QA Law

21/03/2026

Eid Mubarak✨✨

15/03/2026

Lahore High Court has announced posts for Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates.

15/03/2026

14/03/2026

2024 SCMR 1709

ORAL AGREEMENT

The law relating to oral agreement is quite clear, the terms and conditions which were orally agreed have to be stated in detail in the pleadings and have to be established through independent evidence

Hafiz Oari ABDUL FATEH ------Petitioner
Versus
Ms. UROOJ FATIMA and others---Respondents

(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
----S. 54---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Oral agreement to sell---Proof - An oral agreement by which the parties intended to be bound is valid and enforceable; however, it requires to be proved through clearest and most satisfactory evidence---Law relating to oral agreement is quite clear, the terms and conditions which were orally agreed have to be stated in detail in the pleadings and have to be established through independent evidence---When a party seeks a decree of specific performance for the sale of immovable property based solely on an oral agreement, the onus is on that party to demonstrate that there was a mutual agreement and consensus between both parties regarding the terms of the oral contract---Party claiming the existence of an oral agreement must clearly specify the date, time, place, and names of witnesses in their pleadings, such as the plaint or written statement---These requirements are sine qua non to prove an oral agreement to sell---This is because suits involving sales based on oral agreements are more prone to dishonest improvements made by parties in the evidence and pleadings in order to succeed.
Maqbool Ahmad v. Suleman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31; Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others 2021 SCMR 605 and Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others 2019 SCMR 74 ref (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

7. The issue in the present case is whether the petitioner proved the existence of oral agreement of sale in accordance with the law. between them. The basic requirements of a valid and enforceable contract are offer, acceptance, exchange of consideration and mutuality of obligations. Further, a fundamentally important ingredient 8. It is a settled principle of law that a contract is an agreement having a lawful object, entered into voluntarily by two or more parties each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations of a valid contract is that it should be between the parties who are competent to contract An oral agreement by which the parties intended to be bound is valid and enforceable; however, it requires to be proved through clearest and most satisfactory evidence 9 It is a well-established legal principle that when a party seeks a decree of specific performance for the sale of immovable property based solely on an oral agreement, the onus is on that party to demonstrate that there was a mutual agreement and consensus between both parties regarding the terms of the oral contract. Reference may be made to the case reported as Maqbool Ahmad v. Suleman Al1 (PLD 2003 SC 31). wherein it was ruled that a person enterıng into an oral agreement has to prove the oral agreement according to the definition of agreement in Contract Act, 1872 Section 2(h).

A party claiming the existence of an oral agreement must clearly specify the date, time, place, and names of witnesses in their pleadings, such as the plaint or written statement. These requirements are sine qua non to prove an oral agreement to sell which have been settled by this Court in var1ous decisions. Reference may also be made to the case of Muhammad Riaz and others y. Mst. Badshah Begum and others (2021 SCMR 605). This is because suits involving sales based on oral agreements are more prone to dishonest improvements made by parties in the evidence and pleadings in order to succeed. This has been so held in the case of Moiz Abbas v Mrs Latifa and others (2019 SCMR 74) as reproduced below:-

"8. We find that no date, time, place or names of witnesses of the alleged oral agreement have been mentioned in the reply to the legal notice, the written statement, or the sut filed by the respondent. The learned counsel attempted to argue that the said gaps had been filled by the witnesses of the Respondents in their affidavits in evidence. We are not impressed by this argument,. These improvements are clearly beyond the pleadings and constitute and attempt to improve the case of the Respondents as an afterthought. Such course of action is not permitted by law. Thesc requirements are sine qua non to prove an oral agreement to sell which have been settled by this Court in numerous judgments time and again. These are clearly missing in this case. Suits involving sales based on oral agreements are more susceptible to improvements made by parties in the evidence and pleadings in order to succeed, It is imperative that all of these requirements spelt out by Courts with a view that only bona fide oral agreements lead to grant of decrees, need to be strictly enforced and Courts must insist that these be fulfilled at the carliest so as to ensure that an oral agreement is fully proved and the device of oral agreement is not abused by unscrupulous and devious litigants to get decrees by fraud, deceit, skallfully made improvements at different stages the trial.

Thus, the law relating to oral agreement is quite clear, the terms and conditions which were orally agreed have to be stated in detail in the pleadings and have to be established through independent evidence which is neither the case of the petitioner nor was it so set up before the lower fora.

14/03/2026

پرت پٹوار اور پرت سرکار
Pert patwar ' and 'Pert Sarkar.

2016 CLC 302
"Part Patwar "---Meaning---Part Patwar would relate to the proceedings taken by the Revenue Officer and same would conclusively determine the fact of transaction to take place as well as the proceedings which had preceded the said transaction being sanctioned in the name of beneficiary.
Part Patwar would relate to the proceedings taken by the Revenue Officer and same would conclusively determine the fact of transaction to take place as well as the proceedings which had preceded the said transaction being sanctioned in the name of beneficiary---Thumb impressions of plaintiff were taken only on Part Patwar and not on Part Sarkar---Impugned mutation was not sanctioned in a Jalsa-i-Aam or at a public place---Provisions of S.42 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 had not been complied with---Transaction was not carried out with the free will of the plaintiff---Nothing was on record that proceedings with regard to identification of plaintiff had taken place---No evidence had been produced with regard to the proceedings taken by the revenue officer in respect of exchange as well as transaction of exchange which had been alleged to have taken place---Alleged transaction of exchange could not be upheld and sustained on such ground alone--

PLD 2006 Pesh 53

--'Part patwar ' and 'Part Sarkar'---Form of mutation was kept in duplicate, one copy which was retained by Patwari, was commonly known as Part patwar and other which was sent to Tehsil to be attached to the Jamabandi as an authority for the new entries which it contained, commonly known as 'Part Sarkar'---Patwari's report attested by Field Qanungo or ordered by Revenue Officer, was written only in the copy of Register to be filed with Jamabandi i.e. Part Sarkar was enough in Patwar's copy (Part patwar ) to show how the case was disposed of by entering the briefest possible extract of the order and that abstract was written by Revenue Officer with his own hand---Since Patwari's report, the attestation of it by the Field Qanungo and order of Revenue Officer, were available only in the copy of Register to be filed with Jamabandi i.e. 'Part Sarkar', said 'Part Sarkar' was to be given preference over 'Part patwar '.

14/03/2026

PLJ 2026 Supreme Court (Criminal) 19

EJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY Versus STATE

Supplementary statement--Tweets/audio/video clips on social media--Delay in FIR--Post-arrest bail--Grant of--The petitioner was implicated by complainant in his supplementary statement--On basis of tweets/audio/video clips on social media--The admissibility, relevancy and evidentiary value of supplementary statement of complainant as well as alleged tweets/ audio/video clips on social media are yet to be determined at trial--Delay of three days in lodging FIR--As well as delay of about one month for making supplementary statement by complainant--The petition is converted into appeal and same is accepted--

12/03/2026

Duty rooster of Civil & District/Sessions Courts Islamabad.

12/03/2026

Four days working week at lower courts and High Court in Islamabad.

12/03/2026

Important decisions of Supreme Court

12/03/2026

For centuries, Christian marriage and divorce law in Pakistan has been governed by legislation inherited from the colonial era, with little meaningful reform. The primary law regulating Christian marriages, the Christian Divorce Act 1869, was enacted during British rule and has remained largely unchanged since.

Under the provisions of the colonial-era law, the grounds for divorce are particularly limited for husbands. Section 10 of the Act allows a Christian husband to seek dissolution of marriage only if he can prove that his wife committed adultery after the marriage was solemnized. The law also requires the husband to identify and include the alleged adulterer as a co-respondent in the case. This condition often makes it extremely difficult to pursue a divorce. Because of these technical requirements, many cases fail in court even when the couples have been separated for a long time.

These legal limitations were highlighted in a recent case brought before the Lahore High Court. A Christian man, Shahroz, had been attempting since 2022 to obtain judicial separation from his wife, Tareeza. His initial petitions were dismissed by both the trial court and an appellate court because he could not provide sufficient evidence to prove allegations of adultery or cruelty against his wife, the only grounds he had relied on under the existing legal framework.

During the proceedings, the courts also noted that Shahroz had failed to identify the alleged adulterer or present documentary evidence supporting his claims. As a result, his petitions were rejected, and the couple remained legally married despite having lived apart for years.

When the matter reached the Lahore High Court, Justice Jawad Hassan reviewed the case and took a broader view of the law and the constitutional rights involved. The judge noted that the couple had been living separately for more than two years, a fact acknowledged by the wife during court proceedings.

The court examined provisions within the Christian Divorce Act that recognize “desertion” as a matrimonial wrong. Under Section 22 of the Act, either spouse may seek judicial separation if the other has deserted them without reasonable cause for a period of two years or more. Justice Hassan ruled that this provision should be properly considered when deciding cases involving Christian marriages.

The court also referred to Article 20 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantees citizens the right to profess and practice their religion. The judgment emphasised that courts must interpret family laws affecting religious minorities in a way that respects these constitutional protections.

In its final decision, the Lahore High Court set aside the earlier rulings. It directed the trial court to reconsider the case, specifically allowing the ground of “desertion” to be examined. The judgment effectively recognises that Christian couples who have lived separately for at least two years may seek dissolution or separation on that basis, rather than being forced to prove adultery or cruelty.

The court also ordered that copies of the verdict be circulated to judges across Punjab to ensure proper application of the law and greater awareness of the constitutional protections available to religious minorities. The ruling is widely seen as a significant step toward easing the divorce process for Pakistan’s Christian community and addressing longstanding limitations within the colonial-era legal framework.

https://www.linkedin.com/redir/redirect/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpersecution%2Eorg%2F2026%2F03%2F09%2Fafter-150-years-pakistan-court-opens-path-to-christian-divorce%2F&urlhash=f_7r&mt=cO4r6G4k9M5QQAgDNCXAbLkufWo49SxmINryJ-Z8yboVEd4UZrr8Wb6FFQ94AEObCxYDYj3q7o5S-xoC-8gVV57uf51ii_UVg9oz5Ikvli5hYIYORa-KTYnuAg&isSdui=true

11/03/2026

The IHC held that a surety bond constitutes a personal obligation that extinguishes upon the surety's death and cannot be imposed upon heirs without their consent.

An intriguing legal battle in the Islamabad High Court between the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and a scholar, Dr. Nosheen Arm. The facts unfolded as follows: In 2007, HEC awarded Dr. Nosheen a PhD scholarship on the condition that she would serve in Pakistan for five years upon completing her studies. Upon her failure to comply, HEC initiated recovery proceedings against her and her surety (guarantor).

During the trial, it emerged that the surety Dr. Nosheen's father had passed away in 2011, well before the suit was filed. The Trial Court accordingly terminated proceedings against the surety, prompting HEC to appeal to the High Court. HEC's counsel argued that the "surety bond" explicitly stipulated that the liability would bind the surety's heirs, warranting continuation of the proceedings.

Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan, upon examining the matter, astutely distinguished between a "guarantee" and a "surety bond." The Court held that a surety bond constitutes a personal obligation that extinguishes upon the surety's death and cannot be imposed upon heirs without their consent. The learned Judge further observed that merely stipulating in an agreement that it "shall bind the heirs" does not render them liable unless they are parties to the contract.

The Court also rejected HEC's contention that this was a "continuing guarantee," as the scholarship was awarded once, notwithstanding disbursement in instalments. Ultimately, the Court concluded that absent any charge, lien, or security expressly created by the surety over his property, his heirs could not be compelled to discharge the liability post his demise. HEC's petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's decision.

In Pakistani law, such matters are governed primarily by the Contract Act, 1872, which delineates principles relating to guarantees and sureties. A purely personal guarantee lapses upon the surety's death. Thus, where a surety undertakes liability solely in his personal capacity without encumbering any property, the obligation does not devolve upon heirs automatically. Heirs are liable only if they expressly assume the contract or if the surety has created a legal charge, mortgage, or security over property enabling recovery.

From the wall of Ahsan Chheena

22/02/2026

It was an honor to participate as an Adjudicator in the National Moot Court Competition 2026 organised by Islamabad Law Student Forum in Muslim Law College Rawalpindi.

Witnessed brilliant talent in our upcoming professionals.

All the best wishes for the organisers, ghe teams and congratulations to the winners.

Thank you Ali Akbar Lakhan for your kind invitation.