Skip to content
Mon–Sat, 9:00 AM – 10:00 PM0331 9999 129 Book a consultation

Home » Judgments » Sindh High Court

A QR-verifiable CFMS copy did not satisfy the certified-copy rule in a guardian appeal

Sadam Hussain v. Mst. Shahneela and others Sindh High Court C.P. No. S-185 of 2026 Unreported Decided Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry (Sukkur Bench)

Judgment at a glance

Legal issue
Does a digital copy of a Family Court order downloaded from the court's Case Flow Management System (CFMS), verifiable by QR code, satisfy the requirement of a certified copy for filing an appeal?
Decision
No. Rule 22(3) of the Family Court Rules 1965 expressly requires a certified copy, and a CFMS copy does not meet it even though it can be authenticated by QR code. But because the appellate court did not object at the outset, the father should have been allowed to apply for condonation of delay under Rule 22(1); the dismissal was set aside, the appeal restored, and ten days given to apply.
Key principle
A Family Court appeal must be filed with a certified copy of the order under Rule 22(3); where the appellate court accepted a non-certified copy without objection, the appellant must be given the chance to seek condonation of delay under Rule 22(1) before the appeal is dismissed as time-barred.
Outcome
Set aside and sent back (remanded)
Relevant law
West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965, r.22(3); West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965, r.22(1); Guardians and Wards Act 1890, s.25; Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Art. 199
Why it matters
  • File a family or guardian appeal with a certified copy; a CFMS download, even with a QR code, is not enough.
  • If an appeal was accepted on a non-certified copy, ask to condone the delay in filing the certified copy rather than lose the appeal.

Cite as: Sadam Hussain v. Mst. Shahneela and others, Sindh High Court, C.P. No. S-185 of 2026, decided 26 October 2026

Facts

From the judgment

The Family Judge, Sukkur, dismissed the father's application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for custody of his daughter on 2 February 2026, leaving her with the mother. (p. 1)

His Guardian Appeal No. 09 of 2026 was filed with a copy downloaded from the court's CFMS; the certified copy he filed later was outside the limitation period, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred on 31 March 2026. The appellate court had not objected to the CFMS copy when admitting the appeal. (p. 1)

Procedural history

From the judgment

  1. 2 February 2026Application under s.25 Guardians and Wards Act (custody of daughter), Family Judge, SukkurDismissed; custody retained with the mother (p. 1)
  2. 31 March 2026Guardian Appeal No. 09 of 2026, Additional District Judge-II, SukkurDismissed as time-barred (CFMS copy not a certified copy) (p. 1)
  3. 26 October 2026C.P. No. S-185 of 2026, Sindh High Court, Sukkur BenchDismissal set aside; appeal restored; ten days to apply for condonation of delay; appeal to be decided afresh (p. 2)

Questions of law

  1. Is a QR-verifiable CFMS copy a 'certified copy' for filing an appeal under the Family Court Rules? Our framing

    The court's answer: No. Rule 22(3) expressly requires a certified copy; QR authentication does not change that. (p. 1)

  2. Could the appeal be dismissed as time-barred without giving the appellant a chance to seek condonation? Our framing

    The court's answer: No. As the court had not objected at the outset, he should have been allowed to apply under Rule 22(1), which lets the appellate court extend time for sufficient cause. (pp. 1-2)

Arguments

From the judgment

Petitioner or appellant

A digital copy from the CFMS was as good as a certified copy, and in any case the appellate court took no objection to it when admitting the appeal (p. 1).

Court's reasoning

From the judgment

A CFMS copy is not a certified copy

Although a digital copy from the court's Case Flow Management System can be authenticated through its QR code, Rule 22(3) of the Family Court Rules 1965 expressly requires a certified copy for filing an appeal. The appellate court was right that the digital copy did not meet that requirement. (p. 1)

But the appellant deserved a chance to explain the delay

Because the appellate court did not object to the copy at the outset, the appellant should have been allowed to apply for condonation of delay. Rule 22(1) empowers the appellate court to extend the time for an appeal on sufficient cause. (pp. 1-2)

Result

The order of 31 March 2026 was set aside and the appeal restored; the appellant has ten days to apply to condone the delay in producing the certified copy, after which the appeal is to be decided afresh. The petition was disposed of in those terms. (p. 2)

Judicial observations

From the judgment

The court's exact words.

Therefore, the learned appellate Court is correct that the digital copy did not fulfil the requirement of a certified copy.

p. 1

Case details

Case
Sadam Hussain v. Mst. Shahneela and others
Bench
Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry (Sukkur Bench)
Date of decision
Case number
C.P. No. S-185 of 2026
Citation
None known (unreported)
Outcome
Set aside and sent back (remanded)
Statutes considered
West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965, r.22(3); West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965, r.22(1); Guardians and Wards Act 1890, s.25; Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Art. 199

Practical implications

Our analysis

For lawyers

  • Apply for a certified copy of the Family Court order immediately and file the appeal with it; do not rely on a CFMS download, even with a QR code.
  • If an appeal has been admitted on a non-certified copy, file the certified copy promptly with an application under Rule 22(1) explaining the delay.
  • If an appeal is dismissed as time-barred on this ground without a chance to seek condonation, this order supports restoration.

For everyone else

  • To appeal a Family Court decision you need a certified copy of the decision from the court, not just a printout from the court's website.
  • If you made this mistake and the court did not object at the start, you can ask it to forgive the delay.

General points drawn from this judgment, not advice on your own case.

Limits of this judgment

Our analysis

  • A short single-judge order on procedure; it does not decide the custody dispute, which goes back to the appellate court.
  • It does not decide whether the delay should actually be condoned; that is for the appellate court on the application.

Questions about this case

Is a QR-coded copy from the court website a certified copy?

No. The Court held that Rule 22(3) of the Family Court Rules requires a certified copy, and a CFMS copy does not satisfy it even though it can be verified by QR code (p. 1).

What if my appeal was filed with the wrong copy?

If the court did not object at the start, you should be allowed to apply under Rule 22(1) to condone the delay in filing the certified copy (pp. 1-2).

Sources

Our saved copy
PDF, saved
How this summary was made
Summary from the full judgment
Official text read on
Note on the text
The order is not divided into numbered paragraphs; references are to its pages. It refers to the appeal both as 'Guardian Appeal No. 09 of 2026' and 'Guardian and Wards Appeal No. 09 of 2026'. Heard and decided on 26 October 2026; only the petitioner's counsel is recorded as appearing.
Cite this summary
PK-Legal & Associates, "A QR-verifiable CFMS copy did not satisfy the certified-copy rule in a guardian appeal", summary of Sadam Hussain v. Mst. Shahneela and others, Sindh High Court, C.P. No. S-185 of 2026, decided 26 October 2026, https://pklegal.org/judgments/shc-2026-s185-cfms-certified-copy/ (reviewed 3 November 2026).