BR100 Increased By (0.01%)
BR30 Increased By (0.53%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.28%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.29%)
AGHA 6.38 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.95%)
BECO 4.35 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (1.87%)
BML 62.55 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.16%)
BOP 31.39 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.51%)
CNERGY 11.73 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.21%)
CSIL 5.91 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (3.32%)
FCCL 61.71 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (0.28%)
FFL 14.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-1.53%)
FNEL 1.24 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.81%)
KEL 6.32 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.96%)
KOSM 5.90 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (6.12%)
LOTCHEM 24.69 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.04%)
MLCF 103.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.14%)
NBP 173.32 Decreased By ▼ -1.96 (-1.12%)
NCPL 51.83 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-1.78%)
NPL 54.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.17%)
OGDC 315.87 Increased By ▲ 2.48 (0.79%)
PACE 9.26 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.65%)
PAEL 35.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.61%)
PIBTL 13.66 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (1.41%)
PPL 226.07 Increased By ▲ 4.26 (1.92%)
PRL 80.28 Increased By ▲ 1.20 (1.52%)
PTC 46.64 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-0.45%)
SSGC 23.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.21%)
TBL 9.24 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.75%)
TELE 7.55 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (2.17%)
TPL 24.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-2.27%)
TPLP 12.99 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (3.84%)
TREET 25.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-1.03%)
TRG 53.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.21%)

LAHORE: Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that a family court cannot block CNIC of a citizen in execution of a decree against him.

The court also observed that Section 18 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 does not allow digital impounding of the CNIC of a person to compel him to appear before the court.

The court said that Section 51 (e) of the CPC also not permits a family court to block a CNIC in execution of a decree.

The court passed this order in a petition of one Nasir Ali Ranjha challenging blockage of his CNIC by a family court.

Also read: CNICs can’t be blocked without following due process: LHC

The court said cancellation, impounding or confiscation of CNIC impacts the fundamental rights of a person and also such orders are contrary to Article 175 (2) of the Constitution and the concept of rule of law.

The court said the provisions of Section 51(e) of the CPC cannot be interpreted in the manner that it would permit blockage of CNIC in execution of a decree and hence CNIC of a person cannot be taken away from him without following the due process of law, the court added.

Hence, this cannot be permitted because it does not have the sanction of law, the court added.

Any order passed or action taken on a consideration other than those stipulated therein cannot sustain, the court added.

The court; therefore, set aside the lower courts’ orders and held that the blockage of the petitioner’s CNIC is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

The court observed that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the trial or the appellate court for decision afresh.

The court ordered to restore the CNIC of the petitioner forthwith.

The court; however, asked the petitioner to face the remaining proceedings for execution of the decree, which shall be proceed on its own merits in accordance with law, the court added.

The court remarked that the observations recorded in this order shall not be treated as an impediment in the way of any party to seek remedy available under the law.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Comments

200 characters remaining