Study Guides

Criminal Law

Based on 6 cases · Updated 2026-08-24

Criminal Law Study Guide: Investigative Authority, Evidentiary Standards, and Sentencing in Qatl-e-Amd Cases

This set of judgments from the Lahore and Islamabad High Courts illustrates two distinct strands of Pakistani criminal law: the limits on investigative agencies' jurisdiction to initiate inquiries, and the principles governing appreciation of evidence and sentencing discretion in murder cases under Section 302(b) PPC.

Jurisdictional Limits on FIA Action

• In Mubasher Shahzad v. Federation of Pakistan (PLJ 2025 Civil (Note) 69), the Lahore High Court held that the FIA cannot initiate an inquiry into alleged money laundering under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 merely on a private complaint. Since no Suspicious Transaction Report or Currency Transaction Report had been generated by a reporting entity through the Financial Monitoring Unit as required under the Act, the FIA's exercise of authority under Section 25 was without lawful authority. The notice issued also failed to show any application of mind as to a prima facie case against the petitioner, reinforcing that procedural preconditions under the Act must be satisfied before coercive measures such as account freezing are taken.

• In Muhammad Usman Ali v. FIA (PLJ 2025 Civil (Note) 86), the Islamabad High Court clarified that the FIA is not obligated to register an FIR before completing the inquiry process mandated by the FIA Act and Rules of 2002; it may act on a complaint and conduct an inquiry within its statutory framework. However, the court also emphasized that petitioners invoking constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 must approach the court with clean hands, making full and honest disclosure of material facts. Concealment of parallel litigation and self-contradictory stances taken before different benches justified dismissal of the petition with costs.

Appreciation of Evidence in Murder Trials

• Ghulam Akbar v. Zulfiqar Ali (PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 227) confirms that ocular evidence from related witnesses is not automatically discredited absent inconsistency or inherent infirmity, especially where corroborated by medical evidence. The case also reiterates a strict evidentiary rule under Article 75 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: a photocopy of a forensic report is inadmissible without proof of loss of the original and without following the procedure for secondary evidence, read with Section 510 Cr.P.C.

• Shaukat Hayat v. State (PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 219) similarly upholds conviction based on confidence-inspiring ocular testimony matching medical evidence, even where motive is doubtful and recovery evidence is excluded, showing that motive and recovery are not indispensable if direct evidence is credible.

• Ahmad Sher v. State (PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 232) demonstrates that consistency of prosecution witnesses despite lengthy cross-examination is a key factor sustaining conviction, here under Section 489-F PPC

Constitutional Law

Based on 6 cases · Updated 2026-08-24

Constitutional Law Study Guide: Writ Jurisdiction and Fundamental Rights

This set of cases illustrates two recurring themes in Pakistani constitutional litigation: the scope and limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (and its AJK equivalent, Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, 1974), and the substantive review of legislation against fundamental rights and legislative competence.

Writ jurisdiction - maintainability and scope of certiorari

• Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Limited v. Muhammad Nafees, PLJ 2021 Islamabad 40, confirms that a writ petition under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) is maintainable where no alternate remedy exists - here, because no Labour Court was functional in Islamabad, the aggrieved party could approach the High Court directly by way of certiorari.
• The same case defines the limited nature of certiorari jurisdiction: the High Court exercises supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction. It cannot reappraise evidence or reopen factual findings. A petitioner must instead demonstrate an error of law apparent on the face of the record, a jurisdictional defect, or a violation of natural justice, showing the impugned order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Mere disagreement with findings on merits is insufficient for interference.
• Ameer Mai v. Additional District Judge, PLJ 2024 Lahore (Note) 126, shows Article 199 being used to review custody decisions under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. While the constitutional element is procedural (invoking Article 199 to challenge concurrent findings below), the case demonstrates that the High Court, even in constitutional jurisdiction, may remand a matter for fresh evidence where the welfare of a minor and material developments (such as a party's changed circumstances) were not considered by the courts below.
• Muhammad Bashir Khan v. Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, PLJ 2024 AJ&K 99, confirms that the AJK High Court's Article 44 jurisdiction (the AJK analogue to Article 199) extends to compelling compliance with statutory obligations - here, directing authorities to finalize a retired civil servant's pension under the AJK Civil Servants (Pension) Rules, 1971, where prolonged inaction amounted to maladministration.

Legislative competence and fundamental rights review

• Waheed Ashraf v. Federation of Pakistan, PLJ 2024

Family Law

Based on 6 cases · Updated 2026-08-31

Family law in Pakistan (and Azad Jammu & Kashmir) draws on a mix of statutory protections, procedural codes, and Muslim personal law principles, particularly in the areas of domestic violence, child custody, maintenance, and the functioning of Family Courts. The six cases below illustrate how courts have applied and interpreted these frameworks.

Domestic violence protection

• In Muhammad Munir v. Anum Thanvi, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 154, the Sindh High Court explained the purpose and structure of the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013. The Act is aimed at protecting the "weakest class of society," namely women and children, who in a presumptively male-dominant society often fear reporting abuse due to threats of abandonment or harm.
• The Court walked through key provisions: Section 2(1)(a) defines "aggrieved person" broadly to include a woman, child, or vulnerable person in a domestic relationship with the respondent; Section 2(1)(d) defines "Court" as the Judicial Magistrate of First Class; Section 7 allows an aggrieved person, their authorized representative, or an informer to file a petition; and Section 13 deals with temporary custody of an aggrieved person.
• The Court held that a respondent cannot use procedural challenges (such as contesting a mere notice-and-production order) to frustrate proceedings at an early stage, since doing so would defeat the very purpose for which the Act was enacted.

Custody of minors

• Muhammad Afzal v. Parveen Bibi, PLJ 2018 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 8, establishes that the right of custody of a minor is not absolute but is always subject to the welfare of the minor. Although Muslim law generally recognizes the father as natural guardian once a male child exceeds seven years or a female child attains puberty, this is subject to the welfare principle. The Court also noted that under Section 17(3) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, and Muhammadan law, the preference of a minor old enough to form an intelligent opinion may be considered. A mother's custody (hizanat) can be lost only if she marries someone outside the prohibited degree of relation to the child, leads an immoral life, or neglects the child.
• Tahira Zaib v. Ghaffar Ahmed, PLJ 2016 SC (AJ&K) 239, reinforces that welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration, to be judged with regard to the child's age, sex, religion, and the character and capacity of the proposed guardian. The Court held that welfare is presumed to lie with the person entitled to custody under Muslim law, but this presumption is rebuttable. Where both parents had remarried, and the minor expressed before the Court a clear preference not to live with the father (who lived abroad and had a second family), the Court held welfare lay with the mother, and that a British-citizen father should not ordinarily be preferred over the mother simply on account of his foreign residence or status.

Maintenance and dowry recovery

• Ulfat Bibi v. Raja Mazhar Hussain, PLJ 2017 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 74, addresses the effective date of

Property & Rent

Based on 6 cases · Updated 2026-08-31

Property and Rent Law: Study Guide

This set of cases addresses several recurring themes in Pakistani property litigation: the rights of co-sharers in joint property, procedural handling of partition and injunction suits, the evidentiary burden on parties claiming under sale agreements, and statutory eviction under rent legislation. Together they illustrate how courts balance substantive property rights with strict procedural and evidentiary requirements.

Co-ownership and Joint Property Rights

• PLJ 2023 Lahore 528 establishes the foundational principle that every co-sharer is owner of each and every inch of joint property until it is partitioned by metes and bounds. A co-sharer cannot unilaterally change the nature of joint property or raise construction without the consent of other co-sharers.
• The case clarifies the appropriate remedies available to co-sharers: if a co-sharer is dispossessed by another co-sharer, the remedy lies in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or a suit for partition. However, where a co-sharer merely threatens to change the nature of the joint holding or threatens to divest others of their rights, a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable to restrain such conduct, without the plaintiff first having to seek partition.

Partition Suits and Procedural Fairness

• PLJ 2023 Quetta 130 deals with a suit for cancellation of partition, transfer of mutation, and specific performance. It reinforces the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), holding that a plaintiff with a genuine right has a corresponding right to approach the court unless jurisdiction is expressly barred.
• Importantly, this case holds that where a suit involves controversial or disputed questions of fact and law, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; instead, the proper course is for the trial court to frame issues and decide the matter on merits after recording evidence.

Proof of Sale Agreements and Transactions

• PLJ 2020 Lahore 386 emphasizes those suits for specific performance require strict proof of the underlying agreement to sell. Producing fewer than the required number of marginal witnesses is fatal to the plaintiff's case; failure to produce the mandatory second marginal witness at trial cannot later be cured at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC, as this provision is not meant to fill evidentiary gaps caused by a party's own negligence.
• PLJ 2018 Lahore 1042 sets out the three essential ingredients a vendee must establish to sustain a sale transaction: (i) that the transaction was struck with a titleholder or person with authority to conv

Tax Law

Based on 6 cases · Updated 2026-09-01

Tax Law in Pakistan: Procedural Fairness and Jurisdictional Limits

Of the material surveyed, only two decisions actually engage with tax law: one concerning sales tax registration and constitutional due process, and one concerning the pecuniary jurisdiction of the customs appellate tribunal. Together they illustrate two recurring themes in Pakistani tax litigation: the constitutionalisation of procedural rights against revenue authorities, and the strict, non-retrospective application of jurisdictional limits to tax tribunals.

Due process and the right to be heard before suspension of sales tax registration

• In M/s. Imran Ali Lubricants v. Federation of P

Banking & Corporate

Based on 6 cases · Updated 2026-09-07

Banking and Corporate Law: A Study Guide Overview

This area brings together core company law concepts, banking recovery litigation, and related regulatory frameworks in Pakistan. The materials below illustrate how courts and regulators approach corporate personality, loan recovery disputes, and agency relationships in commercial contexts.

Corporate Person

Labour & Service

Based on 6 cases · Updated 2026-09-07

Overview: Labour and Service Law in Pakistan (Civil Servants and Related Frameworks)

Pakistani "Labour & Service" jurisprudence, as reflected in these materials, splits broadly into two streams: (i) the constitutional/statutory

Succession & Inheritance

Based on 6 cases · Updated 2026-10-05

Succession and inheritance disputes in Pakistani courts frequently arise when female heirs, particularly daughters, are deprived of their lawful shares through fraudulent gift mutations, or when co-sharers attempt to exclude others from jointly inherited property. These six cases illustrate the courts' consistent protection of inheritance rights and the strict evidentiary standards applied to challenge such claims.

Protection of daughters' inheritance rights against fraudulent gifts

• In Mst. Rasoolan Bibi v. Province of Punjab (PLJ 2023 Lahore Note 108), the court reversed concurrent findings of lower fora, holding that an oral gift mutation used to deprive a daughter of her 1/7th Sharia share was fraudulent where defendants failed to produce either the attesting witnesses of the oral gift or the revenue officers who entered the mutation. The court emphasized that non-production of such mandatory witnesses is fatal to the case of those claiming under the gift, and that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC can be invoked to reverse illegal and perverse concurrent findings that facilitate such deprivation.

• Similarly, in Muhammad Imran v. Muhammad Afzal (PLJ 2015 Lahore 1159), a gift mutation was struck down where the donor was a cancer patient, bedridden and largely without senses for about three years before his death, and the donees (who were also legal heirs) failed to prove the gift was free from undue influence. The step-siblings excluded by the gift successfully established fraud and misrepresentation aimed at depriving them of their inheritance.

Essential ingredients of a valid gift under Muhammadan Law

• Both Rasoolan Bibi (PLJ 2023 Lahore Note 108) and Muhammad Imran (PLJ 2015 Lahore 1159) reaffirm the three mandatory prerequisites for a valid gift under Muhammadan Law (Paras 149-150): an explicit offer by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and voluntary delivery of possession to the donee. Failure to prove any of these elements, especially through credible witness testimony, renders the gift mutation invalid and liable to be set aside, particularly where it operates to defeat statutory inheritance shares.

Co-sharers cannot exclude or deprive other heirs

• Sahib Jan v. Mst. Ayesha Bibi (PLJ 2014 SC 124) establishes the foundational principle that upon a Muslim's death, legal heirs automatically become co-sharers in the estate, and one co-sharer cannot deprive another of this right. Where a daughter was excluded from inheritance in violation of the Shariat Application Act, 1935, the Supreme Court held she could invoke Section 18 of the Limitation Act (fraud-based extension of limitation) and was entitled to her actual 1/3rd share, with transactions by other co-sharers affecting only their own shares.

• Saleem Khan v. Qayyum Khan (PLJ 2014 Peshawar 246) extends this principle to physical possession, holding that no co-sharer can unilaterally select or retain a specific, valuable portion of joint property without the consent of other co-owners, and that a formal partition requires joining all co-owners as necessary parties.

Partition mechanics and protective proceedings

• Sehrish Hanif v. Muhammad Aziz (PLJ 2023 Karachi 124) demonstrates practical partition procedure under Order XX Rule 13 CPC and the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012, where a

Civil Law

Based on 6 cases · Updated 2026-10-12

Civil Law in Pakistan spans a wide range of subject matter, from statutory welfare schemes to property disputes, evidentiary procedure, limitation rules, and contractual arbitration. The six cases below illustrate how courts interpret specific statutes and procedural codes to resolve disputes in a manner consistent with legislative purpose and established doctrine.

• Statutory interpretation must serve the purpose of the enactment. In Ahsin Arshad etc. v. Advocate General, Punjab (PLJ 2018 Lahore 568), the Lahore High Court held that under the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001, the Advocate General's consent under Section 29 is not a mere clerical function but requires confirming that the mentally disordered person and the applicant relatives reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Protection. The court reasoned that since the Ordinance was enacted to protect mentally disordered persons and their property, ongoing supervision of the person and management of property can only occur if both the disordered person and the manager/guardian reside within the court's jurisdiction. This case establishes that jurisdictional residence requirements in protective statutes are substantive, not procedural technicalities.

• Benami transactions require proof of specific ingredients. In Mst. Ashram Bibi v. Musa Khan (PLJ 2015 Islamabad 103 DB), the court reaffirmed that a party alleging a benami transaction must establish four elements: source of income used for the purchase, custody of the original title documents, possession of the suit property, and the motive behind the benami arrangement. The court also noted that a claim becomes suspect when a transaction was treated as valid during a period of amicable relations (e.g., between spouses) but is later challenged once relations sour, suggesting mala fide rather than genuine benami intent. The plaintiff's failure to prove absence of independent income and the other ingredients led to dismissal of the benami claim.

• Re-examination of witnesses is governed strictly by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. In Muhammad Rauf v. Saeed Ahmad (PLJ 2015 Peshawar 353), the Peshawar High Court clarified that a witness already examined as PW can only be re-examined under Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and there is no legal provision allowing such a witness to be recalled and recorded afresh as a court witness. Correction of an alleged clerical error (such as the time of deposition) must occur through proper re-examination, with the opposing party retaining the right to cross-examine.

• Limitation for malicious prosecution suits runs from acquittal. In Hyder Ladhu Jaffer v. Habib Bank Ltd. (PLJ 2014 Karachi 202), the Sindh High Court held that under Article 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a suit for damages for malicious prosecution must be filed within one year, with limitation commencing from the date of acquittal or termination of prosecution. The court also clarified that Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not extend the limitation period itself but merely allows filing on the next working day if the period expires when courts are closed.

• Necessary parties must be joined in disputes over communal land. In Muhammad Sabir v. Azad Government of Jammu & Kashmir (PLJ 2014 AJ&K 267), the court held that where land has been converted into shamlat deh (village common land), all landowners of the deh are necessary parties to any suit affecting that land, and civil courts lack jurisdiction over correction of revenue entries concerning crown land.

• Arbitration disputes involving fact