Seven reportable judgments in the 4–6 August 2026 window — four from the Supreme Court, two from the Lahore High Court and one from the Sindh High Court (the Federal Constitutional Court and Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Nafees Ahmed v. Mst. Shaheen Begum — a landlord is the sole judge and master of his own requirement, free to choose which of his tenements best suits his personal bona fide need, and his unshaken sole testimony on oath, consistent with the ejectment application, suffices to establish it; disclosure of the building’s composition means an omission to enumerate other tenements is no material concealment. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the eviction order restored, with six months’ grace to the tenant.
• M/s Ghulam Siddiqe, Ghulam Habib & Co v. Government of NWFP — an unconditional No Demand Certificate acknowledging final payment is a conscious representation that nothing further is due, not a formality, and estops a contractor (under Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and the doctrines of election and approbate-and-reprobate) from reviving settled claims for idle charges and escalation through arbitration absent a recognised vitiating circumstance. Petition dismissed and leave refused.
• Director General, Federal Directorate of Education v. Ms. Sajida Anjum — where a Federal Service Tribunal judgment is signed but never pronounced, limitation for an Article 212(3) petition runs from the date of the Rule 21 dispatch letter communicating it, and Government departments enjoy no special privilege in limitation — routine administrative delay is no sufficient cause. Condonation applications dismissed and the petitions dismissed as time-barred.
• Ghulam Muhammad v. Mian Ahmed Bakhsh — the mere refusal of leave to appeal, even by a speaking order, does not (without substitution or reversal) alter the identity of the court competent under section 12(2) CPC or cause the High Court’s judgment to merge, so an application to recall that judgment lies before the High Court; paragraph 9(iv) of Sahabzadi Maharunnisa preserves only a limited discretion in the Supreme Court, not an exclusive forum. Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; the section 12(2) applications restored to the High Court.

Lahore High Court

• Tanveer v. The State — the applicability of Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 is contingent, not automatic: the prosecution must first link the accused to the occurrence by reliable evidence before a husband can be called upon to explain his wife’s unnatural death in the matrimonial home, and post-occurrence conduct alone cannot be a foundational fact. Appeal accepted and the appellant acquitted; the revision for enhancement dismissed as infructuous.
• Muhammad Usman v. The State — by force of section 27(2) of PECA 2016 customer data in a bank’s core banking system is “property” for criminal breach of trust under sections 405–409 PPC, and “banker” in section 409 bears a functional, not designational, meaning (the property must be that by which banking business is transacted and the employee entrusted with it by his banking function). Bail refused to the UBL supervisor (section 409 prima facie attracted) but granted to the franchise-linked co-accused, against whom no act of abetment was identified.

Sindh High Court

• Dost Ali v. The State — the testimony of a police officer is assessed on the same touchstone as any other witness where no animus is shown, and in Karo-Kari cases the absence of private witnesses cannot be held against the prosecution; promptitude in setting the criminal law in motion excludes deliberation and false implication. Both appeals dismissed, convictions and sentences maintained, and the death sentence confirmed on the murder reference.