Fifteen reportable judgments across the 5 to 7 November 2026 upload window (with stragglers swept from 3 and 4 November) — two from the Federal Constitutional Court, five from the Supreme Court, five from the Lahore High Court and three from the Sindh High Court (the Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries for a third consecutive window).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• ICT-PEIRA v. Imtiaz Ali Qureshi — appointments made on a permanent basis under a temporary Ordinance do not survive its lapse where the successor permanent statute contains no saving clause; Article 264(b) and (c) and section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 preserve rights acquired under a repealed permanent law but cannot confer permanence on rights claimed under a lapsed Ordinance, and re-promulgation of Ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution. Petitions converted into appeals and accepted. The judgment also states, of general application, that under Article 189(1) as amended by the Twenty-Seventh Amendment the Court’s own judgments bind all other courts including the Supreme Court, and that binding effect extends to obiter dicta as well as the ratio.
• Rana Muhammad Sher v. Shujah Akber Khan — a plaint is indivisible for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and cannot be rejected partially against selected defendants or as to particular reliefs; a bona fide purchase for value without notice under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is a substantive defence requiring evidence, and the mere availability of an appeal does not bar review under section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the suit restored against all defendants.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Mst. Bushra Aitzaz Ahsan — by majority (2:1), where a husband and wife are each assessees owning a separate residential house, each spouse may exercise the option under the first proviso to Clause 12(1) of Part-I of the Second Schedule to the Wealth Tax Act 1963 to exclude his or her own house; a proviso identifies who may exercise the option but does not merge separately owned assets into a single taxable estate. Appeals dismissed, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui J dissenting.
• Collector of Customs, Peshawar v. Azad Shah — once the Board has, under the first proviso to section 181 of the Customs Act 1969, excluded a class of conveyances (clauses (b) and (ba) of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009) from the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation, neither the adjudicating officer nor the Customs Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to order release against a redemption fine, the date of seizure determining which version of the notification applies. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; outright confiscation restored.
• Ali Asghar Khokhar v. Anwar Ali Kori — the grant and the cancellation of bail are governed by distinct principles, and once an accused is at liberty his freedom is not withdrawn perfunctorily; interference with a High Court’s bail-granting order is confined to discretion that is fanciful, arbitrary or beyond settled bounds. Petition disposed of, the bail order left undisturbed, with the doctrine of complicity applied to the private siphoning of electricity and a copy of the order sent to the Chairman, WAPDA.
• Mst. Naheed Shah Afridi v. Muzaffar Shah Afridi — the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act 2019 is an enforcement statute confined to clear and readily established title and possession; where intricate questions of title arise the Ombudsperson must refer the matter to the competent Civil Court under section 6, and the High Court sitting in appeal, vested with the same powers, ought to have referred rather than dismissed the complaint. Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; the matter to proceed as a reference tried as a civil suit.
• Syed Aley Sadquain Naqvi v. Matco Rice — a third suit is not barred by res judicata under section 11 CPC or by Order II Rule 2 merely because two earlier suits were instituted, where the first was held premature and the second withdrawn with permission to sue afresh; res judicata requires a prior final decision on the matter directly and substantially in issue, and a subsequent act of trespass may furnish a fresh cause of action. Appeal allowed; matter remanded to the trial court.

Lahore High Court

• Zahida Yasmeen v. Government of the Punjab — a departmental clarification cannot amend the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules 1963 or create a disqualification, and the December 2024 and August 2025 notifications restricting family pension to the spouse travel beyond the limits of delegated legislation insofar as they exclude all other eligible family members contrary to section 18(2); family pension in respect of each deceased parent is a distinct entitlement. All three petitions allowed; the refusals set aside and the claims remitted for fresh determination within sixty days.
• Ahmad Saeed Akhtar v. The State — a Magistrate invested under section 30 CrPC may try any offence not punishable with death, notwithstanding that the eighth column of Schedule II shows it as triable by the Court of Session; competence to try is distinct from the power to sentence, the section 32 ceiling being addressed through sections 346 and 347, and the addition of section 498-A PPC to the charge did not oust jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.
• M/s Nizami Feeds v. Muhammad Ahtisham — a cheque indorsed as a “security cheque” is not per se enforceable: under the second paragraph of section 46 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 the conditionality both subjects the drawee’s right of enforcement to proof of the underlying liability and removes the section 118 presumption, and a ledger copy produced without permission to adduce secondary evidence is inadmissible under Article 74 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Appeals dismissed.
• Director, Intelligence and Investigation-Customs v. Habib Ullah — section 163 of the Customs Act 1969 is not an independent power of search but an exception to section 162, and a warrantless search is valid only on strict compliance with its four mandatory conditions; the statutory test is the danger of removal before a section 162 warrant can be obtained, and neither receipt of information after court hours nor a successful recovery can validate a search that fails those conditions. Reference application dismissed.
• Areej Sohail Bhutta v. Federation of Pakistan — a constitutional court cannot, under Article 199, direct the Federal or Provincial Governments to enact legislation of a particular content (here amendments to sections 375 and 376 PPC); whether a further offence or protective mechanism is required is a matter of legislative policy, and no mandamus lies to compel the legislature to legislate. Petition dismissed, with the clarification that the decision is no endorsement of abuse within marriage and does not preclude the legislature from acting.

Sindh High Court

• Salman Masud v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan — where the Council of ICAP selects the severest penalty under section 20D(1) of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance 1961, its order must disclose reasons explaining why that sanction was warranted and the lesser ones insufficient; proportionality is tested against the misconduct actually established, and a warning differs from a reprimand. Appeal allowed as to quantum; removal from the Register for one year set aside and a formal reprimand substituted under section 20K(2).
• Collector of Customs, Karachi v. M/s Muhammad Kamran — where goods are confiscated as smuggled goods under section 2(s) and clause (a) of the preamble to S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 withdraws the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation, the Customs Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order release on payment of duty, taxes and a redemption fine; payment of duty after seizure does not convert smuggled goods into lawfully imported goods. Reference allowed; outright confiscation restored. (The companion authority to the Supreme Court’s order in C.P.L.A. 5420/2025, above.)
• Paxar Pakistan v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue — no reference lies under section 34A of the Federal Excise Act 2005 against an order of the Appellate Tribunal which annuls the orders of both forums below, leaving no adverse order or finding in the field; a liberty reserved to the department does not make the applicant an aggrieved party, and a constitutional question not yet arising from an adverse order will not be answered in the abstract. References dismissed in limine as not maintainable, all questions left open.