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.

• Mst. Zareena and 5 others vs Syeda Fatima Bi1995 PLD Karachi 388 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-17
  ejectmentsublettingburden of proofcross-examinationwritten statementrent appealparting with possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two appeals filed against orders of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellants' ejectment applications against the respondent from two flats on the ground of subletting. The core legal question was whether the respondent had sublet the tenements to a third party without the landlord's written consent, and whether the landlord's unrebutted testimony on oath regarding subletting was sufficient to prove the case. The Sindh High Court held that where a material fact deposed in examination-in-chief by the landlord remains unchallenged and un-rebutted in cross-examination, and the tenant fails to step into the witness box or produce evidence, the allegation is deemed to have been admitted. The Court established the principle that a written statement cannot take the place of evidence, and failure to cross-examine on a core assertion amounts to acceptance of that fact. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the eviction of the respondent was ordered.

  Questions settled

  • Can a written statement filed by a party take the place of substantive evidence without being supported by testimony on oath?
  • What is the legal effect when a material fact deposed by a landlord in examination-in-chief is left completely un-rebutted during cross-examination?
  • Is it mandatory for a landlord to state the exact name of a sublessee in the initial ejectment application when the identity of the occupant is initially unknown?
  • Does the failure of a tenant to enter the witness box to rebut allegations of subletting warrant an adverse inference against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia vs I.-G. Police, N.-W.F.P. and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 132 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Bibi and 8 others vs Abdul Malik and 12 others1995 SCMR 1061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-29
  civil revisionlimitation periodretrospective applicationprocedural lawleave to appealvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a Civil Revision Application filed by the petitioners in September 1990. The core legal question presented for determination is whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petitioners' Civil Revision Application on the ground that it was filed beyond the 90-day limitation period prescribed by the second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The central issue is whether this limitation period, introduced by Act No. VI of 1992, which was promulgated on 30-5-1992, could be applied retrospectively to a revision application that had already been filed in September 1990, well before the enactment of the amending legislation. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's application of this statutory amendment to pending proceedings, thereby addressing the principle of non-retroactivity of procedural amendments affecting vested rights of litigation, specifically regarding the temporal application of statutory limitation periods introduced after the initiation of legal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory amendment introducing a limitation period be applied retrospectively to a civil revision application filed prior to the enactment of said amendment?
  • Does the second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as introduced by Act No. VI of 1992, apply to revision applications pending at the time of its promulgation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Bibi and 2 others vs Muhammad Yousaf and 4 others1995 SCMR 868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-06
  Muslim Personal Law Shariat Application Actlimited estatecustomary lawmaintenance-holderinheritancelocus standiagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which accepted the respondents' second appeal, set aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge, and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The core legal question revolved around whether the plaintiff, a paternal uncle of the last male owner, had the locus standi to challenge a sale of land made by a female holder who had initially acquired it under custom, in light of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 and Section 2-A added by Ordinance XIII of 1983. The Supreme Court held that under Section 2-A of the Shariat Act, a male heir who inherited agricultural land under custom before the specified date is deemed an absolute owner under Shariat law, meaning the estate devolves according to Muslim Law. Consequently, the last male owner's mother and sisters received their respective shares, leaving the residue to the paternal uncle, giving him the requisite locus standi. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person who acquired agricultural land under custom as a male heir before the enforcement of the Shariat Act is deemed an absolute owner under Section 2-A of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
  • Does a paternal uncle have the locus standi to challenge an alienation made by a female limited owner when the estate is governed by Muslim Personal Law under the Shariat Act?
  • How does the addition of Section 2-A to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 affect properties previously held under customary law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaib-UN-Nisa vs The Government of the Punjab, Department of Education through Secretary and 4 others1995 CLC 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27
  writ petitionnon-payment of salaryforced labourlocal council employeeprinciples of policyfundamental rightsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the petitioner, a C.T. Teacher appointed by the Mayor of the Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore in December 1992, seeking the payment of her unpaid salary and allowances for services rendered continuously since her appointment. The core legal question was whether an employee performing duties against a substantive vacancy can be denied salary on the ground that her appointment lacked prior government approval or subsequent formal regularization. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, having duly performed her duties as a teacher, is legally entitled to full emoluments in her grade and pay scale, as the law does not contemplate unpaid service. The Court laid down the key principles that forcing an employee to work without wages is contrary to Islamic injunctions, constitutes forced labour prohibited under Article 11 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, violates the Principles of Policy regarding fair employment and livelihood under Article 29, and contravenes the State's duty to eliminate exploitation under Article 3. The petition was accepted with a direction to the respondents to immediately release all unpaid salaries and allowances from the date of joining.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a local council employee who has performed duties against a substantive vacancy can be denied salary for want of formal government approval?
  • Does extracting service from an employee without remuneration amount to forced labour under Article 11 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are state authorities bound to pay wages to an employee in view of the Principles of Policy and the prohibition against exploitation under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaib-UN-Nisa vs Sikandar and 3 others1995 CLC 588 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Bibi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran vs Kalu and 3 others1995 CLC 1532 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-22
  Muslim LawHibaGift between spousesTransfer of possessionConstructive possessionBurden of proofCivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a dispute over the inheritance of land measuring 108 Kanals 12 Marlas, following the death of the owner, Ghulam Muhammad, who died issueless. The petitioner, his widow, claimed ownership based on a gift deed executed by her husband in her favor. The respondents, collaterals of the deceased, challenged the validity of the gift, alleging forgery and lack of transfer of possession. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, citing failure to prove the deed's execution and transfer of possession. Upon revision, the High Court held that the gift was valid. The Court determined that under Muslim Law, a gift between husband and wife does not require physical transfer of possession, as the wife is constructively in possession of the husband's property. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that such gifts can be effected orally or through unregistered instruments, and the burden of proving fraud or forgery lies squarely on the party alleging it. The revision petition was accepted, and the suit was decreed in favor of the widow.

  Questions settled

  • Is physical transfer of possession a mandatory requirement for the validity of a gift between a husband and his wife under Muslim Law?
  • Does a gift deed between spouses require registration to be considered valid under Muslim Law?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a gift deed is challenged as fraudulent or forged?
  • Can a gift under Muslim Law be validly effected through an oral declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran Mai vs Ghulam Hashim and 5 others1995 P Cr. L J 1513 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran and others vs Superintendent of Police, Bhakkar and others1995 P Cr. L J 996 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waten Khela vs The State1995 SCMR 1501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-17
  criminal appealZina-bil-RazaZina-bil-Jabrexculpatory statementconvictionacquittalHudood Ordinancesappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant Mst. Waten Khela under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for committing Zina with consent, which was upheld by the Federal Shariat Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of direct evidence and where the appellant's confessional statement was exculpatory rather than incriminating. The Supreme Court held that suspicion cannot take the place of proof, and an exculpatory statement made by an accused person alleging Zina-bil-Jabr cannot be used to convict them of Zina-bil-Raza. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that an accused person's exculpatory statement denying consensual relations and alleging coercion cannot form the legal basis for sustaining a conviction for consensual sexual offense under the Hudood laws.

  Questions settled

  • Can suspicion take the place of proof in criminal cases?
  • Whether an exculpatory confessional statement alleging Zina-bil-Jabr can be used to convict an accused of Zina-bil-Raza?
  • Does the absence of direct evidence of illicit intercourse warrant the setting aside of a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wafa Jan vs Mahram Zad1995 CLC 2002 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03
  pre-emption suitZar-e-Soemmandatory depositstatutory limitationcivil revisiondismissal of suitjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an appellate judgment that upheld the dismissal of a pre-emption suit due to the plaintiff's failure to deposit the required one-third of the sale price within the statutory timeframe. The central issue was whether the trial court possessed the discretion to extend the time for depositing the pre-emption money beyond the mandatory period prescribed by law, and whether the failure to deposit within the specified time necessitated the dismissal of the suit. The Court held that under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the requirement to deposit one-third of the sale price within thirty days of the suit's institution is mandatory. The Court lacks jurisdiction to extend this period beyond thirty days. The Court emphasized that the 1991 Act is more stringent than the repealed 1913 Act, removing judicial discretion to extend time for deposits. Consequently, failure to comply with the deposit deadline results in the mandatory dismissal of the suit, rendering the trial court's dismissal legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Court have the power to extend the period for depositing one-third of the sale price under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  • Is the requirement to deposit one-third of the sale price within thirty days of the institution of a pre-emption suit mandatory?
  • What are the consequences of failing to deposit the pre-emption money within the time fixed by the Court under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tayyaba Khan vs Syeda Begum And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 38 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Mehal vs Haji Karim Khan1995 P Cr. L J 871 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tabassum Qureshi vs The State1997 MLD 1866 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tabassam Begum vs Muhammad Arshad alias Boob and others1995 SCMR 849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-16
  leave to appealacquittalmurdereye-witness testimonyappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge of murdering Sardar Khan, after the trial court had initially convicted them under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's rejection of the eye-witness testimony and subsequent acquittal was based on proper judicial reasoning or surmises and presumptions. The Supreme Court held that the case required a thorough appraisal of the evidence for the proper and safe administration of justice, finding that the High Court's disbelieving of the eye-witnesses—including a son-in-law with no apparent enmity—warranted a re-examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the respondents, establishing the principle that ocular accounts from related witnesses cannot be discarded on generalized presumptions without cogent reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can discard the testimony of related eye-witnesses based on surmises and presumptions?
  • Does a case involving the reversal of a murder conviction warrant the grant of leave to appeal for reappraisal of evidence?
  • Can non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued upon the grant of leave to appeal in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surraya Bibi vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1927 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surraya Begum vs Aftab Ahmad Khan1995 CLC 1603 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sherifan Begum vs State1997 MLD 196 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shehnaz. vs The State and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 868 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20
  constitutional petitionSection 164 Cr.P.C.recording of statementdiscretionary power of magistrateabductee statementwrit of mandamusHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking a direction to an Area Magistrate to record the petitioner's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, alleged to be an abductee in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, sought to have her statement recorded by a Magistrate in Lahore, despite the case being registered in Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is under a mandatory statutory obligation to record a statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. upon request, and whether the refusal to do so constitutes a failure of lawful authority. The Court held that the power under Section 164, Cr.P.C. is discretionary, not mandatory, and the Magistrate is not obligated to record a statement merely upon a request. The Court further emphasized that an abductee should first approach the Investigating Officer. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any refusal by the Magistrate or any legal compulsion for the Magistrate to act.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate under a mandatory statutory obligation to record a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the request of any person?
  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel a Magistrate to record a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without evidence of a formal refusal?
  • Does the word 'may' in Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose a mandatory duty on a Magistrate to record a statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shehnaz Bibi vs Muhammad Akram and others1995 P Cr. L J 307 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10
  habeas corpuschild custodyminor custodyunconscionable agreementpardanashin womanundue influencecompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Lahore High Court through a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner mother, seeking the custody of her minor female child who was allegedly forcibly snatched by her divorced husband. The respondent husband relied on an affidavit of compromise purportedly executed by the petitioner surrendering the child's custody pursuant to a Panchayat decision. The petitioner vehemently repudiated the document under oath. The core legal question revolved around the validity and enforceability of a private compromise or agreement executed by an illiterate woman relinquishing the custody of a suckling infant. The Court held that an agreement by a female relinquishing custody that appears unconscionable on its face raises a rebuttable presumption of coercion and undue influence, and that the custody of minors cannot be settled by private compromise. The habeas corpus petition was consequently accepted and the custody of the minor was restored to the mother, subject to any future remedies before the Guardian Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the custody of a minor can be settled by private compromise or arbitration?
  • What is the legal presumption regarding an agreement entered into by a female that appears unconscionable on its face?
  • Is a mother entitled to the habeas corpus custody of her suckling infant when an alleged relinquishment agreement is repudiated under oath?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shehnaz Bibi vs Muhammad Akram And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 337 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Nasim vs Additional District Judge and others1995 MLD 981 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Nasim vs Additional District Judge And Other1995 MLD 981 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Anjum vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Health1995 CLC 1511 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shanaz Begum and 4 others vs Ashiq Hussain Bhatti and 2 others1995 CLC 327 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07
  summoning of witnessesadditional evidencelist of witnessescivil revisionfatal accident damagesprocedural technicalitiesdiscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  Mst. Shahnaz Begum and others filed a suit for recovery of damages arising from a fatal accident. During the proceedings, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' applications to summon the Secretary, R.T.A. as a witness along with relevant documents, on the grounds that his name was not included in the list of witnesses and that a second application was barred due to the dismissal of the first. The Lahore High Court accepted the civil revision petition, setting aside the impugned orders. The Court held that procedural rules are designed to advance the cause of justice rather than entrap litigants on technicalities, and that the omission of a witness's name from the list does not bar the court's jurisdiction to summon a crucial official witness for a just decision. Furthermore, the Court clarified that principles of res judicata do not apply to interlocutory applications for summoning witnesses or producing additional evidence at subsequent stages of a suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of a witness's name from the list of witnesses absolutely bar the trial court from summoning an important official witness?
  • Are principles of res judicata applicable to successive interlocutory applications for summoning witnesses or producing additional evidence?
  • Can a court direct the examination of a witness at any stage of the suit under Order XVIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Saifur Rehman and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1466 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Mian Abdul Latif, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 224 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1995 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08
  limitationwaqf propertyspecial leave to appealtime-barredallotmentadministrative control
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an appeal against an order of the District Judge, Lahore. The petitioner, claiming to be an allottee of a property on Hall Road, Lahore, challenged a 1968 notification by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf declaring the property as waqf. The petitioner initially filed an application under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance in 1969 seeking a declaration that the property was not waqf, which was dismissed in 1970 on the grounds of limitation. Subsequent attempts to seek relief via a review application in 1982 and an appeal to the High Court in 1984 were also dismissed. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner's claims were maintainable given the significant delays. The Court held that the petitioner failed to adhere to the law of limitation at every stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that the matter was time-barred and not a fit case for judicial interference. The judgment reinforces the strict application of limitation periods in legal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a legal challenge against a notification declaring a property as waqf be entertained if it is filed beyond the statutory period of limitation?
  • Does the failure to comply with the law of limitation at the trial stage preclude the maintainability of subsequent appeals and review applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shakila Bano vs Station House Officer, Police Station Model1995 PLD Karachi 555 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1288 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Parveen vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-02
  bailillegal detentionjail authoritiescustodia legisFirst Information Report
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Mst. Shahida Parveen, who had already been granted bail by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code, but was refused release by the Superintendent of Jail because the jail remand record additionally mentioned section 10 of the Ordinance. The core legal question concerned the legality of jail authorities withholding the release of an accused on hyper-technical discrepancies regarding penal sections mentioned in the jail record despite a clear court order granting bail in respect of the F.I.R. in its entirety. The Court held that once a court grants bail in an F.I.R., the order pertains to the F.I.R. in its entirety, and the specification of penal provisions in investigation papers does not control the substance of the F.I.R. The Court laid down the principle that continued detention by jail authorities after a bail order amounts to illegal detention, placing the accused in the custodia legis of the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether jail authorities can refuse to release an accused granted bail by a court on the ground that the jail remand record mentions additional penal sections?
  • Does an order granting bail in a particular F.I.R. pertain to that F.I.R. in its entirety?
  • What is the legal status of an accused person's detention once they are admitted to bail by a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaheen Bibi (Nusrat Shaheen) vs Zulfiqar Ali Shah Kazmi and 21995 CLC 306 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-16
  guardians and wardschild custodyhizanatremarriage of motherwelfare of minorconstitutional jurisdictiondoctrine of laches
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed by the mother challenging the concurrent orders of the Family Court and the appellate court whereby the custody of her minor daughter was granted to the father and paternal grandmother under the Guardians and Wards Act. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in awarding custody and whether the mother's remarriage to a stranger extinguished her right of hizanat. The Lahore High Court held that the mother, by contracting a marriage with a person not related to the minor within the prohibited degree, forfeited her right of custody under Muhammadan Law, and that the welfare of the minor dictated that custody remain with the father and paternal grandmother. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that a plea not raised before the lower forums cannot be agitated for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction, and that a petition involving child custody is hit by the doctrine of laches if filed with an inordinate delay of over eight months without prompt recourse.

  Questions settled

  • Does the remarriage of a mother to a stranger extinguish her right to the custody of her minor daughter under Muhammadan Law?
  • Can a plea or objection that was not raised before the lower forums be allowed to be raised for the first time in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Is a constitutional petition relating to the custody of a minor liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches if filed after an inordinate delay without prompt recourse?
  • Who is entitled to the custody of a female minor when the mother has contracted a marriage with a stranger not within the prohibited degree?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shagufta Jabeen vs Deputy District Education Officer (Women), Bhakkar and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 451 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sebhahi And Another vs The State1995 MLD 583 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwari Begum vs Ata-Ur-RehmanK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 615 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwar Jan vs Ayub and another1995 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-14
  sentence enhancementrevisional jurisdictioninherent powers of High Courtabuse of processmagistrate powerscompensation to victimcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court setting aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, which had enhanced the sentences of the respondents for offences under sections 325 and 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a conviction by a Judicial Magistrate. The core legal questions concerned whether an Additional Sessions Judge acting in revision can enhance a sentence beyond the limits competent to a Magistrate First Class, and whether the High Court can interfere with such an order under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that an Additional Sessions Judge exercising revisional powers cannot inflict a greater punishment than a Magistrate First Class could have imposed, making the enhancement ab initio illegal. The Supreme Court further held that the High Court is fully justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent an abuse of the process of the court and correct patent illegalities where no other adequate remedy exists. The appeal was disposed of by maintaining the trial court's original sentence while additionally awarding compensation to the victim under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Additional Sessions Judge exercising revisional powers under section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can enhance a sentence beyond the limits that could have been inflicted by a Magistrate of the First Class?
  • Can the High Court invoke its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set aside an illegal order passed by a Sessions Judge under section 439-A?
  • What are the jurisdictional requirements for the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the bar under section 439-A(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict the High Court from utilizing its inherent powers under section 561-A to prevent an abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sara Bibi and 2 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar Chiniot, District Jhang and another1995 P Cr. L J 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Ali vs Station House Officer1995 PLD Lahore 629 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saleha Ibtisam vs Chairman, Admission Committee, Pakistan King1995 CLC 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saleem Akhtar vs Nur Muahmmad Khan and others1995 CLC 1219 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina and 3 otherss vs National Logistic Cell, through Commander and 2 others1995 MLD 633 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina And 3 Others vs Messrs National Logistic Cell, Through Commander And 2 Other1995 MLD 633 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahib Khatoon vs Muhammad Hussain and others1995 P Cr. L J 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Bibi vs Muhammad Arif, A.S.I. and 3 others1997 MLD 158 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Aziz vs Mst. Dil Ara Malik and 28 others1995 SCMR 1023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-29
  service appealseniority listamendment of appealcause of actioncurtailment of litigationdepartmental representationservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a majority judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which allowed an application for amendment of a memo of appeal. The underlying dispute concerned a seniority list. Following a previous remand by the Supreme Court to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, a final seniority list was issued. The respondent sought to amend her pending appeal to challenge this new list. The petitioner objected, arguing that a fresh cause of action had accrued, necessitating a new departmental representation and a fresh service appeal. The Supreme Court observed that the final seniority list merely affirmed the earlier list already under litigation. Emphasizing the need to curtail protracted litigation, which had persisted for fourteen years, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the amendment. The Court held that where a subsequent administrative action merely affirms a position already under judicial consideration, an amendment to the existing appeal is permissible to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance, the Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service appeal be amended to challenge a final seniority list that merely affirms an earlier list already under judicial challenge?
  • Is a fresh departmental representation required when a subsequent administrative order merely affirms a position already subject to pending litigation?
  • Does the refusal of leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution require the presence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadha Begum vs Pervaz Ahmed Khan And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 211 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saboohi vs Ghulam Dastagir And Another1995 MLD 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ruqayya Bibi and another vs The S.H.O., Police Station Bhai Pheru1995 P Cr. L J 978 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ruby Akhtar vs Capt. S.M. Aslam1995 CLC 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Noor and others vs Ghulam Muhammad and others1995 MLD 719 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Noor And Others vs Ghulam Muhammad And Other1995 MLD 719 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi vs Malik Farzand Ali and others1995 CLC 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehana Begum vs Mst. Shagufta1995 SCMR 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-14
  ejectmentdefault in rentelectricity chargescondonation of delaylimitation during summer vacationsmisreading of evidenceSindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave was filed by the widow of a deceased tenant challenging concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller and the High Court of Sindh ordering her ejectment on the ground of default in the payment of electricity charges. Preliminary questions of limitation and condonation of delay arose because the petition was barred by 27 days, with the limitation period having expired during the Supreme Court's summer vacations. On the merits, the core issue was whether the tenant committed a wilful default under rent laws regarding unpaid electricity charges. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in light of conflicting judicial views on Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908 during court vacations and the appellant's circumstances. On merits, the Court found that the landlord's attorney admitted in cross-examination that electricity bills were paid directly to the utility provider (KESC) and never demanded by the landlord, and the tenant cleared dues upon receipt of bills. Holding that the lower courts misread the evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ejectment orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period during which the Supreme Court is closed for summer vacations is excluded for computing limitation under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908 when the Court registry remains open to receive petitions?
  • Whether non-payment of electricity bills directly to a utility provider constitutes actionable default of rent warranting ejectment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 where the landlord never demanded such charges and dues were subsequently cleared upon receiving duplicate bills?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding default in payment of utility charges be set aside in appeal when they are based on a misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Zahir vs Muhammad Kamil Qureshi1995 CLC 468 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs Station House Officer, Gunjial, Tehsil and District1995 P Cr. L J 797 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-12
  quashment of FIRfree will marriagesui jurisabductionOffences of Zina Ordinanceconstitutional petitionfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under section 11 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, wherein the petitioner, an adult female, was alleged to have been abducted by the accused for the purpose of committing Zina. The core legal question before the court was whether an F.I.R. regarding abduction and Zina can be quashed when the alleged victim is sui juris, has contracted a valid marriage of her own free will, and the police investigation found the case to be false. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner is sui juris, attained puberty, and contracted a valid marriage according to Islamic law and her own free will, the continued investigation and prosecution constitute an abuse of the process of law. The court laid down the principle that marriage under Muslim law is a civil contract for which a competent adult does not require parental consent, and the state has a constitutional duty to protect such marriages; furthermore, police inquiries and investigations are subject to judicial scrutiny under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if found to be mala fide or violative of fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can an F.I.R. under the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be quashed when the alleged victim is sui juris and has contracted a free-will marriage?
  • Whether a Muslim adult of sound mind who has attained puberty can enter into a contract of marriage without parental consent?
  • Are police investigations and inquiries amenable to judicial scrutiny under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a marriage contracted without the consent of parents constitute a criminal offence under Pakistani law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs Nazir Ahmed and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 408 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs Nazir Ahmad EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 307 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Begum vs District Judge, Jhang and 2 others1995 CLC 657 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07
  dissolution of marriageKhulahabitual crueltyreconciliationconstitutional petitionfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against respondent No. 3 on grounds including habitual cruelty and Khula, which was dismissed by the Family Court and subsequently upheld in appeal by the District Judge, Jhang. The petitioner then approached the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in refusing dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula despite evidence showing deep-seated hatred and the impossibility of the spouses living within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that where the wife remains adamant in her refusal to live with her husband, the husband resides abroad in Kuwait visiting only occasionally, there are no children, and forcing the union would result in a hateful marriage, dissolution on the basis of Khula must be granted. The key principle laid down is that refusing Khula in circumstances where reconciliation is impossible and parties would be forced into a hateful union runs contrary to established superior court rulings and norms of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a wife is entitled to dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula when she remains adamant in her refusal to live with her husband and reconciliation is impossible?
  • Does forcing spouses to remain in a hateful union where reconciliation has failed violate norms of justice?
  • Whether the failure of a husband residing abroad to appear as his own witness is a relevant feature in determining a suit for dissolution of marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaibun Nisar vs Slkandar And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Afsar vs Messrs Kazi and Sons and another1995 CLC 178 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ramzan Bibi vs Additional District Judge and others1995 CLC 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21
  jactitation of marriagerestitution of conjugal rightsproof of nikahcriminal court judgment in civil proceedingswrit jurisdictionreappraisal of evidenceperverse judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for jactitation of marriage and decreeing the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal question was whether a civil court, adjudicating a suit for jactitation of marriage, can determine the validity and genuineness of a Nikahnama based primarily on findings recorded in a previous criminal court judgment rather than independent civil evidence. The Lahore High Court held that a civil court is a court of plenary jurisdiction and must independently evaluate the evidence led before it, rather than relying on a criminal acquittal judgment to establish the factum of marriage. The High Court laid down the principle that relying on criminal court findings to prove a Nikah in civil proceedings is illegal and perverse, and that writ jurisdiction may be exercised to set aside judgments that suffer from such material irregularities and non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court adjudicating a suit for jactitation of marriage rely on a criminal court judgment to prove the validity of a Nikah?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in writ jurisdiction when the lower courts have misdirected themselves or rendered a perverse judgment?
  • What constitutes sufficient evidence to prove the factum of a Nikah in civil proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raisa Farooq vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Karachi and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 628 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raheela Durrani vs The State1995 SCMR 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18
  bail cancellationmurdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencediscretionary orderssupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Sindh cancelling the post-arrest bail granted to the petitioner, Mst. Raheela Durrani, who was implicated in the murder of a Pakistan Air Force officer under F.I.R. No. 108/94 at Police Station Tipu Sultan, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail based on available circumstantial and last-seen evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order cancelling bail was sound, as the petitioner and co-accused were apprehended red-handed while disposing of the deceased's dead body, and corroborative last-seen evidence placed the deceased at the petitioner's house around the time of the crime. The Court laid down the principle that at the bail stage, a deep appraisal of evidence is to be avoided, and the presence of strong circumstantial evidence, such as being caught disposing of a corpus delicti, justifies the cancellation of bail in heinous offences regardless of the accused being a woman, provided no exceptional statutory grounds are met.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled by the High Court when strong circumstantial evidence connects the accused to the crime?
  • Is it proper for a court to deeply appraise evidence and resolve factual conflicts at the bail stage?
  • Does the mere fact that an accused is a woman serve as a sole ground for the grant or sustenance of bail in a murder case?
  • Whether the recovery of an accused person along with a dead body constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant the denial or cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Khatoon and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1048 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qaisra Ellahi vs Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust through Chairman and 5 others1995 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Iqbal vs The State1997 MLD 1905 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noorjehan and anothers vs Mst. Qaiseri Begum and 5 others1995 MLD 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan and others vs Muhammad Rafique and others1995 CLC 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-04
  specific performanceagreement to selllegal heirsframing of issuescomparison of signaturesimmovable propertyearnest moneypresumption of adequacy
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal was filed by some of the legal heirs of a deceased vendor against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad, which decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The appellants contended that the agreement was fake, signatures were forged, issues were framed in an omnibus fashion without covering preliminary objections, and specific performance could not be decreed against legal heirs or where monetary compensation was available. The High Court rejected these contentions, holding that the trial Court properly framed issues reflecting the essence of the controversy under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and properly compared the signatures of the deceased. The Court further held that under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, specific performance is enforceable against legal heirs claiming under the vendor, and under Section 12, breach of a contract to transfer immovable property is presumed not adequately relievable by money compensation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell immovable property executed by a deceased vendor can be specifically enforced against his legal heirs under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does the statutory presumption under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 apply to contracts for the transfer of immovable property such that monetary compensation is presumed inadequate?
  • Whether framing omnibus issues invalidates a decree if the parties understood the true essence of the controversy from the pleadings and produced evidence accordingly?
  • Can execution of a sale agreement be established through natural marginal witnesses even if the credentials of the petition-writer are challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan And Another vs Mst. Qaiseri Begum And 5 Other1995 MLD 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Naz vs Government of Punjab, Lahore through Secretary, Education Department, Punjab, Lahore and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 597 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Niaz Parveen vs Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen and 3 others1995 SCMR 1844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-19
  leave to appealservice tribunaltransfer orderlimitationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which accepted the respondent's appeal and restored her transfer order. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal erred in law by condoning the delay in filing the departmental appeal without a formal application under the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Service Tribunal's decision to uphold the transfer and deprecate frequent and arbitrary transfer orders of public servants within a short span was justified. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused and dismissed, reinforcing the principle that frequent and arbitrary transfers of government employees adversely affect administrative efficiency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can condone the delay in filing an appeal without a formal application under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
  • Does frequent and arbitrary transfer of public servants within a short period warrant judicial interference?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment of the Service Tribunal restoring a transfer order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Niaz Begum and others vs Waris Khan and others1995 MLD 690 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Niaz Begum And Others vs Waris Khan And Other1995 MLD 690 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazir vs Additional District Judge, Rahimyarkhan and 2 others1995 CLC 296 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naveed Arshad vs The State1995 SCMR 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-15
  leave to appealinterim bailprima facie evidencecriminal lawbail in non-bailable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the lower courts in a criminal case. The petitioner, an ailing and aged lady, sought relief on the grounds that the evidence gathered by the investigating agency failed to establish a prima facie connection between her and the alleged offences. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of these contentions, specifically focusing on whether the material on record sufficiently links the petitioner to the crime, given her age and health condition. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court ordered that the interim bail previously granted to the petitioner shall continue. The judgment serves as a procedural step in the bail process, affirming the court's role in scrutinizing the sufficiency of evidence at the pre-trial stage for vulnerable categories of accused persons.

  Questions settled

  • Does the material collected by the investigating agency prima facie link the accused to the commission of the offence?
  • Should interim bail be continued pending the final adjudication of a leave to appeal petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 339 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs The State, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Sh. Gulzar Ahmed and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 474 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-27
  habeas corpusminor custodyHizanatnatural guardianillegal detentionguardians and wards
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the custody of a minor female child, aged 5 years, by her mother against the father. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its habeas corpus jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, can restore the custody of a minor of tender age to the mother when such custody was forcibly or illegally removed by the father, despite the father being the natural guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The court held that while the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 provides the ordinary remedy for guardianship disputes, the High Court possesses an efficacious, speedy jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore custody disturbed improperly. The court ruled that under Muslim law (Hizanat), a female minor should remain with her mother up to the age of puberty, and accordingly awarded temporary custody of the minor to the mother, leaving the final determination of welfare and guardianship open to the competent Guardian Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of a minor removed without legal recourse?
  • Does a father have the right to retain the custody of a minor child forcibly without obtaining proper orders from a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • What is the extent of the mother's right of Hizanat under Muslim law regarding the custody of a female minor?
  • Can questions of minor welfare and better suitability between parents be decided in habeas corpus proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Syed Shafqat Ahmed and anothers1997 MLD 11 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 2 others vs Mst. Shaheen Kausar and another1995 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nargis Khatoon vs Director General, Pakistan Broadcasting1995 SCMR 721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08
  disciplinary proceedingsremoval from serviceservice of charge sheetnatural justiceleave to appealuncooperative employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the termination of the petitioner's employment from the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation following disciplinary proceedings. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was denied due process, specifically regarding notice and the opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner persistently avoided service, refused to participate in the inquiry, and maintained an uncooperative attitude despite multiple concerted efforts by the employer to associate her with the proceedings. Consequently, the plea regarding lack of personal hearing and due process was untenable. The petition was dismissed as lacking merits, reinforcing the principle that a delinquent employee who deliberately avoids disciplinary proceedings cannot subsequently claim a violation of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who deliberately avoids service of a charge-sheet can claim violation of natural justice?
  • Does refusal to participate in disciplinary proceedings invalidate the inquiry report?
  • When can an employer proceed ex parte against an employee in disciplinary matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Najma Bibi vs The State1995 MLD 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadira Shahzad vs Mubashir Ahmad and others1995 SCMR 1419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-26
  condonation of delaysufficient causelimitation periodfamily court appealreasonable diligenceconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that had remanded a family appeal, which was originally dismissed by the appellate court as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the requirement to show "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under Rule 22 of the Family Courts Rules, 1965, differs from the standard applied under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, specifically regarding the necessity of explaining each day of delay. The Supreme Court held that no legal distinction exists between the two provisions; both require the appellant to demonstrate "sufficient cause" and exercise reasonable diligence throughout the delay period. The Court found that the respondent failed to provide material particulars for the delay or demonstrate reasonable diligence. Consequently, the High Court’s interference under its constitutional jurisdiction was deemed unjustified, as the appellate court’s initial dismissal was legally sound. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restored the appellate court's dismissal, and affirmed the original decree, establishing that the judicial interpretation of "sufficient cause" remains consistent across these statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a legal distinction between the standard of 'sufficient cause' under Rule 22 of the Family Courts Rules, 1965, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
  • Does an appellant seeking condonation of delay under Rule 22 of the Family Courts Rules, 1965, have an obligation to explain the delay for each day?
  • Can the failure of an advocate to inform a client about a court judgment constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal?
  • Is the High Court justified in exercising constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an appellate court's dismissal of a time-barred appeal where no jurisdictional error exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Muzammel S. Shafqat vs Muhammad Farooq and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Parveen and 4 others vs Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur and 10 other1995 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-31
  land allotmentMukhabari applicationleave to appealsettlement of claimscancellation of allotmentdisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the cancellation of land allotment originally granted to the petitioners' predecessor, Muhammad Iqbal, in 1959. The core legal question is whether the allotment was validly cancelled based on allegations of duplicate claim forms, and whether the respondents, who initiated the proceedings via a Mukhabari application, possessed a preferential right to the land. The Supreme Court observed that the land had been settled in favor of the predecessor-in-interest in 1959, at which time no competing claims from the respondents were pending in the area. Furthermore, the Court noted the contention that the allotment was not obtained against duplicate claim forms, rendering the cancellation unjustified. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the respondents' claim, predicated solely on a Mukhabari application, could override the finality of the original allotment and whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the respondents' preferential rights. The principle at issue involves the finality of land settlements and the validity of cancellation proceedings initiated by third-party informers.

  Questions settled

  • Can a land allotment be cancelled based solely on a Mukhabari application alleging duplicate claims?
  • Does a Mukhabari applicant possess a preferential right to land previously allotted to a claimant?
  • Under what circumstances can a final land allotment made to a displaced person be reopened and cancelled?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Begum vs (Mst.) Wazir BegumK.L.R.1997 Civil Cases 195 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehrunnisa vs Muhammad Rafiullah1995 CLC 202 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16
  fair rentRent ControllerSindh Rented Premises Ordinancefixation of rentremandtenancystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Rent Appeals (F.R.As) filed against an order of the Rent Controller, Karachi Central, which fixed the fair rent for a property at Rs. 2,000 per month. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller, in determining fair rent under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is legally obligated to consider all four factors specified therein, or if reliance on a single factor suffices. The High Court, relying on a Supreme Court precedent, held that the Rent Controller’s order was unsustainable because it failed to properly evaluate the statutory criteria. The Court emphasized that while a landlord's failure to provide evidence on all four elements does not necessarily result in the rejection of an application, the Rent Controller must nonetheless consider the factors specified in the Ordinance to ensure the determination is not arbitrary. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision, with directions to dispose of the matter within four months.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller required to consider all four factors listed in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, when determining fair rent?
  • Does the failure of a landlord to provide evidence on all four factors of Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, necessarily lead to the rejection of a rent application?
  • Can a Rent Controller fix fair rent based solely on the prevalent rent of similar premises without considering other statutory factors?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehrun Nisa vs Zainulabidin and 5 others1995 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-19
  criminal breach of trustdowry recoveryquashment of proceedingscivil nature of disputeabuse of processmatrimonial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents for criminal breach of trust regarding dowry articles. The petitioner, the former wife of the deceased, alleged that her dowry remained with the respondents after her husband's death and that they refused to return it despite a prior agreement. The core legal question was whether a dispute regarding the recovery of dowry articles, where the marriage status and divorce are contested, constitutes a criminal offense under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or if it is purely a civil matter. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings, holding that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that criminal courts were not the appropriate forum for such recovery claims. The Court further clarified that observations made by the High Court regarding the factum of divorce were not binding on the civil forum, which remains the competent authority to adjudicate the underlying dispute between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding the recovery of dowry articles constitute a criminal offense under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
  • Are observations made by a High Court regarding a disputed fact, such as divorce, binding on a future civil court adjudicating the same matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehrai and others vs Muhammad Ali and others1995 MLD 492 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehrai And Others vs Muhammad Ali And Other1995 MLD 492 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Manzooran Bibi vs The Superintendent of Police, Pakpattan Sharif1995 P Cr. L J 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mansab Mai vs Deputy Commissioner, Multan with the Powers of Controlling Authority And, Other1995 MLD 865 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Mansab Mai vs Deputy Commissioner, Multan with the Powers of Controlling Authority and others1995 MLD 865 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Mangti vs Mst. Noori and others1995 CLC 210 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-01
  inheritance disputeadditional evidenceQanun-e-Shahadatmutation entriescustomary lawsecond appealopinion evidenceforeign documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves four consolidated second regular appeals concerning the inheritance of agricultural land left by Ghulam Hussain and Ghulam Bheek. The core legal question was whether Mst. Kariman and Mst. Rahiman were the sisters of Sodagar, the father of the original right-holders, thereby establishing the respondents as legal heirs entitled to the estate. Additionally, the Court addressed the admissibility of foreign mutation documents as additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the respondents were the rightful heirs, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It ruled that while appellate courts may admit additional evidence to advance justice, foreign documents must strictly comply with Article 89 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The Court further established that opinion evidence regarding family relationships is admissible under Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, when witnesses possess special means of knowledge. Finally, it clarified that mutation entries not incorporated in the Jamabandi lack a presumption of truth and must be evaluated alongside other evidence, ultimately dismissing the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court admit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to fill gaps in the trial record?
  • What are the requirements for proving a foreign document under Article 89 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • Do mutation entries not incorporated in the Jamabandi carry a presumption of truth?
  • Under what conditions is opinion evidence regarding family relationships admissible under Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom vs Abdul Rasheed1995 CLC 230 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Chaudhry vs Mst. Rehmat Bi and 5 others1995 MLD 1376 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Chaudhry vs Mst. Rehmat Bi And 5 Other1995 MLD 1376 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Bibi and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1518 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Dr. S.C. Kou1995 CLC 569 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →