The Lahore High Court has appointed Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate, as amicus curiae (friend of the Court) to assist on an important question of law concerning the maintainability of a revision petition arising from execution proceedings in an eviction matter.
The case arose after an eviction order was passed against a tenant. During execution, a third party claiming to be a sub-tenant filed objections asserting his entitlement to retain possession of the premises. The objections were dismissed by the Executing Court, which directed him to vacate the premises. His appeal against that order also failed, prompting him to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
The Court has sought assistance from the amicus curiae on whether such a revision petition is maintainable, particularly in light of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure governing execution proceedings, appeals and revisions.
The proceedings raise significant questions concerning the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the remedies available to persons claiming independent or derivative rights in property during the execution of an eviction order.
It is a great honour for Imran to be called upon to appear as Friend of the Court.
All praise is for Allah alone!
16-10-2026: The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, has directed the University of Health Sciences (UHS), Lahore, to upload all question-paper codes of the MDCAT-2026 examination conducted in Punjab on its official website and keep them publicly accessible at least until finalisation of the admission process, thereafter inviting objections from candidates in accordance with the applicable policy.
Allowing a constitutional petition filed by some students, Justice Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi held that collecting question papers without providing an effective alternative means of access had impaired candidates’ ability to scrutinize the official answer key and meaningfully challenge disputed questions.
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners, successfully advanced the case for transparency and procedural fairness, arguing that candidates could not effectively exercise their right to object to questions or answers if they were denied access to the examination papers. He relied, inter alia, on the UHS examination guide, the previous practice of allowing candidates to retain question papers, and a judgment of the Islamabad High Court emphasising transparency in the MDCAT process.
The Court observed that the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council’s (PMDC) direction to collect the papers merely referred to the “safe and smooth conduct” of the examination, without adequately explaining why the papers had to remain inaccessible after the test. It further noted that the respondents had failed to demonstrate how publishing the completed examination papers would necessarily compromise the question bank or examination security.
Rejecting the preliminary objection to maintainability, the Court held that examination policy remained within the domain of the competent authorities, but administrative decisions were not immune from constitutional judicial review where their legality, rationality or fairness was challenged.
The petition was accordingly allowed, with the direction confined to MDCAT-2026 conducted in Punjab. The Court also recorded its displeasure over the failure of the UHS Registrar to comply with an earlier direction to appear in person, although it refrained from taking penal action.
The judgment has been reported at 2026 LHC 7274. It can be downloaded from the Lahore High Court website by clicking here.
All praise is for Allah alone!
To watch coverage of this case by various TV and YouTube channels, please watch the following YouTube videos:
For newspaper reports on this case, please click on the links below:
A Special Division Bench of the Lahore High Court has rendered judgment in two cases raising significant questions concerning the interpretation and application of sections 2(b), 22(6) and 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, in which Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, ASC, appeared as amicus curiae to assist the Court on the questions of law involved.
The proceedings arose against the backdrop of conflicting views expressed by different Single Benches of the Lahore High Court on the questions requiring determination. The matters had initially come before a Single Bench which, having noticed the divergence in judicial opinion and the importance of settling the controversy, referred the cases to the Chief Justice with a request that they be placed before a Division Bench for authoritative determination. The Chief Justice subsequently directed that the matters be heard by a Division Bench.
On 4 May 2026, the Special Division Bench appointed Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, ASC, as amicus curiae to assist the Court in resolving the legal questions involved.
The cases were heard at length during June 2026, with the proceedings extending over several days. Following extensive submissions, judgment was reserved on 30 June 2026 and was pronounced on 16 September 2026..
The judgment does not accept the interpretation advanced by Imran Hassan Ali in his submissions as amicus curiae. Interestingly, however, the Court ultimately arrived at the very result which Imran had invited the Court to reach. Although the Court ultimately adopted a different legal route from that proposed by the amicus curiae, the fact that the conclusion reached corresponds with the result advocated in his submissions gives the judgment particular legal interest. It also illustrates an important feature of appellate advocacy: the Court may arrive at the same destination while adopting a different route in its reasoning.
In this respect, readers’ attention is invited especially to paragraphs 29 and 38 of the judgment.
The judgment has been reported at 2026 LHC 5680. It can be accessed online at the Lahore High Court website by clicking here.
It is a great honour for Imran to have been asked to appear as amicus curiae in a matter involving conflicting precedents and questions requiring authoritative consideration by a Division Bench. It is a significant professional distinction.
All praise is for Allah alone!
The Khanpur Boats Association (KBA), a representative body of water sports clubs operating on Khanpur Dam Lake, has filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal before the Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan challenging a judgment of the Peshawar High Court’s Abbottabad Bench.
The appeal arises from the High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition filed by the Association, which contested the Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) Khanpur’s imposition of fees on water sports activities conducted on Khanpur Dam Lake. KBA has maintained that the levy is unlawful and unconstitutional and has sought judicial intervention against its enforcement.
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, ASC, was instructed to draft, and drafted, the petition for leave to appeal that was instituted on behalf of KBA before the Federal Constitutional Court.
Watch this page for updates regarding this case.
On 23-02-2026, Barrister Ch. Imran Hassan Ali and Mr. Sheikh Zameer Hussain were appointed as amici curiae (friends of the court) in multiple cases. It is a double honour for Imran. To be appointed as amicus curiae by the High Court is always a great honour. However, in this case, it was a special honour to be appointed amicus curiae alongside Mr. Sheikh Zameer Hussain who is the most senior and eminent lawyer based in Rawalpindi. All praise is for Allah alone!
The cases involved proper interpretation and application of various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The cases were heard from 22-04-2026 to 29-04-2026. On 29-04-2026, the Court decided the main case, while adjourning the connected cases.
Watch this page for further updates on this story.
The Lahore High Court appointed Barrister Ch. Imran Hassan Ali and Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh as amici curie (friends of the court) in a case. It was a double honour for Imran. To be appointed as amicus curiae by the High Court is always a great honour. It was an additional honour to be appointed alongside Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh as Mr. Sheikh is one of the most prominent and experienced civil lawyers of the country, based in Rawalpindi.
The case involved important questions regarding inheritance rights of—and the validity of relinquishment of inheritance rights by—women. In also required interpretation and proper application of sections 11 and 12 and Order XXIII, Rule 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
On 11-03-2026, Barrister Ch. Imran Hassan Ali appeared before the court and made submissions as amicus curiae. Accepting the submissions of the amici curiae, the Court dismissed the civil revision application with costs.
The judgment has been reported at 2026 LHC 1762 and PLJ 2026 Lahore 513. It can be downloaded from the Lahore High Court website by clicking here.
All praise is for Allah alone!
Imran Hassan Ali, ASC, has represented the successful petitioner in a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, challenging the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab through which he had cancelled the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner is a refugee from the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir and was allotted land by the Government of Pakistan in 1979. Acting upon application of the petitioner’s tenants, the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled her allotment.
On 10-03-2026, after hearing detailed oral arguments, the Court set aside the CSC’s orders, declaring them to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
The judgment has been reported at 2026 LHC 1747 and can be downloaded from the Lahore High Court website by clicking here.
On 11-02-2026, the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, appointed Barrister Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, ASC, as the amicus curiae (friend of the court) in a case pertaining to the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules.
The Petitioners are seeking return of their land that was acquired for the purposes of a railway line for the Mangla Dam project. They argue that the land is no more required for the project and should be returned to them.
This appointment is a great honour for Imran. All praise is for Allah alone!
Watch this page for updates on this case.
The Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court has upheld enhanced compensation awarded to landowners whose land was acquired for the 720 MW Karot Hydropower Project, while further increasing compulsory acquisition charges from 15% to 25%.
On 26-01-2026, a division bench comprising Justice Jawad Hassan and Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf decided three connected appeals arising from the acquisition of more than 3,437 kanals of land in Kahuta, Rawalpindi, for the project.
The landowners were represented by Barrister Imran Hassan Ali, who successfully defended the enhancement granted by the Referee Court and sought further relief on behalf of the affected owners.
The Court dismissed appeals filed by the Punjab government and Karot Power Company challenging the compensation rate of Rs500,000 per kanal awarded by the Referee Court, holding that the assessment was supported by the evidence on record.
While maintaining the compensation rate and 8% compound interest, the Court partly allowed the landowners’ appeal by ruling that, since the acquisition was for a company project, the owners were entitled to 25% compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, instead of the 15% awarded by the Referee Court.
The judgment reiterates that compensation in land acquisition cases must be determined by considering not only market value but also the potential value and surrounding circumstances of the acquired land.
Rawalpindi: The Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) has allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application seeking amendment of a written statement, holding that courts must permit bona fide corrections necessary to determine the real controversy between parties.
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, ASC, represented the successful petitioners.
Through judgement announced on 19 January 2026, Justice Jawad Hassan set aside the orders of the trial court and the appellate court, which had declined amendment under Order VI, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The petitioners had sought to correct what they described as inadvertent typographical errors in their written statement, where references to an “exchange deed” were mistakenly made instead of a “sale deed,” forming the foundation of their defence. The lower courts had held that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the defence and could not be allowed.
Allowing the petition, the High Court observed that the defence of the petitioners throughout was premised on a sale deed dated 21 August 1980, and the incorrect references to an exchange deed appeared to be clerical mistakes rather than an attempt to introduce a new plea or withdraw an admission. The Court held that refusal to permit such limited and necessary amendment amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by law.
Justice Jawad Hassan reiterated that Order VI Rule 17 CPC confers wide discretion on courts to allow amendments at any stage of proceedings if they are essential for determining the real questions in controversy and do not prejudice the opposite party. He emphasised, “[P]rocedural rules are handmaids of justice and not its mistress. The object of pleadings is to define the issues, not to penalise a party for a bona fide clerical error.”
Consequently, the High Court allowed the amendment application
The judgement has been approved for reporting and can be downloaded from the Lahore High Court website by clicking here. (Opens in new tab)