Indus Law Company

19/12/2025

Punjab Protection of Ownership of Immoveable Property Ordinance, 2025.
ڈی آر سی کو قبضہ واپس کرانے کا کوئی قانونی اختیار حاصل نہ ہے۔

The Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) is a pre-adjudicatory, fact-finding and facilitative body and has no jurisdiction to order eviction, dispossession, or restoration of possession.
Coercive or executory (naeem)measures affecting possession can only be undertaken by the Tribunal under Sections 16 and 17 of the Ordinance.
Preventive powers under Section 9 are limited, temporary, and must be exercised through written, reasoned orders after hearing the parties.
While exercising powers under Section 9, the DRC(naeem) must strictly adhere to any subsisting status-quo order of a competent court, and shall not pass any preventive order in conflict therewith.

Any oral or coercive direction by the DRC or its members is without lawful authority and violative of due process of law.

WP.15267-25
GHULAM GILLANI AFTAB VS
GOP ETC
Mr. Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad
18-12-2025
2025 LHC 7739

17/12/2025

09/10/2025

26/08/2025

اسلام وعلیکم!
افغان مہاجرین کی وطن واپسی کا آغاز ہو چکا ہے۔ جو افغانی پاکستان میں ملازمت یا کاروبار کرنے کی خواہش رکھتے ہیں ان کےلیے پاکستان کے قانون کے تحت شاندار مواقع موجود ہیں۔ مزید رہنمائی کےلیے رابطہ کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
اقبال ایاز لاء ایسوسی ایٹس
ضلع کچہری میانوالی
03006088890

08/08/2025

مقدمہ سے بڑی ہونے پر کریکٹر سرٹیفیکیٹ مقدمہ کا ذکر نہ کیا جائے۔
(مزید معلومات کےلیے رابطہ کر سکتے ہیں)

26/07/2025

Quantum and continuity of maintenance for a child following the dissolution of marriage between the parents.

Under the Islamic jurisprudence1, as well as the settled case law in Pakistan, the father bears a solemn and continuous obligation to provide maintenance for his offspring. This duty, grounded not merely in financial capacity but in the principle of nasab (lineage), persists until the son attains the age of puberty, and in the case of a daughter, until her marriage. Where a son, upon reaching majority, is found to be incapacitated or otherwise unable to earn due to physical or mental limitations, the father remains bound to maintain him. It must be stressed that the obligation to maintain a child is distinct and independent from the obligation to maintain a wife. The latter ceases upon the termination of the marital bond, whereas the former survives the marriage itself and is directly tied to the immutable bond of paternity. However, it has been observed that in certain cases, fathers, upon the dissolution of marriage or after losing custody, become hesitant to discharge their obligation of maintenance, viewing it as contingent upon matrimonial cohabitation or custodial rights. Such a perception is legally flawed and ethically untenable in light of Islamic principles, as the father’s obligation is not lessened by the child being in the hizanat (custody) of the mother.

The determination of the appropriate quantum of maintenance involves two principal considerations:

(i) the nature and extent of the child’s reasonable requirements and

(ii) the father’s financial means.

Maintenance traditionally includes food, raiment, and lodging. However, this list is not exhaustive. Given evolving societal standards and the overarching principle of welfare of the minor, the term must be interpreted broadly to encompass all reasonable expenses necessary for the physical, mental, and emotional development of the child. This includes, interalia, educational costs, healthcare, and other needs consistent with the natural growth and comfort of the minor. The amount awarded should reflect the family's social status, ensuring that the child is not deprived of opportunities for development and well-being solely due to the dissolution of the marriage. The second consideration pertains to the father’s financial capacity to maintain the child. Under Islamic principles, the obligation of maintenance is generally subject to certain conditions. Firstly, the child must be in need. If the child possesses independent means sufficient for his/her own support, the duty of the father to provide maintenance does not arise. Secondly, the child must be unable to earn due to minority or incapacity. Thirdly, the father must possess the means to provide such maintenance. While most Islamic schools of thought agree that the father's financial ability is a necessary precondition, the Hanafi school maintains a distinct view holding that, in the case of children, the obligation to maintain arises irrespective of actual wealth, provided the father has the (naeem)capacity to earn. Therefore, the mere fact that the father is not working, in the absence of any serious mental or physical challenges, cannot be admitted as a valid justification for his failure to discharge the obligation of maintenance towards his children. In circumstances where the father lacks the means to provide maintenance and is incapable of earning due to genuine limitations, the duty to maintain the children may devolve upon the mother if she is in a position of financial ease. If neither parent possesses sufficient means, the obligation may extend to the paternal grandfather, subject to his financial ability to provide support to the children.

C.P.L.A.5009/2024
Muhammad Imran Baqir v. Mst. Zarnain Arzoo and others
Mr. Justice Shakeel Ahmad
10-07-2025

25/07/2025

Judgments on various topics

24/07/2025

There is a distinction between quashment of criminal proceedings and the quashment of FIR, and the High Court has rightly observed the same in the impugned judgement. Section 561-A Cr.P.C confers powers upon the High Court to make orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise secure the ends of justice. The (naeem)power given under this provision can be exercised by the High Court with regard to judicial or court proceedings. Thus, the High Court can quash criminal proceedings by exercising the inherent powers under section 561-A Cr.P.C, but cannot quash proceedings of the police department, such as registration of FIR or investigation.

It has been a consistent view of this Court that the High Court should not exercise the wide powers conferred by section 561-A Cr.P.C. as a matter of routine and in a mechanical manner. Ordinarily, such jurisdiction ought to be exercised only after the remedy available under sections 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C. has been exhausted before the trial court. It is (naeem)only in exceptional circumstances, where the interest of justice so demands, that the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. without waiting for the trial court to pass orders under sections 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C.

Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 confers powers on High Court to judicially review the acts done or proceedings taken by the persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority. Where such acts or proceedings are found to be without lawful authority, the High Court is fully competent to declare them(naeem) as such and of no legal effect. The registration of FIR and investigation are the acts of the police department which is part of the provincial law enforcement apparatus. Therefore, the High Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, possesses the

C.P.L.A.1575/2024
Ayesha Tayyab v. Station House Officer
2025 SCMR 1117

11/04/2025

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
27-03-2025

25/03/2025

دفعہ 12 ذیلی دفعہ (2) ضابطہ دیوانی (CPC) کے آغاز میں اس قانون کا حصہ نہیں تھی، بلکہ اسے آرڈیننس نمبر X سنہ 1980 کے ذریعے شامل کیا گیا تاکہ کسی متاثرہ شخص کو یہ قانونی سہولت فراہم کی جا سکے کہ وہ کسی فیصلے، ڈگری یا حکم کو، جو دھوکہ دہی (fraud)، غلط بیانی (misrepresentation) یا دائرہ اختیار کی کمی (lack of jurisdiction) کی بنیاد پر حاصل کیا گیا ہو، اسی عدالت کے روبرو چیلنج کر سکے جس نے وہ حتمی فیصلہ، ڈگری یا حکم جاری کیا ہو۔

اس ذیلی دفعہ کے نفاذ کا بنیادی مقصد یہ تھا کہ عدالت کو اپنے صادر کردہ ایسے فیصلے، ڈگری یا حکم کو کالعدم قرار دینے کا اختیار حاصل ہو، جو جعلسازی، فریب دہی یا صریح قانونی خامی کے باعث، دائرہ اختیار نہ ہونے کے باوجود، جاری ہوا ہو۔ اس نوعیت کی درخواست کے فیصلے کے لیے کوئی مخصوص طریقہ کار قانون میں متعین نہیں کیا گیا، اور نہ ہی اس کے فیصلے کے خلاف کسی علیحدہ قانونی چارہ جوئی کی وضاحت موجود ہے، تاہم دفعہ 141 CPC کے تحت جو طریق کار مقدمات کے لیے وضع کیا گیا ہے، وہی ان درخواستوں پر بھی لاگو ہوگا۔

چنانچہ عدالت کے پاس مکمل اختیار ہے کہ وہ مقدمے کے مخصوص حالات و نوعیت کو مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے، ایسی درخواست کو ابتدائی سماعت میں نمٹا دے یا ضروری نکات (issues) مرتب کر کے مفصل سماعت کے بعد فیصلہ صادر کرے۔ دوسرے الفاظ میں، دفعہ 12(2) CPC عدالت کو اس امر کا اختیار دیتی ہے کہ وہ اپنے ہی جاری کردہ فیصلے، ڈگری یا حکم کا جائزہ لے اور اگر وہ جعلسازی، غلط بیانی یا دائرہ اختیار کی عدم موجودگی پر مبنی ہو تو عدالت اسے ازخود کالعدم قرار دے سکتی ہے۔

اس امر میں کوئی اختلاف نہیں کہ اصولاً عدالتِ عالیہ آئینی دائرہ اختیار کے تحت ماتحت عدالتوں کے متفقہ فیصلوں میں مداخلت سے گریز کرتی ہے، لیکن یہ اصول قطعی اور غیر متزلزل نہیں۔ آئینی دائرہ اختیار کی حامل عدالت محض اس بنا پر کہ ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلے متفقہ ہیں، آنکھیں بند کر کے ان کی توثیق نہیں کر سکتی۔ اگر یہ متفقہ فیصلے صریح قانونی خلاف ورزیوں پر مبنی ہوں، تو عدالت کو آئینی اختیار حاصل ہے کہ وہ انہیں کالعدم قرار دے، کیونکہ عدالت انصاف کی علمبردار ہے اور کسی غیر قانونی فیصلے کو محض اس اصول کی آڑ میں برقرار رکھنا اس کے منصب کے خلاف ہے۔

مقدمہ: رٹ درخواست نمبر 3639/19
عنوان: ممتاز احمد بنام امجد نیاز عباسی و دیگر
مورخہ: 10-03-2025
2025 LHC 1046

20/03/2025

What is "Reasonable doubt".

The settled principle of law is that “accused is the favorite child of law’’, therefore the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused commonly and frequently, but we must not forget that it is based upon some "Reasonable doubt", and not on the whims of a judge. I take the prerogative in defining the term "Reasonable doubt", when the law requires it to become the basis for advancing the benefit of doubt, it means having regard to the circumstances of the case which (naeem)includes following points:-

 It may be entertained by persons of common prudence,
 The doubt must be genuine and inherent in present circumstances
 It must not be artificial, imaginary or exaggerated in nature.
 The doubt must not belong to a weak and vacillating mind, nor to a person inclined to be over-suspicious or unduly to magnify his doubt.

The doctrinal principles applied in west cannot stricto sensu be applied in Pakistan for multiple reasons which I shall discuss hereafter, a prime example is the “Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus” principle which is that witness who lies about (naeem)any fact must be disbelieved as to all other facts, considering the social circumstance of the subcontinent, the rule’s application has been modified by this court in the Khizar Hayat Case to the extent that the contradiction must be regarding “material facts” only. However, the application of “Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus” does not render the principle of “to sift the grain out of the chaff” redundant, since the judge now still has to sift the grain out of chaff, whilst he differentiates between the materiality of the facts in appraisal of evidence. This court has held numerous times, that the primary duty of the judge is to sift the grain out of the shaft.

This court has already expressed its views numerous times in regards to the evidential value of the witnesses with minor discrepancies, it has held that minor discrepancies being trivial in nature or those which do not go deep to the roots of a criminal case are immaterial discrepancies, which are natural and if such minor contradictions having no significance are given importance, then there would hardly be any conviction, so such cannot be made the sole ground for acquittal, such is based upon plethora of judgments of this court.

Crl.A.229/2021 Sher
Afzal v. The State Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
18-03-2025

19/03/2025

منشیات مقدمات کا ٹرائل کرنے والے وکلا کیلئے سپریم کورٹ کا تازہ ترین رہنما فیصلہ
منشیات مقدمات میں مال مقدمہ کی محفوظ تحویل اور ترسیل کا دستاویزی ثبوت پیش کیا جانا ضروری ہے ۔محرر یا انچارج مالخانہ کا محض زبانی بیان متعلقہ رجسٹرز/ روڈ سرٹیفکیٹس پیش کیے بغیر قابل ادخال شہادت نہ ہے
No documentary evidence whatsoever has been brought on record by the prosecution to establish safe custody and transmission.

Neither entry of Register No. XIX was tendered in evidence nor Road Certificate as contemplated by rule 22.70, Form 22.70 and Rule 22.72, Form 10.17 of Police Rules, 1934. So, this sole contour of the case creates dent in the case of the prosecution.

The Police Rules mandate that case property be kept in the Malkhana and that the entry of the same be recorded in Register No. XIX of the said police station. It is the duty of the police and prosecution to (naeem)establish that the case property was kept in safe custody, and if it was required to be sent to any laboratory for analysis, to further establish its safe transmission and that the same was also recorded in the relevant register, including the road certificate, etc. The procedure in the Police Rules ensures that the case property, when it is produced before the court, remains in safe custody and is not hampered with until that time. A complete mechanism is provided in the Police Rules qua safe custody (naeem)and safe transmission of the case property to concerned laboratory and then to the Trial Court.

Under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ("the Order") it can be presumed that the prosecution did not produce Register No. XIX because the in-charge of the store room had not entered the receipt of parcels in the said register. Under Article 102 of the Order, in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of such matter except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in (naeem)which secondary evidence is admissible under Article 76. Therefore, oral testimony of PW-3 with regard to the safe custody of parcels was not admissible under Article 102 of the Order. Hence prosecution failed to prove safe custody of the parcels beyond shadow of doubt.

It is a case of prior information that too in the court timings but the seizing officer neither tried to obtain search warrants as required by section 20 of the Act of 1997 nor he has offered any reason/justification for his non-compliance of the command of section 20. Similarly, the prior information was never recorded in Register No. II (naeem)as contemplated by rule 22.49 of the Police Rules.

Before parting with the judgement in hand, we have painfully observed in a number of cases that the legislation had introduced the Act of 1997 to curb the menace of drug abuse, prohibit possession of narcotic substances and rehabilitate victims of drug abuse, however, the Anti-Narcotics Force and Police Authorities have failed to adhere to the provisions of the Act of 1997. The law enforcing and investigating agencies are only dealing with the peddlers and if investigation is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1997, it would bring to justice the whole chain i.e., cultivator/manufacturer, peddler, seller and drug abuser, and would serve as deterrent factor in the society. (naeem)The manner in which narcotics cases are being investigated favours the real culprits and only drug peddlers are caught and sent to jail. Nobody dares to investigate the giants who derive profits out of such illicit drug/narcotic deals. Their assets are never investigated. We are afraid that the two ends i.e., drug dealer, cultivator, manufacturer and the drug/narcotic abusers are never held accountable. This would never have been the intention of the legislature while enacting the Act of 1997. The law enforcing agencies,particularly the Anti-Narcotics Force, has failed to adhere to the provisions of the Act of 1997 as well as the SOPs adopted by the force for investigation of criminal cases, which are very comprehensive and cover every aspect of a criminal case registered under the Act of 1997. In most of the cases, the provisions of the Act of 1997, the (naeem)rules made thereunder and the SOPs adopted by the force, to the extent of tracing assets and discovering the complete chain of culprits, have not been complied with. As a result of such incomplete investigation, the society will face the menace of narcotics/drugs abuse forever. If the State prefers to penalize citizens for possessing fruit of the forbidden tree and opts not to cut that forbidden tree and holding its beneficiaries accountable, the outcome would be absurd. Similarly, not investigating the main culprits/sources of narcotic substances in a criminal case would grant them a license to violate the Act of 1997 and cause irreparable damage to the society.

When a criminal case is registered on the allegation of possession of narcotic substances, the accused is arrested at the spot. Then the line of investigation (without prejudice to the Act of 1997 and the rules made thereunder) should be:

(1) to investigate from whom the recovered narcotic substance was received/purchased by the accused;

(ii) to whom the delivery of narcotic substance was intended;

(iii) to investigate the purpose/ultimate utilization for the recovered narcotic substance;

iv) to trace the drug abusers (for their rehabilitation);

(v) who are deriving financial benefits and the use/purpose of the delivered finance/assets;

(vi) who are the persons engaged in the business in contravention of the Act of 1997 (starting from cultivator/manufacturer to the end abuser); and

(vii) which are the assets so derived by persons engaged in dealing with narcotics.

The Act of 1997 provides for a comprehensive mechanism to deal with all matters so as to curb the menace of drug abuse, which in fact is a great threat to the society and (naeem)adversely affecting the citizens. It is mandatory for the investigating agencies to conduct investigation on true lines in accordance with the spirit of the Act of 1997.

Crl.P.L.A.1187/2021 Jeehand v. The State through Prosecutor General Balochistan Mr. Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar 14-03-2025