Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Muhammad Aslam And Others vs Muhammad Hussain And Other1991 SCMR 1561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-25
  leave to appealfamily agreementadverse possessionhostile possessionstatus quomesne profits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22-8-1988. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine several core legal questions. Specifically, the Court intends to determine whether a purported family agreement existed, whether such an agreement contravened any law, and whether it could be given legal effect. Furthermore, the Court will address the issue of adverse possession, specifically examining when the possession of the property in question became hostile and the legal consequences thereof. Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo and directed the petitioners to furnish security for costs and mesne profits. The appeal is to be heard on the existing record, with parties granted liberty to submit additional documentation deemed necessary for the final adjudication of the dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a family agreement exists and if it contravenes any law?
  • Can a family agreement be given legal effect?
  • When does possession of property become hostile in the context of adverse possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Others vs Ata Muhammad And Other1991 SCMR 1805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29
  leave to appealremand orderNotified OfficerMukhbari applicationscivil petitions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against the orders of the Lahore High Court remanding cases to the Notified Officer for a fresh decision regarding whether certain Mukhbari applications were smuggled into the record or filed after the target date, and to subsequently pass an order on merits if competently filed. The core legal question concerns the propriety of a remand order directing the ascertainment of basic facts before adjudication on merits. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not legitimately grievance against a remand order aimed at verifying foundational facts. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as being devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot validly challenge an order of remand that merely facilitates the correct ascertainment of crucial facts necessary for a lawful decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party legitimately grievance against an order of remand passed by the High Court for the ascertainment of basic facts?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against a High Court remand order directing a Notified Officer to verify the authenticity and filing date of Mukhbari applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs Munshi Muhammad Behram And Another1991 SCMR 1971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-28
  Arbitration awardRevisional jurisdictionSupervisory jurisdictionAppellate authorityJurisdictional errorProcedural irregularityRemand
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged the High Court's decision to set aside a decree passed by a Qazi after an arbitration award was invalidated. The core issue was whether the defendants, having participated in subsequent proceedings after an unsuccessful appeal against the order setting aside the award, were precluded from challenging that order in revision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is not limited by the conduct of parties and can correct jurisdictional errors. However, the Court determined that the Majlis-e-Shoora had erroneously declined jurisdiction over the initial appeal against the order setting aside the award. The Supreme Court ruled that for the sake of maintaining the judicial hierarchy and ensuring complete justice under Article 187(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the matter should be remanded to the Majlis-e-Shoora to hear the appeals. The High Court should not have bypassed the appellate authority, as the appellate forum must exercise its statutory jurisdiction to provide the benefit of a hearing before an intermediary competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the participation of a party in subsequent trial proceedings preclude them from challenging an earlier interlocutory order in revision?
  • Can the High Court's revisional jurisdiction be limited or abridged by the conduct of the parties?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the power to remand a matter to an appellate authority that erroneously declined to exercise its jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs Abdul Hamid And Other1991 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-21
  constitutional validitylimited estateretrospective legislationevacuee propertylegislative competenceremedial statutejudicial independence
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns appeals challenging the constitutional validity of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975. The appellants contended that the Act was ultra vires, arguing it was repugnant to federal statutes like the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, and the Limitation Act, 1908, while also encroaching upon judicial independence and violating property rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Act's validity. The Court held that the legislation was a remedial measure designed to rectify erroneous administrative interpretations regarding limited estates held by refugee females, aligning with the Supreme Court's prior declarations of law. The Court affirmed that the legislature retains the power to enact retrospective legislation to correct misinterpretations of law by executive authorities. Furthermore, the Court clarified that such remedial legislation does not constitute an unauthorized encroachment on judicial power or an impairment of vested rights, as it merely enforces the correct legal position regarding limited ownership under custom. Consequently, the reopening of past transactions under the Act was deemed legally permissible and consistent with the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975 is ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the legislature enact retrospective legislation to correct erroneous interpretations of law by executive authorities?
  • Does the reopening of past transactions under the Punjab Act constitute an unauthorized encroachment upon judicial power?
  • Are purchasers from limited estate holders protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-28
  criminal appealappreciation of evidencelast seen evidencegrave and sudden provocationmurder convictionsentence calculation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the High Court's refusal to interfere with the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence, specifically regarding the reliance on eye-witness testimony from the deceased's family members and the recovery of incriminating items. The appellant contended that the weak motive evidence and the nature of the injuries suggested provocation, warranting a reduction of the conviction to a lesser offence. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to provide any explanation for the murder of his wife, who died under the same roof, and that the concept of 'last seen' evidence was applicable. Furthermore, the Court ruled that in the absence of evidence proving sudden and grave provocation, the conviction could not be altered. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction, while granting the appellant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding sentence calculation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304 Part I without evidence of sudden and grave provocation?
  • Does the concept of 'last seen' evidence apply to an inmate of a house where the deceased was killed?
  • Is the failure of an accused to explain the death of a spouse under the same roof a relevant factor in criminal appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Mahmood Akhtar Ansari And Another1991 SCMR 1548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-25
  Service Tribunalfitness and suitabilityleave to appealservice lawprocedural fairnessselection committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a service-related dispute. The core legal questions identified for examination involve the competency of an appeal before a Service Tribunal regarding the fitness or suitability of a candidate under the relevant statutory framework, and the propriety of the Tribunal's interference with the merits of the case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues of public importance. Furthermore, the Court noted a procedural deficiency, observing that the comments of the Senior Civil Judge and the Selection Committee had not been sought at any stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court directed that the relevant applications, including the markings made thereon, be forwarded to the then Senior Civil Judge for verification and confirmation of the markings, alongside a request for parawise comments on the memorandum of appeal previously presented to the District Judge. The matter was ordered to be heard in the presence of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal to the Service Tribunal is competent regarding the fitness or suitability of a person under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1974?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in interfering with the merits of a case concerning the selection or suitability of a candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asalat vs Nadir Masih And Other1991 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-24
  malicious prosecutiondamagesacquittalleave to appealprobable cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts awarding damages to the respondents for malicious prosecution following their acquittal in a theft case under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the courts below correctly applied the principles governing suits for malicious prosecution, specifically regarding the requirement of a clear finding on the absence of probable cause for the initial prosecution. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petition raised arguable questions regarding the proper application of legal principles for malicious prosecution, suspended the impugned decree subject to security, and ordered the appeal to be readied for an early hearing. The key principle laid down is that a suit for malicious prosecution requires a distinct finding regarding the presence or absence of reasonable and probable cause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles for awarding damages in a suit for malicious prosecution were correctly followed without a clear finding on probable cause?
  • Can the execution of a decree for damages for malicious prosecution be suspended pending appeal upon furnishing security?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Superintending Engineer, Electricity, WAPDA, Islamabad And Another1991 SCMR 1558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18
  service lawpromotionfitness for promotiondepartmental authorityservice tribunal jurisdictionseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the promotion of respondent No. 2, seeking redress before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, invoking the second proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, which bars appeals against departmental orders determining the fitness or otherwise of a person for appointment or promotion to a higher grade. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against this decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authority had duly considered the petitioner and found him unfit for promotion. The Court affirmed that seniority is not the sole criterion for promotion and that the determination of fitness for a higher post falls within the exclusive domain of the departmental authority. Consequently, the Court ruled that no question of law was involved in the petition, as the Tribunal correctly applied the statutory bar regarding fitness determinations. Leave to appeal was refused, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie to the Federal Service Tribunal against a departmental order determining the fitness of a person for promotion?
  • Is seniority the sole criterion for promotion to a higher grade?
  • Does the determination of fitness for promotion by a departmental authority involve a question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Raja Muhammad Aslam And Other1991 SCMR 1671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-24
  pre-emptionleave to appealamendment of plaintco-sharershiptalabsIslamic injunctionsPunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's suits for pre-emption. The petitioner initially claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on being the brother of the vendor. Following the dismissal of his suits and subsequent appeals, the petitioner sought to amend his plaints to plead co-sharership and the performance of talabs, citing evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the validity of certain provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act under Islamic injunctions. The High Court rejected these applications for amendment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the petitioner's submissions regarding the High Court's refusal to allow amendments to the pleadings in light of the principles established in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah and subsequent case law required further examination. The Court held that the legal questions raised warranted a full hearing, thereby granting leave to appeal subject to the furnishing of security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit is entitled to amend the plaint to include grounds of co-sharership and performance of talabs after the initial suit has been dismissed?
  • Does the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah require courts to allow amendments to pre-emption pleadings to reflect co-sharership?
  • Can a second appeal be dismissed solely on the basis of the law laid down in Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others without considering subsequent developments in pre-emption law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Khan, Ex Overseer Grade II vs Dy. Enc. E in C's Branch, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi And Another1991 SCMR 1904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-23
  civil servicedisciplinary proceedingsback benefitsprocedural defectreinstatementshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the reinstatement of a civil servant. The petitioner contested the Tribunal's decision to allow the authorities to resume disciplinary proceedings from the point of a procedural defect—specifically, the failure to issue a show-cause notice following a Court of Inquiry—and the denial of back benefits upon reinstatement. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Tribunal erred in permitting the authorities to rectify the procedural lapse and whether the petitioner was automatically entitled to back benefits. The Court held that because the petitioner's success before the Tribunal was based on technical grounds rather than the merits of the case, the authorities were legally entitled to resume disciplinary proceedings from the stage where the technical defect occurred. Regarding the claim for back benefits, the Court noted that the petitioner's entitlement was governed by the proviso to section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and directed the petitioner to pursue this claim before the appropriate authority. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant be resumed from the stage of a procedural defect if the initial dismissal was set aside on technical grounds?
  • Is a civil servant automatically entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement when the dismissal is set aside on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And Others vs Muhammad Fazil And Other1991 SCMR 1842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-26
  leave to appealrevenue recordJamabandimutation of saleconcurrent findings of factdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the High Court in a suit for declaration of ownership in possession based on purchase. The core legal question concerned the legal effect of revenue record entries and mutation of sale where the petitioners claimed they remained owners despite the alleged purchase. The Supreme Court examined the revenue records and found that concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower courts against the petitioners were unexceptionable, noting further that entries remaining consistent for nearly forty years without any corrective steps by the petitioners supported these findings. The Supreme Court held that no justification existed for interference with the concurrent findings, and accordingly refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that long-standing entries in revenue records left unchallenged for decades reinforce concurrent findings of fact against a party claiming ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Whether long-standing entries in revenue records left uncorrected for a significant period support concurrent findings of fact against a party claiming ownership?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding revenue record entries without sufficient justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And Another vs Muhammad Saeed And Another1991 SCMR 2337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-12
  ejectmentpersonal needlandlord and tenantrented premisesbona fide requirementleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the ejectment of two tenants from a shop on the grounds of the landlord's personal need. The core legal questions were whether a landlord's personal need is negated by the prior possession of a rented shop, whether a landlord can combine their personal need with that of their adult son, and whether the son's absence from the country invalidates the claim of personal need. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a landlord is not disentitled from seeking eviction even if they previously occupied a rented shop, provided the need is genuine. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a landlord may include the needs of their adult children within their own personal need, as the requirement remains fundamentally that of the landlord. The Court concluded that the findings of the High Court regarding the necessity of the premises were based on evidence and that the tenants' allegations of ulterior motives were merely conjectural.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord seek the eviction of a tenant for personal need if the landlord previously occupied a rented shop?
  • Is a landlord legally permitted to combine their own personal need for premises with the need of their adult children?
  • Does the temporary absence of a family member from the country invalidate a landlord's claim of personal need for business premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And 6 Others vs Nasir And 3 Other1991 SCMR 1988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-06
  evictioncompromise decreemutationfraudleave to appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondents' predecessor-in-interest had successfully filed an eviction application against the petitioners, which was subsequently resolved through a compromise in the High Court, granting the petitioners time to vacate the premises. Prior to the expiry of the agreed period, the petitioners filed a Section 12(2) application, claiming their deceased father had purchased the shop from the landlord prior to the eviction proceedings, a fact they allegedly discovered only recently. The High Court rejected this claim, finding that the revenue mutation was dishonestly manipulated with the assistance of revenue staff after the alleged purchaser's death. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's findings, holding that the plea of purchase was a fabricated attempt to frustrate the compromise ejectment order. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge a compromise eviction order under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a fraudulent and manipulated mutation of ownership?
  • Whether a plea of ownership based on a backdated and manipulated revenue entry can be used to frustrate a compromise ejectment order?
  • Does the failure to obtain the identity card of a vendor during a mutation attestation, coupled with the death of the purchaser prior to the alleged attestation date, render the mutation invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Mst. Abida Sultana And Other1991 SCMR 1562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-11
  Nikahnamagift of propertyownership disputeconcurrent findingsejectment applicationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a property dispute between a former husband and wife regarding the ownership of a house. The petitioner, who had previously obtained an ejectment order against the respondents, challenged a subsequent civil suit filed by his former wife (respondent No. 1) claiming ownership of the disputed property. The trial court initially dismissed the wife's suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, a finding later upheld by the High Court. The petitioner contended that he had not gifted the property to the respondent. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the Nikahnama (marriage contract), which explicitly recorded in column 17 that the petitioner had gifted the bungalow in question to his wife. Finding no misreading or ignorance of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the gift were supported by the record. Consequently, the Court determined that no point of law was involved, refused leave to appeal, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the entry in column 17 of a Nikahnama regarding the transfer of property constitute valid evidence of a gift?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when there is no evidence of misreading or ignorance of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Butt vs Shajaud Din And Other1991 SCMR 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-11
  rent restrictionevictiontenancyannual rentlandlord and tenantstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an eviction order passed against the petitioner by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance is limited in its application exclusively to month-to-month tenancies, thereby excluding tenancies where rent is payable on an annual basis. The petitioner contended that certain provisions of the Ordinance implied such a limitation. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the Ordinance does not expressly exclude tenancies with annual rent payments from its purview. The Court emphasized that if the legislature had intended to restrict the scope of the Ordinance to monthly tenancies, it would have used explicit language to that effect. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the Rent Restriction Ordinance applies to tenancies regardless of whether the rent is calculated or payable on a monthly or yearly basis.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance apply to tenancies where rent is payable on an annual basis?
  • Is the scope of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance limited exclusively to month-to-month tenancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Another vs Saood Ahmad And Other1991 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-30
  rented premiseseviction applicationdefault in renttenancy agreementpremature applicationtenancy month
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding an eviction application filed on the grounds of non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority had initially ordered the tenant's eviction, but the Sindh High Court reversed this decision, finding the application premature. The core legal question was whether the tenant had committed a default in rent payment sufficient to warrant eviction under the terms of the tenancy agreement and relevant statutory provisions. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the eviction application, though based on different reasoning. The Court held that the rent was not payable in advance and became due only upon the expiry of the tenancy month. By calculating the tenancy period correctly, the Court determined that the rent for the period in question was not yet due when the eviction application was filed. Consequently, the application was premature as no actionable default had occurred. The Court found it unnecessary to address the broader question of whether parties could contract out of statutory obligations regarding eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is rent under a tenancy agreement payable in advance or upon the expiry of the tenancy month in the absence of an express stipulation?
  • When does a default in rent payment occur for the purpose of an eviction application?
  • Can an eviction application be maintained if the rent was not yet due at the time of filing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Qureshi vs Government of Pakistan And 2 Other1991 SCMR 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-07
  disciplinary proceedingsnatural justiceshow-cause noticeservice lawex-parte enquirydismissal from serviceprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerned the validity of dismissal proceedings initiated against an Assistant Central Intelligence Officer. The core legal question was whether the department, having opted for a summary procedure via a show-cause notice, acted unlawfully by conducting a contemporaneous, ex-parte enquiry to gather evidence against the appellant, which was then presented only during the personal hearing. The Supreme Court held that the procedure adopted was fundamentally flawed and violative of natural justice. While the department chose the shorter procedure, it effectively conducted a secret enquiry behind the appellant's back, denying him the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or test the material collected. This created a mockery of the disciplinary process by denying the appellant the benefits of the longer enquiry procedure while utilizing its investigative methods. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order and the Service Tribunal's decision, directing the department to determine afresh whether to proceed via the shorter or longer procedure and to conclude the enquiry strictly in accordance with the law, ensuring the appellant's rights are protected.

  Questions settled

  • Does the collection of evidence behind the back of an accused employee during a summary disciplinary proceeding violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a department utilize the material gathered from an ex-parte enquiry when it has elected to follow the shorter show-cause notice procedure?
  • Is a dismissal order sustainable if the department denies an employee the opportunity to cross-examine evidence used against them during disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and 2 others vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-17
  common intentionvicarious liabilitydying declarationspur of the momentsection 34 PPChouse trespassmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 302, 452, and 544-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for house trespass and the murder of a married woman by setting her on fire after she refused their demands for sexual intercourse. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the co-accused who did not directly inflict the fatal act could be held vicariously liable under section 34 P.P.C. for murder committed in the course of an assault originally intended for another crime, absent pre-concert to commit murder. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and held that although the original entry was for sexual assault, a common intention to kill or coerce the victim developed at the spur of the moment upon her persistent refusal. The key principle laid down is that common intention under section 34 P.P.C. need not be pre-planned and can develop at the spur of the moment during the commission of an offense, and co-accused remaining present and failing to dissociate themselves from the primary offender can share vicarious liability for the resulting crime.

  Questions settled

  • Can common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code develop at the spur of the moment during the commission of an offense?
  • Whether an accused person can be convicted solely on the basis of a reliable dying declaration in the absence of ocular testimony?
  • Does the mere presence of co-accused at the scene of a crime attract vicarious liability under section 34 P.P.C. without circumstances showing a shared intention?
  • Is a co-accused who remains present and fails to disassociate from the principal offender during the commission of a crime deemed to share a common intention?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs Commissioner, Multan Division And Other1991 SCMR 1900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-20
  Mukhbari applicationexcess allotmentdisplaced personsland settlementinformer statutory rightPI unitsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. Upon an informer's application (Mukhbari application) filed by the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, the petitioner's land allotment was reduced by 178 P.I. Units as being in excess of entitlement, and the withdrawn land was subsequently allotted to the informer. The petitioner did not dispute obtaining excess allotment but claimed a right to purchase the excess land taken from him. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to retain or purchase the land in preference to the informer. The Court held that under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, the informer possessed a statutory right to receive the land withdrawn from the petitioner's allotment following the information supplied. Finding no merit in the petitioner's claim, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does an informer who files a successful Mukhbari application have a statutory right to receive land withdrawn from an excess allotment under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  • Can an allottee who obtained excess land claim a right to purchase the excess land over an informer entitled under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Faiz Ahmed And 5 Other1991 SCMR 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-28
  pre-emptionwrit jurisdictionremandabandonment of pointsmarket valuecourt-feeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of writ petitions concerning a pre-emption dispute under Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue, after deciding the court-fee issue in favor of the respondents, was legally obligated to remand the case to the lower forum to adjudicate other pending issues, specifically the market value of the property. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that because the petitioner had consciously abandoned other points, including the market value, before the appellate and revisional forums, remanding the case would be a futile exercise. The judgment reinforces the principle that points abandoned or not pressed at earlier stages of proceedings cannot be reopened subsequently. Furthermore, it establishes that appellate or revisional courts are not obligated to remand cases for issues that were not actively pursued or where the outcome would remain unchanged, thereby justifying the High Court's refusal to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party reopen a legal point in higher forums that was consciously abandoned at an earlier stage of the proceedings?
  • Is a court required to remand a case for the determination of issues that were not pressed before the appellate or revisional forums?
  • Does the failure to raise specific points before a revisional authority preclude a party from seeking a remand on those same points in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan vs S.S.P., Multan And Other1991 SCMR 1159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16
  service appealdeposit of securitynon-complianceservice tribunalleave to appealprocedural default
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a police constable, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal for failure to deposit the required security within the stipulated time. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal when the appellant failed to comply with the direction to deposit security and did not seek an extension of time. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal was justified as the petitioner failed to satisfy the Court regarding his non-compliance with the deposit order and made no application for an extension of time. The key principle laid down is that failure to comply with procedural directions such as depositing security, without seeking an extension of time or offering a valid explanation, warrants the dismissal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal is justified in dismissing an appeal when the appellant fails to deposit the required security within the given timeframe?
  • Can an appellant who fails to deposit security within the stipulated period claim relief without filing an application for extension of time?
  • Does the failure to comply with procedural orders of the Service Tribunal warrant the refusal of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Others vs Rehmatullah And Another1991 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-13
  pre-emptionsale versus giftmutationrevenue recordcivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision and upholding the concurrent finding that a disputed land transfer constituted a sale rather than a gift. The core legal question was whether the transaction recorded in the revenue mutation as a sale for a monetary consideration could be treated as a gift in pre-emption suits. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact by the lower appellate court, supported by oral and documentary evidence as well as statutory bar, was unexceptionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that alienations purporting to be sales must be treated as such under the applicable pre-emption law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an alienation purporting to be a sale in a revenue mutation can be treated as a gift in pre-emption proceedings?
  • Does Section 4 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act prohibit the court from holding that an alienation purporting to be a sale was not in fact a sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Another vs Capital Development Authority And Other1991 SCMR 1796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-24
  land acquisitioncompensationpast and closed transactionreview of awarddelay and lachesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition, which challenged the dismissal of their review application seeking enhanced compensation for land acquired by the Capital Development Authority. The core legal question is whether a concluded acquisition award and compensation finalized years prior can be re-opened and reviewed based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' case constituted a past and closed transaction that could not be re-opened after an inordinate delay of nearly twelve years from the date of the original award and nine years from the subsequent judgment relied upon. The key principle laid down is that subsequent judicial pronouncements cannot serve as a basis to re-open long-settled past and closed transactions or belatedly challenge finalized land acquisition awards.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finalized land acquisition award can be re-opened after an inordinate delay to claim enhanced compensation based on a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court?
  • Can a belated review petition against an acquisition award be entertained when the matter has already attained finality as a past and closed transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzaal Chughtai vs Muhammad Abdullah And Another1991 SCMR 1325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-29
  civil revisioninterim orderdiscretionary orderleave to defendstay of proceedingsmoney recovery suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had stayed trial court proceedings in a civil suit for money recovery. The petitioner had originally obtained an order from the trial court granting the respondents leave to defend the suit, subject to the condition of furnishing the entire suit amount or a bank guarantee. The respondents challenged this conditional leave to defend by filing a civil revision in the High Court, which subsequently stayed the trial court proceedings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's interim order staying the trial proceedings warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was discretionary in nature. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court's interim order while the civil revision remained pending, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts generally decline to interfere with discretionary interim orders passed by a High Court during the pendency of a civil revision.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a civil revision?
  • Is an order staying trial court proceedings while a civil revision is pending subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdur Rashid Ajmal Khan vs Hassan Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1742 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-21
  pre-emptionremand of caseex parte decreeopportunity of hearingcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the High Court dated 27-1-1986 regarding a suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question concerns the propriety of decreeing a pre-emption suit based on the evidence of only one party when the vendor and vendee did not produce evidence and contested the transaction. The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, both the vendor and the vendee should be given an opportunity to present evidence to enable the trial Court to reach a correct conclusion. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case to the trial Court for a decision on merits after examining all contesting parties, including the heirs of the alleged vendees and vendors. The key principle laid down is that a matter should be remanded for fresh evidence when a decree is passed upon the testimony of a single party without affording contesting parties a proper opportunity to defend and lead evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption suit be validly decreed on the sole evidence of the plaintiff when the vendor and vendee fail to produce evidence?
  • Is it appropriate to remand a case to the trial Court for recording evidence of all contesting parties in the interest of justice?
  • Whether the High Court's order accepting a revision petition against concurrent findings can be set aside when material parties were not given a proper chance to contest?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Extra Assistant Commissioner And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-28
  Urban SettlementSettlement Scheme No. VIIIAuction-purchaserLeave to appealAvailable propertyProperty transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in an Urban Settlement dispute. The petitioner, a local, sought the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, initially obtaining possession and a transfer order based on the property's valuation. Subsequently, the property was auctioned to the respondent, despite a stay order issued by the High Court. The petitioner's application under Settlement Scheme No. VIII was later allowed, effectively nullifying the respondent's auction purchase. The High Court, however, allowed the respondent's writ petition, holding that the petitioner's application under the Scheme was either not filed or unavailable, and that the property was not 'available' for transfer because it had already been auctioned. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the petitioner's application was validly filed and whether the property remained 'available' for transfer under the relevant settlement laws despite the prior auction. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the auction of a property render it unavailable for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
  • Can a transfer of property be upheld if the application under Settlement Scheme No. VIII is alleged to be missing or unfiled?
  • Does a stay order by the High Court prevent the confirmation of an auction sale of disputed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhamamd Afzal And Another vs Rehmat Ali And Other1991 SCMR 1785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27
  agreement to sellproprietary rightscivil revisionspecific performancealienation of landcolonization of government landsdeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that allowed a civil revision in a suit for declaration. The respondent-plaintiff sought a declaration that they were in possession of suit property under an agreement to sell and that subsequent mutations in favour of the petitioners were illegal. The trial and appellate courts initially dismissed the suit as premature, but the High Court reversed this, relying on precedents regarding the validity of agreements to sell land. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell land, executed before the acquisition of proprietary rights and without obtaining sanction under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, could form the basis of a valid civil action. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that such agreements are enforceable despite the lack of prior sanction, affirming that the absence of proprietary rights at the time of the agreement does not bar a civil action for declaration against the vendors or subsequent transferees.

  Questions settled

  • Can an agreement to sell land be enforced if the vendor had not yet acquired full proprietary rights at the time of the agreement?
  • Does the lack of prior sanction under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, invalidate an agreement to sell land for the purposes of a civil action?
  • Is a suit for declaration based on an agreement to sell maintainable against subsequent transferees where the original vendor lacked proprietary rights at the time of the agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Khan vs Ali Rehman And Other1991 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-11
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptionInjunctions of Islamleave to appealpre-emption decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a revision petition concerning a right of pre-emption. The core legal question involves the effect of the Supreme Court's judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah on pre-emption claims where no decree had been passed prior to 31-7-1986. The Supreme Court held that following Said Kamal Shah's case and its subsequent clarification by the Shariat Appellate Bench, section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 ceased to have legal effect after 31-7-1986, and consequently no pre-emption decree could be granted in favour of the petitioner after that date. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption decree can be passed after 31-7-1986 in view of the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah?
  • What is the legal effect of the Shariat Appellate Bench's clarification regarding the judgment in Said Kamal Shah's case on pre-emption laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohran And Others vs Mst. Fazlan And Other1991 SCMR 1344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-06
  gift mutationdeclaratory suitalienation of propertyinheritance rightsvalidity of gifttransfer of possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of a declaratory suit filed by the petitioners challenging a gift mutation. The petitioners contested the validity of a gift made by their father, Nabi Bakhsh, in favour of the respondents, arguing that it deprived them of their inheritance rights. The core legal question was whether the donor possessed the unfettered right to alienate his property through a gift, thereby excluding his heirs from inheritance. The Supreme Court observed that the gift was validly executed, with the petitioner herself admitting its execution and the subsequent delivery of possession to the respondents. The Court held that the petition lacked merit, affirming that the donor held full legal power to dispose of his property as he saw fit, and there existed no legal restraint on his right to alienate the same. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing the principle that a property owner has an absolute right to alienate their property during their lifetime, which cannot be challenged solely on the grounds of depriving potential heirs of inheritance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a property owner have the legal authority to alienate their property through a gift despite the potential impact on the inheritance rights of their heirs?
  • Is a gift mutation valid if the execution of the gift is admitted and possession of the property has been delivered to the donee?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Mai And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue And 6 Other1991 SC M R1905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26
  constitutional petitionmutationgiftalternative remedyrevenue authoritiescivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court through two petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petitions and subsequent review petitions. The core legal question concerns the propriety of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to challenge revenue authorities' decisions regarding property mutations involving disputed questions of ownership and the nature of a gift. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional petition filed before the High Court was misconceived because questions regarding whether a gift made in favor of a spouse was absolute or merely for maintenance fall exclusively within the domain of the Civil Court. Since an adequate alternative remedy was available, invoking writ jurisdiction against mutation orders was unwarranted. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming that title and disputed gift nature must be resolved through civil litigation rather than revenue mutation proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable to challenge revenue mutation orders involving disputed questions of ownership?
  • Does a dispute regarding whether a gift was absolute or for maintenance fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court?
  • Can writ jurisdiction be invoked when an adequate remedy is available to resolve questions of property title?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zenab Bibi And 4 Others vs Nisar Ahmad And 37 Other1991 SC M R 1360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-19
  interim orderlegal heirssubstitution of partiessecond appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging an interim order passed by the High Court in a pending second appeal, whereby the legal heirs of a deceased pro forma defendant were impleaded subject to objections. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with an interim order of the High Court allowing the substitution of legal representatives during the pendency of a regular second appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the impugned interim order was expressly made subject to objections and could be assailed by the petitioners if the final decision in the regular second appeal went against them, there was no justification for granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused the petition for leave to appeal, establishing that interlocutory orders subject to future objections and ultimate appealability do not ordinarily warrant interference under extraordinary appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against an interim order that allows the impleading of legal heirs subject to objections?
  • Can an interlocutory order passed by the High Court during a pending second appeal be assailed after the final decision if the appeal is decided against the aggrieved party?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeenat Begum vs Mst. Iqbal and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-12
  customary lawlimited owneralienation of landwidow's estateInjunctions of Islamsuccessionproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the alienation of land by a widow who had inherited the property of her deceased husband under customary law. The appellant, claiming to be the step-sister of the deceased, challenged the sale on the grounds that the widow held the land as a limited owner under custom and lacked the authority to alienate it without legal necessity. While the appellate court initially ruled in favor of the appellant, the High Court reversed this decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a widow inheriting under customary law remains subject to traditional restraints on alienation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that restrictions on the power of alienation imposed by customary law are opposed to the Injunctions of Islam. Relying on the precedent established in Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ishaq, the Court affirmed that such customary limitations are inconsistent with the spirit of Islamic law, thereby validating the widow's full ownership and her right to alienate the property.

  Questions settled

  • Does a widow inheriting agricultural land under customary law remain subject to restraints on alienation?
  • Are restrictions on the power of alienation under customary law consistent with the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Can a widow who inherits property under customary law transfer that land without legal necessity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarqa And Others vs Malik Haji Abdul Salam And Other1991 SCMR 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-05
  pre-emptionTalabsconstitutional petitionremand of suitex parte decreeMuhammadan Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, whereby a Constitution Petition filed by the first respondent was allowed, setting aside the pre-emption decree passed in favour of the appellants and dismissing their suit. The pre-emption suit was originally filed in 1971 in respect of tenancy rights, water, and shamilat land. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether, in the absence of the framing of an issue on the question of Talabs (demands under Muhammadan Law) and the recording of evidence thereon, the suit could be dismissed on the ground that no Talabs had been made. The Supreme Court held that since the pre-emptor had mentioned the Talab in the plaint and no issue was framed due to ex parte proceedings and no fault of the pre-emptor, the High Court was not justified in interfering in its constitutional jurisdiction; however, it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove the Talabs in accordance with Muhammadan Law. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the suit for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit can be dismissed in constitutional jurisdiction for want of proof of Talabs when no specific issue regarding Talabs was framed during trial?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a pre-emption decree under constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that the formalities of Talabs were not strictly observed?
  • Is it necessary for a pre-emptor to prove the making of Talabs in accordance with Muhammadan Law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Begum vs The State1991 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-28
  pre-arrest bailleave to appeallalkaracriminal appealbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Zakia Begum against the dismissal of her pre-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in respect of a criminal case registered at Police Station Wannekey Tarrar, District Gujranwala. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of an accused woman to pre-arrest bail where she is attributed a proverbial lalkara and alleged to have exhorted a co-accused to strike the deceased with the butt of a shotgun, alongside considerations of mala fides and family circumstances. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, permitted the challenge of a subsequent High Court order, treated the petition as an appeal, and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted, thereby allowing bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is only imputed a proverbial lalkara and interim bail has been enjoyed without abuse, the court may confirm pre-arrest bail pending the final disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed where an accused is only imputed a proverbial lalkara in the F.I.R.?
  • Can an appellate court treat a petition for leave to appeal as an appeal and allow bail to the accused?
  • Whether interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed if no application for its revocation was filed by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaidat vs Shahadat And Other1991 SCMR 1899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25
  leave to appealconcurrent findingsmental capacitydisposing mindsale-deedpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession of land sold by her deceased father. The core legal question concerns the mental capacity and disposing mind of the vendor at the time of executing the registered sale-deed amidst allegations of advanced age, paralysis, and senility. The Supreme Court held that the question of mental fitness was one of fact, and finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts affirming the vendor's capacity, the petition for leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding mental capacity in the absence of any legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mental fitness of a vendor to execute a sale-deed is a question of fact?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts regarding a vendor's mental capacity in the absence of legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaahran Mai and others vs Muhammad Mutiullah Khan and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-03
  limitationcondonation of delaycertified copycopying agencyregular second appealexclusion of timeact of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the High Court which dismissed a Regular Second Appeal as barred by time. The core legal question was whether the time spent in obtaining certified copies, including the period lost due to a clerical error in mentioning the date of the judgment in the copy application sent by registered post and its subsequent rectification, should be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were diligently prosecuting their case without negligence, that the fault of the Copying Agency—part of the judicial administration—cannot penalize a party, and that the time spent must be excluded as of right under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 without requiring an application under section 5. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the case remanded for decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that a party shall not suffer on account of the acts or defaults of the court's machinery, and the period requisite for obtaining copies via postal applications under the applicable rules must be excluded from limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time spent in obtaining a certified copy through post, including delays caused by rectifying a clerical error in the copy application, is excludable under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a litigant be penalized for the non-observance of rules or delays by the Copying Agency?
  • Does the exclusion of the period requisite for obtaining copies under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 operate as of right without requiring an application under section 5?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Sultana And Others vs Dr. S. S. Naeemul Hamid And Other1991 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-06
  limitationcopying agencycertified copycomputation of timepetition for leave to appealtime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dated 22-3-1989, which addressed whether an appeal before the lower appellate court was barred by time by one day. The core legal question revolved around the computation of the period of limitation for obtaining copies under the Limitation Act, specifically regarding when an application for a copy is deemed to be made when it is initially entertained with defects by the copying agency. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the High Court, which concluded that the application for a copy was made on the date it was originally entered in the register despite formal defects like the absence of a court-fee stamp or presiding officer sanction, was unexceptionable and supported by the record. The key principle laid down is that a defective application for the supply of a copy, once entertained and entered in the register by the copying agency, shall be deemed to have been made on that date for computing the period of limitation under Section 12 of the Limitation Act.

  Questions settled

  • From what date should an application for a copy be deemed to have been made for computing the period of limitation under Section 12 of the Limitation Act when the application was initially entertained with defects by the copying agency?
  • Whether an appeal held to be within time by the High Court based on the correct computation of time spent in obtaining copies is sustainable when no misreading of evidence is pointed out?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughra And Another vs Additional Deputy Commissioner And Other1991 SCMR 1539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-20
  bona fide purchaserallotment cancellationleave to appealsettlement claimswrit jurisdictionstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions challenging the cancellation of an allotment of land. The petitioners contend that they are bona fide purchasers for value and were denied a fair hearing regarding the cancellation of the allotment originally made to their predecessor-in-interest, Daud Khan. They argue that the finding that the allotment was bogus is incorrect, asserting that the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court had previously upheld similar claims from the same estates even in the absence of verified records from India. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions, specifically addressing the validity of the cancellation of the allotment and the petitioners' status as bona fide purchasers, while also noting that the second petition is subject to a question of limitation. The Court ordered that the status quo be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bona fide purchaser for value challenge the cancellation of an allotment made to their predecessor-in-interest?
  • Does the absence of verified records from India invalidate an allotment claim if similar claims were previously upheld by the Settlement Commissioner?
  • Is the cancellation of an allotment valid if the affected parties were not provided a hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharman Bibi And Others vs Mahboob Ali And Another1991 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-27
  admissibility of evidencemode of proofwaiver of objectionpedigree-tableappellate reviewremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court order that remanded a case to the District Judge for re-evaluation of evidence, specifically regarding the admissibility of a pedigree-table (Ex.P.3). The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly held that the objection regarding the mode of proof of the pedigree-table had been waived by the appellants due to their failure to raise it before the Trial Court. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that, contrary to the High Court's finding, the appellants had indeed raised a timely objection to the document's admissibility when it was tendered in evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's premise—that the objection was not taken and thus waived—was factually incorrect and against the record. The Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the appeals, establishing the principle that an appellate court must accurately verify the record regarding whether objections to the admissibility of evidence were raised at the trial stage before concluding that such objections were waived.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court conclude that an objection to the mode of proof of a document was waived if the record shows the objection was raised at the trial stage?
  • Is a finding by the High Court that is contrary to the trial record sustainable in appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Muhammad Sadiq And Other1991 SCMR 1798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-21
  pre-emption decreeexecution of decreeQabza Malkanasymbolic possessionactual possessionres judicatalandlord and tenantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed her civil revision and affirmed the lower courts' rulings restricting her to 'Qabza Malkana' (symbolic/proprietary possession) rather than actual physical possession under a pre-emption decree. The Supreme Court observed that during prior litigation between the parties, the High Court had already determined that the decree-holder was entitled only to Qabza Malkana and not physical possession, a finding that became final as it was not challenged further. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower forums, holding that the finality of the earlier finding bound the execution proceedings. Furthermore, the Court addressed the petitioner's apprehension regarding her remedy by clarifying that holding the petitioner entitled to Qabza Malkana establishes the respondents' status as tenants, thereby entitling the petitioner to initiate lawful proceedings against them in that capacity. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding in prior revision proceedings regarding the nature of possession under a decree, which has attained finality, operates as a bar to claiming actual physical possession in execution?
  • What legal remedies remain available to a decree-holder who is awarded Qabza Malkana (symbolic possession) instead of physical possession of suit land?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahzada Begum vs Ahmad Kamal and 18 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-19
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictiondivisibility of housesettlement authoritydisplaced personsfailure to exercise jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of an urban settlement matter was allowed and the case was remanded to the Settlement Authority to examine the divisibility of the disputed house. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction on the question of the divisibility of a house under settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authority failed to apply an independent mind to the physical characteristics of the house regarding its divisibility, instead treating it as indivisible based on preferential rights. The ratio decidendi is that failure by a settlement officer to apply an independent mind to the question of divisibility constitutes a failure to exercise vested power, rendering the order without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that under the proviso to Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, authorities must properly consider divisibility to fulfill the legislative object of accommodating as many displaced persons as possible, and High Courts can lawfully interfere under writ jurisdiction when authorities fail to exercise this power.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere in its Constitutional writ jurisdiction on the question of divisibility of a house?
  • Does the failure of a settlement authority to apply an independent mind to the divisibility of a property constitute a failure to exercise vested power?
  • Can a settlement authority treat a house as indivisible based on preferential rights without examining its physical characteristics?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Begum vs Mst. Zulaikha Bibi And 5 Other1991 SCMR 1943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-19
  rejection of plaintallotment of landexhaustion of remediessettlement and rehabilitationcivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's plaint by the lower courts. The petitioner, Mst. Shahnaz Begum, challenged the allotment of 5 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land to respondent Mst. Zulaikha Bibi, claiming the land had previously been allotted to her uncle, Chaudhry Muhammad Abdullah, on an industrial basis. The core legal question was whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action or if the rejection of the plaint under summary procedure was justified. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had provided cogent findings justifying the rejection of the plaint. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Chaudhry Muhammad Abdullah, had already exhausted his legal remedies before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities regarding the disputed land transfer. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that a civil suit cannot be maintained to re-litigate matters where administrative remedies have already been exhausted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil suit be maintained to challenge land allotments when the predecessor-in-interest has already exhausted remedies before Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities?
  • Is the rejection of a plaint justified when the plaintiff fails to disclose a valid cause of action after previous administrative adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Jaiian Begum vs Mst. Shabbir Fatima and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-19
  settlement matterdivisibility of housedisplaced personsconstitutional petitionC.H. Formspreferential claimphysical possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose out of an urban settlement dispute concerning the allotment and transfer of a residential house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Both parties occupied portions of the house and sought its transfer under C.H. Forms. The Settlement Commissioner refused to divide the property and transferred the entire house to the respondent, holding that the respondent had a preferential claim and that the house was indivisible, which decision was affirmed by the High Court in a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the Settlement Commissioner's order. The Court held that the power to determine divisibility under the Proviso to Section 2(4) of the Act depends strictly on the physical aspects of the property—such as independent staircases, exits, and access roads—and not on the personal legal qualifications or preferential rights of the rival claimants. The Settlement Commissioner erred by considering extraneous legal rights rather than physical divisibility. To accommodate both displaced persons, the Court deemed the house divided according to physical possession.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power to determine divisibility under the Proviso to Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 governed by physical aspects of the property or the relative legal qualifications of the applicants?
  • Can a Settlement Authority refuse to divide a house on extraneous grounds relating to a party's preferential claim despite physical evidence of independent exits, staircases, and road access?
  • Does the High Court commit a legal error in upholding a Settlement Commissioner's order that refuses property division by confusing physical divisibility with the comparative rights of rival claimants?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue And Other1991 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29
  land allotmentevacuee propertyexchange of landstate landrevenue recordsleave to appealstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition concerning the cancellation of an allotment of land comprising Killa No. 2, Square No. 51, which was withdrawn from the petitioner on the ground that it constituted State land not subject to exchange with evacuee land. The core legal question is whether an allotment of land made and maintained in favor of the petitioner since 1953, and reflected in subsequent Jamabandis, can be lawfully taken away when the area remains unallotted to anyone else. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised by the petitioner require deeper consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that long-standing allotments shown in revenue records warrant a full review by the court when disputed by state authorities, and an interim status quo preserving possession must be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of land shown in the owner's favor in Jamabandis since 1953 can be cancelled on the ground that it forms part of unexchanged State land?
  • Does a long-standing land allotment that remains unallocated to any other party require consideration for the grant of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sania And Another vs Mst. Zarjana And Other1991 SCMR 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-27
  civil revisionpartition suitcontinuing cause of actiondismissal of suitleave to appealres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' civil revision in a suit for possession through partition of a house. The High Court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that an earlier similar suit had been dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners contend that in a suit for partition, the cause of action is a continuing one, and therefore, a subsequent suit is not barred by the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court, finding that the question raised requires examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court directed the appeal to be prepared on the existing record, with parties instructed to file all necessary documents for final disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second suit for partition barred by Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if an earlier similar suit was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8?
  • Does a suit for partition involve a continuing cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Begum vs Taj Din And 2 Other1991 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-26
  leave to appealspecific performanceprocedural technicalitysecond appealcertified copy of judgmentmesne profits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a second appeal filed by the petitioner. The underlying dispute involved a suit for specific performance regarding a house in Lahore Cantonment. Following various proceedings in the trial court and the District Court, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal on the procedural ground that the petitioner had failed to file a certified copy of the trial court's judgment, a requirement deemed mandatory by the Court. The High Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to rectify this omission despite a lapse of six years. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether an appeal can be dismissed solely on the technical ground of failing to attach a copy of the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this issue, noting that similar questions were pending in other petitions, and ordered the maintenance of the status quo subject to the petitioner furnishing security for mesne profits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of failure to file a certified copy of the trial court's judgment?
  • Is the filing of a certified copy of the trial court's judgment a mandatory requirement for maintaining a second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safaidi And Others vs Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan And Other1991 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30
  land allotmentMukhbari applicationDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Actfinality of administrative ordersleave to appealres judicatacancellation of allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the cancellation of land allotments originally sanctioned under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question involves whether a Mukhbari application filed in 1974 could legally challenge land allotments that had been previously scrutinized and upheld by the Deputy Commissioner in 1958 and Martial Law authorities in 1961. The petitioners further challenged the validity of the Additional Settlement Commissioner's subsequent cancellation order, arguing it relied on a previously quashed decision and that the evidence used—documents in Hindi—was unintelligible to the court and counsel. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contentions raised by the petitioners required detailed consideration. The Court held that the legal questions surrounding the finality of the earlier administrative decisions and the procedural propriety of the subsequent cancellation orders warranted a full hearing. The Court ordered that the interim relief previously granted on 10-4-1988 shall continue pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Mukhbari application be entertained against land allotments that have already been scrutinized and upheld by competent authorities?
  • Does an order of an Additional Settlement Commissioner based on a previously quashed decision hold legal validity?
  • Can a court render a decision based on documents that are in a language neither the court nor the counsel can read?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Begum vs Mukhtar Ahmad Butt And Another1991 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26
  special leave to appealcooperative societynomineesuccessionplot ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the ownership of a plot in Model Town, Lahore, originally belonging to Seth Rahim Bakhsh, who had nominated the petitioner in 1933 before his death in 1935. The core legal question is whether a nominee is entitled to succeed to the deceased member's share or interest in the property in preference to the legal heirs, specifically under the Cooperative Societies Act. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the effect of nomination and the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directing security for costs and permitting the parties to rely on the present record along with any additional documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a nominee is entitled to succeed to a deceased member's share or interest in property in preference to legal heirs under the Cooperative Societies Act 1912?
  • Does the appointment of a nominee by a property owner imply a sale or transfer of ownership in the absence of a registered sale deed?
  • What are the rights of a society's nominee versus the legal heirs of a deceased member regarding disputed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Bibi And Others vs Lal Hussain And Other1991 SCMR 2049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-26
  inheritance disputeconcurrent findings of factmisreading of evidenceleave to appealcivil revisionsectarian status
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision regarding an inheritance dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court and the appellate court erred in their concurrent findings of fact regarding the religious sect of the deceased last owner, Nazar Hussain, which directly impacted the inheritance distribution. The petitioners contended that the lower courts misread the evidence, specifically regarding the deceased's donations to Shia causes, his attendance at Majalis, and the performance of his funeral rites. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts were unexceptionable. The Court found no evidence of misreading or non-reading of the record, nor any legal infirmity or violation of principle in the lower courts' determinations. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that findings of fact supported by the record are not subject to interference in the absence of demonstrable legal error or misappreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does the performance of religious rites or donations to specific religious causes conclusively determine the sect of a deceased person for inheritance purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Resham Jan vs Abdur Rehman1991 SC MR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-22
  cancellation of bailfurther inquirySection 497 CrPCmisuse of bailwitness tamperingmurder casenon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed against the High Court's grant of post-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case. The core legal question examined was whether the mere need for further inquiry entitles an accused to bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a specific finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence, which would bring the case under Section 497(2). Additionally, the complainant side established that the respondent had misused the concession of bail by threatening prosecution witnesses, leading to a police report and proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not entitled to bail as of right without the requisite finding under Section 497(2) and due to the misuse of bail. Consequently, the bail granted to the respondent was cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere need for further inquiry entitles an accused to bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing he committed a non-bailable offence?
  • Does a case fall within Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically upon a plea of further inquiry without a finding on reasonable grounds?
  • Can bail granted in a murder case be cancelled on the ground of misusing the concession of bail by threatening prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Resham Bibi and 4 others vs Mst. Elahi Sain and 8 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-22
  land settlementinheritance mutationpending proceedingswrit jurisdictionact of courtconstitutional jurisdictionrepeal of laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a land settlement dispute where appellants were directed by Settlement Authorities to resolve inheritance claims in Civil Court. Although the Civil Court ruled in the appellants' favor, the High Court subsequently held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. Following Supreme Court observations that Settlement Authorities could consider the Civil Court's findings, the Settlement Commissioner dismissed the case, citing the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and claiming the proceedings were not "pending." The Supreme Court addressed whether the 1975 Act's "pending proceedings" bar applied to constitutional jurisdiction and whether the High Court could review the Settlement Authorities' contradictory actions. The Court held that the 1975 Act did not divest the High Court or Supreme Court of their constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. It affirmed that superior courts retain the power to remand cases to notified officers post-repeal. Furthermore, applying the principle that no litigant should suffer due to the act of a court or authority, the Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court for final determination on the inheritance claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar regarding pending proceedings in Section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, apply to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Can a litigant be prejudiced by the procedural directions of a Settlement Authority that later claims it lacks jurisdiction to resolve the matter?
  • Do the Supreme Court and High Court retain the authority to remand settlement cases to notified officers following the repeal of the Settlement Laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi And Others vs Muhammad Ali And Other1991 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31
  leave to appealevacuee propertyproperty transferpossessionresidual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19-9-1987, arising from a dispute over the transfer of a house. The core legal question is whether an occupant who failed to formally apply for the transfer of a disputed property in her name on the basis of possession can challenge the transfer of the entire property made to another party on the ground that it was not evacuee property prior to a specific date. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected because she did not formally apply for the transfer of the property in her possession. The key principle laid down is that an occupant who fails to seek transfer of property in the prescribed manner cannot successfully challenge a transfer made to another based on possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can an occupant who failed to apply for the transfer of a property challenge its transfer to another person?
  • Whether a property not treated as evacuee property prior to 1-1-1957 can be transferred based on possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Khatoon Through Legal Heirs vs Dr. Roshan H. Nanji And Another1991 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-12
  evictionrented premisespersonal usesummary procedureprobative valueNational Identity Cardlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals by the legal heirs of a deceased landlady against a High Court judgment denying eviction of two tenants under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved the proof of the landlady's age (60 years) to invoke the special summary procedure, the definition of 'personal use' regarding her son, and whether multiple separate tenancies could be simultaneously vacated under this provision. The Supreme Court held that the National Identity Card serves as reliable evidence of age unless rebutted, and that the 'personal use' requirement under Section 14 does not require proof of good faith in the same manner as general eviction proceedings. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while the categories of persons entitled to relief under Section 14 are distributive and independent, a landlord cannot invoke this summary right to evict multiple separate tenancies. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal for the first-instituted tenancy, exhausting the right under Section 14, and dismissed the appeal regarding the second tenancy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a National Identity Card be accepted as conclusive proof of age for invoking Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the 'personal use' requirement under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 necessitate an inquiry into the good faith of the landlord?
  • Can a landlord invoke Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 to evict tenants from multiple separate tenancies simultaneously?
  • Are the categories of persons entitled to relief under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 distributive or combined?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasool Bibi And Others vs Province of the Punjab Through Collector1991 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-28
  non-prosecutiondismissal of appealrestoration applicationappellate court powerscivil procedurelimitationsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition regarding the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution. The petitioners had filed a suit for declaration and possession, which was dismissed by the trial court. Their subsequent first appeal was dismissed by the District Judge due to the absence of the petitioners and their counsel. A subsequent application for restoration was dismissed due to being time-barred and lacking sufficient cause for the absence. The core legal question was whether an appellate court is legally obligated to decide an appeal on merits despite the absence of the appellant or their counsel, and whether the dismissal of the restoration application was justified. The Supreme Court held that Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permits an appellate court to dismiss an appeal for non-appearance. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of reasons for absence, made by lower courts, cannot be interfered with unless found to be arbitrary or perverse. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit an appellate court to dismiss an appeal when the appellant or their counsel fails to appear?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of reasons for counsel's absence in a restoration application?
  • Is an appellate court required to decide an appeal on merits if the appellant fails to appear at the hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum And 6 Others vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner1991 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-23
  settlement propertyquestion of factleave to appealwrit jurisdictionproperty disputetransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioners against an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The dispute concerned whether a specific store within a property in Anarkali, Lahore, formed part of a shop previously purchased by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest or whether it remained separate. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, following a remand and thorough inquiry, determined that the store in dispute was not part of the shop transferred to the petitioners' predecessor. The High Court subsequently upheld this finding. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the core legal question—whether the store constituted part of the shop allotted to the petitioners' predecessor—was a pure question of fact. Finding that this factual determination had already been concluded in favour of the respondent by the courts below, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that findings of fact by lower forums, when properly reached, are not subject to interference in appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a determination regarding the physical boundaries of a transferred property considered a question of fact?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts and settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ramzan Bibi vs Collector, Customs and Central Excises, Peshawar And Another1991 SCMR 1813(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-17
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingsmisconductcompulsory retirementleave to appealabsenteeismservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the petitioner's penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement. The petitioner, a former Lady Searcher in the Customs Department, faced disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absenteeism on sixteen occasions and absence from headquarters during duty hours on sixteen other occasions between September and November 1984. Following a show-cause notice and subsequent removal from service, the petitioner appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal, which condoned the delay in filing but upheld the factual findings of misconduct. The petitioner contended that her absences were due to personal and family illness. The Supreme Court held that the factual findings recorded by the departmental authority and affirmed by the Tribunal were not subject to interference at the leave-to-appeal stage. Furthermore, the Court determined that the punishment of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the gravity of the established misconduct. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is a finding of fact recorded by a departmental authority and upheld by the Federal Service Tribunal liable to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Is the penalty of compulsory retirement proportionate for a government servant found guilty of repeated unauthorized absenteeism?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ramzan Bibi And 14 Others vs Ahmad Din1991 SCMR 1532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-22
  leave to appealadjournmentpenal provisionminors' interestsadverse possessionrecord of rightspossession and injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff side, including minors, against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court regarding a suit for possession and injunction. The trial court had dismissed the suit under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after the petitioners failed to produce evidence and their counsel expressed helplessness due to their absence. The core legal questions involve whether the trial court had the discretion to apply such a punitive provision or adjourn the matter, whether that discretion was properly exercised with regard to the interests of minors, and whether the suit could be dismissed under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. where ownership averments were uncontested and the respondent relied on adverse possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions concerning judicial discretion and the protection of minors' interests.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Court had discretion to apply Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C., a punitive provision or to adjourn the case or pass any order other than punitive?
  • If the Court had the required discretion, whether it has been properly exercised, particularly whether the interest of the minors was duly safeguarded?
  • Whether, in view of the clear averments in the plaint regarding the record of rights showing petitioners' ownership and the respondent's reliance on adverse possession, the suit could be dismissed under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raisham Bibi vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue) With Powers Of Settlement Commissioner (Land) And Other1991 SCMR 1332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31
  mutation of inheritanceremand of casesettlement commissionerwrit petitionpetitions for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) exercising powers of Settlement Commissioner (Land). The Settlement Commissioner had set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner upholding a mutation of inheritance in favour of the petitioner, Mst. Raisham Bibi, and remanded the case for a fresh decision after hearing both parties. The core question involved the legality of the remand order and the prolonged delay in the fresh proceedings before the original forum. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to grant leave to appeal to avoid further prolonging the decades-old litigation. Instead, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Lyallpur, to decide the long-pending remanded case strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months. The key principle laid down is that courts should expedite protracted revenue matters rather than keeping them pending through extended appellate litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against an order remanding a revenue matter for fresh decision after prolonged delay?
  • Can a court direct an inferior revenue authority to conclude pending remanded proceedings within a specified timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State And Other1991 SCMR 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-04
  dying declarationdeath sentenceappreciation of evidenceconcurrent findingsleave to appealmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Sabir Hussain, for the murder of his wife, Mst. Azra Begum, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while simultaneously maintaining the acquittal of two co-accused. The core legal questions were whether the dying declaration of the deceased could be relied upon given the extent of her burn injuries, and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the conviction and the acquittal of the co-accused warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence supported the conclusion that the deceased remained conscious for a significant period after the incident, validating the reliance on the dying declaration. The Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and the High Court was legally sound. The principle laid down is that where concurrent findings of fact are based on credible evidence, such as a dying declaration not contradicted by medical testimony, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the lower courts' appreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon when the victim has sustained extensive burn injuries?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by lower courts?
  • Is a victim's statement regarding the cause of their injuries admissible as a dying declaration if the victim remains conscious for several hours post-injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nur Jehan Begum Through Legal Representatives vs Syed Mujtaba1991 SCMR 2300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementpromissory estoppelcross-examination failureuncrossed witness statementlandlord and tenantequitable modification of rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord seeking possession of residential premises for personal bona fide use following his retirement from government service. The tenant opposed the eviction, claiming promissory estoppel on the ground that rent had been repeatedly enhanced based on the landlord's representation that he would not disturb her tenancy upon retirement. The key legal questions before the court were whether the landlord was bound by promissory estoppel and whether the failure to directly cross-examine the tenant's attorney on the alleged representations amounted to an admission of those facts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the eviction order. The Court held that an unchallenged statement of a witness usually carries weight, but an omission to directly cross-examine on a specific plea does not constitute acceptance if the plea is effectively displaced by other evidence and circumstantial credibility. Furthermore, promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine that does not permanently modify or extinguish a landlord's legal rights inter se indefinitely.

  Questions settled

  • Does a party's failure to directly cross-examine a witness on a specific material statement automatically amount to an admission of its truth?
  • Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel permanently extinguish a landlord's right to seek ejectment for personal bona fide requirement?
  • How does equitable promissory estoppel operate to modify the original legal rights of parties over time?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Bibi And 9 Others vs Ghulam Rasool1991 SCMR 1281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-28
  specific performanceagreement to sellmisreading of evidencesecond appealappellate interferencetestimony of scribe
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of two lower courts and decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court was justified in reversing the findings of the lower courts regarding the execution of the sale agreement. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had correctly identified a misreading of evidence by the lower courts. Specifically, the High Court relied on the testimony of the scribe of the sale agreement, who, despite having closer familial and personal ties to the petitioners (the legal heirs of the deceased vendor), testified in support of the respondent's claim. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on this testimony was appropriate, noting there was no evidence of fraud in the execution of the document. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition, finding no grounds for further interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court reverse concurrent findings of lower courts based on a misreading of evidence?
  • Is the testimony of a scribe who is related to the opposing party sufficient to support the validity of a sale agreement?
  • Does the absence of evidence of fraud support the validity of a contested agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Neelam Mawaz vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-24
  suspension of sentencepost-arrest bailscheduled offencecoram non judiceSuppression of Terrorist ActivitiesSpecial Court jurisdictionSection 365-A PPCSection 411 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Lahore High Court order dismissing an application under Section 426 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of a criminal appeal. The trial had been conducted by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, for an offence purportedly under Section 365-A PPC. The High Court had held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant bail or suspend sentence under Section 7(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the charge and evidence against the appellant brought the case under Section 365-A PPC or merely under Section 411 PPC (a non-scheduled offence). The Court held that prima facie, if the appellant was tried for a non-scheduled offence, the proceedings before the Special Court would be coram non judice and the bar under Section 7(1) would not apply. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the matter back for expeditious decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory bar under Section 7(1) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 apply if the offence for which the accused was tried is not a scheduled offence?
  • Can a conviction by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 be held coram non judice if the allegations against the accused fall only under a non-scheduled offence such as Section 411 PPC?
  • Does receiving stolen property obtained through extortion fall under Section 365-A PPC or Section 411 PPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazima Begum And Another vs Mst. Hasina Begum And Other1991 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-08
  specific performancepermanent injunctionOrder 2 Rule 2splitting of claimsmaintainability of suitcivil procedureequally efficacious relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the maintainability of a suit for specific performance filed after the withdrawal of a prior suit for permanent injunction concerning the same property. The appellants contended that the second suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to the splitting of claims. The Supreme Court addressed whether a subsequent suit for specific performance is barred when the initial suit for permanent injunction was legally incompetent. Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the second suit was maintainable. The Court established that Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, does not bar a subsequent suit if the relief sought in the first suit was incompetent or barred by law, specifically under Section 56(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Since a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable where an equally efficacious remedy like specific performance exists, the plaintiff was not entitled to split claims, and the statutory bar against splitting claims does not apply to incompetent prior proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for specific performance barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, if a prior suit for permanent injunction concerning the same cause of action was withdrawn?
  • Does Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, apply to a subsequent suit if the relief claimed in the first suit was incompetent or barred by Section 56(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Can a plaintiff maintain a suit for permanent injunction when an equally efficacious remedy, such as specific performance, is available for the breach of a contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Ahmad Hasan And Another1991 SCMR 1303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-13
  Supreme Court of Pakistanleave to appealSettlement Scheme No. VIIIwrit petitionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the matter was set aside on the ground that the competent authority failed to determine whether the petitioner was in actual possession during the relevant period to entitle him to submit a form under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The core legal question concerns the legality of the transfer of a shop under Settlement Scheme No. VIII in the absence of a factual finding regarding possession and the appropriate course of action for the High Court when a material question has not been examined by the inferior tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the proper course upon finding a failure to examine possession was to remand the matter rather than to simply allow the writ petition outright. The Court held that the contentions raised require detailed consideration and granted leave subject to furnishing security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court should remand a matter when the inferior tribunal fails to determine a material question of possession?
  • Is the transfer of a shop under Settlement Scheme No. VIII valid if the claimant's possession during the relevant period is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Abdul Aziz And Another1991 SCMR 1563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27
  leave to appealdowerfraud and collusiondivorce deedproperty transfersuit for declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Naseem Akhtar against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed her suit for a declaration and possession of land. The petitioner had originally received 3 Kanals 8 Marlas of land from her husband, Abdul Aziz, in lieu of dower. Following the dissolution of their marriage, the petitioner allegedly executed a sale deed transferring the land back to the respondent. The petitioner challenged this transaction, alleging fraud and collusion, and initially succeeded in the trial court. However, the appellate court and the High Court subsequently dismissed her suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the principles established in Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) were correctly applied by the lower courts. Furthermore, the Court seeks to examine the legal effect of specific conditions contained within the divorce deed dated 30-6-1976 regarding the transfer of property between the parties. The appeal is to proceed on the existing record, with parties permitted to file necessary documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles laid down in Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) were correctly followed by the lower courts?
  • What is the legal effect of a condition contained in a divorce deed regarding the transfer of property between former spouses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Muneera Kaleemuddin And 4 Others vs Muhammad Mahmood Alam1991 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-24
  rent enhancementrented premiseslandlord and tenantstatutory interpretationleave to appealrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five petitions for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the dismissal of their appeals by the High Court, which had upheld the enhancement of rent for their respective flats. The core legal question is whether the Rent Controller, when determining rent enhancement under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, is required to consider all factors specified in clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of subsection (1) conjointly, and whether an increase of nearly ten times the original rent is exorbitant and legally unsustainable. The petitioners further challenged the evidentiary value of an admission made by one tenant regarding the prevailing rental rates in the locality, arguing it should not bind all tenants. The Supreme Court, noting the need to examine the interpretation of the statutory requirements for rent enhancement and the proper application of the factors listed in the Ordinance, granted leave to appeal to consider these issues. The Court also ordered that the existing stay orders remain in operation pending the final adjudication of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Must a Rent Controller consider all factors specified in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 8(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 conjointly when enhancing rent?
  • Can an admission regarding rental rates made by one tenant be used as evidence against other tenants in the same property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz vs Afsar Khan And Another1991 SCMR 1779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-28
  Pardanashin ladydeclaratory suitland alienationfraud and collusionmutation of landrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that reversed an appellate decree in a declaratory suit. The petitioner, a woman, sought a declaration that mutations of land alienation in favour of her former husband were void, alleging fraud, collusion, and lack of protection as a Pardanashin lady. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed it in her favour. The High Court subsequently restored the trial court's dismissal in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner was a victim of fraud or suffered from any disability as a Pardanashin lady. The Court held that the petitioner actively participated in the transactions, thumb-marked entries, and failed to explain her conduct. Furthermore, she sought to retain the benefits of an exchange transaction while challenging the corresponding alienation, which the Court deemed impermissible. Finding no evidence of fraud or disability, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the principles regarding Pardanashin ladies were inapplicable where the party actively participated and benefited from the transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge an exchange transaction while simultaneously retaining the benefits received from it?
  • Does the doctrine of protection for a Pardanashin lady apply when the party actively participates in the transaction and suffers no practical disability?
  • Is a party entitled to claim fraud in a land alienation transaction if they have thumb-marked the relevant entries and participated in the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehr Bhari And 6 Others vs Mst. Bhag Bhari And 2 Other1991 SCMR 897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-13
  giftHiba-bil-Iwazdelivery of possessionconsideration of marriagerevocation of giftMuslim Law
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court correctly interpreted the law regarding gifts to non-heirs without delivery of possession. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants executed a registered gift deed of agricultural land in favour of the respondent in consideration of her marriage to his son and anticipated future services. After the marriage broke down, the donor instituted a suit to declare the gift void, alleging lack of possession and failure of consideration. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court and the High Court dismissed it, holding the transaction to be a valid Hiba-bil-Iwaz (gift for consideration) where marriage constituted a valid iwaz and delivery of possession was not strictly required in the same manner as a simple hiba. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the marriage and subsequent cohabitation served as valid consideration (iwaz), that the gift was complete, and that the fiduciary relationship precluded the donor from disputing the delivery of possession recited in the registered deed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether marriage can constitute a valid consideration (iwaz) for a Hiba-bil-Iwaz under Muslim Law?
  • Does a gift made in consideration of marriage require delivery of possession to complete the transfer?
  • Can a donor revoke a gift on the ground of frustration of consideration when the marriage subsisted for a period of time before breaking down?
  • Whether a recital of delivery of possession in a registered gift deed is binding on the donor when a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Laqeeun Nisa And Others vs Mst. Saeed Akhtar And Other1991 SCMR 1157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-28
  evacuee propertyland allotmentinformer claimwrit jurisdictionsettlement authoritiesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal regarding the allotment of urban evacuee land. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, claiming as informers and allottees, possessed a superior right to the disputed land over respondent No.1, whose prior allotment was cancelled due to acquisition by the Lahore Improvement Trust, and whether the High Court could interfere with the Settlement Commissioner's factual preference in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had no statutory right to claim allotment on the basis of being informers at the relevant time, and the Settlement Commissioner's reasoned choice favoring respondent No.1 was a question of fact not open to interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding the choice of land allotment, made with proper reasons, are immune from interference under constitutional writ jurisdiction, and informers possess no inherent statutory right to claim land allotments unless provided by law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether informers have a statutory right to claim the allotment of evacuee land without express legal provision?
  • Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding the choice of land allotment made by a Settlement Commissioner?
  • Does an allottee whose land is cancelled due to acquisition have a preferred claim for adjustment by the settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Mst. Zubaida Begum And 3 Other1991 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-23
  leave to appealconcurrent findings of factsale of landmutation endorsementdeclaration and possessionRegular Second Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of her Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, upholding concurrent findings of fact against her in a suit for declaration and possession relating to an alleged sale of land. The core legal question involved whether the sale in favour of the petitioner was fictitious, bogus, and inoperative. All three lower courts rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner, holding that the alleged sale suffered from these defects and that a Patwari's endorsement on the mutation did not constitute sufficient proof or acknowledgement of the sale by the alleged vendor under the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact based on sound reasons do not warrant interference, and affirmed that a Patwari's endorsement without positive proof of a statement made by the vendor is insufficient to prove a disputed sale.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a fictitious sale can be interfered with in second appeal?
  • Is a Patwari's endorsement on a mutation sufficient proof of an acknowledgement of sale by the vendor?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Sughra vs Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah And Other1991 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-23
  minor custodywelfare of the minorguardian and wardsupreme court practicespecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from proceedings initiated by respondent father for the custody of his minor son. The Guardian Judge allowed the application, holding that the minor's welfare lay with the father, which concurrent finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the High Court in a writ petition. The core legal question concerned the determination of the welfare of the minor regarding custody as between the mother and the father. The Supreme Court held that no case for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts had been made out. Based on a fair offer made by the respondent father regarding visitation and sharing custody during the week and vacations, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and disposed of it in terms of the agreed custody arrangement. The key principle laid down is that custody matters are decided primarily on the basis of the welfare of the minor, and appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless properly warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the custody of a minor can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • How is the welfare of the minor determined in custody disputes between parents?
  • Can custody and visitation arrangements be settled on the basis of an offer made by a party during appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Bibi And Others vs Bashir Ahmad And Another1991 SCMR 1919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-25
  allotment disputesettlement authoritiesquestion of factwrit jurisdictionleave to appealproperty transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of a 'Chobara' (upper room) situated above a shop in Hamayun Bazar, Sheikhupura. The petitioners, legal representatives of the original allottee Rao Hakim Ali, challenged the transfer of the Chobara to respondent No. 1. Initially, an Assistant Settlement Commissioner transferred both the shop and the Chobara to Rao Hakim Ali. However, the Additional Settlement Commissioner reversed this, ruling that the Chobara was an integral part of the shop, which had been allotted to respondent No. 1. This decision was upheld by the Settlement Commissioner, the High Court, and in a Letters Patent Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the shop and Chobara were distinct properties with separate numbers and thus could not be transferred as a single unit. The Supreme Court held that this contention involved a question of fact that was never raised before the Settlement authorities. Furthermore, the petitioners' predecessor had previously conceded that the shop and Chobara constituted a single unit. Consequently, the Court refused to entertain this new plea in writ jurisdiction and denied leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new question of fact in writ jurisdiction that was not raised before the lower settlement authorities?
  • Is a concession made before settlement authorities regarding the nature of a property binding on the parties in subsequent appellate proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamsheda Begum And Another vs Tariq Shah And Another1991 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum and another vs Maqboolur Rehman1991 PLD Supreme Court 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-27
  pre-emptionstatutory exemptionTarbela Dam ousteessubsequent saleright of pre-emptioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption dispute where the vendee-defendants challenged the High Court's decision decreeing the respondent's pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a second sale of the suit property, executed prior to the filing of the pre-emption suit to a Tarbela Dam oustee exempted under Section 7(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950, barred the pre-emptor's suit, notwithstanding that the exemptee lacked an equal or superior pre-emption right under Section 17(1). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The Court held that Section 7(2) and Section 17(1) operate in distinct spheres; while Section 17(1) governs comparative pre-emption rights, Section 7(2) completely extinguishes the right of pre-emption over the exempted transaction or property. Since the property was transferred to an exemptee before the suit was instituted, the right of pre-emption ceased to exist by operation of law. The Court established the principle that statutory exemptions under Section 7(2) act as an absolute bar to pre-emption claims, rendering comparative rights analysis under Section 17 irrelevant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit can proceed if the suit property is transferred to an exempted person prior to the institution of the suit?
  • How does an exemption under Section 7(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 differ in application from the comparative rights provisions under Section 17 of the Act?
  • Does a transferee claiming statutory exemption under Section 7(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 need to possess an equal or superior right of pre-emption to defeat a pre-emptor's suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat Bibi And Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1991 SCMR 1828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-09
  special leave to appealland allotmentbogus allotmentcompetent authoritywrit petitionsettlement commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition, which challenged the cancellation of their land allotment by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner was a notified officer competent to cancel the allotment alleged to be bogus under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly found the officer to be competent, and further declined to entertain a new contention regarding the sufficiency of the record that was not raised before the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that new factual contentions not raised in the lower court will not be entertained at the leave to appeal stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Additional Settlement Commissioner is competent to cancel a land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Can a contention regarding the record not raised before the High Court be entertained by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Jan vs Umar Hayat Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-27
  leave to appealinheritance mutationpedigreemisreading of evidencereal sisterdeath registerbirth register
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal regarding the inheritance mutation of the deceased Akbar Khan. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, Mst. Hussan Jan, is the real sister of the deceased and thereby a legal heir entitled to a share in the property, contrary to the findings of the lower appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the misreading of evidence and entries from the birth and death registers require closer examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the documentary evidence establishing the petitioner's parentage and her relationship to the deceased. The principle laid down is that where documentary evidence regarding pedigree and vital statistics prima facie supports a claim of relationship and is alleged to have been misread by the lower courts, leave to appeal is warranted for a thorough reappraisal of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court committed a misreading of evidence while determining the pedigree and relationship of the petitioner to the deceased?
  • Does an entry in a birth or death register constitute sufficient proof of parentage for establishing inheritance rights?
  • Whether the petitioner qualifies as a real sister and legal heir of the deceased under the applicable law of inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hashim Bibi Through Her Legal Heirs And 8 Others vs Jalal Din And Other1991 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-28
  adverse possessionrevenue recordconcurrent findingsburden of proofcivil revisiontenancyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a suit for declaration of ownership based on the plea of adverse possession, wherein the petitioners challenged the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The petitioners contended that they had been in continuous possession of the suit land since the end of the 19th century, asserting that they never paid rent or acknowledged the respondents' ownership. The lower courts rejected this claim, relying on revenue record entries that consistently identified the petitioners as tenants or occupancy tenants. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners alleged misreading of evidence regarding these documents but failed to substantiate how the specific exhibits were misread or to demonstrate any error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof regarding adverse possession lies heavily upon the party asserting it, and the petitioners failed to discharge this onus. Consequently, finding no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving adverse possession lie heavily upon the party asserting it?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when no misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
  • Are revenue record entries identifying a party as a tenant sufficient to defeat a claim of adverse possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida vs Muhammad Zaman And Another1991 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-07-14
  res judicataSettlement Departmentauction confirmationNotified OfficerCivil Court jurisdictionConstitution petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, arising out of a civil suit challenging an order of the Notified Officer dated 18-12-1986 regarding the transfer of a disputed plot. The property had been transferred to respondent No. 1, which determination was upheld by the High Court in an earlier constitutional petition. The petitioner subsequently filed a civil suit seeking identical relief, which the Civil Court dismissed on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction and the bar of res judicata. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the rights of the parties concerning the disputed plot had been conclusively decided on merits and law by the High Court in the prior constitutional proceedings. A civil court lacks jurisdiction to sit in appeal over or nullify an order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the petitioner could not re-agitate the same matter via a civil suit. The petition was found devoid of merit and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge an order of a Notified Officer in a civil suit when that exact order has already been upheld by the High Court in constitutional proceedings?
  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to sit in judgment over an order passed on merits and law by the High Court?
  • Can the principle of res judicata bar a civil suit without recording evidence where the relief claimed was previously denied by the High Court on the same facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Begum And Others vs Muhammad Lateef And Other1991 SCMR 1518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-06
  evacuee propertysettlement scheme VIIIavailable urban propertypermanent constructiontransfer of propertypublic auctionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee building site in Rawalpindi. The petitioners, successors of an original claimant, sought the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme VIII, asserting that permanent construction existed on the site at the time of their application. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected their claim, treating the land as undisposed evacuee property, and subsequently auctioned portions of the land to third parties. While the High Court partially accepted the petitioners' writ petition by quashing certain administrative orders regarding the remaining land, it refused to invalidate the auction proceedings of the portions already transferred. The core legal question is whether property containing permanent construction at the time of a pending transfer application under Settlement Scheme VIII can be legally classified as 'available property' for disposal under the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Property, 1977. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the necessity to examine whether the property could be disposed of as an open building site while the petitioners' transfer application remained pending.

  Questions settled

  • Can property containing permanent construction at the time of a pending transfer application under Settlement Scheme VIII be treated as available property for disposal?
  • Does the existence of a pending application for transfer of property preclude its disposal as an open building site through public auction?
  • Whether the High Court can uphold auction proceedings while quashing administrative orders related to the same property's transfer entitlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Zohra vs The State And Other1991 SCMR 2045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-29
  common intentionvicarious liabilitycriminal conspiracysimultaneous incidentsacquittalcriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the acquittal of certain respondents for murder and other offences. The core legal question was whether two separate groups of accused, who simultaneously attacked victims at two distinct locations—a house and a cattle-shed—could be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by the other group under the doctrine of common intention. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that there was no evidence of a conspiracy or community of intention connecting the two distinct groups. The court held that the respondents who attacked the cattle-shed did not participate in the murder at the house and committed no overt acts related to that specific crime. The court affirmed the principle that vicarious liability under common intention requires evidence of a shared purpose or conspiracy, and cannot be presumed simply because incidents occurred simultaneously or were motivated by a similar underlying grievance, especially when the incidents take place at separate, distinct locations.

  Questions settled

  • Can accused persons be held vicariously liable for offences committed at a different location where they were not present and committed no overt acts?
  • Does the simultaneous occurrence of criminal acts at two different locations automatically establish a common intention among all participants?
  • Is evidence of a conspiracy required to establish vicarious liability when multiple groups commit separate crimes motivated by the same grievance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatimah And Another vs Mst. Sablan And 7 Other1991 SC MR 2530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-20
  Order X Rule 4 CPCpenal provisionnon-suitingpersonal appearancediscretionminor plaintiffsfemale litigantsremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the High Court's judgment accepting the respondents' first appeal against an order of remand and maintaining the trial court's order non-suiting the appellants under Order X, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for alleged failure to appear in person. The core legal questions involved the exercise of discretion under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order X and the strict establishment of conditions precedent under sub-rule (1). The Supreme Court held that the penal provision requires strict establishment of non-compliance and fulfillment of all statutory conditions, and that given the appellants were females and minors, it was not a fit case to exercise discretion to pronounce judgment against them. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded for trial on merits, laying down the principle that Order X Rule 4(2) is a penal provision requiring strict proof of prior non-compliance and that discretion to penalize a party must be exercised judiciously, particularly in cases involving female and minor litigants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of exercise of discretion allowed by the second part of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires the Court to examine it specifically?
  • Whether the discretion to pronounce judgment under Order X Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 should be exercised against female plaintiffs who are minors?
  • Is Order X Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a penal provision that requires strict establishment of non-compliance and lawfulness of the preceding order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima And 3 Others vs Noor Hussain1991 SC M R 1959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantpleadings and proofleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by landladies arises from a judgment of the High Court reversing the Rent Controller's ejectment order against the tenant on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether there was a change of ground for ejectment, whether the landladies could be denied ejectment without proving incapacity to run a business, and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's finding on personal requirement. The Supreme Court held that the core fact of personal need remained unchanged despite a change in the relative assisting in the business, and that a landlord is not legally required to prove they are badly in need of earning a livelihood to seek eviction for personal use. The appeal was accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Rent Controller's eviction order was restored. The Court laid down the principle that the method or anticipatory details of how a personal business need will be satisfied do not alter the core fact of the need itself.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a change in the identity of the relative assisting in a proposed business constitutes a change of ground for ejectment?
  • Is a landlord or landlady required to establish that they are badly in need of earning their livelihood to obtain an ejectment order for personal use?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in reversing a finding of bona fide personal requirement based on discrepancies in anticipatory evidence regarding how the need will be satisfied?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazal Nishan And Others vs Ghulam Oadir And Other1991 SCMR 758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-20
  inheritance under customlimited ownermaintenance holderwidow's estateleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a dispute concerning inheritance. The last male owner, Suba Khan, died around 1933 under custom, leaving behind a widow, two sons, and two daughters. Upon his death, a portion of the land was mutated in the name of the widow, whose subsequent alienation was challenged by the sons in a previous suit. Following the widow's death in 1968, the respondents (sons' side) filed a suit claiming she was merely a maintenance holder, whereas the petitioners (daughters' side) contended she was a limited owner. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge and High Court ruled in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the widow inherited as a limited owner or held the land in lieu of maintenance, and to consider the broader legal developments of inheritance law since 1948, including the effect of the 1983 Ordinance on the daughters' right to inherit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a widow under custom inherits as a limited owner or merely receives land in lieu of maintenance in the presence of sons?
  • Does a previous declaratory judgment regarding a widow's alienation preclude co-heirs from claiming she was only a maintenance holder?
  • How do subsequent legal developments and statutory changes in inheritance law since 1948 affect the devolution of property left by a last male owner who died under custom?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bibi vs Jan Muhammad1991 SCMR 1031 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-10
  restitutionex parte ejectmentexecution of ordersappellate jurisdictionrent controlpossession restoration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court order directing the restoration of possession of a property to the respondent following the setting aside of an ex parte ejectment order. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the respondent had obtained the property lease through fraud and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to order restitution, asserting that only the Rent Controller possessed such authority. The Supreme Court held that the restitution was a necessary consequence of the initial ex parte ejectment order being set aside by consent. The Court determined that the allegation of fraud regarding the lease was irrelevant to the immediate issue of restitution, as the title dispute remained sub judice. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under the original Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the appellate authority retained the power to execute its own orders. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that restitution is a mandatory process to restore parties to their original positions when a decree is reversed, regardless of separate pending title litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a party entitled to restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an ex parte ejectment order is set aside?
  • Does an appellate authority have the power to execute its own orders under the original Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a claim of fraud regarding the underlying title of a property defeat an application for restitution of possession following the reversal of an ejectment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bibi And Others vs Muhammad Amin And Other1991 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-28
  civil revisionevacuee propertyleave to appealconcurrent findings of factdeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil revision, which had upheld the appellate judgment dismissing their suit for a declaration of inheritance regarding land previously belonging to a Sikh lady, Mst. Malan. The core legal question concerns whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the evacuee nature of the property and its subsequent lawful allotment and purchase can be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate and revisional courts, determining that the property was evacuee property, validly allotted, and purchased by the respondents, were based on evidence and thus binding, rendering the petitioners without any right to retain the land. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding property status and ownership, supported by evidence, are unassailable in revision, and a party without legal entitlement cannot challenge a rightful owner's title.

  Questions settled

  • Are concurrent findings of fact regarding the evacuee nature of property open to challenge in civil revision?
  • Can a party without a legal right to property maintain a challenge against a rightful purchaser from an allottee?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farida and 2 others vs Rehmatullah and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-12
  inheritanceMuslim personal lawretrospective effectshariat applicationsuccessioncustomary lawdaughters share
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which partially dismissed the appellants' civil revision in an inheritance matter. The dispute concerned the estate of Nadir Khan, who died in 1972-73 before the formal extension of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, to the relevant area in 1976. The core legal question was whether the statutory provisions and Islamic succession rules apply retrospectively to deaths occurring prior to the formal application of the Act or during the prevalence of custom. The Supreme Court relied on its precedent in Muzaffar Khan v. Roshan Jan, holding that upon the effect taking place from the Shariat Appellate Bench decision, the words restricting application ceased to have effect, and the relevant laws are to be given retrospective effect. Consequently, a deceased Muslim is deemed to have died under the domain of Muslim Law regardless of whether death occurred prior to the 1962 Act. The appeal was allowed, granting the female appellants their full share under Islamic law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, has retrospective effect regarding succession to the estate of a Muslim deceased?
  • Does the death of a Muslim landowner prior to the formal extension of the Shariat Application Act to certain areas deprive daughters of their inheritance under Islamic Law?
  • What is the effect of the Shariat Appellate Bench decision on the phrase 'subject to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force' in section 2 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Eido vs Abdul Ghaffar And Other1991 SCMR 1517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-10
  specific performancelimitation actpecuniary jurisdictionbona fide mistakeleave to appealexclusion of timewrong forum
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular First Appeal in a suit for specific performance. The petitioner had originally filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was returned due to a lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking to exclude the time spent pursuing the appeal in the wrong forum on the grounds of a bona fide mistake and incorrect legal advice. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to determine whether the period spent pursuing the appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge qualifies for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, specifically addressing whether a mistake of counsel regarding the appropriate forum constitutes a bona fide error sufficient to warrant the exclusion of time for limitation purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time spent pursuing an appeal in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction qualify for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a mistake of counsel regarding the appropriate appellate forum be considered a bona fide error for the purposes of condoning delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Darveshan Jan vs Muhammad Aslam And Another1991 SCMR 1659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-24
  leave to appealpre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptiondecree for possessionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Mst. Darveshan Jan, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 7th November, 1988. The core legal question concerns whether respondent No.2, Sardar Hussain, possessed a superior right of pre-emption and was lawfully entitled to a decree for possession of the disputed land based on the facts and material on record. Upon hearing arguments, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question. The Court ordered the petitioner to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 5,000, directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record, and granted liberty to the parties to file additional documents deemed necessary for the final disposal of the appeal. The key principle established is that the determination of a superior right of pre-emption requires a careful appraisal of the factual matrix and record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a respondent can be held as having a superior right of pre-emption based on the facts and material on record?
  • Is a party entitled to a decree for possession of land in a pre-emption dispute without establishing a superior right?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Chunan And Others vs Ayub Hussain And Other1991 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-27
  land allotmentleave to appealpre-emption suitbona fide purchasercancellation of allotmentProduce Index Units
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had declared an allotment of land to a third party, Hafiz Ihsanullah, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The dispute originated from agricultural land originally proposed for the respondents in 1964, which was later cancelled in 1971. In the interim, a portion of this land was transferred to Hafiz Ihsanullah in 1969, eventually passing to the petitioners through successive sales and a pre-emption suit. The respondents successfully challenged the allotment to Hafiz Ihsanullah in the High Court. The petitioners, as subsequent owners, sought leave to appeal, contending that the initial proposal in favour of the respondents lacked specific khasra numbers, making it impossible for them to ascertain the illegality of the allotment to Hafiz Ihsanullah. The Supreme Court found that this contention required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine the validity of the allotment and the rights of the subsequent purchasers in light of the initial proposal's lack of specificity.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allotment proposal lacking specific khasra numbers provide sufficient notice to subsequent purchasers regarding the illegality of the allotment?
  • Can a subsequent purchaser of land claim protection if the initial allotment to their predecessor was declared without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Channo Through Legal Heirs And Another vs Gulab And Other1991 SCMR 1844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-27
  partition of landco-ownershipfinal decreejoint propertyKhasra numberleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the lower courts regarding a suit for the partition of land located in the urban area of Fateh Jang Town. The core legal question was whether a co-owner of joint property is entitled to a final decree for partition of their share from a specific Khasra number, or if they must claim their share across all Khasra numbers as a compact block. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the lower courts had correctly analyzed the facts and that the respondent, as a co-owner, was entitled to the relief granted. The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that the partition could not be restricted to a specific Khasra number, finding no legal justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by the courts below. Consequently, the Court determined that no point of law was involved, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, thereby affirming the final decree passed in favour of the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-owner of joint property be granted a final decree for partition of their share from a specific Khasra number?
  • Is a party entitled to challenge a partition decree on the basis that the share should be allocated across all Khasra numbers rather than a specific one?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilqees Begum And Others vs Additional Deputy Commissioiner And Other1991 SCMR 1666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30
  settlement propertytransfer of propertyleave to appealvesting in governmentstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Mst. Bilqees Begum and others against the Additional Deputy Commissioner and others, concerning the transfer of property measuring eight kanals in Faisalabad originally transferred to their predecessor-in-interest, Fazal Muhammad. While portions of the property were distributed to various respondents through protracted litigation, the remaining area was ordered to vest in the Government. The core legal question is whether the authorities were justified in ordering the remaining undisputed property portion to vest in the Government when it had already been transferred to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest and was not allotted to any other claimant. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioners requires consideration and granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that property validly transferred to a predecessor-in-interest cannot be arbitrarily ordered to vest in the Government without lawful justification when it remains unallotted to third parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether property previously transferred to a settlement transferee can be ordered to vest in the Government without lawful justification?
  • Does a challenge to the vesting of unallotted settlement property in the Government warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Batool Begum vs Muhammad Younas Khan1991 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-28
  leave to appealspecific performanceparda nasheen ladyregular second appealcontract of sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of her Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract of sale brought against her. The core legal question raised pertains to whether the petitioner, being a Parda Nasheen lady, was entitled to the special protections and benefits afforded to Parda Nasheen women regarding the contested transaction. Upon reviewing the relevant evidence, the Supreme Court found prima facie support for her status as a Parda Nasheen lady. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, suspended the impugned decree in the interim, directed the preparation of the appeal on the existing record with liberty to file essential documents, and permitted the substitution of legal representatives of the deceased party.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the protections and benefits applicable to a Parda Nasheen lady can be extended in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale?
  • Under what circumstances will leave to appeal be granted against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal concerning a contract of sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran And Others vs The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 1774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-28
  Settlement Departmentauction purchasertransfer of propertydiscretionary jurisdictionleave to appealavailable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a shop in Hafizabad, District Gujranwala, which was initially auctioned by the Settlement Department on August 26, 1960. The central legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the shop could validly be transferred to the occupant, Fazal Din, on October 13, 1971, despite a prior auction bid by one Nathu. The Court observed that while there was significant litigation regarding the identity of the original bidder and whether he had complied with payment requirements, these issues were secondary. The decisive factor was that the transfer price for the shop had not been cleared by the original auction purchaser before the property was declared 'available' for transfer and subsequently transferred to the occupant. Consequently, the Court held that the transfer to the occupant was valid under the circumstances. The Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower authority's decision to finalize the transfer to the occupant due to the failure of the auction purchaser to complete the necessary financial obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a property be transferred to an occupant if the original auction purchaser failed to clear the transfer price?
  • Does the failure of an auction purchaser to pay the transfer price render a property 'available' for transfer to an occupant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aziz Bebum And 4 Others vs Muhammad Siddiqui1991 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-15
  leave to appealstatutory conflictmesne profitstransfer of propertyprocedural competencytime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had accepted the respondent's Regular Second Appeal arising from a suit previously decreed in favor of the petitioners by the District Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve a conflict between two statutory provisions: Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 2 of the Mesne Profits and Improvements Act, 1855. Additionally, the Court identified a procedural issue regarding the competency of the present petition, specifically whether the petitioners were required to file a direct appeal instead, and if so, whether such an appeal would be time-barred. The Court held that these legal questions regarding statutory conflict and procedural competency required further examination. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted, with directions for the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the property in dispute and to prepare the appeal on the existing record.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a legal conflict between Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 2 of the Mesne Profits and Improvements Act, 1855?
  • Does the filing of a petition for leave to appeal instead of a direct appeal render the proceedings incompetent?
  • If a direct appeal is required but not filed, must the subsequent appeal be treated as time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Arash Noor And 2 Others vs Haji Ghulam Rabbani And 10 Other1991 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-27
  leave to appealsuit for declarationcivil revisionconcurrent findings of factfraudundue influencefemale inheritance rightsrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs (petitioners) seeking to declare certain exchange and sale deeds void and inoperative, alleging they were obtained through fraud, undue influence, collusion, and without consideration. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court dismissed the respondents' appeal, thereby maintaining concurrent findings of fact in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the High Court accepted the respondents' civil revision and set aside these concurrent findings. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was unjustified as the case did not meet the statutory criteria. They further contended that the judgment violated established precedent protecting the property rights of female heirs. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the protection of female property rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside concurrent findings of fact where no jurisdictional error is shown?
  • Whether a judgment setting aside concurrent findings of fact in a property dispute involving female plaintiffs violates the protective principles established for female heirs' property rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amtul Kabir And Others vs Safia Khatoon And Other1991 SCMR 1022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-23
  consent decreefraud and misrepresentationlimitation periodSection 12(2) CPClegal representativesres judicatasetting aside decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a revision application against the refusal to set aside a consent decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellants, legal representatives of a deceased defendant, alleged that the original decree, obtained via an application under Order XII, Rule 1, was fraudulent because the defendants had not engaged counsel and one defendant was deceased at the time of the decree. The lower courts found that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, who was alive for years after the decree, never challenged it, nor did the other defendants. Furthermore, the application was found to be time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish fraud or misrepresentation, noting the long delay and the fact that the deceased predecessor had acquiesced to the decree during his lifetime. Affirming the High Court, the Court held that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is subject to a three-year limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908.

  Questions settled

  • What is the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a decree be set aside on the grounds of fraud if the party affected by it remained silent and failed to challenge it during their lifetime?
  • Does an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by legal representatives on the same grounds as a previously dismissed application by a predecessor constitute res judicata?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amatullah Begum And Another vs Munawar Akhtar1991 SCMR 1681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-22
  specific performanceoral agreementagreement to sellevacuee propertyconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over the specific performance of an oral agreement to sell an evacuee property, a bungalow in Lahore. The core legal question revolves around whether the parties entered into an oral agreement for a package deal for the entire property at a specific agreed rate of Rs.3,000 per marla for land and Rs.10 per square foot for the built-up area, or whether different rates applied. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, finding that documentary evidence, particularly a memorandum of agreement bearing handwritten corrections by the parties, conclusively proved the agreed package deal and rates. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oral agreement for the sale of immovable property can be established through contemporaneous memoranda and subsequent part performance?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of a legal flaw or misreading of evidence?
  • Whether the absence of alterations in a draft memorandum regarding agreed rates indicates acceptance of those rates by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ali Begum And Others vs Sabir Hussain And 13 Other1991 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22
  petition for leave to appealsecond appealconcurrent findings of factinheritanceMuslim personal lawcivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit for possession of land originally belonging to a common ancestor, Abbas Khan, who died in 1920. The primary legal question considered by the lower forums was whether the deceased was a Shia by faith, which would determine inheritance shares and whether his daughter was the sole heir. The trial court and district judge concurrently held that the deceased was a Shia and dismissed the collateral's suit, but the High Court reversed these concurrent findings in a second appeal. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question, holding that the point raised merits detailed consideration, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below be called in question in a Second Appeal if they are erroneous?
  • Whether the High Court can reverse concurrent findings of fact in second appeal under the applicable procedural law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Alamoon Khatoon vs Muhammad Khan And 7 Other1991 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-28
  inheritance rightslimited ownermaintenance holderfemale inheritanceleave to appealpublic policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a suit for declaration regarding inheritance. The petitioner, claiming as the daughter of Mst. Nurai, challenged the denial of inheritance rights, which had been predicated on the finding that Mst. Nurai was merely a maintenance holder rather than a limited owner of the property in question. The core legal questions involve determining whether Mst. Nurai should be classified as a maintenance holder or a limited owner, and whether the petitioner is barred from raising this issue in the Supreme Court after having abandoned the point in the High Court. Furthermore, the Court must examine the protection of female inheritance rights in light of public policy and recent jurisprudence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that these issues require thorough examination, particularly regarding the protection of the rights of females in inheritance matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a legal point in the Supreme Court that was expressly abandoned in the High Court?
  • Does a distinction exist between a maintenance holder and a limited owner regarding inheritance rights?
  • To what extent does public policy protect the inheritance rights of females in property disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akbar Jan Through Legal Heirs vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner1991 SCMR 1673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-04
  leave to appealevacuee propertysettlement commissionerauction priceresumption of propertyurban evacuee property scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the legal heirs of the late Mst. Akbar Jan against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, dated 20th December 1989. The core legal questions concern whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner retains the power to extend the period for depositing an auction price after previously ordering that default in payment within the stipulated period would result in the resumption of the property; whether any appeal, revision, or review lies against an order passed by a Notified Officer under subsection (3) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975; and whether property resumed by the order of a Notified Officer must be disposed of under the North-West Frontier Province Disposal of Urban Evacuee Property Scheme-I of 1976. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider these questions, directed the petitioners to furnish security, and permitted the parties to rely on the present record and additional documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner retains the power to extend the period for deposit of the auction price after ordering that default in payment within the stipulated period results in property resumption?
  • Is there any appeal, revision or review available against an order passed by the Notified Officer under subsection (3) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  • If property stands resumed by the order of the Notified Officer, does it become available and have to be disposed of under the North-West Frontier Province Disposal of Urban Evacuee Property Scheme-I of 1976?
  Read full judgment →