Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 2886
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain), officially reported as 2026 LHC 2886. In this matter between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain) DECISION DATE: 28-04-2026 TAGLINE: Question of law involved is regarding the scope and extent of jurisdiction conferred upon the Special Court(s), established under the Punjab Establishment of Special Courts (Overseas Pakistanis Property) Act 2025 ("the Act"). The Courts below have held that only admitted ownership and/or possession/dispossession of an Overseas Pakistani litigant can be the subject matter of proceedings before the Special Court established under the Act, keeping in view the preamble and other provision thereof. Held? The Act is status-centric and unqualified. It does not condition its applicability upon the nature of the dispute, nor does it confine itself to a litigant asserting possession or ownership. The legislature has identified the person to be protected, and not the form of action to be entertained. Any interpretation which makes the applicability of the Act dependent upon the type of claim, rather than the status of the party, runs contrary to the object of the Act. Once the dispute relates to immovable property involving an Overseas Pakistani, the jurisdiction extends to all matters having nexus with such immovable property including those which are connected and incidental thereto. The preamble indicates the object of protecting ownership and possession along with connected and incidental matters; Section 3 provides for the establishment of a forum; and Section 4(3) delineates the full extent of jurisdiction. The correct approach is, therefore, to read Section 3 as organizational and enabling in nature, and Section 4(3) as declaratory of the substantive jurisdiction. CASE DETAILS: First Appeal Against Order(F.A.O.) 3305/26 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38. JUDGMENT SHEET LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
FAO No.3305 of 2026
Muhammad Mudassar Iqbal vs. The Lake City Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
J U D G M E N T Dates of Hearing: 20.04.2026; 23.04.2026; 28.04.2026. Appellant by: Mr. Saqib Majeed, Advocate. Petitioners in connected petitions by: Ms. Salman Mansoor and Mr. Muhammad Adil Chattha, Advocates in W.P. No.21127/2026. Mr. Bashir Hussain Chaudhry, Advocate in W.P. Nos.22275/2026 and 22279/2026. Province of Punjab by: Mr. Muhammad Saad Bin Ghazi, Assistant Advocate General. Respondents by: Mr. Adeel Anjum, Advocate (in present case). Mr. Sultan Hassan Malik, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5 in connected W.P. No.21127/2026. Mr. Anwar -ul-Haq Khokhar, Advocate for respondent No.4 in W.P. No s.22275/2026 and 22279/2026. Respondents No.3, 5 and 6 in W.P. Nos.22275/2026 and 22279/2026 proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.04.2026. Amici Curiae: Mr. Nauman Khali d, Assistant Attorney General. Syed Muhammad Aal a Imran, Advocate.
2 FAO No.3305 of 2026
Anwaar Hussain, J . Through this single judgment, the present appeal and connected constitutional petitions , bearing W.P. Nos.21127/2026, 22275 /2026, and 22279 /2026, are being decided simultaneously, as a common question of law , regarding the scope and extent of jurisdiction conferred upon the Special Court (s), established under the Punjab Establishment of Special Courts (Overseas Pakistanis Property) Act 2025 (“the Act”), is involved. 2. Before addressing the legal question, it will be appropriate to briefly state the factual matrix of each case. i. FAO No.3305/2026: The appellant contends that he is an Overseas Pakistani as defined under the Act, 1 and presently residing in Kuwait and through impugned order dated 23.12.2025, the Sp ecial Court constituted under the Act has refused to exercise jurisdiction in the suit instituted by the appellant, inter alia , for declaration , specific performance, against respondent—M/s Lake City Holdings Pvt. Ltd., on the ground that the Act is a spec ial and pur pose-specific legislation enacted to secure and protect existing rights of ownership and possession of Overseas Pakistanis in respect of the immovable property, whereas the appellant is claiming specific performance, which is a civil dispute ari sing out of the contractual obligation that does not fall under the purview of the Act , keeping in sight its preamble, and hence, the matter has been referred to the District and Sessions Judge , Lahore for entrustment to the Civil Court. It is worth mentioning that the suit was originally filed in the Civil Court
1 Section 2 (c) of the Act ----“Overseas Paki stani” means any person holding a Pakistani passport, com puterized national identity card (CNIC), National Identity Card for Overseas Pakistanis (NICOP), Pakistan Or igin Card (POS) or Overseas Pakistan i Foundation (OPF) membership card proving his national ity and is living , working or studying abroad permanently or temporarily for more than one hundred and eighty-two (182) days in a tax year.
3 FAO No.3305 of 2026
and heard by the designated Civil Court for Overseas Pakistanis and upon promulgation of the Act , the same was transferred to the Special Court , however, the Special Court, through impugned order dated 23.12.2025 , has declin ed to exercise jurisdiction and again matter has been entrusted to Civil Court through order dated 03.01.202 6, by the District & Sessions Judge, Lahore. ii. W.P. No.21127/2026: Challenge has been laid to order dated 24.02.2026 pas sed by the Special Court , Lahore whereby the said Court has held that the suit of the petitioner and his real brother for cancellation of General Power of Attorney (“the GPA ”) and setting aside the transaction (s) made on the strength thereof is not maintai nable as the petitioner and his brot her do not hold any title/ownership of the suit property and are merely seeking cancellation of the GPA and subsequent transaction (s), to create rights in respect of the property , purportedly belonging to their father. I t is worth mentioning that this suit was also initially filed with the Civil Court. The Special Court, through impugned order dated 24.02.2026, has declined to exercise jurisdiction and again the matter has been entrusted to the Civil Court through order dated 27.02.2026, by the District & Sessions Judge, Lahore. iii. W.P. No.22275/2026: This constitutional petition is directed against order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the Special Court, Lahore whereby the petition/application of the petitioner alongwith others for grant of succession certificate was sent back to the Civil Court. iv. W.P. No.22279/2026: The petitioner in this case claimed to be the Overseas Pakistani and has laid challenge to impugned order dated 03.03.2026 through which the case titled
4 FAO No.3305 of 2026
“Muhammad Ahmad Nawaz etc. v. Babra Nawaz etc.”, in which th e petitioner is plaintiff No.2 , has been sent back to the Civil Court. The petitioner sought declaration, cancellation of transfer letter bearing reference No.01/02311 dated 25.11.2020, issued by defendant No.4/DHA, on the basis of a hibanama. It is worth mentioning that this suit was also initially filed with the Civil Court. T he Special Court, through impugned order dated 03.03.2026, has declined to exercise jurisdiction and again matter was entrusted to the Civil Court through order dated 07.03.2 026, by the District & Sessions Judge, Lahore. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant in present case along with learned counsel for the petitioners in connected matters submit that a restrictive construction of t he preamble of the Act in general , and the remaining provision s of the Act in particular, is contrary to the legislative inte nt, which has been made basis for passing of the impugned orders . It is argued that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect Overseas Pakistanis in respect of their proprietary rights and that mere reference in the preamble to the ownership and possession of immovable property cannot be read to exclude ancillary matters such as specific performance , or inheritance dispu tes etc. They also contend that there i s another practical difficulty arising in the wake of the erroneous interpretation of the Act, inasmuch as upon coming into force of the Act, all pending matters involving Overseas Pakistanis , pertaining to immovable property, were required to be trans ferred to the Special Courts and to proceed from the stage already attained but either the needful was not done , or after transfer , the Special Courts have n ot entertained the same as is the position in present matters but also in a number of cases institut ed after the enforcement of the Act, the proceedings have either been entertained by Civil Courts and have continued therein without recourse to the Special Cour ts after refusal of
5 FAO No.3305 of 2026
the Special Court s to entertain the sam e and in such circumstances, a question arises as to whether, upon clarification of t he legal position by this Court, such cases are to be instituted afresh before the Special Court or are to be tr ansferred and continued from the stage already reached. It is urged that requiring fresh instit ution of the cases would impose an unnecessary bu rden upon litigants . It is, therefore, prayed that an appropriate declaration be passed to ensure that such matt ers are dealt with in a manner that preserves continuity of the proceedings and avoids multiplicity of litigation. 4. Conversely, learned couns el for the respondent in present appeal submits that jurisdiction of a Special Court must be strictly construed, and in absence of express language extending jurisdiction, the Civil Courts continue to retain authority over the matters pertaining to immovable property such as partition, sp ecific performance and proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). He submits that the appellant is mere ly an allottee of a plot in the resp ondent housing scheme and is neither owner of the disputed property nor in possession thereof—rather is seeking possession through specific performance, which suit cannot be entertained by the S pecial Court. This argument was adopted by learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 in constitutional petition bearing W.P. No.21127 /2026 with the addition that in the said case, the petitioner is not the owner of the suit property and merely challenging , alongwith his brother , the GPA, executed by their father who was not an Overseas Pakistani, as defined under the Act . In conn ected case s bearing W.P. No.22275 /2026 and W.P. No.22279/2026, the dispute is between the same parties. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 in said cases contends that the common petitioner (in both cases) has not established that he is an Overseas Pakistan i. Further contends that petition bearing W.P. No.22275/2026 is not maintainable as the dispute does not relate to immovable property since order impugned therein has been passed on
6 FAO No.3305 of 2026
application/petition of the petitioner along with few others for grant of succession certificate. 5. Mr. Saad Bin Ghazi, l earned Assistant Advocate General, submits that the Act is beneficial legis lation and if the re is any conflict between preamble and other provisions, the same are to be harmoniously construed. 6. Considering the importance of the legal question, Mr. Nauman Khalid, Assistant Attorney General along with Syed Muhammad Aala Imran, A dvocate were appo inted as Amici Curi ae. They contend that the primary purpose is to facilitate the Overseas Pakistanis qua their dispute in respect of the immovable property and not mere protection of existing ownership and possessory rights. 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. Perusal of the record in present as well as connected cases, except in constitutional petition bearing W.P No.22275 /2026, reveals that the impugned orders were passed by the Courts below in declining to entertain a case, on the premise that unless a case involves actual dispossession or admitted ownership of an Overseas Pakistani, in respect of immo vable property, as required by the preamble of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Special Court is not attracted. However, in W.P No.22275/2026, dispute does not rel ate to immovable property and hence, the impugned o rder dated 03.03.2026 does not suffer from any infirmity. The principal issue therefore is whether such interpretation is consistent with the scheme of the Act, or whether the jurisdiction of the Special C ourt extends to a ll disputes relating to immovable property involving Overseas Pakistanis, including but not limited to title, inheritance, partit ion, specific performance, recovery of mesne profits, and connected matters. 9. The preamble of the Act reads as under:
7 FAO No.3305 of 2026
“An Act to establish special courts for adjudication of petition in respect of immovable properties of overseas Pakistanis. It is nec essary to establish Special Courts in order to secure and provide for protect ion of rights of ownership and po ssession in respe ct of immovable properties of over seas Pakistanis and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.” It is erroneous on part of the Courts below to hold, as well as the respondents to argue, that the Act is intended to provide protection in respect of owne rship and possess ion of immovable properties of Overseas Pakistanis only, inasmuch as the Act aims to establish the Special Court s to secure and protect not only the ownership and possession in re spect of the immovable properties of the Ov erseas Pakistanis but also for mat ters connected t herewith and incidental thereto. The expressions “matters connected therewith” and “incidental thereto” occurring in the preamble are of considerable significance and cannot be treated as sup erfluous. The t erm “connected” i s of wide connotation and embraces all matters having a nexus, whether direct or indirect, with the immovable property, including disputes as to title, validity of transactions, enforcement of con tractual rights, partition and succession. Likewise, the exp ression “incidental thereto” extends to all ancillary and consequential issues which may arise in the course of adjudication, inc luding questions necessary for complete and effective determination of rights in the immovable property. If these expressions are given their du e meaning, it bec omes evident that the legislative intent was not to confine the jurisdiction of the Special Cou rts merely to disputes of ownership or possession in a narrow sense, but to encompass the entire spectrum of c ontroversies and ancillary issues relating to immovable property of the Overseas Pakistanis. Any interpretation that isolates the words “ownership” and “possession” while ignoring the expansive expressions “matters connected therewith and incidental
8 FAO No.3305 of 2026
thereto” would amount to a selective reading of the preamble and would defeat the object of the Act. 10. Even otherwise, the Courts should not lose sight of the fact that the preamble is not an operative provision and cannot control or curtail the plain meaning of substantive provisions of a s tatute. The preamble merely serves as a key to understand the legislative intent and cannot be used to defeat th e express scheme of the statute. The confusion which has arisen in the Courts below stems from an erroneous evaluation of the pr eamble into a li miting provision, coupled with an assumption that jurisdiction is dependent upon the Overseas Pakistani being ne cessarily the petitioner asserting possession or admitted ownership. This approach clearly ignores the definition clause of the Act along with v arious provisions thereof which must be kept in sight, and harmoniously interpreted so as to ensure that true object ive of the Act is achieved. 11. Having observed hereinabove th at the Courts below erred in appreciating the scope of the Act, it is also imperative to observe that the Act, in its present form, contains certain expressions which, if read in isolation, may give rise to an apparent ambiguity. For instance, Section 3 of the Act indicates that the Special Courts are established to entertain the petitions filed by Overseas Pakistanis in relation to their immovable properties 2. If this provision is construed literally and disjointedly from other provisions of the Act, an impression may arise as though the jurisdicti on of the Special Court is co nfined only to cases initiated by an Overseas Pakistani as a petitioner, with no corresponding clarity regarding situations where such person is arrayed as a respondent or is otherwise required to defend proceedings relating to his property.
2 3. Establishment of s pecial court, etc. − (1) The Governme nt may, by notific ation in the official Gazette, establ ish, in consultat ion with the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, as many special courts in the Punjab as it may deem necessary to try petitions filed by oversea s Pakistanis in relation to their im movable properties and where more than one special cour t are established, the notification shall specify jurisdiction of each such special court.
9 FAO No.3305 of 2026
Such a construction would lead to anomalous consequences, whereby an Overseas Pakistani may invoke the jurisdiction of the Spe cial Court to initiate proceedings, yet be deprived of the same forum wh en called upon to defend his rights in respect of the very same property. If such an interpretation was to be adopted, it would lead to manifestly absurd and unjust consequences. 12. The apparent limitation in Section 3 stands clarified and expanded by Section 4(3) of the Act 3, which expressly pr ovides that all actions, disputes, petitions, suits , proceedings and matters connected therewith in which one or more of the parties are overseas Pakistanis shall be heard and adjudicated exclusively by the Specia l Court. The deliberate use of the words “o ne or more of the parties” removes any distinction between a petitioner/plaintiff or an applicant [for instance of application under Section 12(2 ), CPC] and a respondent/defendant, and clearly establishes that jur isdiction is attracted by the involvement o f an Overseas Pakistani in the di spute, irrespective of the procedural posture of such party. The same legislative intent is further reflected in other provisions of the Act, including those relating to recording of evidence and facilitation thereof 4, wherein the expressio n “litigant” is employed, without any distinction between the petitioner or respondent. The definition of Overseas Pakistani under Section 2(c) of the Act , being couched in broad and inclusive ter ms, identifies the class of persons intended to be protected , without link ing such protectio n to any
3 4. Filing of petition.− (1)... (2) ... (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law for the time being in force, all actions, disputes, pet itions, suits, pr oceedings and matters connected therewit h in which one or more of the parties are overseas Pakistanis , shall be heard and adjudicated exclusively by a special court.
4 8. Recording of evidence.− (1) …. (2) ….. (3) ….. (4)….. (5) A speci al court, on requ est of an overseas Pakistani litigant , s hall make arrangements to enable the litigant to participate in the court proceedings through video link.
10 FAO No.3305 of 2026
particular category of legal proceedings. The breadth of this definition would be ren dered meaningless if the jurisdiction of the Special Court were to be confined only to self-initiated petitions by such persons. This reinforces the conclusion that the Act is concerned with the status of the litigant and the subject matter of the dispute, and not with the technical form in which proceedings are initiated. 13. Equally, it would be incorrect to cons true the Act as b eing confined only to the disputes of ownership or possession in strict and narrow sense. The Act is status -centric and unqual ified. It does not condition its applicability upon the nature of the dispute, nor does it confine itself to a li tigant asserting possession or ownership. The legislature has thus identified the person to be protected, and not the form of action to be ente rtained. Any interpretation which makes the applicability of the Act dependent upon the type of claim, rather than the status of t he party, runs contrary to the object of the Act . Once the dispute relates to immovable property involving an Overseas Pakista ni, the jurisdiction extends to all matters having nexus with such immovable property including those which are c onnected and inci dental theret o. When the pream ble, Sections 2(c), 3 and 4(3) of the Act are read together, the apparent inconsistency stands resolved. The preamble indicates the object of protecting ownership an d possession along with connected and incid ental matters; Se ction 3 provides for the establishment of a forum; and Section 4(3) delineates the full extent of jurisdiction. The correct approach is, therefore, to read Section 3 as organizational and enabling in nature, and Section 4(3) as declaratory of the substanti ve jurisdiction. The Act constitutes a sel f-contained and exclusive jurisdictional regime, excluding parallel jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of matters falling within its scope. The Act m ust be interpreted as a beneficial legislat ion intended to p rotect a class of persons who, due to their absence, are vulnerable to prolonged litigation
11 FAO No.3305 of 2026
and property disputes. Such legislation must receive a purposive interpretation advancing the remedy rather than defeating it. 14. The matter can be examined from another angle. The Act clearly mandates t hat upon promulgation of the Act , all proceedings relating to immovable property of Overseas Pa kistanis pending before any Court shall stand transferred t o the Special Court and shall be continued from the stage at which they were pending immediately prior to such transfer. 5 This provision demonstrates that the legislature intended not only to trans fer jurisdiction but also to preserve procedural continuity and avoid duplication of proceedings. A pl ain reading of clause (a) of Section 13 of the Act shows that the legis lature has employed the widest possible expressions —“all petitions, suits, execution petitions and all other proceedings” —thereby leaving no category of civil litigation outside its swe ep, so long as an Overseas Pakistani is a party. The use of the words “ shall stand transferred” makes the transfer automatic and mandatory, requiring no further act of volition by the parties or discretion by the Court. 15. At this juncture, it is impera tive to address the concern of the appellant/petitioners as to the fate of those petitions/proceedings, which were initiated after the promulgation of the Act but either not transferred to the Special Courts, or were not entertained by the said Courts or have been made a ping pong between the Special Courts and the Civil Court s due to jurisdictional misinterpretation, or erroneous orders like present appeal and connected matters. In this regard, this Court is of th e opinion that the import of Section 13 of the Act cannot be confined merely to
5 13. Transfer of pending cases.− (1) On the commencement of this Act: (a) all petitions, s uits, execution p etitions and all other proceedings pendi ng in any other court, in which overseas Pakistani is a party, shall stand transferred to the special court and on transfer of the cases, the sp ecial court may pr oceed with the cases from the stage a t which it was pending; and (b) all appeals, revisions, in which any or all the parties are overseas Pakistanis, pending before any court after the commencement of this Act, shall stand transferred to special bench or benches of the concerned High Court for adjudication.
12 FAO No.3305 of 2026
cases, which were actually transfer red at the time of commencement of the Act. Rather, t he principle embodied therein —that all proceedings involving an Overseas Pakistani and r elating to immovable property must be adjudicated by the Special Court, and that such proceedings are to continue f rom the stage already attained —must equally govern th ose cases which, due to jurisdictional misinterpretation or erroneous orders, were not transferred to or entertained by Special Court or were returned to Civil Courts and have con tinued there. To hold otherwise would lead to arbitrary and discriminatory consequences, whereby cases similarly situated in law would be treated differently based s olely on whether or not an initial transfer was effected, thereby defeating the uniformity and object of the Act. This observation of the Court is derived and substantiated by settled law that no one can be prejudiced by the act of Court and the unsustaina ble orders of either non -transfer by the Civil Courts or ret urn to the Civil Courts have been made by the Court(s) below, which would violate the object of the Act. 16. At this juncture, objection of…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.