Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Mst. Zohra Bai and anothers vs Messrs Standard Industries Ltd. through Managing Director1994 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zohra Bai And Another vs Messrs Standard Industries Ltd. Through Managing Director1994 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zenia vs Ahmed Jawad Sarwar1994 PLD Lahore 577 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a mother seeking the custody of her minor son, aged two and a half years, who was allegedly removed from her custody by the respondent father. The core legal questions concern the maintainability and scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491, Cr.P.C. regarding the custody of minors when proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act are available, and whether the mother is entitled to 'Hizanat' of a child of tender age. The Lahore High Court held that the remedies under Section 491, Cr.P.C. and the Guardians and Wards Act are not mutually exclusive; Section 491 provides a speedy and efficacious remedy to restore a minor to the person improperly deprived of custody, without prejudice to a final adjudication by the Guardians Court. The Court established that a mother is entitled to the custody ('Hizanat') of a male child of tender age (two and a half years), and directed the restoration of the minor's custody to the mother while providing visitation rights to the father.
Questions settled- Can the High Court entertain a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the custody of a minor when the Guardians and Wards Act provides an alternative remedy?
- Are the jurisdictions under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Guardians and Wards Act mutually exclusive?
- What is the scope of the High Court's power to restore the custody of a minor of tender age to a mother under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the right of 'Hizanat' entitle a mother to the custody of a two-and-a-half-year-old male child as against the father?
- Mst. Zeenat Sultan vs Mumtaz Khan and 9 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions concerned whether a delay of 274 days in filing a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal could be condoned, and whether the High Court's acquittal judgment warranted interference on merits. The Supreme Court held that in criminal matters seeking the reversal of an acquittal, limitation periods must be strictly applied, and delay is not condoned unless the petitioner was prevented by an act of the accused or kept unaware of the judgment. The Court found the appellant's explanations for the delay to be conflicting and vague, and further noted that on merits, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony regarding the weapons used, and independent corroboration was lacking. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as time-barred and devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that an acquittal judgment creates a precious right in favour of the accused, and a petition to set it aside out of time will not be entertained unless strict legal requirements for condoning delay are met, alongside the established threshold that appellate courts will not interfere with acquittals unless the lower court's conclusions are perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal can be condoned without showing that the petitioner was prevented by an act of the accused or kept out of knowledge of the judgment?
- Is a petitioner seeking to reverse an acquittal required to strictly satisfy all technical requirements of limitation given that the accused faces jeopardy to their life or liberty?
- Under what circumstances may an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment upon reappraisal of evidence?
- Mst. Zeenat Sultan vs Mumtaz Khan And 9 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that acquitted several respondents in a criminal case. The primary legal question addressed is whether a delay of 274 days in filing a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal should be condoned. The Court held that the delay could not be condoned, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that she was prevented from filing the petition by any act of the respondents or lack of knowledge regarding the acquittal. The Court reaffirmed the principle that in cases seeking the reversal of an acquittal, the law must be applied strictly in favor of the accused, as the acquittal confers a precious right that should not be jeopardized by time-barred petitions. Furthermore, the Court examined the merits and found that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's ocular testimony, as the injuries sustained by the deceased could not have been caused by the weapons allegedly used by the respondents. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed both as time-barred and on its merits.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment solely on the ground of a different reappraisal of evidence?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal maintainable if the petitioner fails to prove they were prevented from filing in time by the respondents' actions?
- Does the principle of strict application of limitation apply to criminal appeals against acquittals?
- Mst. Zainab Bibi vs Rehmat Ali and 2 others1994 MLD 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zainab Bibi vs Managing Director/General Manager, Multan1994 PLC 7 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zahida Shaheen and anothers vs The State and anothers1994 PLD Supreme Court 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioners under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution alleged that petitioner Aqil-ur-Rahman contracted marriage with petitioner Mst. Zahida Shaheen while his marriage with her paternal aunt was still intact, rendering the marriage invalid and sexual intercourse between them an act of Zina. The defense contended that the previous wife was divorced prior to the second marriage, as evidenced by a un-notified Talaqnama, and alternatively that any violation was unintentional and fell short of the mens rea required for 'wilful' Zina. The Supreme Court considered whether failure to give notice of divorce under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 invalidates a Talaq, whether combining an aunt and niece in marriage constitutes a void or merely irregular (fasid) marriage, and whether the element of mens rea was satisfied. Leave to appeal was granted to determine these legal questions, while post-conviction bail was refused.
Questions settled- Does failure to give notice of a Talaq under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 render a divorce ineffective or invalid in criminal proceedings?
- Does a marriage contracted with the niece of a current wife during the subsistence of the marriage constitute a void marriage or an irregular (fasid) marriage?
- Can sexual intercourse within an irregular or invalid marriage contracted due to ignorance of Islamic legal prohibitions constitute the offence of Zina without the requisite mens rea?
- Mst. Zahida Shaheen And Another vs The State And Another1994 PLD Supreme Court 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Mst. Zahida Shaheen and Aqil-ur-Rehman, were convicted under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for entering into an allegedly invalid marriage. The prosecution contended that the male petitioner married the niece of his then-subsisting wife, rendering the marriage invalid and the subsequent sexual intercourse Zina. The petitioners argued that the previous marriage had been dissolved via a Talaqnama prior to the second marriage, and alternatively, that the lack of knowledge regarding the prohibition of marrying a wife's niece negated the 'willful' element required for Zina. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the case raised substantial legal questions regarding the validity of the marriage, the effect of failure to provide notice of divorce to the Union Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, and the interpretation of 'willfully' in the context of Zina. The Court refused bail for the male petitioner, citing the need to prevent cohabitation pending the final determination of the marriage's legal status, and ordered an early hearing for the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the failure to give notice of a Talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 render the divorce ineffective or invalid?
- Can sexual intercourse following a marriage that is irregular but not void be classified as 'Zina' under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Is the element of 'willfully' in the definition of Zina negated if the parties are unaware that their marriage is prohibited under Sharia?
- Mst. Zahida Perveen and anothers vs S.H.O. and 2 others1994 MLD 328 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Yasmeen vs The State1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 2 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Wazira vs Qadir Gul1994 PLD Peshawar 183 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tayyaba Khan vs Syeda Begum End Another1994 PLD Karachi 204 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tayyaba Khan vs Syeda Begum and anothers1994 PLD Karachi 204 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tayyaba Bibi vs Administrator, M.C., Gojra And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tayyaba Begum vs Taqi Haider1994 SCMR 1913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment that overturned an ejectment order against a tenant. The core legal question was whether the tenant's failure to pay rent constituted 'wilful default' under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, or if such default was excused by an alleged established practice of the landlord collecting accumulated rent every three to four months. The Supreme Court held that the tenant failed to prove a consistent, uniform, and regular practice of collecting accumulated rent. The Court determined that isolated instances of delayed payments do not constitute a binding practice that overrides the statutory and contractual obligation to pay rent monthly. Furthermore, the Court held that a landlord's failure to provide an address or collect rent does not absolve a tenant of the obligation to pay rent, as the tenant could have deposited the rent with the Rent Controller. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the ejectment order, establishing that fragmented evidence of irregular payments cannot create a practice to excuse statutory default.
Questions settled- Does an alleged practice of paying accumulated rent override the contractual obligation to pay rent monthly?
- Can a tenant justify non-payment of rent on the ground that the landlord failed to collect it?
- What constitutes a consistent and regular practice of rent payment sufficient to negate a claim of wilful default?
- Is a tenant required to deposit rent with the Rent Controller if the landlord fails to collect it?
- Mst. Tahira Ichatoon vs Muhammad Din and others1994 MLD 2176 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Surriaya Bibi And 6 Others vs Muhammad Siddique And 17 Other1994 CLC 955 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sufaidi vs Kanni1994 SCMR 570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute in this appeal relates to land originally allotted to Mangli deceased, the father of the appellant Mst. Sufaidi, which was subsequently withdrawn and re-allotted amidst conflicting claims, revisions, and a compromise. Ultimately, respondent No. 1 Kanni received an allotment of the disputed land on May 16, 1974, while the heirs of Mangli were ordered by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to receive land in accordance with Shariat. The core legal question is whether the appellant is entitled to the disputed land despite failing to specifically challenge the allotment made in favor of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant failed to challenge the specific allotment order dated May 16, 1974, and given that the respondent is also an heir of Mangli entitled to a share under Shariat, no case for interference with the High Court's decision was made out. The key principle laid down is that an unchallenged allotment order cannot be set aside by the appellate court without certainty as to the party's entitlement, especially where the rival claimant may also qualify as a legal heir.
Questions settled- Whether an appellant can claim land without specifically challenging the underlying allotment order in favor of the respondent?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an allotment order when the aggrieved party has failed to question it before the lower forums?
- Whether a legal heir's entitlement to property under Shariat overrides an unchallenged specific allotment in the absence of formal legal challenge?
- Mst. Sofia Begum vs Secretary, Education Through Punjab Government, Lahore And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 801 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Siddiqan Bibi And Others vs M.B.R. And Other1994 CLC 73 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shumal Begum vs Mst. Gulzar Begum and 3 others1994 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged a High Court judgment rendered in revisional jurisdiction, which had set aside the First Appellate Court's decree and restored the trial court's dismissal of suits challenging property gifts made by an attorney. The core legal questions pertained to the scope of High Court revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. regarding findings of fact, and whether an attorney under a general power of attorney can gift the principal's property to his own spouse without specific authorization. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the First Appellate Court's decree. The Court held that the High Court cannot disturb findings of fact in revision merely by reappraising evidence and substituting its opinion, unless the finding is perverse, fanciful, or infected by misreading or non-consideration of evidence. Furthermore, the Court established that a general power of attorney does not confer implied authority to make a gift. Because a gift requires the express personal intention of the donor, an attorney cannot execute a gift unless specifically authorized, explicitly identifying the exact property and intended donee.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. disturb findings of fact merely by reappraising evidence and substituting its own opinion?
- Does a general power of attorney confer implied authority on an attorney to execute a gift of the principal's property?
- What specific details must a power of attorney contain to validly authorize an agent to execute a gift on behalf of the donor?
- Mst. Shukaria PERVEENPetiotioner vs The Custodian and others1994 SCMR 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking the restoration of a review petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question is whether mutual consent of counsels for adjournment operates to automatically adjourn a case fixed for hearing by the court, thereby absolving the parties from attendance. The Supreme Court held that an agreement between counsels to seek an adjournment does not imply that the case stands adjourned, and parties remain bound to appear until the court formally accepts the request and grants the adjournment. The key principle laid down is that no presumption of adjournment can be made in the absence of a formal court order, and mutual consent alone does not constitute sufficient ground to restore a matter dismissed in default due to non-appearance.
Questions settled- Does mutual consent of counsels to an adjournment automatically adjourn a case fixed for hearing?
- Are parties absolved from appearing in court if an adjournment request has not been formally granted?
- Does the belief that a case has been adjourned constitute sufficient cause to condone default in appearance?
- Mst. Shisham Jan vs Karam HUSSAINNonPetitioner1994 MLD 779 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharman Bibi vs The Chairman, Union Council Ram Thuman And 21994 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharifan through Legal Heirs and another vs Nazimuddin and anothers1994 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharifan Through Legal Heirs And Another vs Nazimuddin And Another1994 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs The Chairman, Union Council Ram Thuman and 21994 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs Syed Safdar Ali Shah and another1994 SCMR 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals arising from pre-emption suits filed by the respondent, Syed Safdar Ali Shah, regarding the purchase of property in Mohallah Imam Sahib, Sialkot. The core legal question was whether the custom of pre-emption existed in the locality, and specifically, what probative value should be accorded to previous judicial precedents based on admissions or compromises regarding the existence of such custom. The Supreme Court held that while judgments based on admissions or compromises carry less weight than contested cases, they are not irrelevant and may be considered as evidence of the existence of the custom, as they may reflect a consciousness of the right. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, finding that the pre-emptor had sufficiently established the existence of the custom of pre-emption in the locality. The key principle laid down is that when a general custom of pre-emption is proven to prevail in a town, the burden of proof shifts to the party alleging limitations on that custom to prove such exceptions or limitations.
Questions settled- What is the probative value of judicial precedents based on admissions or compromises regarding the existence of a custom of pre-emption?
- Does the existence of a general custom of pre-emption in a town create a presumption that applies to specific localities within that town?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a general custom of pre-emption has been established but a party alleges limitations on that custom?
- Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs Muhammad Bashir1994 MLD 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharifan Bibi and 9 others vs Kamal Din and another1994 SCMR 1988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of an evacuee house in Lahore under settlement laws. The petitioners' predecessors, who were claimants, occupied a house initially misdescribed in their transfer documents. A non-claimant subsequently obtained transfer rights of another property, which was later surrendered in favour of respondent No. 1. When the petitioners sought demarcation and price assessment, respondent No. 1 obtained an ex parte civil court decree restraining the Deputy Settlement Commissioner from enquiring into the allotment, without impleading the petitioners. Nonetheless, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner inspected the spot, found discrepancies in property numbers, and issued a transfer order in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 then filed a separate suit challenging the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order as void in light of the earlier civil decree, succeeding through the lower courts and the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the contentions that claimants have a superior right to properties in their occupation regardless of misdescription, and that an ex parte decree obtained without joining necessary parties is not binding. Finding the arguments meritorious, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and ordered status quo to be maintained.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte civil court decree is binding on parties not impleaded in the suit?
- Does a claimant have a superior right to the transfer of a house under their actual occupation despite a misdescription of the property number in initial forms?
- Whether the Settlement Department is competent to correct property descriptions and enquire into allotment matters notwithstanding a civil court injunction obtained without necessary parties?
- Mst. Sharifan And Another vs O.S.D. And Another1994 CLC 1050 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamshad Yousaf vs Yousaf Masih1994 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamshad Parveen vs Iftikhar Ahmad And Other1994 CLC 525 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamsa Jabeen vs Government of Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 1335 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shaheen vs Zia Muhammad1994 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor son, aged two years and eight months, currently in the custody of his father. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant custody, notwithstanding the concurrent jurisdiction of the Guardian Court. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the issuance of a writ under section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary and contingent upon the existence of extraordinary circumstances, such as deceitful removal of a child or immediate threats to welfare. Distinguishing the present case from precedents where such writs were issued, the Court found that the disputed allegations regarding the mother’s character and the father’s maintenance of the child required the recording of evidence, which is the proper function of a Guardian Court. The key principle laid down is that where factual controversies regarding the welfare of a minor exist, the High Court will not exercise its summary jurisdiction under section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, directing parties instead to the Guardian and Wards Act 1890.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the discretion to decline a habeas corpus petition for child custody even when concurrent jurisdiction exists?
- Is a habeas corpus petition under section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 an appropriate remedy when disputed facts regarding the welfare of a minor require the recording of evidence?
- Under what circumstances will the High Court exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant child custody in a habeas corpus petition?
- Mst. Shaheen Akhtar And Other vs Mst. Farhat Yasmeen And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding a service dispute between two teachers, Mst. Shaheen Akhtar and Mst. Farhat Yasmeen, involving their respective postings and transfers. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised jurisdiction in a service matter where both parties had initially invoked its writ jurisdiction, leading to conflicting orders regarding their postings. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court lacked jurisdiction in service matters and should not have entertained the petitions, it declined to interfere with the impugned order because the High Court's decision essentially placed both parties on an equal footing and sought to accommodate them near their homes, as previously assured by the Department. The key principle laid down is that while the High Court lacks jurisdiction in service matters, the Supreme Court may decline to interfere with an order that does not perpetrate injustice, even if that order was passed without proper jurisdiction, particularly when the parties themselves invoked that jurisdiction and the outcome is equitable.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters in a Constitution Petition?
- Can the Supreme Court decline to interfere with an order passed by the High Court in a service matter if no injustice has been perpetrated?
- Should a High Court order in a service matter be treated as a precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction in future service disputes?
- Mst. Shaheen Akhtar and anothers vs Mst. Farhat Yasmeen and 9 others1994 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order involving a service dispute between two teachers, the petitioner and respondent No. 1, regarding their respective postings and transfers. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters via a Constitution Petition and whether the impugned order, which directed the Department to accommodate both parties near their homes, was sustainable. The Supreme Court observed that while the High Court correctly noted its lack of jurisdiction in service matters, it nonetheless proceeded to decide the case on merits to ensure consistency with a prior order. The Supreme Court held that although the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such service disputes, it would not interfere with the impugned order because the outcome placed both parties on an equal footing and resulted in no injustice. The Court affirmed that the High Court's decision to entertain the petition should not be treated as a precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction in future service matters.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters through a Constitution Petition?
- Can a High Court order passed in a service matter be treated as a precedent for future exercise of jurisdiction in similar cases?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order in a service matter if no injustice has been perpetrated on the parties?
- Mst. Shagufta Yunus And Other vs Director, Education And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 163 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sarwar Jan vs Ayub and another1994 SCMR 664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, on 15-12-1992, which enhanced the sentence imposed upon convicts by the trial court. The core legal question for consideration is whether the revisional order of the Additional Sessions Judge enhancing the sentence was appealable, and consequently, whether jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be invoked to set aside that order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions regarding the maintainability of appeals against sentence enhancement and the scope of inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A.
Questions settled- Whether an order of the Additional Sessions Judge enhancing a sentence imposed by the trial court is appealable?
- Can jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to set aside an order passed in revisional jurisdiction enhancing a sentence?
- Mst. Sardar Bibi And 2 Others vs Muhammad Yaqub And 2 Other1994 CLC 457 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sardar Begum vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1994 SCMR 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding the classification of specific land as 'State land' rather than 'evacuee land', thereby denying the appellant's claim to proprietary rights. The core legal question was whether the disputed Killa number was legally part of an exchange between State and evacuee property, which would have validated the appellant's allotment against a verified claim. The Supreme Court examined the historical record, specifically Mutation No. 358, which sanctioned the exchange. The Court found that the disputed land was not included in the mutation and that government records consistently identified it as State property. The Court held that since the land remained State property, it was unallotable against verified claims, and the appellant had no valid title. The key principle laid down is that in disputes regarding the classification of land, official mutation records sanctioned by competent authorities constitute evidence of superior value, and where such records exclude specific property from an exchange, that property retains its original character, rendering subsequent allotments against verified claims impermissible.
Questions settled- Does a mutation document sanctioning an exchange of land prevail over claims that specific property was included in said exchange without documentary support?
- Can land classified as State property be validly allotted against a verified claim?
- Is an appellate court justified in interfering with concurrent factual findings by revenue authorities regarding the classification of land?
- Mst. Salma Bibi vs Ali Sher And 2 Other1994 CLC 2189 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Salima Bibi vs Mst. Halima Bibi1994 SCMR 1858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of concurrent findings of courts below decreeing a suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of a contract for the sale of agricultural land. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the land in dispute was under litigation in a pending pre-emption suit during the pendency of the specific performance claim, and further argued that there was no agreement for sale between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the pending pre-emption suit was entirely without merit and directly opposed to her own written statement where she admitted the pre-emption suit had been decided. Furthermore, the court held that the factual controversy regarding the existence of the agreement was not raised before the High Court and could not be agitated for the first time before the apex court. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, affirming the judgments of the lower forums.
Questions settled- Can a party take a plea in the Supreme Court that is directly opposed to their own pleadings in the written statement?
- Whether a claim for specific performance of an agreement to sell is barred merely because the land was previously under litigation in a pre-emption suit?
- Will the Supreme Court permit a party to raise a new factual controversy regarding the existence of an agreement for sale if it was not urged before the High Court?
- Mst. Saleem Khatoon and anothers vs The Deputy1994 PLD Supreme Court 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from appeals against the High Court's dismissal of Constitutional petitions challenging the cancellation of agricultural land allotments. The appellants' land, originally allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner on grounds of fraud and forgery. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to initiate cancellation proceedings after the repeal of the 1958 Act by the Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, which restricted authority to pending proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the proceedings were indeed pending before the target date, as evidenced by multiple prior reports of fraud. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is not constrained by sub-constitutional legislation regarding pending proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court's refusal to interfere with factual findings of fraud and forgery is not subject to jurisdictional attack, and the appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 remain unaffected by sub-constitutional limitations regarding pending proceedings?
- Can the High Court's refusal to interfere with factual findings of fraud regarding land allotments be challenged on jurisdictional grounds?
- Did the Deputy Settlement Commissioner have jurisdiction to initiate cancellation proceedings after the enactment of the Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Mst. Saleem Khatoon And Another vs The Deputy1994 PLD Supreme Court 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from the dismissal of Constitutional petitions by the High Court, which had challenged the cancellation of land allotments made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of allotments for fraud and forgery after the repeal of the 1958 Act by the Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, which restricted authority to pending proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the proceedings were indeed pending before the target date. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 199 is not constrained by sub-constitutional legislation regarding the pendency of proceedings before settlement authorities. The key principle laid down is that where the High Court declines to interfere with findings of fact regarding fraud in allotment cases, such refusal is not subject to jurisdictional attack based on the pendency qualification, as the High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction remains independent of statutory limitations placed on settlement authorities.
Questions settled- Does the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 depend on whether proceedings were pending before a settlement authority under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Can a settlement authority initiate proceedings for the cancellation of land allotments after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, if the proceedings were pending before the target date?
- Is a refusal by the High Court to interfere with findings of fact regarding fraud in land allotment cases subject to jurisdictional attack based on the pendency of proceedings?
- Mst. Saleem Akhtar vs Nur Muhammad Khan And 4 Other1994 CLC 1828 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sakina Bibi and 14 others vs Akram Beg and 7 others1994 SCMR 1511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Order XXXIII, Rules 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 sought to harmonize two allegedly conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court in Hakim Khan v. Government of Pakistan and Eid Muhammad v. The State, concerning the scope of the Presidential Amnesty Order dated December 6, 1988, under Article 45 of the Constitution. The petitioners, legal heirs of deceased victims in pending murder cases, contended that Hakim Khan's case remanded the question of the amnesty's scope to the High Court, whereas Eid Muhammad's case decided the point without hearing affected parties, creating a conflict. The core legal question was whether a remand order passed by the Supreme Court on a question of law precludes the Court from deciding the same legal question in another pending matter, and whether such prior remand necessitates a conflicting ratio or a right to be heard before the subsequent decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no conflict existed between the two judgments and that the pendency of a remanded case before a lower court does not bar the Supreme Court from authoritatively settling a point of law, which remains binding under Article 189 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court's pronouncement on a question of law in one case applies bindingly to all pending and future proceedings, and the mere remand of a similar issue to a lower court does not suspend the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to determine that legal proposition in other matters.
Questions settled- Whether the remand of a case by the Supreme Court to the High Court on a specific legal question bars the Supreme Court from deciding the same legal proposition in another case?
- Does a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court on a question of law have binding effect under Article 189 of the Constitution over cases pending before subordinate courts as a result of remand?
- Whether interested parties in a remanded case must be heard by the Supreme Court before it decides the same legal issue in a separate proceeding?
- Mst. Saiqa vs The Judge, Family Court, Lahore and others1994 MLD 2204 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saifura vs Sikandar Khan and 14 others1994 SCMR 2026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mst. Saifura filed a civil suit claiming ownership of a share in a disputed house through dower and alleging unlawful dispossession during the execution of a warrant of possession. Her suit was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, and subsequent appeals before the District Judge and the High Court were also dismissed. A petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court was likewise dismissed. The petitioner then sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment. Upon hearing the counsel and examining the record, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's submissions merely reiterated previous arguments and attempted to re-litigate factual aspects properly appraised by all lower forums, which concurrently concluded that the petitioner failed to prove her title. The Court ruled that no error or sufficient ground was made out for the review of the earlier judgment, and consequently dismissed the review petition.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition can be entertained when it merely reiterates submissions already considered and rejected?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the proof of title in a review petition?
- Mst. Sahib Khatoon vs Allah Ditta and 10 others1994 SCMR 2002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by a vendee arises out of a pre-emption suit decreed in favour of the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, requiring him to deposit a specified balance of the pre-emption money by a target date, failing which the suit stood dismissed with costs. The core legal question is whether the decree-holder validly complied with the conditional decree by depositing a slightly lesser amount while claiming a set-off against awarded costs. The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'costs to follow the event' meant that the award of costs was contingent upon the successful fulfilment of the decree's conditions, and since the pre-emptor failed to deposit the full purchase money by the stipulated date, the contingency entitling him to costs did not arise, rendering the doctrine of set-off inapplicable. The appeal was accepted, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the trial Court's dismissal of the suit was restored.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption decree-holder can claim a set-off of costs against the purchase money when the award of costs is contingent upon the successful outcome of the suit?
- What is the legal import of the expression costs to follow the event in a conditional pre-emption decree?
- Does the failure to deposit the exact requisite pre-emption money by the target date result in the dismissal of the suit where the decree provides default consequences?
- Mst. Safia Begum vs Noor Muhammad1994 MLD 1916 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Safia Begum and others vs Additional Commissioner1994 MLD 213 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Safaidi and 3 others vs Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan and 7 others1994 SCMR 1458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a land settlement dispute where an allotment originally confirmed in 1959 was challenged nearly fifteen years later through a fresh Mukhbari application filed on 22-6-1974, just prior to the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question is whether a fresh Mukhbari application could be validly entertained after a delay of fifteen years and after earlier challenges had been dismissed and the allotment confirmed by competent authorities. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that administrative orders confirmed in 1959 cannot be set at naught on the basis of a belated Mukhbari application filed fifteen years later. The key principle laid down is that citizens are entitled to be secure in their settled rights and stale administrative proceedings initiated after an inordinate delay without lawful justification are unsustainable.
Questions settled- Whether a fresh Mukhbari application can be entertained fifteen years after the confirmation of an allotment?
- Can settled property allotments be reopened just before the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Mst. Saeeda Begum vs Mukhtar Ahmad Butt and 2 others1994 SCMR 1444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerned a dispute over the title to a plot of land in Model Town, Lahore. The appellant, Mst. Saeeda Begum, claimed ownership based on an alleged oral sale by Seth Rahim Bakhsh, the original owner, and his subsequent nomination of her as a member of the Model Town Cooperative Society Limited. Seth Rahim Bakhsh had previously mortgaged the plot to the appellant via a registered deed. After his death, his widow sold the property to respondents. The core legal question was whether the nomination or the alleged oral sale conferred valid title. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower appellate courts' decisions. It held that a nomination in a cooperative society's record does not, by itself, imply transfer or devolution of property. Furthermore, the alleged oral sale was not proven, especially given that the parties had previously executed a registered mortgage deed, indicating a custom of registering property transactions. The absence of a registered sale deed was a significant factor against the appellant's claim.
Questions settled- Does a nomination in a cooperative society's record automatically imply the transfer or devolution of property?
- Is an alleged oral sale of property valid without a registered deed, especially when parties have previously engaged in registered transactions?
- What is the evidentiary value of a nomination in a cooperative society's record regarding property ownership?
- Can a claim of property ownership based on an oral sale be sustained without specific proof of sale date or witnesses?
- Mst. Saeeda Begum vs Amjad Ali and another1994 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the sister of the deceased against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent of murder charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent was initially convicted by the trial court for the murder of Mazhar Ali, but the High Court overturned this conviction and dismissed the petitioner's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in discarding the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Muzaffar Ali, in a case involving a single accused where other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. The Supreme Court observed that the occurrence took place in broad daylight and that the eyewitness, being a close relative of the deceased, would not likely substitute the respondent for the real culprit. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's acquittal, finding that the contention regarding the reliability of the eyewitness testimony required further judicial scrutiny.
Questions settled- Is the High Court justified in discarding the testimony of a sole eyewitness in a murder case involving a single accused?
- Does the fact that an eyewitness is a relative of the deceased make their testimony inherently unreliable in a murder trial?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against an acquittal where the High Court has discarded the evidence of a witness who did not turn hostile?
- Mst. Sabohi Sarfraz vs Chairman, Arbitration Council1994 MLD 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sabir Jana vs Haji Ayub Khan1994 PLD Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ruqia Begum (Batool) vs Muahmmad Ishtiaq1994 CLC 705 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rukia And Another vs Ghulam Shah And Another1994 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out of proceedings for the cancellation of a succession certificate issued for the collection of social insurance death compensation received from the employer of the deceased in Saudi Arabia. The core legal question was whether social insurance death compensation constitutes part of the estate (Tarka) of the deceased and is thus heritable by his legal heirs according to Sharai shares, or whether it is a special grant exclusively for the dependents of the deceased. The Peshawar High Court held that social insurance death compensation is akin to a benevolent fund or grant from the employer rather than a prospective asset or life insurance policy realisable during the lifetime of the deceased; therefore, it does not form part of the Tarka of the deceased and does not devolve upon general legal heirs, but is meant for the dependents. The key principle laid down is that payments such as social insurance death compensation, being grants upon death not realisable during the lifetime, do not constitute the estate of the deceased for general inheritance, though specific nominations or circumstances may be considered.
Questions settled- Whether social insurance death compensation forms part of the Tarka of a deceased employee and is heritable by his legal heirs?
- Can social insurance death compensation received from an employer be equated with a life insurance policy?
- Whether a succession certificate can be cancelled to redistribute death compensation among claimants?
- Mst. Rukhsana Akhtar vs Province of Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 1381 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Roshan Jehan and 6 others vs Mst. Noor Jehan1994 MLD 664 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Roshan Bibi vs Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation), Lahore1994 MLD 1513 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from consolidation proceedings under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, which modified the parties' land shares upon a revision petition filed by an unauthorized person on behalf of a respondent. The petitioner instituted a civil suit to set aside the Board's order, but the trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, citing the bar of jurisdiction under sections 26 and 27 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The lower appellate court upheld this decision, leading to the present revision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision, holding that the civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to the express statutory bar, and that consolidation matters fall exclusively within the domain of consolidation authorities. The court also noted that the Board of Revenue possesses wide suo motu revisional powers under section 13 of the Ordinance, allowing it to examine the record irrespective of procedural defects in private applications.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in matters relating to the consolidation of holdings under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960?
- Does the Board of Revenue possess suo motu revisional jurisdiction to examine consolidation proceedings independently of procedural defects in a revision petition?
- Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging the distribution and adjustment of lands carried out during consolidation operations?
- What is the effect of an unauthorized person filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue when the Board possesses wide suo motu powers?
- Mst. Robina Tahir vs Lt.Col. Azam Humayun1994 MLD 1547 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Riffat Sultana vs Muhammad Iqbal1994 MLD 732 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehana Tabbasam vs Amanullah and others1994 MLD 1807 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Bibi and 3 others vs Muhammad Arshad and others1994 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the legal heirs of a deceased to implement a compromise reached with a convict, Muhammad Arshad, who had been convicted of murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court, following the final disposal of an appeal, retains the jurisdiction to accept a compromise and grant acquittal in a murder case. The Court held that it possesses the requisite jurisdiction to accept such a compromise even after the finality of the judgment. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise, quashed the sentence, and acquitted the convict under Section 345(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that the right to waive Qisas or compound an offence under the Qisas and Diyat laws is not restricted to pending cases but remains operative until the execution of the sentence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allow it to give effect to such compromises to secure the ends of justice, even in decided cases.
Questions settled- Can the High Court accept a compromise between parties in a murder case after the final disposal of an appeal?
- Does the right to waive Qisas or compound an offence under the Qisas and Diyat laws expire upon the finality of a judgment?
- Is the High Court empowered under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to give effect to a compromise in a criminal case after the case has been decided?
- Which court is the appropriate forum to entertain an application for compounding an offence after the final disposal of a criminal case?
- Mst. Rasul Bibi vs Nasrullah Khan1994 CLC 1774 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second civil appeal arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff for setting aside a gift mutation of agricultural land executed by her deceased father in favour of her nephew, and for possession of her half-share as an heir. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, upholding the validity of the gift. Upon second appeal, the Lahore High Court examined whether the gift was duly proved and whether the lower courts committed material misdirection by reading an unexhibited document into evidence. The High Court held that the concurrent findings were vitiated by serious misdirection, including the reliance on an unexhibited mutation document and failure to establish the voluntary presence of the donor before the Revenue Officer. Furthermore, the court held that under Islamic law, a sane Muslim owner possesses unfettered power to gift their property inter vivos to any person or heir, even with the intention of excluding other heirs, provided the gift is complete and not made during death-bed illness (marz-ul-maut). Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was decreed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be set aside in second appeal if the courts misread or rely upon unexhibited documents?
- Does a Muslim owner have the unfettered power under Islamic law to gift his property during his lifetime to an heir to the exclusion of other heirs?
- Is a gift made by a Muslim during his lifetime invalid solely because its intention is to deprive legal heirs of expected inheritance devolution?
- What is the effect of failing to formally tender a gift mutation into evidence during a civil trial?
- Mst. Rasoolan Bibi vs A.C./D.S.C. (Land)1994 MLD 993 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rashida Khanam and others vs Mst. Siraj Begum and others1994 MLD 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rabia Bibi And Others vs Fateh Muhammad Through Legal Heirs1994 CLC 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration that the petitioners were the owners of a house and that orders passed by Settlement Authorities were void. The petitioners, successors of a Jammu and Kashmir refugee, claimed the property was excluded from the compensation pool and thus not transferable. The trial court and appellate court dismissed the suit, noting that the original occupant had failed to comply with payment requirements, leading to the resumption and auction of the property. The High Court held that even if an administrative order is challenged as void, it remains capable of legal consequences until set aside by due process. Furthermore, the Court determined that because the petitioners' previous writ petition regarding the same subject matter had abated, they were barred from filing a fresh civil suit on the same cause of action. The Court affirmed that the general principles of res judicata apply to prevent the abuse of the process of law, barring the re-litigation of matters already adjudicated or concluded through abatement in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the abatement of a writ petition under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent civil suit on the same cause of action?
- Are administrative orders of Settlement Authorities capable of producing legal consequences even if they are alleged to be void?
- Do the general principles of res judicata apply to prevent a party from re-agitating in a civil suit a matter that was previously the subject of a writ petition?
- Mst. Parveen Akhtar and 2 others vs Rafique Alam Butt and 4 others1994 MLD 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nusrat Khanum vs Liaqat Ali1994 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nusrat Khanum And Another vs Malik Azmat Ullah And Other1994 CLC 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noorunnisa and another vs Ghulam Sarwar and 6 others1994 SCMR 2087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave of the Court against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court arising out of a suit for declaration and possession regarding inheritance shares. The core legal questions involved whether female heirs are excluded by custom, whether the vendee is a bona fide purchaser protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, and how a sale by co-sharers of specific joint property is to be treated. The Supreme Court held that the deceased died governed by Shariah, that the female heirs were entitled to their shares under Islamic law, that the plea of bona fide purchase was untenable without due inquiry, and that a sale by co-sharers of specific joint land amounts to a sale of their Hissadari possession subject to adjustment at the time of partition. The Court laid down the principle that a vendor from a co-sharer stands in no better position than his vendor and possession held by a co-sharer is permissive rather than adverse to other co-sharers, restoring the judgment of the District Judge.
Questions settled- Whether female heirs are entitled to inherit under Islamic law or customary law when the predecessor died in the domain of Shariah?
- Is a purchaser of joint property from some of the co-sharers protected as a bona fide purchaser under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 without making reasonable inquiries as to other legal heirs?
- Does the possession of a co-sharer become adverse to other rightful co-sharers upon a sale of joint property?
- How is a sale of specific joint property by certain co-sharers to be adjusted among the shareholders?
- Mst. Noor Nissa and 14 others vs Nazir Ahmed Khan Lughmani and 191994 SCMR 1333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of land transfers made by Abdul Latif Khan, which were challenged under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115). The core legal question was whether the Federal Land Commission possessed the jurisdiction to set aside or ignore final civil court consent decrees passed before the December 20, 1971, cutoff date, on the grounds that such transfers violated Section 16 of the Punjab Court of Wards Act, 1903. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the Federal Land Commission lacked the jurisdiction to set aside or ignore final civil court decrees that had attained finality before the Commission's intervention. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents where transfers were void ab initio under personal law, noting that the decrees in question were validly passed and not challenged in competent appellate forums. The key principle laid down is that while the Federal Land Commission has authority to determine land holdings under MLR 115, it cannot unilaterally disregard final civil court decrees that have attained legal finality, as such decrees can only be challenged through appropriate appellate or revisional judicial forums.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Land Commission have the jurisdiction to set aside or ignore final civil court decrees passed before the cutoff date specified in the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Can the Federal Land Commission invoke Section 16 of the Punjab Court of Wards Act, 1903, to invalidate consent decrees that have already attained finality?
- Is the ratio in Sher Zaman v. Muhammad Ishaq (PLD 1985 SC 144) applicable to situations where civil court decrees have already attained finality before the Federal Land Commission intervenes?
- Mst. Nighat Aijaz vs Muhammad Jameel1994 PLD Karachi 46 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves constitutional petitions arising from conflicting lower court judgments regarding a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and a suit for jactitation of marriage. The core legal question was whether Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, prohibits a Family Court from questioning the validity of a marriage registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, when the marriage is challenged as fraudulent or forged. The High Court held that the Family Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate suits for jactitation of marriage. It ruled that the embargo under Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, applies only when the marriage's existence is undisputed and it is assumed to be valid under Muslim Law. Consequently, the section does not preclude a Family Court from examining the validity of a marriage if it is challenged on grounds of fraud, forgery, or misrepresentation. The Court restored the trial court's judgment, confirming that the alleged marriage was not proven.
Questions settled- Does Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, bar a Family Court from inquiring into the validity of a marriage registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, when fraud or forgery is alleged?
- Is a suit for jactitation of marriage exclusively triable by a Family Court?
- Can a marriage registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, be challenged in a Family Court if it is alleged to be the result of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Mst. Nayyar Bano vs Haji Allah Rakha And Other1994 CLC 1761 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nawab Bibi vs Haji Muhammad Amin1994 CLC 707 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen Bibi vs Atta Muhammad and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 276 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen Bibi vs Atta Muhammad And 2 Other1994 PLD Lahore 276 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasima Faiz vs Abdul Rahim and 4 others1994 MLD 810 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasim Akhter vs Imam Din And 7 Other1994 CLC 1325 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Sher Afzal and 3 others1994 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Sher Afzal And 3 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseem Kausar vs Shahid Rasool Jan1994 PLD Karachi 372 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 4 others vs Shalimar General Insurance1994 SCMR 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from execution proceedings of a civil decree. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was killed in a road accident, prompting his heirs to file a suit for compensation against the driver, owner, and the insurer (respondent No. 1). The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 2,00,000. The insurer's subsequent appeal and restoration application were both dismissed for non-prosecution, rendering the decree final. During execution, the insurer resisted, claiming its statutory liability was limited to Rs. 20,000 under Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The High Court allowed this plea in revision. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that an executing court cannot go behind a decree to re-determine liability on a plea that was not raised during the trial. The Court laid down the principle that once a decree passed by a competent court becomes final, it must be executed in its terms, and statutory limitations on liability cannot be raised for the first time in execution proceedings.
Questions settled- Can an executing court go behind a decree to re-determine the liability of a party on a statutory plea not raised during the trial?
- Whether a statutory limitation on an insurer's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 must be pleaded before the decree is passed to be enforceable?
- Is a decree passed by a competent court executable in its terms even if it erroneously exceeds a statutory limit on liability and the judgment-debtor failed to prosecute its appeal?
- Mst. Nargis Khatoon vs Director-General, Punjab Broadcasting1994 PLC (C.S.) 735 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Najma Ashraf vs Mst. Noor Jehan1994 SCMR 913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlady against her tenant under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking summary eviction based on her age. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, holding that the bona fides of the requirement were irrelevant under section 14, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to determine whether a landlady already occupying premises in the same building can invoke section 14 to evict a tenant from commercial premises, and whether the bona fides of her requirement must be considered. The Court held that sections 14 and 15 of the Ordinance provide distinct causes of action. It ruled that the lower courts erred by failing to assess the evidence regarding the bona fides of the need, especially given the ambiguity surrounding the landlady's current occupation and the mixed nature of the claim. The Court established that a landlord is disqualified from invoking section 14 if they occupy a building they own in any locality, regardless of its suitability. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a landlord invoke the summary eviction provisions of section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 if they already occupy a building they own in any locality?
- Are sections 14 and 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 mutually exclusive, or can they be invoked simultaneously?
- Is the bona fide requirement of the landlord a relevant consideration for an eviction application filed under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Mst. Munti vs Alam Khan1994 CLC 971 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mukhtar Aslam (Late) through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Mehmood1994 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mehmooda Siddique vs Javed Tariq and others1994 SCMR 2005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed by Mst. Mehmooda Siddique against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 10-2-1992, which dismissed her petition for leave to appeal regarding the cancellation of land allotments. The underlying dispute originated when Settlement Authorities cancelled allotments made to Mst. Rasuli, who had allegedly obtained them fraudulently by misrepresenting herself as the daughter of a claimant displaced person. The petitioner, a subsequent transferee from Mst. Rasuli, challenged the cancellation in the High Court, which upheld the Settlement Commissioner's finding of fact that the allotment was fraudulent. After the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's leave to appeal, she sought review, arguing that because the Court subsequently granted leave to appeal in a related case (C.P. No. 1037-L of 1991) involving the same underlying allotment, her petition should be reconsidered to ensure consistency. The review petition was filed with a delay of 120 days, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The Court issued notice to the respondents for an early hearing to address the maintainability and merits of the review.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained when it is filed with a significant delay of 120 days?
- Does the granting of leave to appeal in a related case involving the same subject matter provide sufficient grounds to review a previously dismissed petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a finding of fact by a Settlement Commissioner regarding the identity of a claimant subject to challenge under the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction?
- Mst. Mehmooda Begum vs Chairman, Karachi Port Trust, Karachi and 21994 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mehmooda Begum vs Chairman, Karachi Port Trust, Karachi And 21994 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Matlooban And Another vs Mst. Shakila Begum And 4 Other1994 CLC 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Maqsood Bibi vs The State1994 MLD 1122 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Manzoor Begum vs M.B.R.1994 MLD 1179 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Manzoor Begum through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Allah Rakhi through Legal Heirs and another1994 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil review petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking review of the court's earlier judgment dated 23-6-1993. The core legal questions involve whether an admission attributed to a party could be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction and whether the previous judgment would impede the petitioners from seeking a lawful reduction in land allotment alleged to be in excess of entitlement. The court held that the first ground merely reargued the merits already considered, and the second ground was misconceived as the impugned judgment strictly addressed the validity of the admission and subsequent orders. Consequently, no sufficient ground for review was made out. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be used to re-litigate matters already considered on merits or to raise misconceived apprehensions regarding collateral matters not determined by the judgment.
Questions settled- Can an admission attributed to a party be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a judgment upholding the validity of an admission impede petitioners from seeking lawful reduction in excess land allotments?
- What constitutes a valid ground for review of a judgment under Pakistani law?
- Mst. Majroza. vs Said Akbar and 2 others1994 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the appellant's revision petition arising out of proceedings under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the appellant, claiming ownership of the disputed property through a dower deed, was entitled to be impleaded as a party in an application for setting aside a consent decree on the grounds of fraud and unsoundness of mind. The Supreme Court held that since all three lower courts concurrently found the evidence produced by the appellant insufficient to establish her claim of ownership, she had no interest in the property and her request to be made a party was rightly refused. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding insufficiency of evidence by lower courts will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court in absence of strong justification, and a person with no established interest in the subject property cannot claim a right to be impleaded in proceedings concerning it.
Questions settled- Whether a person claiming property through an unregistered dower deed is entitled to be impleaded as a party in proceedings under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the sufficiency of evidence to prove property ownership?
- Can a party lacking a verified legal interest in the subject matter of a suit claim a right to participate in those proceedings?
- Mst. Majroza vs Said Akbar and 2 others1994 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a dispute over land ownership where the appellant, claiming the property as dower, sought to be impleaded in proceedings initiated under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a consent decree. The core legal question was whether the appellant had established a sufficient interest in the disputed property to be impleaded as a party, given the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the insufficiency of her evidence. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court all concurrently held that the evidence presented by the appellant—an unregistered document and testimony from her attorney and the scribe—was insufficient to prove her claim of ownership. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that since the appellant failed to prove her interest in the property, the refusal to implead her was correct. The key principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the sufficiency of evidence unless a clear error is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of evidence?
- Is a party entitled to be impleaded in proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if they fail to establish a valid interest in the property?
- Does an unregistered document, supported only by the testimony of the attorney and the scribe, constitute sufficient proof of ownership in a dower claim?