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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Afzal vs Small Business Finance Corporation and 4 others1996 PLD Karachi 192 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Muhammad Ashraf and 15 others1996 P Cr. L J 489 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-12-03
  FIR registrationcounter-versioncognizable offencestatutory dutywrit petitionalternative remedycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 sought a direction against the S.H.O. Police Station Afzalpur to register a criminal case based on the petitioner's counter-version regarding a cognizable offence involving firearm injuries, instead of only registering a case against the petitioner's party. The core legal questions centered on whether the police are under a statutory obligation to record information of a cognizable offence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether a second F.I.R. or counter-version is permissible when a case is already registered, and whether a private complaint constitutes an adequate alternative remedy barring writ jurisdiction. The High Court held that a police officer is under a mandatory statutory obligation to register every information disclosing a cognizable offence, that a second F.I.R. reflecting a counter-version is legally permissible, and that an alternative private complaint does not bar the exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction to compel the performance of a public duty. The court laid down the principle that the police must record counter-version F.I.Rs and investigate them rather than refuse registration based on a preliminary view of falsity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to an officer in charge of a police station must be entered in the prescribed register under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a second F.I.R. or a case based on a counter-version of an accused be legally registered when a case has already been registered regarding the same occurrence?
  • Whether the High Court can issue a direction in its constitutional jurisdiction compelling a police officer to register a case disclosing a cognizable offence upon refusal?
  • Is the availability of a private complaint considered an adequate alternative remedy that bars a petition for the registration of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Muhammad Anwar1996 MLD 645 · Board of Revenue · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Munif, And 7 Others vs National Finance & Investment1996 P.C.T.L.R 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Munif and 7 others vs National Finance & Investment1996 CLC 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan vs The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Officer, Lahore and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 28 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and 19 others vs Najeeb Ali Khan and 5 others1996 P Cr. L J 1144 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Zahoor vs Province of Punjab and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 600 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Saleem1996 PLD Supreme Court 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-06
  evictionpersonal neednatural justicecross-examinationsecond appeallandlord and tenantrent control
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an eviction petition filed by a landlord against a tenant on the grounds of personal need. The core legal question was whether a High Court judge, hearing a second appeal, could bypass established evidentiary procedures by personally summoning and questioning the landlord regarding his bona fide need, without administering an oath or allowing the tenant to cross-examine the landlord. The Supreme Court held that the procedure adopted by the High Court was legally flawed and violated the rules of natural justice. The Court reasoned that while the High Court judge acknowledged the landlord should ordinarily testify, the judge's subsequent reliance on the landlord's unsworn, un-cross-examined explanation to influence the decision caused prejudice to the tenant. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision, directing that the landlord's statement be recorded on oath with full opportunity for cross-examination by the tenant. The key principle established is that judicial proceedings, even in appellate stages, must adhere to fundamental rules of natural justice, ensuring that any evidence considered by the court is subject to cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court rely on an unsworn statement made by a party in chambers without allowing the opposing party to cross-examine?
  • Does a landlord's failure to personally depose regarding personal need in rent proceedings constitute a fatal defect?
  • Is it a violation of natural justice for a judge to base a decision on information obtained outside the formal evidentiary record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1248 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs S.H.O. and another1996 P Cr. L J 2048 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar and 5 others1996 MLD 16 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar And 5 Other1996 MLD 16 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas Alam vs Director of Education (Elementary), Labour Division and 4 others1996 CLC 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhamm Ad Khan through Legal Heris and others vs Ghulam Rasul and 21996 SCMR 1874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31
  pre-emptionco-sharermutationright of pre-emptionremand of caseburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a pre-emption dispute where the appellants challenged the dismissal of their suits by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the vendees/respondents had successfully acquired the status of co-sharers in the suit land, thereby defeating the appellants' right of pre-emption, based on the assertion that certain sale transactions (Mutations Nos. 635, 636, and 641) had not been challenged by the appellants. The High Court and District Judge had previously dismissed the appellants' suits, concluding there was no evidence that these specific sales were subject to pre-emption litigation. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the appellants had produced sufficient documentation demonstrating that these transactions were indeed subject to pending pre-emption proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellants' testimony regarding the pre-emption of these sales remained unchallenged in cross-examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the respondents could not be deemed co-sharers at this stage. The judgments of the High Court and District Judge were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to challenge a witness's statement regarding the pre-emption of specific sale transactions constitute an admission of those facts?
  • Can a vendee be considered a co-sharer in suit land if the sale transactions relied upon to establish that status are themselves subject to pending pre-emption litigation?
  • Is a case liable to be remanded when the lower courts have failed to properly appreciate evidence regarding the existence of pending pre-emption suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mughal Technical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs C.I.T., Central Zone, Lahore1996 PTD 263 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25
  gross profit rateestimation of salesassessment orderIncome Tax Ordinancereference applicationunverifiable accountstax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses a tax reference case and a connected petition filed under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, relating to assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, concerning the estimation of sales and the application of a gross profit (G.P.) rate by tax authorities. The core legal questions involved whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the estimated sales and G.P. rate despite the maintenance of excise records, and whether a mandatory notice under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was required prior to discarding the assessee's accounts for the relevant assessment year. The Court held that the requirement for giving a specific notice of account defects prior to disagreement was introduced by an amendment via the Finance Act, 1993, and was not mandatory or applicable during the assessment year in question. Furthermore, since the purchases and sales were largely on a cash basis and unverifiable, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the assessing officer's findings. The reference and application were consequently dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the estimate of sales when complete records were maintained in accordance with excise regulations?
  • Whether the Assessing Officer was legally bound to issue a notice under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 before discarding the assessee's books of accounts for the assessment year under consideration?
  • Whether cash purchases and sales lacking verifiable supporting evidence justify the rejection of the declared version and estimation of gross profit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mughal Technical Industries (Pvt) Lahore vs C. I.T. Central Zone, Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 266 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mughal Technical Industries (Pvt) Lahore vs C. I.T. Central Zone, Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 8 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mueenullah vs The Medical Superintendent, DHQ Hospital, Kasur and another1996 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14
  Punjab Service TribunalRemoval from serviceDismissed as not pressedReview jurisdictionDepartmental inquiryMisconductLeave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his review application seeking recall of an earlier order that had dismissed his service appeal as not pressed. The petitioner, a Laboratory Assistant removed from service following departmental inquiry proceedings concerning allegations of severe misconduct and attempt to rape a hospital visitor, claimed that he had not withdrawn his appeal. The core legal questions pertained to the review jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal under the relevant procedural rules and whether an order dismissing an appeal as withdrawn could be reopened on factual contestations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the review power of the Service Tribunal under the procedural rules is restricted to correcting clerical errors or exceptional circumstances, rather than resolving contested factual questions regarding whether an appeal was voluntarily withdrawn when the appellant was admittedly present at the hearing. Examining the inquiry on merits, the Court found no substance in the challenge. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction under Rule 22 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975 to review an order beyond correcting clerical mistakes?
  • Can a party reopen an appeal dismissed as not pressed by challenging the factual recording of withdrawal when they were present at the time of the order?
  • Does the Registrar of the Service Tribunal have the authority to dispose of an application seeking review or recall of a Tribunal's order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muddassar alias Jimmi vs The State1996 SCMR 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-25
  ocular evidenceinterested witnessprompt F.I.R.medical evidenceQatl-i-Amdsentence specificationcross-examination practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction for murder under Section 302 PPC. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' reliance on ocular evidence, arguing that the witnesses were interested and the F.I.R. was delayed, thereby suggesting a concocted case. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the occurrence took place in broad daylight, the F.I.R. was lodged promptly, and the medical evidence supported the ocular account. The Court held that mere relationship to the deceased does not render witnesses 'interested' if no specific enmity is proven. It affirmed the convictions, ruling that when the presence of eye-witnesses is established in a daylight occurrence and the F.I.R. is prompt, no further corroboration is required. Additionally, the Court criticized the trial court's failure to specify the subsection of Section 302 PPC under which the accused were convicted, emphasizing the mandatory requirement under Section 367 Cr.P.C. for courts to clearly state the specific provision and reasoning for the sentence imposed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render them 'interested' witnesses requiring independent corroboration?
  • Is a trial court required to specify the exact subsection of Section 302 PPC when convicting an accused for murder?
  • Can a court rely on ocular evidence without further corroboration if the occurrence happened in daylight and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly?
  • Does the presence of rigor mortis in a post-mortem report necessarily contradict an ocular account of the time of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubbasher Ahmad vs Talat Khurshid and others1996 CLC 1963 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-23
  Family Court jurisdictionAhmadi communitydissolution of marriagewrit petitionFamily Courts Act 1964jurisdictional objectionKhula
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage, with the petitioner raising a preliminary objection that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction because both parties were Ahmadis, to whom the Family Courts Act, 1964, allegedly did not apply. The Court held that the petitioner could not raise this jurisdictional objection for the first time in writ proceedings, particularly since it was not pleaded or argued before the trial court. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Family Courts Act, 1964, does not explicitly exclude non-Muslims from its jurisdiction. In the absence of a specific special enactment governing the dissolution of marriages for the Ahmadi community, the Family Courts Act, 1964, remains the applicable law for such disputes. The Court emphasized that the reference to the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, in section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, does not restrict the Act's application solely to Muslims. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as the objection was deemed mala fide and procedurally barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Family Courts Act 1964 apply to the Ahmadi community in Pakistan?
  • Can a party raise a question of jurisdiction for the first time in a writ petition when it was not pleaded before the trial court?
  • Does the reference to the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 in section 5 of the Family Courts Act 1964 limit the Act's application exclusively to Muslims?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubashir alias Goga vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1594 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst: Mukhtiar Bibi And Another vs S.H.O., Police Station Nawan Shehr,1996 MLD 874 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mst.Shah Begum vs Afst. Shah BegumK.L.R 1996 Civil Cases 231 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khurshid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 544 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mst.Naseem Kalisar vs Shahid Rasool JanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 723 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida. Bibi vs Incharge Dar-Ul-AmanK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 602 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Bibi vs Incharge, Darulamaan, Lahore1996 PLD Lahore 339 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum and 3 others vs Muhammad Muslim through Legal1996 PLD Karachi 357 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Asifa vs Zaheer Ahmed Khan, Presiding Officer and another1996 PLC 646 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina vs The State1996 MLD 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina Bibi and others vs S.H.O., Police Station Nawan Shehar, Tehsil1996 MLD 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina Bibi And Others vs S.H.O., Police Station Nawan Shehar, Tehsil Kabfrwala, District Khanewal And Other1996 MLD 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zareena Bibi and 5 others vs The State and anothers1996 MLD 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zareena Bibi And 5 Others vs The State And Another1996 MLD 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zanib Jan and 4 others vs Mst. Zubaida Begum and 3 others1996 CLC 1545 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaitoon vs Muhammad Riaz and 3 others1996 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-26
  bail cancellationcriminal force to womanstripping of clothescommon objectprohibitory clauseunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  Mst. Zaitoon filed an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the accused respondents by the Magistrate in a case registered under sections 354-A, 506, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether the accused respondents, who allegedly facilitated the main offence through aerial firing and intimidation while acting in furtherance of a common object, were rightly granted bail for an offence carrying capital punishment or imprisonment for life. The Peshawar High Court held that the Magistrate did not exercise discretion judiciously, as the material on record showed active participation by the respondents in fulfilling the first part of section 354-A, falling within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, recalled the bail, and ordered the respondents to be taken into custody. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused actively participate by using criminal force and facilitating a heinous crime in prosecution of a common object under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, bail ought not to be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether active participation through aerial firing and facilitating the stripping of a woman disentitles an accused to bail under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does an offence under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause disentitling the accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can co-accused who share a common object in an unlawful assembly be granted bail when prima facie evidence shows their active involvement in the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Bibi and others vs Rehabilitation Commissioner1996 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-01
  leave to appealland allotmenttemporary allotmentrehabilitation commissionerconcurrent findings of factstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Division Bench which allowed an intra-court appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's order and the Rehabilitation Commissioner's order regarding the disputed land. The core legal dispute involved the legality of a permanent land allotment made to the respondents' predecessor over land temporarily allotted to the petitioners, specifically questioning whether the allotment was obtained without notice and without proper transfer of claims. The Supreme Court considered the contentions regarding the lack of notice, the absence of a competent authority's order for transferring the claim, and whether the Division Bench erred in setting aside concurrent findings of fact without establishing misreading or non-consideration of material. The Court held that the contentions required consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal, ordering that status quo continue in the meanwhile.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of land can be obtained without notice to the temporary allottee in possession?
  • Can a Division Bench set aside findings of fact recorded by a Rehabilitation Commissioner and affirmed by a Single Judge without establishing misreading or non-consideration of material on record?
  • Whether a person can obtain permanent allotment of land without transferring their claim by order of a competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahooran Bibi vs S.H.O., Police Station City Vehari1996 MLD 1035 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida vs The State1996 MLD 476 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Parveen vs Government of Sindh through Secretary1996 MLD 405 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Parveen vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary1996 MLD 405 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran alias Faiq Elahi vs Abdul Sattar and others1996 CLC 682 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasneem Jahan, Assistant Mistress vs Mrs. Saeeda Azra Sabri, Assistant Mistress and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-17
  service seniorityteacher senioritytemporary appointmentregularization of servicedepartmental selectionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a service dispute concerning the inter se seniority of two Assistant Mistresses, Mrs. Tasneem Jahan (appellant) and Mrs. Saeeda Azra Sabri (respondent No. 1), in the P & T Model School, Lahore. The core legal question involved the correct determination of seniority between teachers appointed on different dates and under varying temporary or leave vacancy arrangements prior to the enforcement of departmental service rules. The Federal Service Tribunal had previously accepted the respondent's appeal and set aside the departmental seniority determination. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the criteria adopted by the Service Tribunal were outside the law and that neither party's initial temporary appointment was regular until the formalization under the departmental rules of 1983. The Court ruled that since the appellant had passed her B.Ed. examination earlier in 1971 compared to the respondent in 1974, and had been continuously officiating and appointed earlier, the departmental authority's finding on her seniority was valid and not liable to be interfered with. The appeal was accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can adopt criteria for determining inter se seniority that are outside the applicable civil servants law and rules?
  • Does an earlier appointment and earlier qualification of a professional examination confer superior seniority when initial appointments were temporary?
  • Are administrative orders canceling previous appointments behind the back of an employee binding on them?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasleema vs The State1996 MLD 162 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Muhallah Alias, Taj Bibi vs Faqir Shah And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 265 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Muhallah alias Taj Bibi vs Faqir Shah and another1996 CLC 365 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Parveen vs District Education Officer (Women), .1996 PLC (C.S.) 939 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syedah Farah Shah vs Muhammad Sharifuddin and another1996 MLD 320 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syed Farah Shah vs Muhammad Sharifuddin And Another1996 MLD 320 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surrayia Bano vs Mst. Nazia Bano and others1996 CLC 1690 · Board of Revenue · 1993-11-30
  revenue recordlong-standing entriesreview of mutationsummary proceedingscorrection of revenue recordtitle disputejurisdiction of civil court
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from an order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who set aside a District Collector's decision allowing review of multiple land mutations and restoring an old cancelled mutation in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed title to land based on a registered sale deed from 1965 and an original mutation sanctioned in 1967, which had been cancelled and omitted from subsequent revenue records, allowing the vendor to alienate the property to third parties. The core legal question was whether revenue officers possess the jurisdiction to alter long-standing revenue entries and adjudicate complex title disputes in summary review proceedings. The Board of Revenue upheld the Additional Commissioner's order and rejected the revision petition. It held that long-standing entries in revenue records cannot be altered summarily or via review by revenue authorities. The key principle established is that mutation proceedings are summary in nature with a limited scope of inquiry, and complex disputes regarding title and validity of transactions must be determined by a civil court pursuant to Section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967.

  Questions settled

  • Can revenue officers alter long-standing entries in revenue records through summary review proceedings?
  • Whether complex disputes regarding title to land can be adjudicated by revenue officers in mutation proceedings?
  • Does Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act require questions of title arising from missing mutations and disputed sales to be determined by a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sosan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 291 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Slabo Bibi and 3 others vs Gul Rehman and 13 others1996 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-02
  inheritance mutationburden of proofpresumption of deathco-sharerscivil revisiondeclaration of titlelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment maintaining a decree in a suit for declaration and possession regarding inheritance rights. The core dispute involved the validity of an inheritance mutation that excluded a predecessor, Shah Farman, on the premise that he predeceased his father, Isa Khan. The legal questions concerned the burden of proof regarding death under Articles 123 and 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and the limitation period for challenging such mutations. The High Court held that the defendants failed to prove the predecessor died before his father. Applying Article 124, the Court found that since the predecessor had not been heard of for over seven years, the burden of proving he was alive shifted to the defendants, who failed to discharge it. Consequently, the mutation was declared void and ineffective. The Court established that a mutation entered without proper inquiry is legally invalid, causing the entire structure built upon it to collapse. Furthermore, such invalidity prevents the limitation period from barring the plaintiffs' claim, as they are deemed co-sharers in possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving a person is alive shift to the party asserting it when that person has not been heard of for seven years?
  • Is an inheritance mutation valid if it is entered without conducting an inquiry into the death of an heir?
  • Does the limitation period bar a suit for declaration of inheritance rights where the underlying mutation is found to be void?
  • Can a person be presumed civilly dead if their whereabouts have been unknown for more than thirty years?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sheena and others vs Civil Judge and others1996 MLD 1931 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sheena And Others vs Civil Judge And Other1996 MLD 1931 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi and others vs Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore and others1996 CLC 644 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-23
  revisional jurisdictionBoard of Revenuemutation proceedingsconstitutional petitionland revenuejurisdiction of Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the revisional order of the Member, Board of Revenue, which set aside a mutation sanctioned in favor of the petitioner's predecessor. The core legal questions involved the competence of the Board of Revenue to exercise revisional jurisdiction after the Commissioner had already exercised similar powers under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable in mutation proceedings. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the Board of Revenue possesses vast and wide revisional powers under section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 and sections 4 and 5 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, which are not restricted by any statutory bar preventing revision of an order passed by the Commissioner. The key principle laid down is that the Board of Revenue's revisional jurisdiction under the Punjab land revenue framework is not barred even if the Commissioner has exercised revisional powers, and ordinarily, constitutional petitions are not maintainable in matters arising out of mutation proceedings where parties can establish their title before a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board of Revenue can exercise revisional jurisdiction under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 after the Commissioner has already exercised revisional powers?
  • Does section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 contain any bar preventing the Board of Revenue from revising an order passed in revision by the Commissioner?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained in matters arising out of proceedings for mutation?
  • Whether questions of title and the fabrication of documents like Fard Taqseem can be decided within constitutional jurisdiction arising from mutation proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi and another vs Allah Bakhsh1996 SCMR 1823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-06
  civil procedurestatus quo orderinjunction violationex parte decreeundertaking
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether a prohibitory order not directly addressed to the petitioners could be enforced against them through an attorney. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had instituted a civil suit which was decreed ex parte, and subsequently gifted the suit land to the appellants. The respondent applied to set aside the ex parte decree and obtained a status quo order. Later, the respondent alleged violation of this order through construction on the land. The trial court found the violation occurred and ordered removal of the construction, which was upheld through successive appeals in the High Court. During the Supreme Court proceedings, the appellants' attorney and counsel offered a binding written undertaking that upon the dismissal of their suit, the appellants would at their own cost remove the structures and machinery and vacate the land within fifteen days. The respondent's counsel expressed no objection to this course. The Supreme Court accepted the joint statement, modified the High Court's order in terms of the undertaking, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a prohibitory order not directed towards a party can be utilized for punishing them on the assumed knowledge of a subsequently appointed attorney?
  • Can construction raised in violation of a subsistence status quo order be ordered to be removed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Khawaja vs Riaz Nasir Khawaja and 2 others1996 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Khawaja vs Riaz Nasir Khawaja And 2 Other1996 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar vs Tahir Islam1996 P Cr. L J 1278 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Parveen vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 179 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Begum and 3 others vs Mst. Sughran Begum1996 CLC 1959 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-07-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwat and anothers vs Aurangzeb Khan Aurakzai, Advocate Peshawar1996 MLD 516 · Bar Council Tribunal · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwat And Another vs Aurangzeb Khan Aurakzai, Advocate Peshawar1996 MLD 516 · Bar Council Tribunal · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Bibi vs Muhammad Khan and others1996 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-03
  inheritanceadverse possessionjoint khatalimitationco-ownerssecond appealjoint possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a civil dispute over the inheritance of a deceased landowner, Umar Din, who died in 1951-52. A mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in 1953, allocating shares to the appellant (daughter of the deceased's sister) and the respondents. In 1966, the respondents filed a suit for joint possession, claiming the appellant was not a legal heir. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the appellant was not entitled to inherit and had not established adverse possession, and that the suit was within limitation being part of a joint khata. The Additional District Judge reversed this, but the Lahore High Court accepted the second appeal and restored the trial court's judgment. The core legal questions involved the limitation period and the plea of adverse possession by a person holding land within a joint khata. The Supreme Court held that since the land was held in a joint khata and possession remained with all co-owners, and the appellant produced no evidence of open and hostile possession, the plea of adverse possession failed and the suit was within limitation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for joint possession of land held in a joint khata is within limitation when filed by co-owners against a person not entitled to inheritance?
  • Can a person claiming adverse possession over joint property succeed without proving open, hostile, and continuous possession against the real owners?
  • Does possession of a co-owner in a joint khata amount to adverse possession against other co-owners in the absence of clear evidence of hostility?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samra Ashfaq vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, S &1996 PLC (C.S.) 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  advance incrementshigher qualificationsservice tribunal jurisdictionscientisttechnical departmentpsychologistterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Assistant Psychologist appointed on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, challenged the dismissal of her appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal regarding her claim for advance increments based on her M. Phil. degree under a Finance Department Circular dated 24-8-1983. The core legal questions involved whether a psychologist qualifies as a "scientist" under the circular, whether her employer constitutes a "technical department," and whether the Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that psychology falls within social sciences, making a psychologist a "scientist," and that the evaluation duties performed render the department technical, meaning the appellant was entitled to the advance increments as a term and condition of service. The Court further held that the Service Tribunal did possess jurisdiction. Although the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds of limitation, the Court directed the respondents to review the appellant's case in light of this judgment. The key principle laid down is that the term "scientist" in notifications granting financial incentives for higher qualifications encompasses social scientists like psychologists when performing technical assessment duties, and service tribunals have jurisdiction over disputes concerning terms and conditions of service such as entitled advance increments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Assistant Psychologist holding an M. Phil. degree qualifies as a scientist entitled to advance increments under the Finance Department circular?
  • Does the Public Service Commission or a similar department qualify as a technical department for the purpose of granting advance increments for higher qualifications?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction over claims regarding advance increments claimed as a term and condition of service?
  • How should statutory terms like 'scientist' and 'technical' be interpreted when used in a notification enumerating distinct professional categories without a common genus?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samra Ashfaq vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary S'&1996 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  advance incrementsservice lawsocial scientisttechnical departmentservice tribunal jurisdictioninterpretation of circularspublic service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for advance increments based on higher qualifications, citing lack of jurisdiction and limitation. The appellant, an Assistant Psychologist, argued she qualified as a "scientist" under a Finance Department Circular. The core legal questions concerned whether a psychologist constitutes a "scientist" within the circular's meaning, whether the Public Service Commission qualifies as a "technical department," and whether the Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction over the dispute. The Supreme Court held that psychologists fall within the category of social scientists and that the nature of the appellant's duties in the Public Service Commission constitutes technical work. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Tribunal erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction, as the entitlement to increments constituted a term and condition of service. The Court further established that when a tribunal determines it lacks jurisdiction, it should refrain from adjudicating the merits of the case. Although the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds, the Court directed the respondents to review the appellant's claim in light of this interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'scientist' in the context of government advance increment policies include psychologists?
  • Is the Public Service Commission considered a 'technical department' for the purpose of granting advance increments?
  • Should a Service Tribunal express an opinion on the merits of a case after determining it lacks jurisdiction?
  • Does a claim for advance increments based on a government circular constitute a term and condition of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sameena and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 397 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Bibi vs Manzoor Hussain and others1996 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-09
  pre-emptionTalab-e-MuwasibatTalab-i-Ishhadright of pre-emptionpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns the proper fulfillment of the prerequisite demands of Talab-e-Muwasibat (demand of jumping/immediacy) under the law of pre-emption, specifically whether a demand made by the husband of a pre-emptor who lacked power of attorney at the time satisfies the legal requirement, and whether the pre-emptors themselves established making the requisite demand. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court—that Talab-e-Muwasibat was not proved to have been made by the pre-emptors themselves and that the demand by the husband was legally incompetent—were based on a correct appraisal of evidence and not open to exception. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a demand by an unauthorized person cannot substitute for the personal demand required of the pre-emptor.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Talab-e-Muwasibat can be legally made by a husband on behalf of pre-emptor wives without a valid power of attorney at the relevant time?
  • Is the concurrent finding of lower courts regarding the failure to prove Talab-e-Muwasibat open to interference when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina vs S.H.O. Police Station Basti Malook and others1996 P Cr. L J 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Begum through Legal Heirs and others vs Karachi1996 CLC 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakhia Kausar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 286 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira vs Mian Hamidul Haq and others1996 CLC 1512 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahira Khatoon vs Haji Moinul Haq1996 CLC 1276 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saba and anothers vs Mrs. Patricia and 2 otherss1996 CLC 348 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-30
  recovery of rentlimitation periodarrears of rentrent restrictioncause of actiontime-barred suitlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit involved a claim for the recovery of rent arrears by landlords against tenants of a bungalow. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act 1908, particularly concerning when the cause of action for rent arrears accrues and whether the pendency of rent proceedings suspends the limitation period. The Court held that the suit was time-barred. It determined that the cause of action for rent arises monthly as it becomes due and payable, and the pendency of rent proceedings or tentative rent orders does not suspend the running of the limitation period. The Court established that 'rent due' refers to rent legally recoverable in an action at law. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1908, once the limitation period begins to run, no subsequent disability or inability to sue stops it. Consequently, a landlord cannot recover rent beyond a period of three years from the date it became due, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of rent proceedings before a Rent Controller suspend the limitation period for filing a civil suit for recovery of rent arrears?
  • When does the cause of action for the recovery of monthly rent arrears accrue for the purpose of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does a tentative rent order passed by a court constitute an acknowledgment of debt sufficient to extend the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a court dismiss a suit on the grounds of limitation even if the defendant has not explicitly raised the plea of limitation in their defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen vs Minister of Health, Government of N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 320 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Mst.Naseem Kausar vs Shahid Rasool JanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 723 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubia Jilani vs Raja Zahoor Akhtar and 2 others1996 CLC 1603 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-08
  child custodywelfare of the minorguardianshipconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factGuardians and Wards Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Guardian Judge and the Additional District Judge, which denied the petitioner-mother’s application for the custody of her three minor sons. The core legal question concerned whether the welfare of the minors necessitated transferring their custody from the respondent-father to the mother. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that the welfare of the minors was paramount and was best served by maintaining their current educational stability at a reputable institution where they resided together. The Court emphasized that in guardianship matters, the welfare of the minor, as defined under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, is the primary consideration. Furthermore, the Court established that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in constitutional jurisdiction unless the lower courts acted without jurisdiction or in violation of law. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner could not resile from a previous court-recorded agreement regarding custody, and that keeping siblings together in a stable environment is generally desirable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding child custody in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in determining custody disputes under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  • Can a parent resile from a court-recorded agreement regarding the custody of minors?
  • Is it a valid ground to deny custody transfer if the minors are currently receiving stable education and living together in a reputable institution?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Roshan vs The State1996 MLD 924 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rose Nyokabi Wacira vs The State1996 MLD 479 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Resham Jan alias Noor Jehan vs The State1996 SCMR 1094 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-23
  forgeryimpersonationcriminal proceedingsstay of proceedingsrevenue mutationconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's convictions under sections 419, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of impersonating a deceased woman to fraudulently claim land ownership, involving the procurement of a forged national identity card and false revenue record entries. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings for forgery and impersonation should be stayed pending the outcome of parallel proceedings before Revenue Authorities regarding the validity of land mutations. The Supreme Court held that the criminal proceedings were independent of the revenue proceedings. The Court reasoned that while civil courts may take precedence in cases of breach of contract, the criminal offences of forgery and impersonation were distinct acts already accomplished, regardless of the revenue mutation outcome. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt and refused leave to appeal, establishing that criminal liability for forgery and impersonation does not depend on the outcome of concurrent revenue mutation proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Should criminal proceedings for forgery and impersonation be stayed pending the outcome of parallel revenue proceedings regarding land mutation?
  • Does the pendency of a civil or revenue dispute regarding property title bar criminal prosecution for forgery and impersonation related to that property?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal absent plausible grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi and 4 others vs Naazir Hussain1996 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-09
  specific performancerevisional jurisdictionconsolidation of suitscoercion and undue influencefindings of factcivil procedureappellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute involving two consolidated suits: one for the cancellation of an agreement due to alleged coercion and undue influence, and another for specific performance of the same agreement. The Trial Court decreed the cancellation suit, but the Appellate Court reversed this, dismissing the cancellation suit. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, set aside the Appellate Court's decision. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional powers and whether the Appellate Court's failure to address the specific performance suit, due to technical defects in filing, warranted dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by interfering with findings of fact that were not perverse. Furthermore, the Court established that technical failures arising from the consolidation of suits, such as the omission to file separate decree sheets, should be rectified by the court rather than resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the Appellate Court's judgment and decreed specific performance, finding no evidence of coercion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the findings are not perverse?
  • Should an appellate court dismiss an appeal due to technical defects in filing when the underlying suits were consolidated?
  • Does the failure to file separate decree sheets in consolidated suits justify the dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Begum and another vs Senior Civil Judge (Rent Controller), Charsadda and 2 others1996 PLD Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High Court
  rent restrictionlandlord-tenant relationshippreliminary issuetentative rentejectment applicationconstitutional petitionstriking off defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate court regarding an ejectment application filed under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioners contested the application, specifically denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Controller simultaneously framed issues and ordered the deposit of tentative rent. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller could order rent deposits before determining the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, and whether framing issues and ordering rent deposits on the same date complied with Section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The High Court held that the orders were illegal and without jurisdiction. It established that when a tenant denies the landlord-tenant relationship, the Rent Controller must first frame and decide a preliminary issue on that relationship before ordering rent deposits or proceeding further. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 13(6), the direction to deposit rent must precede the framing of issues, as the failure to comply with such an order necessitates striking off the defence, rendering simultaneous actions procedurally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Must a Rent Controller decide the issue of the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship before ordering the deposit of rent?
  • Is it legally permissible for a Rent Controller to frame issues and order the deposit of rent on the same date under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for a Rent Controller when a tenant denies the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship in their written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Ali vs Riaz. Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 641 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum and 2 others vs The Chief of the Naval Staff, Naval1996 MLD 580 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum And 2 Others vs The Chief of the Naval Staff, Naval1996 MLD 580 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raisa Bano and 7 others vs Muhammad Riaz Awan and 2 others1996 MLD 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raisa Bang And 7 Others vs Muhammad R1az Awan And 2 Other1996 MLD 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rafique Begum and anothers vs Muhammad Rafique and 5 others1996 CLC 667 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qasiloar Bibi vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary N.-1996 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08
  family pensioncivil servantresignationdeputationlachesservice recordleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the refusal of the respondent government authorities to grant family pension to the petitioner in respect of her deceased husband. The core legal questions involve whether the deceased husband had validly resigned from service in 1974, disentitling him to pensionary benefits, and whether the constitutional petition suffered from gross laches. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the validity of the alleged resignation, the conduct of the departmental inquiry without association of the employee, the entitlement to pension for the period served prior to resignation, and the condonation of delay for an invalid female claimant involve substantial questions of law and public importance. The key principle laid down is that contentious factual issues regarding resignation and fraud in service records, alongside the question of condoning delay in compassionate service matters, warrant a thorough examination by the apex court upon granting leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who allegedly resigned while on deputation is deprived of pensionary benefits for the service rendered prior to the resignation?
  • Can a departmental inquiry regarding the removal and suppression of a resignation from service records be conducted without associating the employee concerned?
  • Whether the delay in filing a constitutional petition for family pension by an invalid female claimant can be condoned on the ground of hardship?
  • Whether the parent department or the borrowing department is responsible for settling pensionary claims and collecting pension contributions during a period of deputation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qashqar Bibi vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, N.-W.F.P. and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08
  family pensionleave to appealdeputationqualifying serviceresignationlachescivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 24-10-1994, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking family pension following the death of her husband. The petitioner's husband had retired from the Buildings and Roads Department of the Government of N.-W.F.P. After serving on deputation in the Rural Works Programme. Both the parent and borrowing departments denied pensionary benefits, asserting that the employee had resigned in 1974, fraudulently manipulated service records, and lacked the requisite qualifying service. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on merits and for gross laches. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the alleged resignation and subsequent inquiry were conducted without associating the deceased, that qualifying service prior to 1974 was completed regardless, and that delay ought to have been condoned. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised involved substantial questions of law and public importance, and accordingly granted leave to appeal to examine the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inquiry into an employee's alleged resignation and record manipulation conducted without associating the employee can validly form the basis for denying pensionary benefits?
  • Whether service rendered prior to an alleged resignation constitutes qualifying service entitling an employee or their legal heir to proportionate pensionary benefits?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a constitutional petition for family pension solely on the ground of gross laches where the petitioner is an invalid female pursuing relief across departments?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamarun Nishan and 10 others vs Ch. Muhammad Umer and 12 others1996 CLC 1019 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Jehan vs Mahboob Ali Khan alias Pervez1996 PLD Karachi 567 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Akhtar vs Director, F.I.A., Lahore and 5 others1996 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-04
  constitutional petitionjurisdictioncause of actionPrincipal SeatHigh Court Benchesillegal detentionlaw reforms appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 arises from an order of a learned Single Judge returning a constitutional petition for presentation before the Rawalpindi Bench. The appellant had challenged her husband's arrest in Lahore by federal investigating authorities acting on warrants from Islamabad, alongside extradition proceedings to the United States. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition challenging detention and arrest can be maintained at the Principal Seat of the Lahore High Court when the arrest occurred within its territorial jurisdiction, notwithstanding that warrants originated from Islamabad. The Lahore High Court held that the distribution of cases between the Principal Seat and benches is a matter of administrative convenience rather than jurisdiction, and since part of the cause of action arose where the arrest took place, the petition at the Principal Seat was competent. The Court laid down the principle that the place of arrest gives rise to a part of the cause of action, enabling a detainee to challenge custody at that location regardless of subsequent removal or the place where warrants were issued.

  Questions settled

  • Does a part of the cause of action arise at the place where a person is taken into custody?
  • Whether a constitutional petition challenging detention can be filed at the Principal Seat of the High Court if the arrest occurred within its territorial limits, notwithstanding that the arrest warrants were issued elsewhere?
  • Is the allocation of cases between the Principal Seat and Benches of the High Court a matter of jurisdiction or administrative convenience?
  • Does a judge of the High Court exercise jurisdiction over the entire province regardless of the establishment of benches?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat vs The State1996 SCMR 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-09-27
  ad interim bailwelfare of minorsuckling childIslamic jurisprudenceadministration of justicebail in murder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for ad interim bail filed by Mst. Nusrat, who was accused of murder and detained in jail alongside her suckling infant. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the presence of a suckling child in jail with an accused mother warrants the grant of bail, considering the welfare of the minor. The Court held that the detention of an innocent infant in jail is incompatible with the child's welfare. Relying on Islamic jurisprudence, specifically the precedent set by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) regarding the suspension of sentences for pregnant women and nursing mothers, the Court emphasized the paramount importance of protecting a child's rights. Consequently, the Court granted ad interim bail to the petitioner to ensure the child's well-being. The judgment establishes the principle that the welfare of a suckling child is a significant consideration in bail proceedings and affirms that Islamic principles of justice should guide judicial decision-making in Pakistan, taking precedence over Western legal concepts in the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a suckling child in jail with an accused mother constitute a valid ground for the grant of ad interim bail?
  • Should Islamic principles of justice be given overriding effect over Western principles in the administration of justice in Pakistan?
  • Is the detention of an innocent infant in jail compatible with the concept of the welfare of the minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Firdaus vs Khadim Hussain1996 SCMR 1121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-26
  minor custodyguardians and wardswelfare of the minorfather's right to custodyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a writ petition regarding the custody of a minor. The minor, Adnan Khadim, had been in the custody and care of his maternal aunt, Mst. Nighat Firdaus, since the death of his mother in 1983, pursuant to an agreement executed by the respondent father. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of the minor, which was eventually allowed by the courts below, directing the custody to be handed over to the father, while the High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition. The core legal question concerns whether the father is entitled to custody as of right upon the minor attaining a certain age, or whether the paramount consideration remains the welfare of the minor. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether it is in the best interest and welfare of the minor to remain with the petitioner or be handed over to the father, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the father is entitled to the custody of a minor as of right after the minor attains the age of seven years?
  • Does the welfare of the minor override the natural father's right to custody under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  • What is the determining factor in cases involving the custody of a minor when the child has been raised by a relative for a prolonged period?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Bashir vs Shoukat Faizi through his Legal Heirs1996 SCMR 1257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23
  eviction applicationpersonal needbona fide requirementchange of circumstancesRent ControllerSindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979tenant eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which set aside an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the tenant and dismissed the landlord's eviction application. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in holding that the appellant-landlord failed to establish a bona fide personal need under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 due to an earlier dismissed eviction application filed by her mother. The Supreme Court observed that material changes in circumstances had occurred since the previous application, including the transfer of the parents' house to the appellant's brother and the return of the appellant's husband from abroad to work in Pakistan. Finding that the landlord owned no other premises and that her assertion to reside independently in her own house was bona fide, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Rent Controller's eviction order while allowing the tenant's legal representatives one year to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Does a change in circumstances justify a fresh eviction application on the ground of personal need following the dismissal of an earlier application?
  • Whether a married landlord living in a house owned by her brother can establish a bona fide personal requirement to occupy her own rented house?
  • Can a High Court set aside a Rent Controller's finding on personal requirement without considering material changes in evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Niaz Par Veen vs Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-19
  service mattertransfer orderlimitationcondonation of delayservice tribunaladministrative efficiency
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute between two Lady Health Visitors (L.H.Vs) regarding frequent, conflicting transfer orders issued by health authorities. The respondent, Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen, challenged a cancellation of her transfer order before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which accepted her appeal and restored her previous posting. The petitioner, Mst. Niaz Parveen, sought leave to appeal, primarily arguing that the respondent's appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1908, as it was filed beyond the 120-day statutory period without a formal application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter and observed that the authorities had engaged in a cycle of frequent transfers and cancellations, which adversely impacted the efficiency and morale of the employees. While acknowledging the petitioner's argument regarding the limitation period, the Court found no fault in the Service Tribunal's decision to deprecate the authorities' erratic transfer practices. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal condone a delay in filing an appeal without a formal application for condonation of delay?
  • Does the frequent issuance and cancellation of transfer orders by administrative authorities constitute a valid ground for judicial intervention?
  Read full judgment →