M. M Law Associates

M. M Law Associates We Provide Legal Services matters Attorney ,

Celebrating my 5th year on Facebook. Thank you for your continuing support. I could never have made it without you. 🙏🤗🎉
05/12/2025

Celebrating my 5th year on Facebook. Thank you for your continuing support. I could never have made it without you. 🙏🤗🎉

05/12/2025

Illogical

07/11/2025

My client has been acquitted by the trial court after acceptance of my arguments.

Alhamdulillah Appeal Against Conviction accepted by
01/11/2025

Alhamdulillah Appeal Against Conviction accepted by

05/07/2025

Passport Control List

Case SummaryCase Title: Muhammad Babar Shah v. Muhammad Nadeem & Others Case No.: Civil Revision No. 197736 of 2018 (wit...
02/07/2025

Case Summary
Case Title: Muhammad Babar Shah v. Muhammad Nadeem & Others
Case No.: Civil Revision No. 197736 of 2018 (with connected C.R. No. 223599 of 2018)
Judge: Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi
Court: Lahore High Court
Date of Judgment: 11.06.2025
đź“Ś Controversy / Legal Issue
Whether the petitioner is entitled to double the earnest money (Rs. 44,00,000) under the sale agreement due to breach by the respondents, and whether the concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts were sustainable in law.
đź“š Facts
The petitioner entered into a sale agreement for 18 Kanals of land at Rs. 50,00,000 and paid Rs. 22,00,000 as earnest money.
The agreement explicitly stated that in case of breach by the seller, double the earnest money would be returned.
On the agreed date (11.05.2005), the petitioner appeared before the Sub-Registrar, but the respondents failed to perform their part.
The property was later sold to third parties.
The suit for Rs. 44,00,000 as liquidated damages was partly decreed to the extent of Rs. 22,00,000 by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court.
🧠 Court's Observations & Legal Reasoning
The petitioner established readiness and willingness through documents (Exh.P2 & P3).
The respondents failed to issue any cancellation notice, did not respond to legal notices, and instead sold the property elsewhere.
The agreement (Exh.P1) included a clear clause for double earnest money in case of breach.
Under Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, compensation can be awarded in substitution of specific performance.
The courts below misread the evidence and ignored the binding nature of the contractual clause.
đź“Ś Key Case Law Relied Upon
PLD 2024 SC 663 – Matloob Elahi Paracha v. Raja Arshad Mahmood
PLD 2014 SC 506 – Liaqat Ali Khan v. Falak Sher
PLD 1969 SC 80
2015 SCMR 21
1994 SCMR 2189
2024 CLC 1379
PLD 2021 Peshawar 29
2021 SCMR 1108
2021 SCMR 1270
⚖️ Findings / Decision
The Trial and Appellate Courts misappreciated the evidence and legal implications of the agreement.
The High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 44,00,000 as liquidated damages under the contractual clause.
If Rs. 22,00,000 has already been received, it will be adjusted.
Connected revision petition (C.R. No. 223599/2018) was dismissed.
âś… Conclusion
The High Court corrected material irregularities under Section 115 CPC, reaffirming that liquidated damages in contracts—when clearly stipulated—are legally enforceable and not contrary to public policy.


Writ Petitions No. 21790, 24063, and 24062 of 2025Title: Waqar Ahmad Khan & Others v. NAB & OthersDate of Judgment: 06.0...
01/07/2025

Writ Petitions No. 21790, 24063, and 24062 of 2025
Title: Waqar Ahmad Khan & Others v. NAB & Others
Date of Judgment: 06.05.2025
Bench: Full Bench, Lahore High Court
Reported Case: Not yet reported (Unreported Judgment)

đź“Ś Controversy / Legal Issue
Whether petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution, relating to NAB matters (other than final judgments), including bail and certiorari/mandamus, should be heard by a Single Bench or Division Bench of the High Court, particularly in light of amendments to the NAB Ordinance, 1999 and precedents by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

đź“š Facts
Three petitions were filed:

W.P. No. 21790/2025 & W.P. No. 24063/2025 by Waqar Ahmad Khan challenged NAB orders dated 07.04.2025, including a show cause notice for cancellation of his post-arrest bail.

W.P. No. 24062/2025 by Ms. Mehreen Haroon challenged the freezing of her bank accounts as being unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights.

These cases were initially listed before different benches (Division and Single). Owing to divergent views and the need for interpretation of important legal provisions, the matter was referred to a Full Bench for authoritative determination.

🧠 Court's Observations & Legal Reasoning
Section 32 of NAB Ordinance, 1999: Deals only with appeals and revisions against final judgments, to be heard by Division Benches.

Practice across Pakistan: Since 1999, all NAB matters including bail and constitutional petitions have traditionally been heard by Division Benches in all High Courts.

NAB Offences: Declared as serious crimes (PLD 2021 SC 756). Bail is not a matter of right, and only competent forums with senior judges are appropriate.

Supreme Court Precedent:

NAB v. Agha Siraj Durrani (PLD 2021 SC 756): SC held that due to the gravity of NAB offences, bail petitions should be heard by Division Benches.

Obiter dicta of SC is binding on all lower courts.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction:

Under amended NAB Ordinance and Civil Courts Ordinance, Rs. 500 million is the threshold for determining forum jurisdiction.

High Court Rules also support forum allocation based on subject matter sensitivity and pecuniary value.

Roster Authority:

The Chief Justice of the High Court has the power under Article 202 of the Constitution and High Court Rules to assign benches.

As per current roster orders, all NAB-related matters are to be heard by Division Benches.

⚖️ Findings / Decision
All constitutional petitions arising under NAB Ordinance, 1999 (whether for bail, certiorari, or mandamus) must be heard by a Division Bench, regardless of whether a final judgment exists or not.

Office of the Court directed to place all such cases before designated NAB Division Benches.

Petitions were accordingly referred for further proceedings before the concerned Division Bench.

🔍 Key Case Law Relied Upon
PLD 2021 SC 756 – NAB v. Agha Siraj Khan Durrani

High Court Rules & Orders – Part V, Chapter III

Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962

Article 202, Constitution of Pakistan

âś… Conclusion
The Full Bench settled the forum issue conclusively: all constitutional petitions, including bail and enforcement of fundamental rights under NAB law, shall be placed before the Division Bench in view of judicial discipline, the seriousness of offences, binding SC precedent, and High Court Rules.

Writ Petition No. 27842 of 2025Ex*****on of Eviction Order – Possession Dispute Between Third Party and Judgment-DebtorF...
30/06/2025

Writ Petition No. 27842 of 2025
Ex*****on of Eviction Order – Possession Dispute Between Third Party and Judgment-Debtor
Facts of the Case

Azam Ali (Respondent No. 2) filed proceedings before the Special Judge Rent, Lahore (the “Rent Controller”) claiming to be the tenant of Fayyaz Ahmad (Petitioner) in respect of shop No. 986-A, Tufail Road, Lahore Cantt.

He raised a grievance that in the ex*****on of an eviction order dated 02.02.2022, the bailiff handed over possession of shop No. 986-A to the landlord, although the actual eviction order pertained to shop No. 986 and was directed against Muhammad Sharif, not Azam Ali.
Azam Ali filed an objection petition under Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was allowed on 03.05.2025, directing restoration of possession of shop No. 986-A in his favor.

Controversy

* Whether the order of restoration of possession under Order XXI Rule 100, passed without framing issues or recording evidence, is legally sustainable.
Whether a separate suit is permissible under Order XXI Rule 101, after amendment.
Observation of the Court
The High Court noted:

The order was passed without holding proper inquiry, framing issues, or recording evidence.
Earlier legal position allowed an objector (not being the judgment-debtor) to file a separate suit under Rule 101. However, the amended position bars separate suits and mandates that all questions of title, right, interest, or possession must be adjudicated by the executing court.
The terminology used in Rule 101 — adjudicate upon” and “determined by the Court” — requires a full-fledged inquiry in ex*****on proceedings.
Restoration of possession is only permissible to bona fide claimants, as emphasized in Ibrahim v. Mst. Saeeda Bano (1984 MLD 1124) and Agha Mohammad v. Haji Maula Dad (PLD 1971 Quetta 10), both of which stress the need for due process to establish good faith claims.
Decision

The order and subsequent orders passed by the Rent Controller were set aside.
The matter was remanded to the Rent Controller with direction to:

Frame proper issues
Allow the parties to lead evidence and
Decide the matter on merits after proper adjudication as required under the law.






*****onProceedings








Case SummaryPetition under Article 199 of the ConstitutionSubject: Challenge to Penalty under Harassment LawsFacts of th...
28/06/2025

Case Summary

Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution
Subject: Challenge to Penalty under Harassment Laws
Facts of the Case

A complaint was filed under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (“the Act of 2010”) before the Ombudsperson. After the recording of evidence and cross-examination, a major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged this decision before the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the defendant approached the Punjab Government, which constituted an inquiry committee into the matter.

Legal Controversy

Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere in the decision of the Ombudsperson, in the absence of illegality, mala fide, or lack of jurisdiction.
Observation of the Court

The High Court **examined the statutory hierarchy under the Act of 2010. It observed that a complete statutory mechanism is provided within the law itself, which includes the President or Governor as the final appellate forums in representations against the decisions of the Ombudsperson.

The court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in (PLD 2024 SC 795), wherein it was held that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can only be invoked in exceptional cases, such as when an order is:
Coram non judice (without jurisdiction),
Passed with mala fide intention, or without lawful authority.
Decision
As no such exceptional circumstances were found in the present case, the High Court held that the constitutional petition is not maintainable. The order of the Ombudsperson attains finality, and therefore, the petition was dismissed.









In Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2017, the petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 48,00,000, during wh...
26/06/2025

In Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2017, the petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 48,00,000, during which the core legal controversy arose as to whether a witness, though present in court but not named in the witness list filed under the prescribed timeframe, can be lawfully examined. During the proceedings, although witnesses were present for examination, the trial court adjourned without recording their evidence. Upon resumption, the court accepted objections raised against the examination of such witnesses on the ground that their names were not included in the submitted witness list, and consequently disallowed their examination. The appellate court upheld this order, prompting the instant writ petition. The petitioner contended that the provisions of Order XVI Rule 1(2) CPC were incorrectly invoked, as they were not applicable to the present facts, and the impugned orders refusing to record evidence of witnesses physically present in court constituted a material illegality. The Court accepted the petition and set aside the impugned orders, directing the trial court to record the evidence of the said witnesses. The judgment relied upon 2020 SCMR 2155 (Amjad Khan v. Muhammad Irshad through LRs) and 1981 SCMR 150 (The Australasia Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Mangora Textile Industries Swat and others), affirming the principle that presence of witnesses in court justifies their examination notwithstanding procedural irregularities in listing, provided no mala fide is apparent.

In S.T.R. No. 05 of 2025, the applicant filed a reference under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, with a delay of 1...
25/06/2025

In S.T.R. No. 05 of 2025, the applicant filed a reference under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, with a delay of 16 days beyond the prescribed limitation period of 30 days from the communication of the order of the Appellate Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant failed to provide any substantial reason for the delay, merely asserting that the application was filed "within time." The Court observed that limitation provisions under fiscal statutes are mandatory in nature and cannot be relaxed without sufficient cause. Relying on the principle laid down in PLD 2020 SC 736, the Court held that procedural timelines under tax laws must be strictly followed, and in the absence of any plausible justification, dismissed the reference as time-barred.

The case of the employees who accepted Golden Handshake with their free will, is not at par with the other retired emplo...
24/06/2025

The case of the employees who accepted Golden Handshake with their free will, is not at par with the other retired employees and such employees are not entitled to any pensionary benefits as such the cases mentioned in Appendix-B are liable to be dismissed.

Address

Fan Road Lahore
Lahore
54000

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 09:00 - 18:00

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when M. M Law Associates posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category