Tag: Supreme Court

  • SC Rules Inheritance Right Does Not Lapse With Time

    SC Rules Inheritance Right Does Not Lapse With Time

    The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that an heir’s right to inheritance begins immediately upon the death of the property owner and does not lapse merely because time has passed, in a landmark judgment protecting legal heirs, particularly women, from losing their rightful share.

    A five-member larger bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed, held that the limitation period for an inheritance claim starts only when an heir learns of a clear and open denial of their ownership rights. “Time does not run against the heir, it runs against the heir’s knowledge of a wrong,” Justice Waheed wrote in the judgment, also signed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Aqeel Abbasi, Justice Shakeel Ahmed and Justice Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb.

    While the right itself never lapses, proceedings to enforce it remain subject to the Limitation Act, 1908. Under Article 120, an heir who learns their share is being denied and fails to approach a court for six years may lose the claim — but a missing name in a mutation record alone does not start the limitation period, the court held.

    The judgment noted that Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree the estate passes to legal heirs after funeral and burial expenses, outstanding debts and valid bequests are paid. It observed that delays in distributing inheritance particularly harm widows, daughters, minor children and orphans, and increase the risk of family disputes, fraud and unlawful deprivation of heirs.

    The court also listed common frauds involving inherited property, including forging thumb impressions, fabricating claims of oral gifts, excluding sisters’ names through affidavits, taking signatures or thumb impressions from women on documents they cannot read, and concealing an entire branch of a family to obtain a succession certificate.

    Invoking Article 187 of the Constitution, the court directed revenue authorities not to process inheritance mutations without a NADRA Family Registration Certificate or an equivalent document verifying all legal heirs. Written notices must go to every heir, including women, and if an heir is to receive less than their entitled share, their statement must be recorded. The heir’s personal appearance must be ensured in any gift, sale, relinquishment or settlement of inherited property, with identity verified and statement recorded, and a female revenue officer should be engaged wherever possible.

    Registration authorities, development authorities, cantonment boards and cooperative housing societies were told not to transfer inherited property without a succession certificate, letters of administration or a court decree, and to notify all legal heirs in writing. Settlement officers in newly surveyed areas, including the merged tribal districts, must enter all heirs’ names in land records and notify them, while trial courts were directed to decide limitation questions in inheritance claims promptly.

    The court recommended that legislatures and the Law and Justice Commission make registered documents mandatory for relinquishment or settlement of inheritance rights, add a separate Limitation Act provision for heirs’ claims, and set a final limitation period to protect bona fide purchasers. It also recommended amending Section 498-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, or adding a new provision, to make it an offence to deprive any heir, male or female, of inheritance through fraud or unlawful means, and legislation to ensure timely partition of property after inheritance mutations. Copies of the judgment were ordered to be sent to the Ministry of Law, provincial law secretaries, the Attorney General, provincial advocates general and the Advocate General of Islamabad.

  • CJP Yahya Afridi to Appoint Three Acting Supreme Court Judges

    CJP Yahya Afridi to Appoint Three Acting Supreme Court Judges

    Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi has decided to appoint three high court judges as acting judges of the Supreme Court to help clear the growing backlog of pending cases, Dunya News reported.

    According to sources in the Supreme Court cited by Dunya News, the judges proposed for the acting appointments are Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan and Justice Shahbaz Rizvi of the Lahore High Court, and Justice Ijaz Anwar of the Peshawar High Court.

    The move is aimed at easing the shortage of judges in the apex court and speeding up the disposal of cases. The Supreme Court has a sanctioned strength of 34 judges, but 16 seats are currently vacant following the retirement of Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. The shortage, the report said, has added to the caseload and made it harder to decide pending cases on time.

    A meeting of the Judicial Commission, chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, is expected to be held later this month to consider the proposed appointments. Further steps regarding the appointments are expected after that meeting.

    Dunya News also reported that the chief justice hosted a dinner for judges of the Peshawar High Court in connection with the matter. Judges posted at the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court were also invited, along with Justice Syed Shahbaz Rizvi, who heads the Multan Bench. Justice Mirza Waqas Rauf, Justice Raza Qureshi, Justice Syed Farhad Ali Shah and several other judges attended the dinner, according to the report.

    The appointments, if approved, would bring three experienced high court judges to the Supreme Court on an acting basis at a time when the court is working through a heavy pendency. Acting judges serve for a limited period and are drawn from the high courts to help the apex court manage its workload.

    The report is based on sources within the Supreme Court, and the appointments will only take effect after the Judicial Commission considers the proposal. The commission, which includes senior judges and representatives from the legal community, plays a central role in appointments to the superior judiciary, and its decision will determine whether the three names move forward.

  • One Facilitation Centre for Women in Every Province: CJP Afridi Approves Landmark Plan

    One Facilitation Centre for Women in Every Province: CJP Afridi Approves Landmark Plan

    Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Yahya Afridi has approved the establishment of women facilitation centres across the country, with one centre in each of the four provinces to be set up in the first phase.

    A meeting of the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, chaired by the chief justice, reviewed progress on establishing the centres and decided to begin with one in every province. The centres will provide women litigants with guidance and assistance in a safe, dignified and accessible environment.

    The meeting was attended by the Supreme Court Registrar, Law and Justice Commission Secretary Captain (retd) Mushtaq Ahmed, Balochistan High Court Registrar Nasir Khan, former chairperson of the Institute of Architects Pakistan Ruvayda Hameed, NESPAK General Manager Faisal Majeed, Waqar Sheikh and members of the relevant committees. Resident additional secretaries of the commission posted in the four provinces, along with the architects who secured the top three positions in the design competition, also joined the meeting via video link.

    Chief Justice Afridi highlighted reforms undertaken during 2025-26 to improve judicial facilities, saying courts and bar associations had been provided with uninterrupted electricity, e-libraries, internet connectivity and clean drinking water. He said projects to provide basic facilities at courts and bar associations across the country, including Islamabad, had been completed.

    He said establishing women facilitation centres in the four provinces and Islamabad during 2026-27 was a key priority. The centres will provide women with information, guidance and legal assistance under one roof. The one-window facility will reduce the need for women litigants to visit multiple offices and make repeated trips to courts.

    The centres will have reception areas, guidance desks, comfortable waiting rooms, clean washrooms, separate consultation rooms for women, and facilities for legal advice and assistance. Dedicated spaces will also be allocated for mediation and alternative dispute resolution.

    The project will also include psychological and social support for women in need, assistance in accessing relevant institutions, and accessible entrances, ramps and clear directional signs for women with disabilities. Suitable spaces will also be provided, where required, for meeting children and maintaining dignified contact with them.

    Chief Justice Afridi said the centres were being established to ensure women’s privacy, security, dignity and easier access to justice. They would help women understand judicial procedures and overcome practical difficulties in exercising their legal rights.

    He said a nationwide design competition had been organised in collaboration with the Institute of Architects Pakistan, and the three winning designs had been shared with all high courts so they could select suitable designs according to local requirements. The meeting was informed that consultations with the relevant high courts in all four provinces had been completed and locations for the first four centres had also been identified. The chief justice directed NESPAK to begin work on the project.

  • SC: Ombudsman Cannot Decide Complex Property Disputes

    SC: Ombudsman Cannot Decide Complex Property Disputes

    The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that the ombudsman does not have the authority to make final decisions in complex property disputes, declaring that contested matters involving ownership and inheritance must be resolved by civil courts.

    A two-member bench comprising Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Mohammad Shafi Siddiqui delivered the ruling in an eight-page judgment authored by Justice Malik. The court set aside the decisions of the ombudsman and the Peshawar High Court in a case concerning women’s property rights, and ordered that the disputed property matter be sent to the competent civil court.

    The case concerned about 39 kanals of land at Mandai Khas, Alam Gudder, near Dogra Hospital in Bara, District Khyber. The court held that under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2019, the ombudsman’s jurisdiction is strictly summary in nature and limited to the restoration of clear, undisputed ownership.

    Where a case involves complex questions of title, intricate legal issues or disputed facts that require detailed investigation and the recording of evidence, the court said, it falls outside the ombudsman’s summary domain. In such circumstances, Section 6 of the Act requires the ombudsman to refer the matter as a formal reference to the competent civil court, to be tried as a regular civil suit.

    The court observed that both the ombudsman and the Peshawar High Court had failed to apply this requirement properly, despite the presence of several complex disputes in the case. It outlined four main reasons why the matter was unfit for summary proceedings, including competing claims over the property and questions that could only be settled after evidence had been recorded.

    The Supreme Court directed that the ombudsman transfer all records, applications and reports to the court of Civil Judge-1 Bara, where a civil suit over the same land is already pending. The civil court will consolidate the reference under Section 6 of the Act with the pending suit and treat it as the petitioners’ formal claim, resolving the title dispute after recording regular evidence.

    The court also directed the civil court to issue notices to the parties to appear within 15 days and to dispose of the case within a reasonable period, without unnecessary delay.

    In its judgment, the court observed that the 2019 Act provides important legal protection for women, and that prompt and effective legal action is necessary against the unlawful deprivation of women’s property. But it stressed that the Act is an enforcement mechanism for established or easily determinable titles, not a forum for adjudicating complex, unproven property claims.

    The ruling clarifies the limits of the ombudsman’s powers in property cases and is expected to guide similar disputes, ensuring that contested ownership and inheritance matters are decided by civil courts after a full trial rather than through summary proceedings.

  • Supreme Court Sets 8 Rules for Cancelling Bail

    Supreme Court Sets 8 Rules for Cancelling Bail

    The Supreme Court has laid down eight principles for cancelling an accused person’s bail, ruling that bail may be revoked if the order granting it is prima facie illegal or unjust.

    According to the court’s judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, the eight grounds on which bail may be cancelled are: first, that the order granting bail is prima facie illegal or unjust; second, that the accused misuses the concession of bail; third, that the accused attempts to influence prosecution witnesses; fourth, that the accused tampers with evidence or obstructs the judicial process; fifth, that the accused is likely to abscond beyond the court’s jurisdiction; sixth, that the accused interferes with a fair investigation; seventh, that the accused misuses his freedom to commit another offence of a similar nature; and eighth, that fresh facts or evidence emerge during an investigation indicating the accused’s involvement in the offence.

    The ruling sets out a clear framework for trial courts and high courts when they are asked to cancel bail already granted. It makes clear that bail is a concession that can be withdrawn when the conditions on which it was granted are breached, or when new material comes to light that changes the basis on which it was allowed.

    The Supreme Court upheld the Sindh High Court’s decision in a case concerning a petition for cancellation of an accused person’s bail. It observed that a nine-month delay in registering the FIR and the accused’s alleged role required further investigation.

    According to the case record, the incident occurred on March 3, 2024, within the jurisdiction of Rahmatpur Police Station in Larkana. Noor Hussain died after an electricity wire broke while power was being supplied to shops through an illegally drawn connection from a disposal phase’s special line.

    On January 30, 2025, the Larkana sessions court rejected the pre-arrest bail application of accused Ali Asghar Khokhar. However, on October 20, 2025, the Sindh High Court’s Larkana circuit bench granted him bail, citing the nine-month delay in registration of the FIR and other grounds. The decision was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court also directed that a copy of the decision be sent to the WAPDA chairman for information. The court observed that WAPDA and the relevant utility company should examine the role of individuals involved in illegal electricity supply, power theft and private siphoning.

  • PTI Chief Raises Alarm Over Imran Khan’s Health

    PTI Chief Raises Alarm Over Imran Khan’s Health

    Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan has voiced serious concern over reports about the health of party founder Imran Khan, saying the news reaching the party is not encouraging.

    Speaking to the media in Islamabad on Friday, Gohar said the party had moved the Supreme Court with a petition seeking implementation of the court’s order of August 18. He said the party had asked the court to fix the matter for an early hearing so that it could be decided without further delay.

    Gohar said a meeting with Imran Khan had taken place and that Salman Safdar had returned after meeting the former prime minister. According to the PTI chairman, the party had received instructions concerning Imran Khan’s health, and he stressed that there should be no compromise on his medical well-being.

    The PTI chairman said the party wanted the Supreme Court’s August 18 decision to be implemented in full. He added that the party’s long march had come to an end and the provincial government had also gone, remarks he linked to his call for political tensions to be brought down.

    Gohar also called for an end to the arrest and detention of PTI leaders and workers and demanded the immediate release of Imran Khan’s sisters. He said political tensions in the country should not be allowed to rise further and that the situation must be brought to an end.

    The statement places the question of the former prime minister’s health at the centre of the party’s latest legal push. By asking for an early hearing, the PTI is seeking a court direction on the implementation of the August 18 order rather than leaving the matter to the ordinary course of litigation.

    Gohar’s emphasis on medical well-being underlines the party’s position that the health of its founder is a matter on which it will not accept delay. His remarks also carried a wider political message, calling for detentions to stop and for the release of Imran Khan’s sisters.

    The party chairman’s comments came as the PTI continues to press its case through the courts while urging a lowering of political temperature in the country. Whether the Supreme Court fixes the petition for an early hearing will now be watched closely by the party and its supporters.

  • Supreme Court upholds tax exemption for Bushra Aitzaz house

    Supreme Court upholds tax exemption for Bushra Aitzaz house

    The Supreme Court has upheld the tax exemption claimed by Bushra Aitzaz Ahsan, wife of Aitzaz Ahsan, for her residential property in Islamabad, dismissing the appeals filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue.

    A three-member bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim heard the case and upheld the Lahore High Court’s decision in her favour.

    The exemption was claimed under Section 48(1)(a) of the 1963 law, which grants tax exemption for one house owned by either husband or wife. The property in question is House F-6/3, Islamabad.

    The majority verdict was authored by Justice Aminuddin Khan and agreed with by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim. The majority held that the exemption applies to each spouse individually if both meet the conditions, and that the phrase either husband or wife does not mean only one spouse in a family can claim it.

    According to the majority view, the law does not restrict either spouse from claiming an exemption for separately owned properties, and does not forbid a wife from having her own house.

    Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui dissented, saying the law means only one spouse could claim the exemption, and that if the wife claimed it, the husband could not.

    Bushra Aitzaz Ahsan had claimed the exemption in 1996 for the Islamabad house, which was purchased in May 1996. Aitzaz Ahsan had already taken a tax exemption for his Lahore residence.

    The assessing officer rejected her claim on May 29, 2006, and raised a tax demand. The Commissioner Income Tax upheld that decision, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also upheld it.

    The Lahore High Court ruled in her favour on October 28, 2019, setting aside all three earlier decisions. The Commissioner Inland Revenue then filed appeals in the Supreme Court.

    With the Supreme Court now dismissing those appeals, the Lahore High Court’s ruling stands and the tax exemption for the Islamabad house remains in place.

    The ruling settles a long-running question about how the exemption provision should be read when a husband and wife each own a house in their own name.

    The majority’s reading means that a spouse who owns a separate house and meets the conditions of the law can claim the exemption independently, rather than the family being limited to a single claim.

    The dissenting view would have read the provision more narrowly, limiting the exemption to one spouse in a family.

    The case had travelled through the tax authorities and the courts for many years, from the original assessment in 2006 to the Lahore High Court’s decision in 2019 and now the Supreme Court’s verdict.

  • Supreme Court: receiver only if property faces imminent risk

    Supreme Court: receiver only if property faces imminent risk

    ISLAMABAD — The Supreme Court has laid down a clear rule for disputes over property: appointing a receiver is an extraordinary judicial step, and it can only happen when there is proof that the property faces an imminent risk of loss, damage or unlawful transfer.

    The court made it plain that a receiver cannot be appointed merely because one side asks for it. Whoever seeks it must show strong grounds and a compelling need for the court to step in at once, otherwise the measure becomes an unjustified interference with ownership rights.

    A two-member bench of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan set out the principles in a case about the dealership and inheritance shares of Kohinoor Petrol Pump in Hyderabad. The judgment was authored by Justice Mazhar.

    The court drew a line between two different remedies. A temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. A receiver demands more: stronger grounds and a pressing need for immediate intervention.

    The case history runs like this. The petitioners had sought a declaration and a permanent injunction over the petrol pump. The trial court dismissed their temporary-injunction application on 30 May 2025. On 5 August 2025, the appellate court ordered the pump’s seal to be reopened and restrained interference in the dealership for six months or until final disposal, on condition that the alleged 29.17 per cent share of Mrs Nisa Farhan Memon was deposited with the Nazir. Then, on 20 October 2025, the Sindh High Court set aside the appellate order and appointed the trial court’s Nazir as receiver of Kohinoor Petroleum Service, Hyderabad.

    The Supreme Court observed that the real question before the appellate court was only whether the trial court had rightly dismissed the injunction application. The High Court, it said, went beyond that question and appointed a receiver, even though the underlying dispute had not been properly examined and the two subordinate courts’ orders did not agree with each other.

    The court also held that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law or jurisdiction — not to rehearing a case or granting relief beyond what was asked for. The inheritance-shares dispute is already pending before the trial court and cannot be decided conclusively at an interim stage.

    A receiver, the court emphasised, should be appointed only when it is indispensable for preserving the disputed property.

  • ریسیور صرف فوری خطرے پر، سپریم کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ

    ریسیور صرف فوری خطرے پر، سپریم کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ

    اسلام آباد — سپریم کورٹ نے متنازع جائیدادوں کے مقدمات میں ایک اہم اصول طے کر دیا ہے: ریسیور مقرر کرنا عدالت کا غیر معمولی اقدام ہے، اور یہ صرف اس وقت ہوگا جب جائیداد کو نقصان، ضیاع یا غیر قانونی منتقلی کا فوری خطرہ ثابت ہو جائے۔

    عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ محض کسی فریق کی درخواست پر ریسیور مقرر نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ اس کے لیے ٹھوس بنیادیں اور فوری عدالتی مداخلت کی مجبوری دکھانا لازم ہے، ورنہ یہ اقدام جائیداد کے مالکانہ حقوق میں بلا جواز مداخلت بن جائے گا۔

    جسٹس محمد علی مظہر اور جسٹس عرفان سعادت خان پر مشتمل دو رکنی بینچ نے یہ اصول حیدرآباد کے کوہ نور پیٹرول پمپ کی ڈیلرشپ اور وراثتی حصوں کے مقدمے میں طے کیے۔ فیصلہ جسٹس محمد علی مظہر نے تحریر کیا۔

    عدالت نے عارضی حکم امتناعی اور ریسیور مقرر کرنے میں فرق بھی واضح کیا۔ حکم امتناعی کے لیے بادی النظر کیس، سہولت کا توازن اور ناقابل تلافی نقصان دکھانا کافی ہوتا ہے، لیکن ریسیور کے لیے اس سے زیادہ مضبوط جواز اور فوری مداخلت کی ٹھوس ضرورت درکار ہے۔

    مقدمے کی تاریخ کچھ یوں ہے: درخواست گزاروں نے پیٹرول پمپ کے بارے میں دعویٰ اور مستقل حکم امتناعی مانگا تھا۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے 30 مئی 2025 کو عارضی حکم امتناعی کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔ اپیلٹ کورٹ نے 5 اگست 2025 کو پمپ کی سیل کھولنے کا حکم دیا اور چھ ماہ یا حتمی فیصلے تک ڈیلرشپ میں مداخلت سے روک دیا، بشرطیکہ مسز نساء فرحان میمن کا مبینہ 29.17 فیصد حصہ ناظر کے پاس جمع کرایا جائے۔ پھر 20 اکتوبر 2025 کو سندھ ہائی کورٹ نے اپیلٹ حکم کالعدم کر کے ٹرائل کورٹ کے ناظر کو کوہ نور پیٹرولیم سروس حیدرآباد کا ریسیور مقرر کر دیا۔

    سپریم کورٹ نے کہا کہ اپیلٹ کورٹ کے سامنے اصل سوال صرف یہ تھا کہ ٹرائل کورٹ نے حکم امتناعی کی درخواست درست طور پر مسترد کی یا نہیں، لیکن ہائی کورٹ اس دائرے سے آگے بڑھ گئی اور ریسیور مقرر کر دیا، جب کہ بنیادی تنازع کا ابھی ٹھیک سے جائزہ ہی نہیں لیا گیا تھا اور دونوں ماتحت عدالتوں کے احکامات میں تضاد بھی تھا۔

    عدالت نے یہ بھی کہا کہ ضابطہ دیوانی کی دفعہ 115 کے تحت ہائی کورٹ کا نظریاتی اختیار صرف قانونی یا دائرہ اختیار کی غلطی درست کرنے تک محدود ہے، مقدمے کی دوبارہ سماعت یا مانگی گئی داد سے زیادہ ریلیف دینے تک نہیں۔ وراثتی حصوں کا تنازع ٹرائل کورٹ میں پہلے سے زیر التوا ہے، اس لیے عبوری مرحلے پر اس کا حتمی فیصلہ نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔

    آخر میں عدالت نے زور دیا کہ ریسیور صرف اس وقت مقرر کیا جائے جب متنازع جائیداد کے تحفظ کے لیے یہ ناگزیر ہو، ورنہ نہیں۔