Nine reportable judgments in the 23–24 and 27 June 2026 window — two from the Supreme Court and seven from the Lahore High Court (the Federal Constitutional Court, Islamabad High Court and Sindh High Court returned no in-window entries; 25–26 June were national holidays).

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Faheemuddin Memon v. Province of Sindh — drawing a categorical distinction between supersession (a merit-based bypass that forfeits seniority) and deferment (an administrative pause that preserves it), Rule 13-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation & Seniority) Rules 1975 protects the inter se seniority of an officer not promoted on his turn for reasons other than unfitness, such as pending disciplinary proceedings. Petitions converted into appeals and partly allowed; the inter se seniority of promotees versus direct recruits remanded to the Secretary, Revenue Department for limited re-examination.
• Sherzali v. Saad Ullah Khan — a pre-emptor must specifically plead the date, place and time of Talb-e-Muwathibat under section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act 1987; the omission is fatal and cannot be cured by evidence, and where the first Talb is not proved the suit collapses. Appeal allowed; the High Court and appellate judgments set aside and the trial court’s dismissal restored.

Lahore High Court

• M/s ECOM Agroindustrial Corp Ltd v. Ghazi Fabrics International Ltd — under Article II(2) of the New York Convention an “agreement in writing” includes an arbitration clause acknowledged through an exchange of emails, so a signed contract is not a precondition; objections to the arbitration agreement must be raised before the tribunal, and Pakistan’s Apostille Convention and Apostille Act 2024 reduce authentication of a foreign award to a single formality. Foreign arbitral award recognised and enforced as a decree.
• Ghulam Fareed v. The State — DNA evidence is corroborative, not substantive, and a conviction cannot rest on it alone (Article 13); a jactitation-of-marriage decree does not bind the criminal court on the question of consent under section 375 PPC; and a rape prosecution cannot be converted into one for fornication. Appeal allowed; conviction set aside and the appellant acquitted.
• M/s Cleanol Services v. Province of the Punjab — a bidder’s affidavit undertaking to bear statutory deductions (PESSI, EOBI and taxes) from its originally quoted price is a permissible clarification under Rule 33(2) of the Punjab Procurement Rules 2014, not an alteration, and a procuring agency’s arithmetic error on re-verification cannot render the bid non-responsive. Petition allowed; the PPRA order set aside and the petitioner reinstated as the lowest evaluated bidder.
• Yasmin Saigol v. Taimur Saigol — under the Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009 an oral tenancy must be independently and specifically pleaded and proved, and an incidental finding in a collateral benami suit cannot substitute for it; once the landlord-tenant relationship is negated the Rent Tribunal’s proceedings are coram non judice. Petition allowed; the ejectment petition dismissed.
• Muhammad Mehboob v. Government of Punjab — the Supreme Court’s ruling in Muhammad Jalal striking down Beneficial Rules/Assistance Packages operates prospectively, so a right to appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Rules 1974 that accrued on a parent’s medical retirement before the repeal survives. Petition allowed; the cancellation order set aside and the petitioner reinstated in service.
• NADRA v. Khalid Khan — citizenship and CNIC disputes fall within the self-contained codes of the NADRA Ordinance 2000 and the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951, which oust civil-court jurisdiction by necessary implication, and a person placed in the “alien” category must satisfy the pre-1979 evidentiary yardstick of Rule 20(3) of the NADRA Rules 2002. Civil revision allowed; the decrees set aside, the respondents directed to the NADRA Verification Board, and ten practice directions issued to the district judiciary.
• Mst. Azka Afreen v. Hafiz Umar Yaseen — where the Nikahnama leaves the mode of payment unspecified the entire dower is presumed prompt and payable on demand under section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, and non-consummation does not extinguish it; on dissolution by khula the wife surrenders up to 25% of admitted prompt dower under section 10(5) of the Family Courts Act 1964. Petition allowed; marriage dissolved on khula subject to surrender of 25% of the prompt dower.