a Muslim female was considered sui juris, capable of entering into a marital contract without necessity of a guardian’s consent--Where statutory law appeared to criminalize an act otherwise valid under Shariah, and where statute did not explicitly declare such a marriage void, Islamic principles should prevail, particularly in matters of personal law as preserved under Article 227 of Constitution read with provisions of Enforcement of Shari’ah Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1991”)--When there was ambiguity present in a statute, external sources of Islamic principles and jurisprudence in light of Section 3 and 4 of Enforcement of Shari’ah Act, 1991, could be made applicable with a view to determining factum of legality of marriage--Alleged detenue had attained puberty and appeared to have given free and voluntary consent, she should be at liberty to reside with Petitioner--In these circumstances, instant petition was disposed of-- Child Marriage Restraint Act, did not invalidate their marriage, rather it had stipulated punishment for those participating or promoting same--Therefore, marriage contracted inter se parties in instant case could not be said to be in contravention to injunctions of Islam or any statutory provision.

Legal Drafting

Legal Consultancy

Tax Matters

Family Matters

Civil Matters

Criminal Matters

Cor