Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Mst. Sughran and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sughra Begum and 7 others vs Messrs Hirja Bahi Dar-E-Mehar1998 CLC 221 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sirajun-Munira vs Pakistan through Assistant Deputy Director-1998 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose after the Supreme Court allowed a review petition to rehear an appeal challenging the Federal Service Tribunal's order dated 18-6-1991, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal as time-barred and on merits. The appellant, a Midwife, was removed from service for wilful absence and negligence after repeatedly failing to appear for a second medical opinion despite several directives. The core issues were whether the appellant’s removal was justified on merits and whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condonable. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal with costs. It held that the appellant's persistent non-compliance with departmental directives demonstrated contumacious conduct, justifying removal. Furthermore, the appeal before the Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred because the appellant failed to reasonably explain each day's delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, having relied on unproven, doubtful, and subsequently manoeuvred medical certificates. The principle reiterated is that each day of delay must be satisfactorily explained to warrant condonation.
Questions settled- Whether an employee's persistent refusal to appear for a second medical opinion constitutes wilful absence justifying removal from service?
- Whether an applicant seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is legally required to reasonably explain each day of delay?
- Whether unverified or procured medical certificates can be relied upon to justify condonation of delay in filing a service appeal?
- Mst. Shamshad vs The State1998 SCMR 854 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 PPC for the murder of her husband, which was upheld by the High Court. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular testimony of two close relatives who claimed to have stayed overnight at the deceased's house, alongside circumstantial evidence of blood-stained clothes and weapon recovery. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found the presence of the eye-witnesses highly unnatural given the close proximity of their own residence and unexplained sleeping arrangements. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to examine the appellant's children, who were the most natural witnesses. The Court held that the appellant's explanation for the blood-stained clothes was plausible and that the prosecution cannot rely on weaknesses in the defence's case to discharge its own burden. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the appellant's release.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution can discharge its burden of proof by relying on the weaknesses or disbelief of the defence's version?
- Can close relatives of a deceased be treated as reliable eye-witnesses if their presence at the crime scene during the night is highly unnatural and unexplained?
- What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to examine the most natural witnesses, such as the children of the deceased who were present at the scene, without a plausible explanation?
- Mst. Shamim Bano vs Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Education and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 337 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Zakaria Yousuf and others1998 CLC 410 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the appellant/landlord assails an order of the Rent Controller dismissing an ejectment application filed against the respondents in respect of a commercial property on the grounds of default, reconstruction, sub-letting, and personal bona fide need. Before the trial Court, the grounds of default and reconstruction were given up, and the Rent Controller dismissed the application regarding sub-letting and personal bona fide need. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court examined the record and found that the respondents had established that sub-letting took place with the written consent of the original landlord. Regarding personal bona fide need, the Court analyzed the statutory concept of 'good faith' alongside its judicial interpretation, noting that honesty of intention, absence of malice, and absence of an unconscionable advantage must be proven. The Court held that the landlady, being of advanced age with no prior business experience, failed to establish an honest belief and good faith for setting up a new business, particularly when her husband was already operating a competing business in the same building. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether sub-letting conducted with the written consent of the previous landlord is legally protected against a subsequent purchaser?
- What constitutes 'good faith' under the law for establishing personal bona fide need in rent ejectment cases?
- Does advanced age and a lack of prior business experience preclude a landlord from seeking ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide need?
- Whether the absence of honest intention and the presence of competing business interests defeat a landlord's claim of personal bona fide need?
- Mst. Shameema Khatoon and 8 otherss - vs Haji Murad Ali and 10 others1998 CLC 653 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shakira Sultana and 3 others vs Pakistan Rangers, Lahore and 71998 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had remanded a case to the Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether an application for reopening a case, filed on 30-10-1974, could be legally entertained by the Settlement Authority following the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 (Act XIV of 1975), which became effective on 1-7-1974. Specifically, the petitioners contend that the application did not qualify as a pending case under Section 2 of the Repeal Act, thereby depriving the Board of Revenue of jurisdiction to reopen the matter. The Supreme Court, finding that the contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction requires detailed examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court further directed the parties to maintain the status quo pending the final decision of the appeal, thereby staying the effect of the High Court's remand order.
Questions settled- Can a settlement authority reopen a case based on an application filed after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does an application filed after the commencement of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 constitute a pending case under Section 2 of said Act?
- Mst. Shaheena Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control (Interior Division), Islamabad and 12 others1998 PLD Lahore 266 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shaheen Ruhi Bukhari vs District Magistrate, Quetta and 2 others1998 CLC 344 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shabana Hussain vs Shafaqat Hussain and others1998 MLD 365 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sakina Bibi and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 819 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sajida Parveen vs Ashiq Ali and 3 others1998 PLD Lahore 3 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the complainant, Mst. Sajida Parveen, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons (Ashiq Ali, Muhammad Afzal, Arif Ali, and Muhammad Khaliq) charged under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether bail was rightly granted to the accused based on conflicting police investigation reports and a purported oath taken by the accused. The Lahore High Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in granting and refusing to cancel the bail based on faulty reasoning, noting that conflicting police opinions or reliance on extra-judicial oaths do not constitute valid grounds for further inquiry under section 497, Cr.P.C., especially given the heinous nature of the gang rape alleged and recent statutory amendments carrying the death penalty for such acts. The petitions were accepted and the bails granted to the respondents were cancelled.
Questions settled- Whether conflicting investigation reports by police officers constitute a sufficient ground for further inquiry to grant bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an Investigating Officer legally decide the fate of a criminal case on the basis of an oath or Nian taken by the accused?
- Whether bail once granted to accused persons in a heinous offence like gang rape can be cancelled when the trial court's reasoning for granting bail is faulty?
- Does the commission of Zina-bil-Jabr liable to Ta'zir by two or more persons in furtherance of common intention attract capital punishment following statutory amendments?
- Mst. Saeeda Khatoon vs House Building Finance Corporation and others1998 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two Civil Revision Applications arising from protracted litigation over the auction of a mortgaged property. The core legal questions concerned whether the applicant, an auction-purchaser, was entitled to a declaration and injunction despite the mortgagor having subsequently redeemed the property, and whether interlocutory orders in a suit become infructuous following the final decree in that suit. The Court held that the applicant’s suit for declaration was rightly dismissed because the mortgagor had successfully redeemed the property, rendering the applicant's claim infructuous, particularly as the applicant had failed to seek the consequential relief of possession or pay the requisite court fees. Furthermore, the Court ruled that interlocutory orders merge into the final judgment, rendering separate revisions against such orders incompetent once the main suit is decreed. The Court affirmed that while procedural technicalities should not thwart justice, substantial rights must be determined based on the factual reality of the case, including changed circumstances during litigation, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Questions settled- Does an interlocutory order passed on applications under Order VII, Rule 11 and Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 become infructuous after the final decree in the suit?
- Can a plaintiff claim a declaration regarding property rights without seeking the consequential relief of possession or paying the requisite court fees?
- Should courts consider subsequent events and changed circumstances occurring during the pendency of a suit to prevent the multiplicity of litigation?
- Mst. Saeeda Begum vs Amjad Ali and anothers1998 SCMR 1513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, by leave of the Court, arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction of the respondent for murder and acquitted him, while dismissing a revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question involved the evaluation of a sole eye-witness's testimony in a murder trial where other cited eye-witnesses turned hostile, and the principles governing appellate interference against an acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent was based on sound reasoning and logical deductions, and that in the absence of strong corroboration where the sole ocular testimony suffered from contradictions with medical evidence, interference with an acquittal was unwarranted. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal merely because a different conclusion is possible on re-appraisal, unless the acquittal judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a misreading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Can the sole testimony of an eye-witness sustain a conviction for murder when other eye-witnesses have turned hostile and the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account?
- What is the standard of proof required to bring home guilt against an accused who enjoys the presumption of double innocence following an acquittal?
- Mst. Sadiqa Shafi vs SQN. LDR. (Retd.) Naveed Najum Aud OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 347 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sadiqa Shafi vs Sqn. Ldr. (Retd.) Naveed Najum and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1106 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sabreen Bibi vs Ghulam Maqsood and 2 others1998 MLD 1090 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sabir Jana alias Dowali vs Hamidullah Jan and others1998 CLC 726 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saadaturrehman through Legal Representative vs Muhammad1998 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three revision petitions challenging a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Haripur, regarding land ownership and partition disputes. The core legal question was whether applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining a decree, were maintainable and whether the appellate court erred in dismissing them summarily. The court held that while Section 12(2) provides a mechanism to challenge judgments obtained through fraud, it does not mandate a full trial in every instance. The court determined that if an application is vexatious, filed to delay execution, or lacks bona fide intent, it may be dismissed summarily. The court found that the petitioners' claims of fraud were unsubstantiated, their conduct indicated acquiescence, and the applications were merely attempts to obstruct the execution of a final decree. Consequently, the court upheld the lower courts' judgments, affirming that the statutory provision is intended to prevent the abuse of process and multiplicity of litigation rather than to provide an indefinite avenue for re-litigating settled matters.
Questions settled- Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed summarily by a court?
- Does the failure to press an application for the appointment of a local commission during trial constitute an abandonment of that plea?
- Is a person who fails to intervene in a suit despite knowledge of the proceedings entitled to challenge the resulting decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mst. Rouhi Nasim vs Fauji Foundation through Director Welfare, Rawalpindi1998 PLC 56 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1997-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehmat Ara vs Mehmood Ul Hassan and another1998 MLD 486 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Jaffar and otherss vs Government of Balochistan through the Secretary, Department of Rev. Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others1998 CLC 1738 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated constitutional petitions challenged an order passed by the Board of Revenue, Balochistan, which admitted a review application filed by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners contended that the Board, composed of two members, lacked the jurisdiction to review an order previously passed by a single member, arguing that a 'Full Board' required three members. The High Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the Board of Revenue, even when composed of two members, constitutes a competent forum to hear review applications under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. The Court held that the review application was maintainable and that the previous order passed by a single member in favor of the petitioners was prima facie procedurally defective. The Court established that the jurisdiction of a tribunal should be challenged at the first available opportunity and that constitutional petitions are maintainable against interlocutory orders if they involve fundamental questions of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under the 1957 Act, the presence of two members is sufficient to constitute a valid Board for hearing such matters.
Questions settled- Does the Board of Revenue, when composed of two members, constitute a competent forum to hear a review application under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interlocutory order of a tribunal where a fundamental question of jurisdiction is involved?
- Can a single member of the Board of Revenue exercise revisional jurisdiction against an order passed by another member of the same Board?
- At what stage must the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal be challenged by a party?
- Mst. Razia and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 929 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rashida Rani and anothers vs Mst. Aziz Begum1998 SCMR 1340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which disposed of a writ petition regarding the eviction of tenants from a residential house. The core legal question concerns the challengeability of a consent order passed by the High Court based on a joint statement of the parties' counsel, where the tenants had enjoyed the benefit of extended time to vacate the premises. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners cannot be permitted to question the validity of a consent order under which they have acted and derived benefit, particularly when the petition is also heavily barred by time without cogent explanation. The key principle laid down is that a party who has consented to an order and derived benefit from it is estopped from subsequently challenging its validity before the appellate forum.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the validity of a consent order after acting upon it and deriving benefit from it?
- Whether a petition barred by significant delay without cogent explanation can be entertained for leave to appeal?
- What is the effect of failing to comply with a tentative rent order passed under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Mst. Rashida Bibi vs Insarul Haq and 11 others1998 CLC 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rashida Begum and others vs Ch. Hameed Ahmad and others1998 SCMR 232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The original application was filed to set aside a decree based on an award concerning agricultural land, alleging that the award was collusive and procured to deprive the female heirs of their inheritance rights, supported by the absence of any sale deed or revenue mutation. The core legal question revolves around whether the transaction of sale could be considered bona fide and the resulting award non-collusive in the absence of a registered sale-deed and revenue entries, and given the familial relationship. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions and ordered that status quo be maintained by the parties.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is competent against a decree based on an award?
- Does the absence of a sale-deed and revenue mutation, coupled with familial relationship, render a transaction of sale and subsequent award collusive?
- Mst. Raeesa Begum vs Aftab Qureshi and another1998 MLD 1006 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rabia and others vs Mst. Fateha Bibi1998 MLD 1278 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qudrat Bi and 9 others vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta1998 SCMR 2528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the appellants. The dispute arose from the auction of an industrial concern, Paradise Cinema, purchased by the appellants' predecessor-in-interest, who deposited one-fourth of the auction price and subsequently sought a rebate due to a dispute over the underlying land. Following prolonged litigation regarding the balance payment and cancellation of the auction, the Senior Member, Board of Revenue cancelled the auction, which action was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities could legally cancel the auction and resume the property without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements of demand notice and service of cancellation orders under the Revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation of the auction was without jurisdiction and lawful authority due to the authorities' failure to strictly comply with paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Court established that the service of a proper demand notice and the despatch of the cancellation order—which triggers the transferee's right to seek restoration and pay the balance—are mandatory prerequisites before penal consequences of resumption can ensue.
Questions settled- Whether the cancellation of an auction and resumption of evacuee property for default in payment is lawful without serving a mandatory demand notice under paragraph 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Does the failure to send a copy of the cancellation order to a defaulter under paragraph 3(2) of Settlement Scheme No. VIII vitiate the cancellation proceedings?
- Can property be lawfully resumed when the auction purchaser has deposited twenty-five percent of the price and tendered the balance payment during ongoing proceedings?
- Mst. Parveen Jaffar vs Banker Equity Ltd.1998 CLC 1263 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Parveen Akhtar and 2 others vs Muhammad Abdullah Mahmood1998 PLD Lahore 435 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nur Elahi vs Muhammad Ashgar and 3 others1998 SCMR 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the widow of a deceased victim against a Lahore High Court judgment that converted the death sentences of the respondents into life imprisonment, alongside a jail petition by the convicts challenging their underlying conviction for murder. The respondents were originally convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of Shah Rasool and sentenced to death. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentences, reasoning that the prosecution failed to prove the motive, leaving the origin of the occurrence shrouded in mystery, and thus deemed the death penalty inappropriate. The petitioner contends that the motive was proven and that, regardless, the absence of motive does not preclude the imposition of the death penalty, especially given the brutal nature of the injuries inflicted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to both the petitioner and the convicts to examine whether the High Court was legally justified in altering the death sentence to life imprisonment in the circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a motive for murder automatically preclude the imposition of the death penalty?
- Is the High Court justified in altering a death sentence to life imprisonment solely on the ground that the origin of the occurrence remains unknown?
- Does the brutal nature of injuries inflicted on a victim necessitate the imposition of the death penalty over life imprisonment?
- Mst. Noor Jehan vs The State1998 MLD 205 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Bibi and 6 others vs Karachi Municipal Corporation and another1998 CLC 1523 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nighat Firdous vs Khadim Hussain1998 SCMR 1593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the custody of a minor between his father and his maternal aunt. The core legal question was whether the father, as the natural guardian under Muslim Personal Law, possesses an absolute right to custody once the minor attains the age of seven, or if the welfare of the minor remains the overriding consideration. The Supreme Court held that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in all custody matters, superseding the father's natural right. The Court determined that the father’s right to custody is not absolute and can be forfeited by his conduct, such as long-term neglect. Consequently, the Court ruled that the minor’s welfare lay with the appellant, who had raised the child since infancy, rather than the father. The principle established is that the attainment of the age of seven years does not ipso facto entitle a father to custody; rather, the court must assess the specific circumstances and the child's established environment to determine where their true welfare lies.
Questions settled- Does the attainment of the age of seven years by a minor ipso facto entitle the father to custody under Muslim Personal Law?
- Is the father's right to the custody of his minor child an absolute right?
- What is the paramount consideration for a court when determining the custody of a minor?
- Can a father forfeit his right to the custody of his minor child due to his past conduct or neglect?
- Mst. Nazran Bibi vs Shamira and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naziran vs Saifal and others1998 P Cr. L J 1689 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a trial court judgment acquitting several accused persons in a case involving allegations of abduction and Zina. The complainant had filed a private complaint alongside a police challan, but the trial court failed to consolidate the proceedings or follow the mandatory procedure established by the Supreme Court for simultaneous complaint and challan cases. Specifically, the trial court did not treat the police witnesses as court witnesses to ensure comprehensive evidence was on record, nor did it properly address the allegations of biased police investigation. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court committed material illegalities by disregarding the binding procedural requirements laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the acquittal judgment, finding that deciding the appeal on the existing record would cause prejudice to the parties. The case was remanded to the trial court with specific directions to follow the prescribed procedure, including recording the statements of police witnesses as court witnesses, re-examining the accused, and delivering a fresh judgment.
Questions settled- What is the correct procedure for a trial court to follow when both a private complaint and a police challan are pending regarding the same incident?
- Can a trial court's failure to follow Supreme Court guidelines for the trial of complaint and challan cases constitute a material illegality necessitating a remand?
- Should witnesses named in a police challan be examined as court witnesses when a private complaint is being tried simultaneously?
- Mst. Nawab Bibi and 3 others vs Ch. Allah Ditta and others1998 SCMR 2381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order maintaining a trial court's decision that allowed the withdrawal of an application for amendment of a written statement. The core legal question was whether a lawyer, who was the son of the original counsel but lacked a separate power of attorney, possessed the authority to withdraw an application on behalf of the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly interpreted the proviso to Order III, Rule 4(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The Court affirmed that a pleader engaged by another pleader who has been duly appointed to act on behalf of a party does not require a separate written authority to act. Consequently, the statement made by the secondary counsel was binding on the petitioners, as the law presumes authorization from the original counsel. The Court concluded that the interpretation of the proviso was legally sound and dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the lower courts' reliance on the evidence and the relevant procedural rules.
Questions settled- Does a pleader engaged by another duly appointed pleader require a separate written authority to act on behalf of a party under Order III, Rule 4 C.P.C.?
- Can a lawyer engaged by the original counsel withdraw an application on behalf of a client without a separate power of attorney?
- What is the scope of the proviso to Order III, Rule 4(5) of the C.P.C. regarding the appointment of pleaders?
- Mst. Nasreen vs State1998 MLD 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, who stands accused of murder. The core legal question presented to the Court was whether a female accused, despite facing a serious criminal charge, is entitled to the grant of bail on the specific humanitarian ground that she has a suckling child who requires her care and should not suffer the hardships of incarceration due to the alleged actions of the mother. The Court, relying on established precedents, held that the welfare of the suckling child constitutes a sufficient and compelling ground for the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and enlarged the accused on bail, subject to the provision of bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of a suckling child is a paramount consideration in criminal proceedings, and the child should not be made to suffer in jail for the alleged offences committed by the mother, thereby justifying the release of the mother on bail.
Questions settled- Is the presence of a suckling child a sufficient ground for the grant of bail to a mother accused of murder?
- Should a child be made to suffer in jail for the alleged crimes of their mother?
- Mst. Nasira Bibi vs The State1998 PLD Lahore 146 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Mst. Nasira Bibi, who was charged with drug trafficking under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of heroin. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of mala fides, lack of independent witnesses, and her status as a woman with a suckling infant, arguing that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court examined the statutory bar under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which restricts the grant of bail for narcotic offences. The Court held that while the offence might not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, this does not create an automatic right to bail given the specific mandate of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Furthermore, the Court ruled that gender alone does not entitle a female accused to bail in serious offences, especially where the law explicitly restricts it. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail in narcotic cases?
- Does Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, override the general provisions regarding bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a female accused automatically entitled to the grant of bail in serious narcotic offences merely by virtue of her gender?
- Mst. Namdara and 3 others vs Mst. Sahibzada and 2 others1998 SCMR 996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated appeals addressed the interpretation and retrospective operation of section 3 of the North-West Frontier Province Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, and the applicability of the law of limitation to succession claims governed by Shariah. In both matters, immovable property had been mutated under Customary Law decades prior, excluding certain legal heirs who subsequently instituted suits for possession and declaration after the statutory introduction of retrospective Shariat succession rules. The Supreme Court examined whether prior precedents concerning limited estates under section 4 were applicable to absolute successions under section 3(2), and whether mere revenue mutations and lack of participation in produce constituted ouster or commenced limitation against co-sharers. The Court held that Act VI of 1935 applies retrospectively to succession disputes, deeming a propositus to have died under Muslim Personal Law regardless of the actual date of death, and that adverse possession or ouster cannot be lightly inferred among co-sharers or siblings based solely on revenue entries or unilateral gift contrivances. The appeals were consequently dismissed, affirming the judgments of the High Court.
Questions settled- Does the North-West Frontier Province Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1935 apply retrospectively to govern succession upon the death of a Muslim occurring prior to its enactment?
- Does the attestation of a wrong inheritance mutation excluding a female co-sharer trigger the running of limitation against her?
- Can a brother legally claim adverse possession or ouster against his sister in respect of joint ancestral property?
- Does section 4(1) of the North-West Frontier Province Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1935 permit the reopening of inheritance where heirs took an absolute vested estate under custom?
- Mst. Naheed Kausar and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 570 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naheed Akram vs Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Education, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1998 SCMR 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the transfer and posting orders of two competing candidates for the position of Senior Headmistress at Government Girls High School 122/JB, District Faisalabad. The dispute originated when Respondent No. 3 was initially posted to the school on 3-6-1996, but this order was subsequently cancelled on 9-7-1996, while the petitioner, Mst. Naheed Akram, had been posted to the same position on 15-5-1996. The Service Tribunal accepted the appeal of Respondent No. 3, setting aside the orders of the authorities and allowing her to continue in the post. Upon hearing the petitioner, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the withdrawal of the transfer order, whether the cancellation was influenced by extraneous considerations, and the specific grade requirements for the post in question. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether the withdrawal of a transfer and posting order is justified when it affects a competing candidate?
- Whether the cancellation of a government posting order was motivated by extraneous considerations?
- Whether the post of Senior Headmistress in Government Girls High School 122/JB is reserved for an officer of BPS-18 and above?
- Mst. Moomal vs Jumo SALARd Mir Khan and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1535 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Masood Begum vs Muhammad Maroof and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 56 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondents by an Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents were accused of murdering a young lady by burning. The lower court had granted bail primarily relying on the opinion of police officers who questioned the credibility of witnesses and the prosecution's case. The core legal question was whether the court could rely on police opinion to grant bail and whether such opinion justified a finding of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the lower court improperly abdicated its judicial function by adopting the police's speculative assessment. The Court ruled that police opinions are not binding and cannot substitute for independent judicial appraisal. It emphasized that at the bail stage, courts must perform a tentative assessment of incriminating material rather than conducting a deep, premature evaluation of evidence. Consequently, the bail order was recalled, establishing that judicial discretion must be exercised independently of police investigation reports.
Questions settled- Can a court grant bail in a murder case based solely on the opinion of police officers regarding the credibility of witnesses?
- Is the opinion of police officers regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the court during bail proceedings?
- Does the 'further inquiry' provision under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit a court to conduct a deep appraisal of evidence at the bail stage?
- Mst. Mariam vs Mst. Zubaida Bai1998 MLD 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mamona and 6 others vs Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim19'98 CLC 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Majeedan and another vs Additional Deputy Commissioner with1998 MLD 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Lal Khatoon vs Judge Family Court, Hasilpur and another1998 MLD 850 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Lal Khatoon vs Judge Family Court Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 769 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Lachmee alias Adhi vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khursheed Bibi vs The State1998 MLD 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khairun Nisa through General Attorney vs Abdul Wahid1998 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the eviction of the petitioner from the upper portion of a shop's roof. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who denied the landlord-tenant relationship and claimed ownership, could successfully challenge the respondent's title to the disputed roof area, given that the respondent held a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) for the shop itself. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that the disputed roof was not included in the transfer of the shop to the respondent. Establishing a key principle of property interpretation, the Court held that when a building is transferred, its entire superstructure, including the ground and the roof, is normally considered part of that building unless explicitly excluded. As the P.T.O. did not exclude the roof, the respondent's title was upheld, and the eviction order was maintained.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of a shop via a Provisional Transfer Order include the roof of that shop by default?
- Can a tenant in an eviction proceeding successfully deny the landlord-tenant relationship without evidence of independent title to the premises?
- Mst. Kaniz Fatima vs Shaukat Hussain and others1998 MLD 1996 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Bibi vs The State and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 1349 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jehan Ara vs Umar Bakhsh and others1998 PLD Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Janat Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 6 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jan Begum vs Nizam Din and 7 others1998 PLD Azad J&K 9 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jameela Begum through his Legal Heirs and another vs Muhammad1998 CLC 1591 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Iqbal Sajjad vs Syed Farzand Ali and 2 others1998 MLD 379 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hussain Bibi vs Siraj Din1998 PLD Lahore 548 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of lower courts decreeing a suit for mesne profits. The petitioner argued that a separate suit for mesne profits was barred by constructive res judicata and the provisions of Order II, Rule 4 and Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly since the execution of the original pre-emption decree had become time-barred. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the limitation period for executing a decree bars the remedy, it does not extinguish the underlying right or title to the property. The Court further clarified that the procedural bars under Order II, Rule 4 and Order XX, Rule 12 do not apply to pre-emption suits because the plaintiff's title is only established upon the passing of the pre-emption decree, rendering it impossible to claim mesne profits in the original suit. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to seek mesne profits in a separate proceeding, provided the claim fell within the statutory limitation period.
Questions settled- Does the expiry of the limitation period for executing a decree for possession extinguish the underlying title to the property?
- Are the provisions of Order II, Rule 4 and Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to pre-emption suits regarding the claim for mesne profits?
- Can a separate suit for mesne profits be maintained if the execution of the original decree for possession has become time-barred?
- Is a defendant in a pre-emption suit liable for mesne profits for the period prior to the passing of the pre-emption decree?
- Mst. Huma and 4 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 888 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-10-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hukam Zada vs Afsar Zaman And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 631 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hukam Zada vs Afsar Zaman and 3 others1998 CLC 879 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hina Ikhlaq vs Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate1998 CLC 977 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Haseena Pervaiz vs Lt. Col. (Retd.) Ghulam Abbas Shah through Legal1998 MLD 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Haseena Begum vs Muhammad Nawaz Khan1998 PLD Karachi 65 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hanifa Bai vs Muhammad Moosa and another1998 PLD Karachi 234 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an appellate court judgment that set aside a trial court decree granting a wife past and future maintenance. The petitioner (wife) had sued for maintenance, alleging cruelty and desertion, while the respondent (husband) contended she left voluntarily and sought dissolution via Khula. The core legal question was whether a wife is entitled to maintenance when she has sought and obtained dissolution of marriage on the grounds of Khula due to hatred for her husband, and whether the High Court should interfere in such findings under its constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court held that when a court concludes a wife has developed such aversion for her husband as to justify dissolution on the basis of Khula, she is not entitled to either past or future maintenance. The Court further affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not a substitute for a regular appeal and dismissed the petition, finding no justification to interfere with the appellate court's decision, which correctly assessed that the wife's voluntary departure and subsequent Khula decree precluded her maintenance claims.
Questions settled- Is a wife entitled to past or future maintenance after obtaining a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula?
- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 as a substitute for a regular appeal?
- Does a husband have a duty to provide maintenance when a wife voluntarily leaves the marital home without proof of default on the husband's part?
- Mst. Hamida Bibi vs Station House Officer and others1998 P Cr. L J 140 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the custody of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, remains maintainable when proceedings regarding the guardianship and custody of the same minor are already pending before a competent Guardian Judge. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, reasoning that jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is intended for emergency, stop-gap arrangements and is not designed to pre-empt or substitute the jurisdiction of a Guardian Court. The Court emphasized that the Guardian Judge is the appropriate forum for determining custody disputes and possesses sufficient authority under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 to regulate custody and ensure the welfare of the minor. Consequently, the Court declined to intervene, directing the parties to pursue their remedies before the Guardian Judge, while noting that any order passed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is merely tentative and subject to the final determination of the Guardian Court.
Questions settled- Is a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, maintainable when guardianship proceedings are already pending before a Guardian Judge?
- What is the nature of an order passed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the custody of a minor?
- Does a Guardian Judge have the authority to regulate the custody of a minor during pending proceedings?
- Mst. Hameeda Bibi And Other vs Rashid Ahmad And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 580 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hameeda Bibi and 3 other vs Atta Ullah, Advocate1998 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for joint possession of land in favor of the respondent. The respondent claimed a share in the estate of the deceased, Ibrahim, and challenged a mutation of gift in favor of the petitioners as fake and void. The petitioners argued the suit was time-barred under Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that where a transaction is challenged as void ab initio, rather than voidable, the aggrieved party is not required to seek cancellation of the instrument; thus, Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies, providing a six-year limitation period. The Court further affirmed that for a valid gift under Islamic law, the essential ingredients of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession must be proven. Since the petitioners failed to establish these elements and the evidence showed the deceased retained possession until death, the Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the gift was non-existent and inoperative.
Questions settled- Does Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a suit challenging a transaction as void ab initio?
- What are the essential ingredients required to complete a valid gift under Islamic law?
- Can a suit for declaration be filed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 when a party denies being a party to a transaction?
- Does the failure to prove the delivery of possession invalidate a gift?
- Mst. Hafizan Begum and others vs Additional District Judge, Toba Tei(1998 SCMR 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against an impugned judgment relating to a civil dispute involving a minor defendant and issues of paternity and inheritance. The core legal questions concern whether an agreement to refer the dispute to a referee without the express leave of the court and without considering the interest of the minor violates procedural law, whether a suit can be decided solely on a referee's award without inviting objections or considering existing evidence, and whether inheritance disputes can be referred to a referee. The court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and decree subject to the petitioners furnishing adequate security for mesne profits, and laid down considerations regarding court oversight in agreements affecting minors under procedural rules.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement to have a dispute decided by a referee concerning a minor defendant requires the express leave of the court under Order 32 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a trial court base its decision solely on the award of a referee without inviting objections from the parties and considering available evidence?
- Whether a dispute regarding inheritance can be referred for decision to a referee?
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs The State and 5 others1998 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against High Court judgments regarding the custody of a minor and the attachment of property. The core legal questions were whether a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable when guardianship proceedings are pending before a Family Court, and whether the attachment of property under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is valid without a prior proclamation under Section 87. The Supreme Court held that the pendency of guardianship proceedings does not preclude or invalidate proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the two remedies are distinct and do not exclude one another. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that attachment under Section 88 requires strict compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 87. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the matters to the High Court for fresh disposal, emphasizing that while Section 491 proceedings are appropriate for addressing illegal custody, the ultimate determination of custody rests with the Family Court.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of guardianship proceedings before a Family Court bar a petition for habeas corpus under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can property be attached under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the issuance of a proclamation under Section 87?
- Is a High Court competent to recall an order of attachment if the legal grounds for such attachment were not met?
- Mst. Ghafooran and 5 others vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Furqana Shibli vs Iiird Additional District Judge, Karachi Central1998 MLD 1813 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fauzia Shah vs CH. Shabbir Muhammad, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 87 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima Bibi and 3 others vs Mahmood Hussain and 4 others1998 SCMR 1921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had upheld a sale deed executed by a condemned convict in favor of the legal heirs of his murder victims as consideration for their forgiveness. The core legal question was whether such a transfer of property, made as consideration for pardoning a convict, was void under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, as being against public policy, and whether the High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings. The Supreme Court held that a distinction exists between a contract to stifle prosecution (which is unlawful) and a contract where heirs forgive a convict after conviction, which merely provides a mitigating circumstance. The Court ruled that the latter is not against public policy or void under Section 23, as it relates to personal grievances rather than obstructing the State's prosecution. However, the Court ultimately dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, finding that a delay of 192 days caused by the negligence of counsel in informing the client was not a sufficient ground for condonation.
Questions settled- Is a property transfer made by a convict to the heirs of his victim in exchange for their forgiveness void under Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Does the failure of a lawyer to inform a client about the disposal of a case constitute sufficient ground for condonation of a 192-day delay in filing an appeal?
- Can a contract to forgive a convict after conviction be distinguished from a contract to stifle the prosecution of an uncompoundable offence?
- Mst. Fatima and 5 others vs Muhammad Musa and 2 others1998 MLD 1683 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farhana Zar vs Sq. Leader Najeeb Ashraf and others1998 SCMR 1037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby it exercised constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, set aside the concurrent findings of the Family Judge and Additional District Judge, and awarded the custody of the minor children to respondent No.1. The core legal question involves the propriety of the High Court interfering with concurrent factual findings of courts of exclusive jurisdiction in matters of minor custody. The Supreme Court considered the contentions that the High Court improperly substituted its own opinion and relied on a precedent where leave to appeal had already been granted by the Supreme Court. The court held that the contentions required consideration and granted leave to appeal, ordering the interim custody arrangement to continue until the disposal of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will examine whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be invoked to set aside reasoned concurrent findings of lower courts on questions of fact in guardianship matters.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact rendered by courts of exclusive jurisdiction in child custody matters under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a writ petition be maintained against the dismissal of an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 by lower family courts?
- Mst. Charagh Bibi vs (Mst.) Meraj Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 615 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Chanini Begum vs The State1998 MLD 356 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-08-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bushra Begum vs Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi Div, Rawalpindi And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 10 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Bushra Begum vs Settlement Commissioner and 5 others1998 MLD 442 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bismillah and anothers vs Muhammad Jabbar and others1998 SCMR 862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the accused Abdul Jabbar's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for multiple murders was upheld, but his death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life. The complainant, Mst. Bismillah, appealed against the reduction of sentence, arguing that the death penalty was the only appropriate punishment, while the accused cross-appealed against his conviction. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment based on alleged obscurities in motive and the use of a kitchen knife. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in finding the motive concealed, noting clear evidence of strained relations and retaliation for the wife staying away from the accused. The Court further held that the accused's plea of grave and sudden provocation was baseless and unsupported. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the complainant's appeal, setting aside the life sentence and restoring the death penalty, while dismissing the accused's appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can interfere with a death sentence when the trial court's assessment of motive is sound and uncompromised?
- Does the use of a household weapon inherently establish sudden and grave provocation to warrant mitigation of a death sentence?
- Whether the Supreme Court will restore a death sentence if the High Court's commutation was based on erroneous assumptions regarding the prosecution's evidence?
- Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be sustained without supporting evidence or plausible explanation for the escape of an alleged co-participant?
- Mst. Bibi Yasmin alias Yasmin vs Additional District Judge, Attock and anothers1998 SCMR 2047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions for leave to appeal arise from two separate custody disputes involving minors under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890. In both cases, the Lahore High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, set aside orders of lower courts regarding the custody of minors. In the first case, the High Court granted custody to the father, reasoning that the mother’s remarriage to a stranger disqualified her. In the second case, the High Court substituted its own findings for those of the lower courts, declaring the father suitable for custody despite contrary findings by the Guardian Judge and the District Judge. The petitioners challenged these High Court judgments, arguing that the High Court improperly interfered with concurrent findings of fact and relied on a previous judgment currently under appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine the scope of the High Court's writ jurisdiction in custody matters and the legal implications of a mother's remarriage on custody rights. Interim stay orders were maintained pending final adjudication.
Questions settled- Does the remarriage of a mother to a person not related to the minors automatically disqualify her from retaining their custody?
- Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction substitute its own findings of fact for those of the lower courts in custody matters?
- To what extent can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the welfare of minors under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890?
- Mst. Batul and 4 others vs Mst. Razia Fazal and 9 others1998 MLD 1933 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Basriya vs Haji Faqir Muhammad1998 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a pre-emption suit. The petitioner had filed a suit for pre-emption under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, which was subsequently repealed by the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987. The core legal question was whether a pending pre-emption suit filed under the 1950 Act could proceed after the enactment of the 1987 Act, which introduced mandatory requirements for 'Talbs' (demands) under Section 13. The Supreme Court held that, pursuant to Section 35(3) of the 1987 Act, all pending suits instituted under the 1950 Act lapsed upon the commencement of the 1987 Act unless the right of pre-emption was claimed under the provisions of the new Act. Since the petitioner failed to establish the mandatory 'Talbs' required by the 1987 Act, the suit was held to have lapsed by operation of law. The Court affirmed that no decree could be passed under the repealed 1950 Act after the 1987 Act came into force.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emption suit filed under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, lapse upon the commencement of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987, if the mandatory Talbs under the new Act were not performed?
- Can a decree be passed under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, after the enactment of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987?
- What is the legal effect of Section 35(3) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987, on pending pre-emption suits?
- Mst. Bakhat Amna vs S.H.O., City Lodhran1998 P Cr. L J 1675 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Badri Jamala vs Khushdil and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1652 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Asmat Ara Gul vs Mst. Yasmin Begum and 2 others1998 SCMR 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing her writ petition in limine, which challenged the appellate authority's direction to deposit arrears and future monthly rent during the pendency of an ejectment appeal. The core legal question concerned the competence of the appellate authority to order the deposit of rent under the relevant rent restriction law when the relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed and the Rent Controller had not ordered the payment of arrears. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the High Court's refusal to interfere with the order of the appellate authority was based on sound judicial principles. The Court held that leave should be granted to examine the matter and ordered that the status quo shall continue to operate till the final disposal of the appeal. The key principle laid down relates to the exercise of writ jurisdiction and the scope of powers of an appellate authority regarding rent deposits under rent restriction laws when the tenancy relationship is contested.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate authority under the rent restriction law can direct a tenant to deposit arrears and future rent when the relationship of landlord and tenant is specifically denied?
- Does the appellate authority possess powers similar to the Rent Controller under the N.-W.F.P. Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to order the deposit of rent during the pendency of an appeal?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by an appellate authority directing the deposit of rent?
- Mst. Asia and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 103 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amira Begum and 6 others vs Noor Hussain1998 MLD 450 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amina vs Muhammad Khalid Ehsan1998 CLC 1825 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amana Bibi vs Mahmood Hussain1998 CLC 1711 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aimana Bi vs Karam Dad and 6 others1998 SCMR 733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the inheritance of ancestral property measuring 12 Marlas and 2 Sarsais. The core legal question is whether the High Court, in the exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction, erred by interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial and first appellate courts regarding the timeline of the deaths of two brothers, Maula Dad and Nur Hussain, and the subsequent devolution of their shares. The trial and first appellate courts had concurrently determined that Maula Dad predeceased Nur Hussain, thereby vesting the entire property in Nur Hussain's lineage. Conversely, the High Court, upon reappraising the evidence, reached a different factual conclusion regarding the order of deaths, thereby altering the inheritance shares. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the petitioner's contention—that the High Court could not disturb concurrent findings of fact in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence—requires detailed examination. The Court held that the legal principle regarding the finality of concurrent findings of fact in second appeals warrants further judicial scrutiny.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts in the absence of misreading of evidence?
- Does the mere possibility of an alternative view upon reappraisal of evidence justify the disturbance of concurrent factual findings in second appeal?
- Mst. Afshan Bibi vs The State1998 SCMR 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had granted bail to the petitioner, Afshan Bibi, in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. The High Court had imposed a specific condition that the petitioner could only be released upon furnishing bail bonds provided by her father. The petitioner challenged this condition, seeking its removal due to safety concerns and her desire to reside elsewhere. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core legal question of whether the High Court is competent to restrict the source of surety bonds in bail orders. The Court held that the High Court lacks the authority to impose such restrictive conditions on bail bonds. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, modifying the bail order to permit the petitioner to furnish surety of her own choice, while maintaining the original bail amount. The principle established is that an accused person is entitled to be released on bail upon furnishing surety of their own choosing, without being restricted to specific individuals.
Questions settled- Is the High Court competent to impose a condition restricting the source of surety bonds in a bail order?
- Can a court mandate that bail bonds be furnished only by a specific person, such as the father of the accused?
- Does an accused person have the right to furnish surety of their own choice when granted bail?
- Mst, Janna T Bibi vs Faqir Muhammad1998 MLD 837 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by the petitioner, Mst. Jannat Bibi, claiming to be the owner in possession of two houses, and alleging that a registered sale-deed dated 18-2-1974 in favor of her former husband, the respondent Faqir Muhammad, was forged, fraudulent, and without consideration, executed while her father was paralyzed and incompetent. The trial court and the first appellate court both dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove fraud and that the statutory presumption of truth attached to the registered sale-deed stood unrebutted. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision, setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that while a registered document carries a rebuttable presumption of registration, the mere production of a certified copy does not suffice to prove the execution and contents of the document in accordance with the law of evidence, and that the burden shifted to the beneficiary (the defendant) to prove the truth and valid execution of the transaction, which he miserably failed to do.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in cases of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does the production of a certified copy of a registered sale-deed alone satisfy the legal requirement to prove the execution and contents of the document under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- How does the burden of proof shift between parties in civil proceedings under Articles 117, 118, and 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Whether the failure to attach copies of subordinate court pleadings and documents at the presentation of a revision petition constitutes an incurable fatal defect leading to its dismissal?
- Mst Aalood Mai and another vs S.H.O., P.S., Fazilpur, District Rajanpur1998 MLD 2001 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
- Ms. Zeba Bakhtiar vs Arshad Sami Khan and 5 others1998 SCMR 922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal complaint for defamation and forgery filed by the appellant against her former husband and his parents under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court, during a preliminary inquiry under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was justified in dismissing the complaint against certain respondents while summoning others, based on a perceived lack of prima facie evidence. The Supreme Court, by majority, allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's dismissal order. The Court held that the High Court erred by conducting an in-depth analysis of evidence at the preliminary stage, effectively converting the inquiry into a full-fledged trial. The Court established that the primary object of a Section 202 inquiry is merely to determine the existence of a prima facie case, not to weigh evidence in depth. If the complainant's unchallenged testimony discloses a case, process should be issued. Furthermore, Section 250, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides adequate safeguards against frivolous accusations, rendering premature dismissal unnecessary.
Questions settled- What is the scope and purpose of a preliminary inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court dismiss a criminal complaint at the preliminary inquiry stage based on an in-depth assessment of evidence?
- Does the existence of Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide sufficient protection against frivolous complaints to warrant avoiding premature dismissal of a complaint?
- Is the testimony of a complainant in a preliminary inquiry sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the issuance of process?