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. 232,813 judgments in total.

• Mst. Kaniz Sughra vs Lt.Col. Ghulam Mustafa1999 YLR 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Begum vs Ahmad Raza Bukhari1999 PLD Lahore 231 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-19
  certified copiespublic documentscopying agencysettlement recordsprimary evidenceinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under section 151 of C.P.C. filed before the Lahore High Court sought directions to the court's copying agency to issue certified copies of certified copies of certain settlement orders appended to a constitutional petition dismissed in 1965. The core legal question was whether the High Court's copying agency is legally mandated or empowered under Articles 85, 87, and 88 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to issue certified copies of documents belonging to the Settlement Department that were filed along with a judicial writ petition. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application, holding that the High Court is not the custodian of Settlement Department records, its functionaries have no duty or nexus to maintain such records, and its copying agency cannot issue certified copies of documents originating from another department. The key principle laid down is that public documents under Article 85 must be in the custody of the relevant public functionary and open to inspection before certified copies can be demanded under Article 87.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the copying agency of the High Court can issue certified copies of documents belonging to the Settlement Department that were annexed to a judicial writ petition?
  • Do records of the Settlement Department constitute public documents in the custody of the High Court under Article 85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Can a person demand certified copies of public documents from a public functionary who does not have legal custody of or statutory responsibility to maintain those documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kali Begum and another vs Mukhtar Hussain Shah and 11 others1999 MLD 951 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna T Bibi vs The State1999 YLR 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Bibi vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 381d · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Begum and others vs Anwarul Haq and others1999 SCMR 1610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-05
  land allotmentDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958finality of judgmentres judicatasettlement of claimsevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a long-standing land allotment dispute between the successors-in-interest of two claimants, Fateh Muhammad and Gul Muhammad, under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether an alleged 1968 order, purportedly cancelling the allotment of Fateh Muhammad, could be enforced to override a previous Supreme Court judgment that had already confirmed said allotment. The appellants sought to rely on this 1968 order, which had never been presented or mentioned during the extensive prior litigation that culminated in the Supreme Court’s 1985 decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the unexplained failure to produce or rely upon the alleged 1968 order during the relevant prior judicial proceedings rendered it suspect and ineffective. The Court affirmed that a party cannot belatedly introduce documents to challenge the finality of a settled judgment when those documents were available but withheld during the original adjudication. Consequently, the Court upheld the refusal of the lower authorities to implement the questionable 1968 order, maintaining the integrity of the previous final judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party rely on an alleged administrative order to challenge a final judgment when that order was never produced during the original litigation?
  • Does the failure to produce a document during prior judicial proceedings render it suspect and inadmissible for subsequent implementation?
  • Whether an administrative order passed under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 can override a Supreme Court judgment confirming a land allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Akhtar vs Muhammad Saddiq1999 YLR 1835 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamian vs Muhammad Bashir and 2 others1999 YLR 1138 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jaina vs Mst. Zohra Bibi and 12 others1999 MLD 2302 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irfana Tasneem vs Station House Officer and others1999 PLD Lahore 479 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iram Cheema vs Auqaf Department1999 SCMR 2289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-03
  Waqf propertyMutwalli lease powersvoid ab initiolimitationestoppel against statuteAuqaf Departmentlease renewal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal, directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, arises from a dispute regarding the validity of a 99-year lease of agricultural land attached to a shrine, which was taken over by the Auqaf Department under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions involved whether the Mutwalli had the legal authority under a prior court order to grant a 99-year lease in 1951, whether the suit instituted by the Auqaf Department was barred by limitation, and whether the principle of estoppel or past and closed transactions applied. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the lease executed in 1951 was void ab initio because the power granted by the Additional District Judge in 1938 stood exhausted upon its initial exercise and could not be invoked a second time without fresh judicial permission. The Court further held that no question of limitation arises against an act that is void ab initio, nor does the doctrine of estoppel operate against the statute or the government in cases of unauthorized acts by public servants. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Mutwalli can validly execute a lease of waqf property for 99 years without obtaining fresh judicial permission when prior judicial sanction stands exhausted?
  • Does the doctrine of limitation apply to a suit seeking to nullify an act or lease that is void ab initio concerning waqf property?
  • Can the unauthorized or irregular conduct of departmental officers operate as an estoppel against the government or the Auqaf Department regarding waqf properties?
  • Whether previous interlocutory proceedings and withdrawal of notices in writ petitions operate as res judicata in subsequent regular civil suits concerning lease validity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Firdous vs Ferozuddin and 2 others1999 MLD 404 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum through her Legal Heirs and 5 others vs Sultan Ahmed1999 CLC 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Imtiaz Akhtar vs Deputy Education Officer (W),1999 CLC 1904 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iffat Mobin and another vs Abdul Aziz1999 CLC 1574 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Zeba vs The State1999 YLR 2555 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussain Bibi vs Muhammad Khalil And 3 Other1999 CLC 16 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husna Begum and others vs Haji Din Muhammad1999 CLC 1399 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Humaira Noorani vs Administrator, M.C., 3Uranwala and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Humaira Mehmood vs The State and others1999 PLD Lahore 494 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-11
  quashment of FIRmala fide investigationpre-arrest bailcontempt of courtHudood lawssui jurisNikah validityconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns writ petitions filed for the production of Mst. Humaira and the quashment of F.I.R. No. 601 of 1998, registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, alleging abduction. The core legal questions involved whether the criminal proceedings were initiated mala fide, whether the alleged abduction occurred, and the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction to determine the validity of conflicting Nikahnamas. The Court held that the F.I.R. was a product of mala fides, as the investigation was biased, the abduction story was false, and the police acted to facilitate private interests. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings. It also convicted the investigating officer for contempt of court for arresting the petitioner despite existing pre-arrest bail. The judgment establishes that a sui juris woman has the right to contract marriage freely, and a marriage without consent is void. Furthermore, the High Court possesses constitutional authority to quash criminal proceedings where the investigation is mala fide, without jurisdiction, or demonstrates a clear abuse of process by state functionaries.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under its constitutional jurisdiction if the investigation is found to be mala fide?
  • Does a sui juris woman have the right to contract a marriage of her own free will without the consent of her guardians?
  • Is a marriage contracted without the free consent of the parties valid under Islamic law?
  • Can a police officer be held in contempt of court for arresting an accused person who has been granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hidayat Khatoon vs The State and 7 others1999 P Cr. L J 473 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hidayat Khatoon vs Munir Ahmed and others1999 MLD 2153 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hassan Pari and anothers vs Federal Government through Secretary1999 MLD 2324 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hapeezen vs Rana Zaheeruddin and another1999 YLR 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05
  Section 12(2) CPCspecific performanceexecution of decreeframing of issuescivil revisionfraud and misrepresentationmala fide application
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing an objection petition and an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the petitioner, who claimed ownership of the disputed property through a gift deed executed by her husband prior to a decree for specific performance obtained against him. The core legal question was whether a court is mandatorily required to frame issues and record evidence in every application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the concurrent findings could be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that a court is not bound to frame issues or conduct a full trial in every Section 12(2) application, particularly when the application is found to be mala fide, time-barred, and filed belatedly simply to frustrate the execution of a lawful decree. The key principle laid down is that where an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 lacks bona fides and is aimed at protracting proceedings, the court may dismiss it summarily without framing issues or recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a court to frame issues and record evidence in every application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court summarily dismiss an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it is found to be mala fide and intended to protract execution proceedings?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dismissal of a Section 12(2) application can be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of material irregularity?
  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 liable to be dismissed as time-barred if filed after prolonged silence and finalization of litigation up to the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hanifan Bibi vs Station House Officer, Police Station Hanjarwal, District Lahore and 5 others1999 PLD Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Nizam vs Municipal Committee, Murree Through Administrator, Municipal Committee, Murree And 4 Other1999 CLC 170 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Bibi vs Wali Muhammad1999 MLD 1687 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-10
  tamleekgiftMuhammadan Lawrevocation of giftdelivery of possessioncivil revisioninheritanceestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an appellate court's judgment that reversed a trial court's decree regarding the validity of a tamleek (gift) of agricultural land made by a father to his daughter. The core legal question was whether the gift was valid, complete, and irrevocable under Islamic law, specifically considering the donor's claim of fraud and non-delivery of possession. The High Court held that the gift was valid, complete, and irrevocable. The court found that the donor had voluntarily transferred the property, and the delivery of possession was established through revenue records and the donor's own admissions. The court laid down the principle that under Muhammadan Law, a gift made by a father to his daughter is irrevocable once possession is delivered, as the donee is within the prohibited degrees of relationship. Furthermore, the court affirmed that a Muslim owner possesses the unfettered right to gift property to one heir to the exclusion of others, and a donor is estopped from challenging a gift's validity based on non-delivery of possession after having admitted to such delivery before revenue authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Is a gift made by a father to his daughter irrevocable under Muhammadan Law once possession is delivered?
  • Does a Muslim owner have the legal right to gift property to one heir to the exclusion of other prospective heirs?
  • Is a donor estopped from challenging the validity of a gift on the grounds of non-delivery of possession after having admitted to such delivery before a revenue officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameedan Bibi and others vs Ch. Atta Ullah1999 SCMR 2266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Halima vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1524 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Halima vs Muhammad Kassam and others1999 MLD 2934 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-03
  Benami transactioninterim injunctioninheritanceburden of proofproperty rightscivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased, filed a suit claiming that various business shares held by the defendants were actually "Benami" assets of their deceased father, transferred to evade taxes, and thus part of the inheritance. They sought an interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to prevent the defendants from alienating these shares pending trial. The Court held that while the plaintiffs have a right to investigate alleged wrongs, their claim remains inchoate until proven. Conversely, the defendants' title to the shares is currently perfect and protected by law. The Court determined that no prima facie case was established, and the balance of convenience favored the defendants. Furthermore, the alleged harm was not irreparable, as the plaintiffs could seek their share later if successful. Consequently, the Court refused the interim injunction, establishing that an injunction cannot be granted based on a perceived wrong that is not yet established as actionable, and that the burden of proving a Benami transaction rests upon the party asserting it.

  Questions settled

  • Can an interim injunction be granted to restrain the alienation of property based on a mere allegation of a Benami transaction?
  • Does the burden of proof for establishing a Benami transaction lie with the person asserting it?
  • Is an interim injunction appropriate when the alleged loss to the plaintiff is not irreparable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haleem Khatoon vs Sultan Bibi And Other1999 CLC 866 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajiyani Ayesha Bai vs Zahid Hussain1999 MLD 2761 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Rangeena vs Khushal Khan1999 CLC 831 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-12
  pre-emptionTalb-e-Muwathibatco-sharersuperior right of pre-emptioncontiguitycivil revisioninheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for possession through pre-emption concerning agricultural land. The core legal questions involved the validity of the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat, the impact of the vendee’s improved status as a co-sharer during the suit's pendency, and whether the pre-emptor possessed a superior right of pre-emption over the vendee. The Peshawar High Court held that the pre-emptor failed to perform a valid Talb-e-Muwathibat, as the evidence regarding the date and performance of the demand was significantly discrepant from the plaint. Furthermore, the Court determined that the vendee had attained the status of a co-sharer through inheritance, thereby acquiring a superior right of pre-emption. Additionally, the Court found that the pre-emptor’s right did not extend to one of the Khasra numbers in the disputed sale, further strengthening the vendee's position. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate decree and dismissed the pre-emption suit. The judgment establishes that a pre-emptor must strictly prove the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and that a vendee can defeat a pre-emption claim by improving their status to that of a co-sharer during the pendency of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the date of Talb-e-Muwathibat alleged in the plaint and the date established in evidence invalidate the pre-emption claim?
  • Can a vendee defeat a pre-emption suit by acquiring the status of a co-sharer during the pendency of the litigation?
  • Does a pre-emptor possess a superior right of pre-emption if the property in question is not contiguous to the pre-emptor's land?
  • Can a purchaser who acquired land for house construction under an exemption from pre-emption later use that same land to claim co-sharership for pre-emption purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghazala Shaheen vs Government of Punjab1999 PLC (C.S.) 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghazala Aziz vs S.H.O. and others1999 YLR 1388 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fozia Naureen vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Education, Punjab Secretariat, Lahore and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 146 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bibi and 8 others vs Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others1999 YLR 144 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fateh vs Khair Muhammad and 3 others1999 YLR 2576 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farooq Bibi vs Abdul Khaliq And 26 Other1999 CLC 1358 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-05-29
  gift-deedconcurrent findingsrevenue recordjamabandialienation of propertysecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by way of leave of the Court, arose from a judgment of the High Court which dismissed the appellant's appeal, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The core legal question involved whether a gift-deed executed by the donor in favour of his daughter was in excess of his share in the ancestral property. The trial court, district judge, and High Court concurrently found that the donor had previously alienated portions of his land, leaving him with a reduced share, and consequently declared the gift-deed void to the extent of the excess land. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless there is a material misreading of evidence or procedural defect. The Court laid down the principles that an unchallenged statement of a witness during cross-training is deemed admitted, entries in the Jamabandi carry a presumption of truth over conflicting entries, and a party cannot set up a new, inconsistent case for the first time before the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts be disturbed in second appeal?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a witness's statement that goes unquestioned during cross-examination?
  • Do entries in the Jamabandi prevail over conflicting entries in the Khasra Girdawari?
  • Is a party permitted to set up a totally different and inconsistent case for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farhat Bibi and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1586 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fakharunnisa vs S.H.O., Police Station Jatoi, District1999 PLD Lahore 396 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Erum Saghir Khan vs Khawaja Imranjjddin and another1999 YLR 963 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Durdana Afzal and another vs Karachi Development Authority1999 PLC 445 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra Mughal vs Additional District Judge, Kharian and others1999 MLD 2960 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra Bano vs Shabbir Ahmed1999 YLR 2531 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Kuti vs Mst. Atiqa Khanum through Attorney Khurshid Ahmed Baig1999 CLC 342 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bevi and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Begum Jan alias Maim Jan vs Muhammad Latif Khan and 4 others1999 MLD 1236 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran Bibi vs Mst. Fatima Jan and 11 others1999 MLD 869 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran and others vs Alaf Din and another1999 SCMR 1154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-04
  gift deedHibarevisional jurisdictionappellate court powersleave to appealburden of proofvalidity of gift
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a Civil Revision, thereby maintaining an appellate decree that set aside a trial court's decision in a declaratory suit concerning a gift deed (Hiba). The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in upholding the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's findings regarding the validity of the gift. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court acted within its jurisdiction in reversing the trial court's findings, and the High Court correctly declined to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction as no illegality or material irregularity was established. The court reaffirmed the principle that the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is limited to jurisdictional errors and does not extend to correcting mere errors of law or fact where the lower court acted within its jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend to correcting mere errors of law or fact?
  • Can an appellate court reverse the findings of a trial court regarding the validity of a gift deed?
  • Is a gift deed valid if the donor's understanding of the document and the acceptance of the gift by the donee are not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Baram Posh Bibi and 7 others vs Pir Muhammad Khan and 7 others1999 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bani and 5 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs, Islamabad and 4 others1999 SCMR 2927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-10
  evacuee propertypublic auctiondispossessiontransfer validationPermanent Transfer DeedEvacuee Trust Property Boardadministrative illegality
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the wrongful dispossession of the legal heirs of an auction purchaser of evacuee property. The appellants' predecessor purchased an evacuee building site in 1960, paid the transfer price, and erected a mill. Authorities subsequently and illegally demanded rent, auctioned the machinery, and dispossessed the appellants. Although the High Court previously declared these actions illegal, the appellants faced prolonged litigation regarding the validation of their transfer. The core legal question was whether the transfer of the property, having occurred before June 1968, could be validated despite the issuance of the Permanent Transfer Deed occurring later, and whether the government could reopen a finalized reference. The Supreme Court held that the initial 1977 order by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, validating the transfer was eminently just and based on valid 1971 instructions. The Court ruled that the transfer was effective upon payment of the price, not merely upon deed issuance. Consequently, the Court set aside the adverse orders, directed the Chairman to seek Federal Government approval for the sale at the price already paid, and ordered the restoration of possession to the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the transfer of evacuee property become effective upon payment of the transfer price or upon the issuance of the Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Can the government order a rehearing of a reference under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 after the matter has attained finality?
  • Is the Evacuee Trust Property Board entitled to demand the current market price for property where the transfer price was paid prior to June 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Balqees Begum And Another vs Deputy Commissioner_Collector, Muzaffargarh And Another1999 CLC 93 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Badree Jamala vs Mst. Bibi Zuhra and another1999 YLR 2389 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-09-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azizan Bibi and others vs Tufail Muhammad and others1999 YLR 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asia Khatoon vs Muhammad Safdar Satti and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1977 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amna Bi through her Attorney vs Mst. Aqeel Khatoon through her1999 CLC 2005 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amir Begum vs Manzoor Ahmad1999 MLD 985 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina Bibi vs Sessions Judge, Layyah, District Layyah and others1999 P Cr. L J 2044 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-28
  Section 164 Cr.P.C.recording of statementjudicial discretionrevisional jurisdictionpolice investigationconstitutional petitionwitness statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of a Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Layyah, to record the petitioner’s statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, during a pending police investigation. The core legal question was whether a witness must be produced by the police to have their statement recorded under Section 164, or if a witness may approach the Magistrate directly. The Court held that a witness is entitled to appear before a Magistrate independently to have their statement recorded during an investigation. The Court emphasized that while a Magistrate has discretion in recording such statements, this discretion must be exercised judicially, honestly, and for substantial reasons rather than arbitrarily. The refusal to even entertain the petitioner's application was deemed improper. Furthermore, the Court clarified that proceedings under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to entertain and process the petitioner's application in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness independently approach a Magistrate to have their statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without being produced by the police?
  • Is a Magistrate's refusal to record a statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge?
  • What is the scope of a Magistrate's discretion when deciding whether to record a statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Rakhi through Attorney vs Aftab Khalil and 12 others1999 MLD 595 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha Bibi vs Muhammad Riaz Tariq And 2 Other1999 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha Bano and 2 others vs Syed Ghulam Qadir and 2 others1999 YLR 151 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Abida Amin vs Muhammad Amin and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 30 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-10Read full judgment →
• Mst, Shamim Akhtar vs Muhammad Nawaz1999 YLR 2556 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mst Razia and 3 others vs The State1999 MLD 616 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-29Read full judgment →
• Ms. Zeba Mumtaz vs First Women Bank Ltd. and others1999 PLD Supreme Court 1106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-06
  termination of servicesmaster and servantnon-statutory rulesreinstatementtermination simpliciterFederal Service Tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the termination of her services as Executive Vice-President of the First Women Bank Limited. The core legal question was whether an employee of a financial institution or corporation can seek reinstatement in service when the governing staff service rules are non-statutory. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that in the absence of statutory rules or protection under applicable labor laws, the relationship between a corporation and its employee is governed by the common law principle of master and servant. The Court observed that the petitioner's services were terminated under Rule 11 of the Bank's Staff Service Rules, which constituted a termination simpliciter upon payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice. Consequently, the Court reaffirmed the principle that where service rules are non-statutory, a terminated employee cannot claim reinstatement, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the relationship between a corporation and its employee is governed by the rule of master and servant in the absence of statutory service rules?
  • Can an employee of a bank seek reinstatement in service if the applicable staff service rules are non-statutory?
  • Does a termination of service in accordance with non-statutory rules upon payment of salary in lieu of notice constitute a termination simpliciter?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Fauzia Ahmad and another vs The President, First Women Bank1999 PLC (C.S.) 972 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Ms. Fabiha Parvez vs People's Medical College for Girls, Nawabshah1999 PLD Karachi 394 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-24
  medical educationFirst Professional M.B.B.S.examination chancesprospectus ruleconstitutional petitionbail alternative
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition filed by Ms. Fabiha Parvez against People's Medical College for Girls, Nawabshah, and another, challenging the refusal to permit her to appear in the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination after she had availed four chances without clearing it. The core legal question was whether a student who fails to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in four chances, availed or unavailed, can be granted further chances under the Prospectus rules or on grounds of circumstances beyond control, and whether such rules violate fundamental rights under the Constitution. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the rule restricting attempts to four chances is valid, protects the interests of deserving candidates awaiting admission, and does not violate fundamental rights. The court also held that an interim leave-granting order of the Supreme Court does not override the settled principle laid down in previous binding judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a student who has availed four chances to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination be permitted further attempts under the Prospectus rules?
  • Does the rule restricting medical students to four chances for the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does an interim leave-granting order of the Supreme Court override a well-considered binding judgment of the court on the same matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Aisha Khan vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Education1999 MLD 2764 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sheerin Saeed vs Station House Officer, Police Station Clifton, Karachi and 4 others1999 P Cr. L J 2039 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shamim Ara Omrao through her attorney vs Qazi Saeed Akbar and another1999 CLC 1826 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-04Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shamim Ara Omrao through Attorney Agha Abid Shirazee vs Qazi1999 CLC 1657 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shamim Akhtar vs The Capital Development Authority, Islamabad1999 YLR 1630 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shakira Tarique and another vs The Administrative Manager, Air1999 PLC 40 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Mrs. Shakira Tarique and another vs Administrative Manager, Airport1999 PLC 295 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shakilla Khatoon vs Syed Muhammad Ali Jaffery and anothers1999 MLD 2264 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shahnaz Jumani vs Mrs. Naheed Zia and others1999 MLD 1413 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sap a Sajjida vs The Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-29Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Riaz Bibi vs Shell Pakistan Limited and another1999 MLD 1214 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Rashfda Anwar vs National Bank of Pakistan through President, Karachi and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 230 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Ra Shida vs Mrs. Shahzad Khanem and others1999 YLR 910 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Parveen Ali Hamid, vs Mrs. Ameena1999 PLD Karachi 277 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Naheed Maqsood vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others1999 SCMR 2078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  General Field Court Martialactive serviceconstitutional jurisdictionarmed forceswrit petitionmurder trialPakistan Army Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Sindh, which declined in limine a constitution petition challenging the trial and conviction of a sepoy for murder by a General Field Court Martial under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The core legal questions involved whether an army personnel on leave at the time of the alleged offense could be tried by a court martial while on active service under the Act and notification, and whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was barred under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the constitutional remedy is discretionary and the convict had belatedly approached the High Court after exhausting remedies under the Army Act. The Court further affirmed that the High Court's jurisdiction is barred under Article 199 in respect of courts or tribunals established under laws relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can issue a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution against a Court or Tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan?
  • Does an army personnel on leave remain on active service for the purposes of trial under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 read with the notification issued under Section 7?
  • Whether the constitutional remedy under Article 199 can be declined on the ground of delay and laches after exhausting remedies under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Does the bar under Article 199(5) of the Constitution apply to a person who was a member of the Armed Forces and convicted by a General Field Court Martial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Munawar Jahan vs Mrs. Feeroza Shaheen Aleem and 2 others1999 MLD 3345 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Maqsooda Shabbir vs Pakistan Railways and others1999 YLR 2222 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Grace Collis and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1188 · Kerala High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Farida Rafique Gaya through Legal Heir and Attorney vs Hamida1999 MLD 625 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Azra Nisar vs Deputy Collector of Customs and 2 others1999 YLR 855 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, Senator vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and others1999 SCMR 2166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-28
  parliamentary privilegecustodial attendancelegislative sessionjudicial discretionEhtesab BenchSenator rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by Senator Asif Ali Zardari seeking judicial directions to ensure his production in the sessions of the Senate of Pakistan while he remained in judicial custody. The core legal question was whether a member of the Senate, currently incarcerated, possesses a right to attend legislative sessions and whether the court should facilitate such attendance. The Supreme Court, referencing its previous order dated 24-6-1998, held that the petitioner should be permitted to attend the current session of the Senate, maintaining parity with the relief previously granted. The Court directed the respondents to make necessary arrangements for the petitioner's attendance, subject to the overriding condition that such attendance must not interfere with the ongoing judicial proceedings before the Ehtesab Bench. The key principle established is that while an incarcerated legislator may be granted permission to attend parliamentary sessions to fulfill their constitutional duties, such permission is conditional and subordinate to the precedence of ongoing court proceedings, ensuring that legislative participation does not obstruct the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an incarcerated member of the Senate have an absolute right to attend all sessions of the Senate?
  • Can the Supreme Court direct jail authorities to produce an incarcerated legislator for Senate proceedings?
  • Does attendance at Senate sessions take precedence over ongoing judicial proceedings for an incarcerated petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Mount Senai Hospital vs Income-Tax Officer and another1999 PTD 3726 · Kerala High Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
• Motor Sales vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3394 · Allahabad High Court · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
• Moti Trust vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3150 · Supreme Court of India · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
• Moro Khan vs Head Constable Ghulam Shabbir and anothers1999 MLD 2040 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mooso through Legal Heirs and 2 others vs Allahditto through Legal1999 CLC 798 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-11
  Evacuee PropertyCivil Court jurisdictionVoid ab initioRevisional jurisdictionLimitation ActAllotment of landSettlement Laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three Revision Applications challenging concurrent judgments of the lower courts regarding the status of agricultural land in District Dadu. The core legal questions were whether the land in dispute constituted 'Evacuee Property,' whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to determine this status following the repeal of Evacuee Laws, and whether the suits were barred by limitation. The High Court dismissed the applications, holding that the land was not Evacuee Property and that the initial allotment to the applicants' predecessor-in-interest was void ab initio. The Court affirmed that property not truly evacuee cannot be treated as such through mistaken allotment, and that acquisition under settlement laws only extends to the actual 'evacuee interest,' not non-evacuee rights. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Civil Courts maintain plenary jurisdiction to adjudicate property status where no proceedings are pending under repealed laws. Finally, the Court established that void orders are non-existent in law and cannot be protected by the principle of finality or limitation, as they confer no legal rights regardless of the passage of time.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Civil Court determine the status of property as 'evacuee' or 'non-evacuee' after the repeal of Evacuee Laws?
  • Does the acquisition of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 extend to non-evacuee rights?
  • Can a void order be protected by the principle of finality or the passage of time?
  • Is an allotment of land as 'evacuee property' valid if the property was not actually evacuee?
  Read full judgment →
• Moor Muhammad alias Noora and 12 others vs The Additional District1999 MLD 3315 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mono Engineering (Pvt.) Limited vs The Karachi Development Authority1999 YLR 1340 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-03
  arbitration awardK.D.A. Order 1957arbitration proceedingsnovation of contractestoppelconstruction contractarbitrator misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns objections filed by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) against an arbitration award in favor of Mono Engineering (Pvt.) Limited regarding construction contract disputes. The core legal questions addressed whether the arbitration proceedings were barred by Article 131 of the K.D.A. Order 1957; whether the KDA representative was authorized to refer the dispute to arbitration; whether the Karachi Development Authority (Abatement of Arbitration Proceedings) Ordinance 1965 invalidated the reference; and whether the arbitrator committed misconduct by awarding maintenance and watch and ward charges without evidence. The Court overruled all objections. It held that proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 are not "suits" requiring notice under Article 131 of the K.D.A. Order 1957. Furthermore, the KDA was estopped from challenging the authority of its representatives due to its conduct and acquiescence. The 1965 Ordinance did not prohibit future arbitration agreements. Finally, the award was supported by evidence, and the modification of contract terms regarding maintenance charges constituted a valid partial novation. The Court affirmed that arbitration proceedings are not suits in stricto sensu and that parties are estopped from challenging the authority of their representatives after participating in proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 considered suits requiring notice under Article 131 of the K.D.A. Order 1957?
  • Does the Karachi Development Authority (Abatement of Arbitration Proceedings) Ordinance 1965 prohibit the K.D.A. from entering into future arbitration agreements?
  • Can a party challenge the authority of its representative to refer a dispute to arbitration after participating in the proceedings for an extended period?
  • Does the partial modification of contract terms regarding maintenance charges constitute a valid novation of contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Momeen Khan and anothers vs Zaib Ullah Khan and anothers1999 MLD 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-02Read full judgment →
• Molvi Taj Din vs The State1999 YLR 506 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-03Read full judgment →
• Moinuddin vs Muhammad Imamuddin through Legal Heirs1999 CLC 1947 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
• Moinuddin and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-25Read full judgment →