| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2027 2026 SLD 2027 = 2026 CLC 552 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 2307 of 2023, decided on 21st October, 2025.
Presented By: Before Muhammad Azam Khan, J
Barrister Sardar M. Usman Sami for Petitioner. Jam Khurshid for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Ahmed Nawaz Bhatti for
Respondent No. 6. Raja Ansar Abbas for
Respondent No. 8.
Writ Petition No. 2307 of 2023, decided on 21st October, 2025.
Presented By: Before Muhammad Azam Khan, J
Barrister Sardar M. Usman Sami for Petitioner. Jam Khurshid for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Ahmed Nawaz Bhatti for
Respondent No. 6. Raja Ansar Abbas for
Respondent No. 8.
Malik MUHAMMAD AHSAN ---Petitioner
VERSUS
FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HARASSMENT through Federal Ombudsman and 7 others ---Respondents
Law: Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020
Section: XII,4
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 42,54
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Jurisdiction--- ----Jurisdiction emanates solely from statute---It cannot be assumed by equitable interpretation nor conferred through waiver, acquiescence, consent or even the silence of parties. (b) Enforcement of Women s Property Rights Act (XII of 2020)--- ----S.4---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Bar to jurisdiction---Civil suit, pendency of---Petitioner was aggrieved of decision made by Ombudsperson during the pendency of civil suit before Civil Court regarding title of property in question---Validity---By proceeding in disregard to S.4 of Enforcement of Women s Property Rights Act, 2020 the Ombudsperson effectively displaced lawful jurisdiction of Civil Court, thereby encroaching upon a field Constitutionally reserved for judicial comity and had subverted the orderly administration of justice---High Court set aside the order passed by Ombudsperson as the same was without lawful authority, void ab-initio and non-est, having no existence in the eyes of law---Entire proceedings conducted by Ombudsperson stood vitiated and were liable to be struck down---High Court could not, under any principle of law, allow an order passed without jurisdiction to remain operative even for a moment longer---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Date of hearing: 1st October, 2025. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, J.---The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were co-owners in possession of the suit property, each holding one-half ( ) share. The father of the petitioner passed away on 23.12.2009, whereafter the portion representing his share remained under the use and occupation of respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Respondent No. 6, being a coowner to the extent of the remaining half share, has been residing in the lower portion of the house. Subsequently, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 instituted a suit for administration of the suite property of the deceased and rendition of accounts before the learned Civil Court, Islamabad, on 26.03.2018. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent No. 6 filed another suit for declaration, partition, and permanent injunction on…