• FCC sets aside LHC judgement, restores revisional court’s order
• Directs courts to identify minor parties at outset of proceedings
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on July 16 laid down guiding principles for all civil and revenue courts dealing with cases relating to the property or inheritance rights of minors.
The guidelines require that every court hearing such matters ascertain, at the earliest stage of the proceedings, whether any party is a minor and ensure strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, governing civil suits by or against minors, before taking any substantive step.
“Faithful observance of these guidelines is intended to serve as guiding principles for all civil and revenue courts while dealing with proceedings affecting the rights and property of minors,” observed FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan in a 20-page judgement that overturned the Dec 11, 2024, judgement of the Lahore High Court’s Bahawalpur Bench.
The setting aside of the High Court’s order re-established the rights of minor children and a parda nasheen woman whose property rights had been compromised through an unlawful compromise decree.
Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan, who headed a three-member bench comprising Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, reinstated the revisional court’s earlier order, which had annulled the compromise decree and remanded the original suit for a fresh trial on its merits.
The case stemmed from a dispute over landed property in Bahawalnagar and centred on the question of whether the mandatory legal safeguards for minors had been observed when the compromise was recorded.
Widow Bushra Bibi had challenged the trial court’s compromise decree by filing an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC on the grounds that certain parties to the compromise were minors and that their interests had not been duly safeguarded.
Her revision petition was allowed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge on Oct 2, 2017. However, the private respondents (decree-holders) later invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, which, on Dec 11, 2024, set aside the revisional court’s order and restored the trial court’s decision dismissing the petitioner’s application.
In its guidelines, the FCC ruled that a guardian for a minor must be appointed strictly in accordance with Order XXXII, Rule 3 of the CPC, after the court is satisfied that the proposed guardian has no interest adverse to that of the minor.
No compromise affecting a minor’s rights or property shall be accepted unless the court records that it is lawful, in the minor’s best interests, and complies with Order XXXII, Rule 7 of the CPC.
Where a compromise involves a minor’s property or inheritance rights, the court must ensure compliance with the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and obtain prior approval from the competent guardian court where required.
Similarly, where a compromise is entered into by or on behalf of an illiterate, parda nasheen, or otherwise vulnerable person representing a minor, the court must subject the transaction to heightened judicial scrutiny before granting its approval.
The court must remain vigilant to ensure that no conflict of interest exists between the guardian and the minor and, if necessary, appoint another suitable guardian in accordance with the law.
Proceedings involving minors’ property or inheritance rights must not be decided hastily, and every order must reflect the court’s independent assessment of the minor’s best interests.
“A judicial decree cannot breathe legal life into an agreement which the law itself regards as vitiated,” the FCC observed.
The FCC regretted that the LHC failed to appreciate the settled legal framework protecting the inheritance and property rights of women and minors.
Consequently, the FCC held that the High Court’s interference with the well-reasoned judgement of the revisional court could not be sustained.
Published in Dawn, July 17th, 2026.
