Eight reportable judgments in the 28–30 July 2026 window — five 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

• Sultan Ahmad v. Muhammad Azam — pre-emption is a weak right that restricts alienation and its statute is strictly construed, so where the mutation records an exchange (badal) the burden lies on the pre-emptor to prove the transaction was in substance a sale, and failure to produce the postman who allegedly served the Talb-i-Ishhad notice, together with non-disclosure of the source of knowledge of the sale consideration, is fatal. Appeals allowed; the High Court and appellate decrees set aside and the trial court’s dismissal of the pre-emption suit restored.
• Policy Board Medical Teaching Institutes, KP v. Dr. Yasir Rehman Khattak — a statutory appellate tribunal of confined jurisdiction has no suo motu power, must decide within the pleadings, and cannot condemn non-parties unheard, so the KP MTI Appellate Tribunal acted wholly beyond jurisdiction in striking down the amended promotion rules and ordering reversion of all promotions since 2015 without notice. Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; the Tribunal’s judgment set aside, with liberty to the two doctors to apply afresh for promotion.
• Muhammad Nasir Hussain v. The State — the absence of long-standing enmity, a motive judicially disbelieved and a sudden quarrel (the deceased first abused and seized by the accused’s mother, the houses being adjacent) reduce qatl-i-amd from section 302(b) to section 302(c) PPC, a loss of self-control on grave and sudden provocation. Jail petition converted into appeal and partly allowed; the conviction altered to section 302(c) PPC with fourteen years’ rigorous imprisonment.
• Muhammad Jahangir v. Haji Muhammad Ashraf — limitation is a rule of substantive public policy rather than mere procedure, a litigant guilty of persistent negligence cannot invoke equitable jurisdiction, and a leave-granting order is no more than an indication that the record warrants scrutiny. Appeal dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.200,000 for protracting summary rent proceedings for nearly three decades; the concurrent orders affirmed.
• Nisar Ahmed Afzal v. Irfan Qadir — rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) tests only whether a cause of action is disclosed on the pleadings, taken as true, and must not be converted into a premature adjudication on the merits, disclosure being distinct from proof; the majority found averments of non-payment, a false recital and dishonest refusal to furnish a triable claim of fraud. Petition converted into appeal and allowed by majority (Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui J. dissenting); the plaint restored for trial.

Lahore High Court

• Muhammad Waseem Tahir v. Additional District Judge, Sahiwal — under the Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009 the ten-day period for leave to contest runs from the date of hearing fixed in the statutory notice, not from the date of service, and a Rent Tribunal cannot curtail statutory limitation by an administrative order or by proceeding ex parte before the period expires; non-speaking orders offend Article 10-A. Petition disposed of; the impugned orders set aside and the matter remitted to the Rent Tribunal.
• Hammad Ali v. The State — USDT is a virtual asset and not “currency” or “foreign exchange” under FERA, the State Bank’s 2018 circular was regulatory and created no penal offence against private individuals, and the Virtual Assets Act 2026 has no retrospective penal operation, so mere receipt of rupee payments in routine peer-to-peer trading does not make out cheating, forgery or electronic fraud. Pre-arrest bail confirmed on fresh bonds of Rs.1,000,000 each.

Sindh High Court

• HUM Network v. PEMRA (with Apna TV Channel v. PEMRA) — reference to the Council of Complaints is a mandatory jurisdictional precondition before any content-related penalty, and a decision reached through a non-statutory “Personal Hearing Committee” and signed by a General Manager rather than by the Authority itself is coram non judice; these defects go to the root of jurisdiction and are incurable. Both appeals allowed; the impugned penalties (imposed on the broadcasters) set aside.