Eight reportable judgments in the 31 July – 3 August 2026 window (with a 30 July Federal Constitutional Court straggler) — one from the Federal Constitutional Court, five from the Supreme Court, one from the Lahore High Court and one from the Sindh High Court (the Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• Muhammad Akram v. National Bank of Pakistan — pensionary benefits are a vested, enforceable, legal and fundamental right that cannot be withheld save under an order of a competent court, so that unexplained delay in their release may amount to contempt, and no writ lies against the dismissal of a time-barred review, a litigant not being permitted to reopen an order that has attained finality by doing indirectly what he cannot do directly. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the High Court order set aside and the Labour Court judgment held to have attained finality.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Nisar Ahmed — section 5 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act 2012 bars “back benefits” (retroactive wages, subject to the gainful-employment exception and “no work, no pay”) but does not extinguish pre-sacking service for computing qualifying service for pension, pension being a separate vested retirement right; the Act being remedial, there is no justification to scrap that service. Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; the Service Tribunal judgment set aside with a declaration that pre-sacking service counts for pension eligibility.
• Haji Painda Khan v. Mst. Gul Indana Bibi — family pension is not part of the deceased’s tirka devolving by inheritance but a statutory entitlement of the widow and designated dependents that arises only on death and is payable under the governing pension rules, and a succession certificate cannot override or enlarge it, so collateral relatives acquire no right in it merely as heirs. Appeal and petition dismissed and leave declined; the widow’s entitlement upheld.
• Dr. Waqar Hameed v. The State — entrustment of property is the sine qua non of an offence under section 409 PPC, a conviction cannot rest on conjecture where disputed signatures were never sent for forensic comparison, and incriminating material not put to the accused under section 342 CrPC cannot sustain a conviction — defects that, together with the acquittal of the co-accused on identical evidence, are errors apparent on the record justifying review under Article 188. Criminal review allowed; the convictions set aside and the petitioner acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.
• Muhammad Ashraf v. Akber Ali — a consent order recorded on the statement of a duly engaged advocate cannot be undone under section 12(2) CPC on a bald plea of fraud, which must be pleaded and proved with particulars, and a litigant who has taken the benefit of the order (here, the grace period to vacate) is estopped from repudiating it. Leave declined and petition dismissed; the petitioner directed to hand over vacant possession within one month.
• Mst. Shaheen Nawaz v. Raheel Khan — the quantum of maintenance concurrently fixed on a realistic assessment of the father’s earning capacity, socio-economic circumstances and the minor’s needs (allowing for his obligations to children of another marriage) is a finding of fact, and interference under Article 185(3) is warranted only on a showing of perversity, manifest arbitrariness or gross inadequacy. Leave refused and petition dismissed; the High Court’s maintenance award of Rs.30,000 per month maintained.

Lahore High Court

• Mst. Balqees Begum v. Additional District Judge, Multan — a third-party objection petition in execution cannot be used as a device to shelter a tenant’s possession under an ejectment order that has attained finality, since a tenant is estopped by Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 from disputing his landlord’s title without first surrendering possession, and what the tenant cannot claim cannot be claimed on his behalf by a third party; a genuinely dispossessed stranger’s remedy lies under section 144 CPC. Writ petition dismissed; the concurrent orders rejecting the objection sustained.

Sindh High Court

• Peer Bux v. Dhani Bux — execution proceedings arising from a decree that has attained finality cannot be stayed through collateral proceedings or an indirect challenge mounted in a later suit, an executing court being bound to execute the decree, and a point never urged before the forum below cannot be raised for the first time in revision. Revision application dismissed as an afterthought and a collateral attack, with costs of Rs.20,000 payable to the High Court Clinic.