Ten reportable judgments in the 20 and 22–23 June 2026 window — five from the Supreme Court and five from the Lahore High Court (the Federal Constitutional Court, Islamabad High Court and Sindh High Court returned no in-window entries).

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Province of Sindh v. Abdul Sattar Khokhar — under the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation & Seniority) Rules 1975, inter se seniority within a combined seniority list is governed by the proviso to Rule 11(a) — earlier selection ranks senior — by reference to the date of the SPSC’s recommendation; and the Provincial Government, being no aggrieved person, lacks locus under Article 212 to challenge a Tribunal’s seniority adjustment where no affected civil servant has appealed. Civil petitions dismissed.
• Amjad Javed v. Maqsood Ahmad — where an agreement to sell stipulates forfeiture and enforcement through court for non-payment by a fixed date, time is of the essence, and continuous readiness and willingness — including compliance with trial-court deposit orders — is a condition precedent to specific performance. Both appeals dismissed.
• Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Muhammad — a court exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115 CPC cannot, through the doctrine of moulding of relief under Order VII Rule 7 CPC, convert a declaratory suit into one for specific performance or grant relief outside the pleadings. Appeal allowed; the appellate court and High Court judgments set aside and the trial court’s judgment restored.
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. v. Sher Muhammad — after section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 was struck down, an auction without a registered conveyance or delivery of possession conferred no title (a mutation being merely fiscal), but a bona fide auction purchaser is entitled in equity to restitution of his deposit with mark-up at the prevailing banking rate. Bank’s appeal dismissed; the auction purchaser’s appeal partly allowed.
• Ghulam Habib v. Mst. Shazia — gold ornaments gifted to a bride for her exclusive use are her “personal property and belongings of a wife” under the Schedule to the Family Courts Act 1964 and fall within the Family Court’s exclusive jurisdiction, recoverable against the husband and in-laws jointly. Petition dismissed and leave declined.

Lahore High Court

• Muhammad Azam (Legal Heirs) v. Board of Revenue Punjab — an order passed by the Board of Revenue on remand that fails to address the specific points referred by the High Court is in contravention of the reference and unsustainable in law. Petition allowed; impugned order set aside and the matter remanded again, with the Mangla Dam oustees protected from dispossession pending decision.
• Rana Tasneem Ejaz v. Sadia Abbas — an annual-enhancement clause in a family-court maintenance decree attaches only to future maintenance, not to crystallised past-maintenance arrears, and an Executing Court cannot enlarge an adjudicated liability beyond the decree’s terms. Petition allowed; the impugned computation orders declared illegal.
• Shan Ali alias Zeeshan v. The State — post-arrest bail refused to a teacher accused of sodomising a minor student, where forensically-authenticated video, corroborating Section 161 CrPC statements and a prior FIR (recovery of 769 pornographic clips) placed the case within the prohibitory clause of section 497 CrPC; province-wide systemic directions issued for child-safety safeguards in schools.
• Malik Muhammad Noor Khan v. Riaz Bhatti — under nemo dat quod non habet a mere agreement to sell creates no title, so a derivative claim for specific performance collapses once the foundational agreement — an attested document not proved under Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 — fails. Civil revision dismissed.
• Farhana Bibi v. Judge Family Court — the bar in section 14(2) of the Family Courts Act 1964 prevents the husband, but not the wife, from appealing a dissolution decree, so a wife may challenge the basis or conditions of the decree (for example, Khula versus cruelty). Constitution petition disposed of as premature, the petitioner being directed to the appellate court.