| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 5400 2025 SLD 5400 = 2025 LHC 7052 = 2026 PLJ 132 |
F.A.O No.117 of 2023
PRESENT; (AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD) JUDGE.
Date of hearing: 02.12.2025. Appellants by: Mr. Khalid Ashraf Khan, Advocate.
Respondents No.2 to 9: M/s Rana M. Javed Iqbal, Imran Baig, Rao Ayub Gohar, Muhammad Sajid Iqbal Chaudhry and Usama Bahadur Advocates.
Respondent No.10 by: Mr. Kashif Nadeem, Advocate.
Mst. Naghma Parveen, etc.
VERSUS
Public at Large, etc.
Law: Mental Health Ordinance, 2001
Section: 29, 30(1)(d)
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section:
Summary
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the District Judge, Multan, whereby the appellants’ application under Section 29 of the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 for appointment as guardians of their father was rejected. The Court held that repeated judicial examinations of the respondent by three different courts conclusively established his mental soundness and full capacity to manage his personal and property affairs. Medical certificates could not override direct judicial assessment under Section 30(1)(d) of the Ordinance. The Court found that the appellants were misusing the mental health jurisdiction to pursue collateral property disputes, particularly after failing to invalidate gift mutations executed by their father. Consent of the Advocate General was held to be a procedural prerequisite only and not a substitute for judicial determination. The appeal was found to be mala fide, legally untenable, and an abuse of the beneficial provisions of the Mental Health Ordinance.
Tag Line
“Where an alleged mentally disordered person appears before the Court and is found mentally sound upon judicial examination, proceedings under Section 29 of the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 cannot be maintained, nor can such jurisdiction be invoked to advance collateral property disputes.”
ORDER;