Enforceability

2026 CLC 92 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.5, Sched.Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25Suit for past and future maintenance of minors, recovery of dower amount and house rentCounter guardianship application filed by the husbandRight of dowerEnforceability

Trial Court through consolidated judgment decreed the suit of the wife excluding the relief of house rent and dismissed guardianship application, but the Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the husband and set aside the decree passed in favour of the wife

Validity

Appellate Court while adjudicating upon the matter pertaining to dowry article and maintenance had not only misconceived the law, but had also made a blanket observation without referring to a particular statement of a witness, thus, the Appellate Court had not appreciated and analyzed the evidence of the petitioner in its true prospective, thus, the reasons drawn by the Appellate Court for setting aside the decree for recovery of dower amount and maintenance was contrary to law and sheer result of misreading of evidence

Dower amount cannot be waived of under any circumstances as it is an indefeasible right of the spouse and she enjoys exclusive and absolute right over her dower, which cannot be relinquished at any cost

Judgment and decree of the appellate court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2025 MLD 1144 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 47 & O. XXIUndertaking / statement given / recorded before the CourtEnforceabilityExecuting Court, powers of

During the pendency of suit , the defendant made statement regarding settlement of claim of the plaintiff and pursuant to said statement, the Trial Court dismissed the suit being infructuous

However , the parties kept challenging judgments and in second round of litigation the defendant approached High Court against the judgment passed by the District Court

Petitioner/defendant recorded his statement to the effect that "he is ready to arrange for the flow of the water from the house of the plaintiffs at his own risk and costs and if he succeeds both the parties will be equally responsible to the cost of such arrangement"

Ground agitated by the petitioner/defendant was that while he made expenses to arrange flow of water , however, his application for settlement of expenses remained undecided / unfruitful

Validity

Record revealed that in first round of litigation, this / High Court disposed of civil revision with direction to the Trial Court to decide the application for settlement of expenses of the petitioner/defendant (which application was annexed before the High Court )

Pertinently , the averments of application for settlement of expenses inter alia disclosed that it was settled in presence of counsel for parties that the petitioner/defendant would construct a drain for ejection of water and expenses would be born equally; the petitioner/defendant paved a drain from his own pocket with the expenditures of Rs 20,200/ and he was entitled to recover the Rs.10,100/

Said whole episode indicated that petitioner/defendant had conceded the cause of action and legal right of drainage of sewerage water from which he could not deviate and Civil Court not only ignored this fact while passing the judgment and decree but also did not follow the spirit of order passed by the High Court in civil revision

Although the Civil Court had dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff on merit, but it had failed to adjudicate upon the application which was duly brought on record and referred to in the documentary evidence

The enforceability of an undertaking given by a party before a Court is well-established in law and such undertakings can be executed by the Executing Court as if they were formal decrees

An undertaking given to a Court has the same binding effect as an injunction or Court order and its breach amounts to contempt

Once a party submits to an undertaking, the Executing Court is empowered to enforce compliance, even in the absence of a formal decree

Thus, an undertaking given before a Court is enforceable in execution proceedings and the Executing Court may employ all permissible means including coercive measures to ensure compliance ; this ensures that solemn commitments made before judicial forums are honored, upholding they sanctity of court proceedings and preventing abuse of process

Since the petitioner/defendant himself admitted the undertaking given before the Court and fulfilled the same by installation of 160-feet pipe, which was admitted by the witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff

Claim of the respondent / plaintiff had already been dismissed by the Trial Court, admitting the claim of the petitioner / defendant qua settlement of expenses for installation of pipe established through evidence, which had been overlooked by the Courts below

Application of the petitioner / defendant was accepted and it was to be executed by the Executing Court

High Court set-aside impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below

Revision filed by defendant was allowed accordingly.

2025 CLC 911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.60, 67 & 68Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23MortgagePenal clause as to transfer of property upon failure of mortgagor to return mortgaged moneyEnforceabilitySpecific performanceScope

Respondent/mortgagee sought specific performance of the penal clause of mortgage deed upon failure of the petitioner/mortgagor to return the mortgaged amount

Contention of the mortgagor was that mortgagee had alternative remedies of foreclosure and sale of mortgaged property, thus, mortgagee could not seek specific performance of the penal clause

Validity

Owner can mortgage his property but mortgagee has no right to get transferred the mortgaged property in his name through a decree for specific performance

If the mortgage money was not being returned by the mortgagor, the mortgagee could resort to remedy provided under S.67 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Mortgagee could approach the civil court claiming that mortgagor be absolutely debarred of his right to get the mortgaged property redeemed or could pray for decree for sale of the property, but the recitals of the suit filed by the mortgagee spoke otherwise

Suit for specific performance could be filed for enforcement of an agreement to sell, but the same was not maintainable on the basis of a penal clause in an agreement, which otherwise did not fulfill the standards set for an agreement to sell, thus, mortgagee was not entitled for decree for specific performance on the basis of penal clause in the mortgage deed

Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances.

2025 CLC 911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 17Unregistered mortgage deedRights and dutiesEnforceability

Without registration of mortgage deed inter-se rights and duties of parties are unenforceable unless the mortgagee pays the required registration fee and any penalty

While the safer course for the Trial Court was to impound the deed and refuse further proceedings until payment, such aspect of the case had not been addressed by the courts, which rendered their decisions unqualified.

2025 PLC(CS) 1450 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 26(b), 42, 54 & 56(f)Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, Rr. 7(2)(s) & 21(6)(o)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151 & O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2Suit for declaration with injunctionCompetencyWhistle Blowing PolicyApplicabilityPersonal service contractEnforceabilityGrant of injunction in a declaratory suitScope

Respondent/employee, after being served with a charge-sheet and inquiry notice on the allegations of spreading false information, avoided participating in the disciplinary proceedings and instead filed a civil suit seeking declaration and injunctions, where ad interim injunction was confirmed in her favour through impugned order

Appellant/employer challenged such order on the ground that the suit itself was not maintainable, as the relationship between the parties was that of master and servant governed by a non-statutory service contract and contract of personal service being not specifically enforceable in law

Plea of protection under whistle blowing policy being immune from inquiry was taken by the respondent

Validity

Respondent herself had admitted that she was not a whistle blower and she had admitted that she aired her grievance against the appellant before eight other persons (including the Chairman), which established that no element of anonymity or whistleblowing was left

If respondent's plea was accepted, that would create complete chaos when companies wanted to investigate into misappropriations or wrongdoings and if respondent's logic was adopted, then anytime an inquiry was to be conducted against an employee, all he would have to do was claim to be a whistle blower and seek immunity on such basis, thereby halting any inquiry/investigation into wrongdoing and the matter would end there and no final outcome would ever be reached

Plea of respondent was found to be unfathomable and baseless, as issue of whistleblower immunity had absolutely no applicability

No employee (servant) can be forced upon an unwilling employer (master)

A company incorporated under company law not being governed by statutory rules for terms and conditions of service (e.g. the appellant), would fall within the confinement of the principle of master and servant

Such an employee could not seek a declaratory decree for forcing an unwilling employer to keep his employment, nor could an injunction in that regard be granted

Contract of service in any event cannot be specifically enforced, as per S. 21 (a & b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 ("SRA"), which would also then invoke S. 56 (f) SRA, under which an injunction itself cannot be granted, meaning thereby that the suit was itself on legally weak footing and impugned injunctive orders were not tenable

If the respondent had any grievance about being removed from her employment, a suit for damages would be the legally accurate remedy and not through a declaratory suit for reinstatement along with prayers for permanent injunctions against removal

High Court did not find any legal justification in granting injunctions in the matter or curtailing the appellant from carrying out inquiry against respondent under the law

High Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 PLC(CS) 80 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Contract between master and servantEnforceabilityScopeInjunction, grant ofScope

Plaintiff filed suit against his termination; claimed that notwithstanding termination, he continued to perform his duties and attended training workshops and that he was approached by an officer of the employer company for re-employment and therefore, by such conduct the letter of termination stood withdrawn

Validity

Relationship between plaintiff and defendant was governed by the rule of master and servant, as the defendant was a private organization

Terms and conditions of plaintiff's service provided that his service was subject to termination at any time after confirmation, subject to six weeks' notice or on payment of six weeks' salary in lieu of notice period

Defendant had acted strictly in accordance with the terms of employment, which were admitted

Plaintiff could not plead against such terms and conditions

Employee in a private organization could not be imposed or thrusted upon his employer

Master could always refuse to continue with employment of any of his employees, could come forward to pay compensation for breach of contract of service and could always say that the employee would not be re-engaged in service

Contract for personal services could not be specifically enforced in terms of S.21(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1877

Breach of contract of service gave rise to only two reliefs i.e. specific performance and damages and where the specific performance was barred in law then the only relief available was damages

Purported offer to re-engage could not be construed as to giving an employment to plaintiff

No relief of injunction could be granted to the plaintiff as he had failed to make out any prima facie case for indulgence, whereas, neither balance of convenience was in his favour nor any irreparable loss would be caused to him as adequate compensation as agreed by him

Application for grant of interim injunction was dismissed.

2017 MLD 467 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionContractual obligationEnforceabilityScopeTrading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) advertised for the purchase of Cotton and petitioners applied for the same

Officials of the corporation visited the premises of the petitioners and assured/promised that contract of purchase would be executed

Corporation, however, refused to execute the contract on the pretext that Federal Government had restrained the corporation to purchase cotton any more

Petitioners contended that they had been subjected to discriminatory treatment as the corporation had executed a contract with another party

Validity

Petitioners had filed the application (for grant of the contract) well before the instructions conveyed by the Federal Government, whereby the TCP had been restrained to sign any further contract

Letter/instructions of the Federal Government had specifically advised to the TCP to complete the process of sampling of the offered contracts, and the petitioners, in the present case, had made an offer for contract; therefore, the corporation was bound to complete the process of sampling to sign the contract in favour of the petitioners

Instructions whereby the corporation had been restrained to sign further contract had prospective effect

No ground was available to refuse to sign the contract with the petitioners who had approached the corporation well within time and fulfilled all the requirements and conditions

Corporation, having put the machinery in motion by visiting the premises of the petitioners, had refused to sign the contract on the lame excuse, with mala fide intention and ulterior motive

High Court observed that the officers of the corporation were granting the contract to the persons of their own choice or liking and directed the corporation to execute the offered contract with petitioners as per the policy

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2016 SCMR 296 SUPREME-COURT-OF-UK Judicial Precedent

Penalty clausesEnforceability

Test for determining whether a provision in a contract was a "penalty clause", and hence unenforceable, stated.

2016 SCMR 296 SUPREME-COURT-OF-UK Judicial Precedent

Penalty clausesEnforceability

Clause in agreement providing that party in breach would be forced to transfer (asset) to other party for no consideration or for a consideration which did not reflect the value of the asset transferred

Such a clause may constitute a penalty within the scope of the penalty doctrine, and thus would be unenforceable.

2016 MLD 647 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 22Suit for specific performanceAgreement to sell not written on stamped paper and signed by vendeeEvidentiary value/effectEnforceabilityProofLimitationTrial Court dismissed suitAppellate court decreed suitValidity

Plaintiff witness claimed that he had received the sale price and handed over the same to predecessor of defendant/original owner as such witness was dealing with the matters of sale and purchase of the property of said owner

Said witness could not be believed as he had failed to prove himself as attorney of the original owner nor produced any document in this respect

Agreement to sell did not mention that said witness first received the sale price and then handed the same to original owner as such witness could not be believed to have received the sale price in presence of original owner

Neither marginal witnesses nor plaintiff signed the agreement to sell

Unilateral agreement not signed by the vendee was not mutually enforceable

Agreement in question was not enforceable at law as one of the parties to the contract did not sign or thumb mark the same

Agreement to sell having not been written on the stamped paper was liable to be impounded and had little evidentiary value

Plaintiff could not prove the agreement to sell

Pendency of litigation over disputed property on the basis of inheritance mutation was not sufficient ground for delay in filing suit by plaintiff who despite knowledge of litigation over suit property kept quiet for many years and did join litigation to claim his share/right on the basis of agreement to sell

Suit having been filed 28 years after the agreement to sell, was time barred

Appellate Court's judgment was result of misreading and non-reading of evidence

Revision was allowed

Judgment of first appellate court was set aside

Judgment passed by Trial Court was restored.