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. Latif Bibi vs Abdul Ghafoor and another1994 SCMR 1727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court suspending the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the respondent by the trial court in a murder case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's discretionary order suspending the sentence of life imprisonment warranted interference, given that the respondent was not attributed any injury to the deceased and was only alleged to have raised a Lalkara, held the deceased, and given a fist blow to a prosecution witness. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since no injury to the deceased was attributed to the respondent, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally not interfere with the discretionary suspension of a sentence by a high court where the accused is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretionary order suspending a sentence of life imprisonment where no injury to the deceased is attributed to the accused?
- Does raising a Lalkara and holding the deceased without causing any injury warrant the denial of suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Mst. Lalan vs Noor Muhammad and 12 others1994 SCMR 1771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a decree for permanent injunction regarding a right of passage. The respondents had sued the petitioner for obstructing a passage they claimed to have used for over 50 years, seeking its removal. During the appellate stage, the parties mutually agreed to appoint an advocate as a referee to determine whether the passage was in constant use and if an alternative existed. The referee submitted a report confirming the respondents' right of passage due to necessity, which the lower appellate court adopted to dismiss the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner contended that the referee acted as an arbitrator, thus requiring an opportunity to file objections to the award. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that the referee was appointed by mutual consent to resolve the specific dispute, and absent allegations of misconduct, the report was validly accepted. Finding concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and no misreading of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that a referee's report based on mutual consent is binding.
Questions settled- Can a report submitted by a referee appointed by mutual consent of the parties be challenged as an arbitration award?
- Does a court have the authority to rely on a referee's report to resolve a dispute regarding an easement of necessity?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding a right of passage subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading of evidence?
- Mst. Kishwar Malik vs Lt: Col. (Retd.) M. Sadio Malik1994 CLC 811 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khurshid Mai vs The Additional District Judge, Multan and 2 others1994 MLD 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from the dismissal of a wife's suit for dissolution of marriage by the Family Court and the appellate court, which had rejected her plea for Khula. The petitioner contended that she had developed an unbridgeable aversion to her husband, rendering it impossible to live within the limits prescribed by Allah. The core legal question was whether the courts below erred in refusing a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula despite the wife's persistent claim of hatred and inability to live with her husband. The High Court held that the right to claim divorce on the basis of Khula is a right at par with the husband's right to pronounce Talaq, requiring the court to satisfy its conscience regarding the impossibility of the spouses living together. The court concluded that a woman cannot be forced to remain in a marriage where she has developed genuine, deep-seated aversion. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the marriage was dissolved on the basis of Khula, emphasizing that subjective satisfaction of the court regarding the breakdown of the marital tie is paramount.
Questions settled- Is the wife's right to claim divorce on the basis of Khula equivalent to the husband's right to pronounce Talaq?
- Does a court have the authority to dissolve a marriage on the basis of Khula if the wife expresses a genuine, deep-seated aversion to her husband?
- Can a High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, grant a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula if the lower courts have failed to properly assess the breakdown of the marital tie?
- Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Syed Izhar Ahmed Tirmizi and 3 others1994 SCMR 1977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed her constitutional petition regarding the classification and allotment of a specific parcel of land. The core legal dispute concerns whether the subject property, Khasra No. 2175, should have been classified as agricultural land or urban immovable property, which directly impacted the validity of the allotment made to the petitioner versus the subsequent transfer to respondent No. 1. The petitioner contended that the land was agricultural, supported by revenue records, and that the authorities misread the evidence by treating it as urban property. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding merit in the contention that the lower forums and the High Court failed to properly consider the revenue records and evidence presented by the petitioner, specifically regarding the land's status as agricultural. The key principle established is that the failure of judicial or quasi-judicial forums to consider relevant documentary evidence, such as revenue records, constitutes a misreading of evidence, warranting appellate intervention to ensure that factual determinations are based on a comprehensive review of the record.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a court to consider relevant revenue records constitute a misreading of evidence?
- Can a property classified as agricultural land be validly disposed of as urban immovable property without proper evidentiary support?
- Is the Supreme Court empowered to grant leave to appeal when lower forums have failed to consider material evidence on record?
- Muhammad Ashiq vs Abdul Jalil Usman And Other1994 CLC 2409 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khudeja and others vs Allah Dad1994 MLD 741 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khalida Parveen vs Ghulam Rasul1994 MLD 1534 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khairunissa And 2 Other vs Hakim Abdul Samad And Another1994 PLD Quetta 71 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khadija Ul Kubra vs Additional District Judge And Other1994 CLC 489 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khadija Bai and otherss vs Muhammad and others1994 PLD Karachi 233 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khadija Bai And Other vs Muhammad And Other1994 PLD Karachi 233 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Karam Begum and others vs D.S.C. and others1994 MLD 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaniz Fatima vs Ghulam Mustafa1994 MLD 174 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneez Maryam alias Kaneez Fatima vs The Settlement1994 MLD 953 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jiwai (Deceased) Through L.Rs. vs Rehman (Deceased) Through L.Rs.1994 CLC 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular Second Appeal challenged concurrent findings of the lower courts, which denied the appellant’s claim to inherit property as the daughter of the deceased, Kalu. The core legal question was whether the appellant had established her paternity through cogent evidence, specifically invoking the doctrine of 'conduct evidence' under Section 50 of the Evidence Act and Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower courts correctly assessed the evidence. The Court determined that the appellant’s witnesses failed to demonstrate special means of knowledge or provide consistent testimony, and the documentary evidence was insufficient. The Court laid down that Section 50/Article 64 permits circumstantial 'conduct evidence' as an exception to the best evidence rule, provided the witness has special means of knowledge and the conduct reveals an opinion regarding the relationship. However, such evidence is not conclusive and must be weighed by the court to determine the factum probandum. The concurrent findings of fact were upheld as they did not suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence.
Questions settled- What are the essential requirements for admitting 'conduct evidence' under Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872 or Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
- Does the opinion evidence regarding relationship under Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872 or Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 constitute conclusive proof of paternity?
- Can a witness without special means of knowledge provide admissible 'conduct evidence' regarding a family relationship?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mst. Jamila vs Muhammad Tahir and another1994 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that restored a trial court's order staying execution proceedings. The petitioner, Mst. Jamila, had obtained an ex parte decree regarding a property, which was subsequently challenged by a subsequent transferee, Muhammad Tahir, via an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging fraud and suppression of facts. The trial court had initially stayed the execution of the decree pending the resolution of this challenge. The appellate court reversed this stay, but the High Court restored it. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in staying execution proceedings while the underlying decree was being challenged for fraud. The Supreme Court held that since the decree was under active challenge on grounds of fraud and collusion, the trial court properly exercised its discretion to maintain the status quo. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, finding no legal error in the revisional order, and dismissed the petition, establishing that execution proceedings should generally be stayed when the validity of the decree itself is sub judice on allegations of fraud.
Questions settled- Can execution proceedings be stayed when the underlying decree is challenged under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on grounds of fraud?
- Does a trial court have the discretion to maintain the status quo during the pendency of a challenge to a decree?
- Mst. Irshad Begum and others vs Sh. Muhammad Bashir and others1994 MLD 1890 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Irram Cheema vs Auqaf Department1994 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Inayat Begum vs Additional District Judge and 9 others1994 MLD 599 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hussain Jan and 8 others vs Muhammad Suleman through Legal Heirs1994 PLD Peshawar 95 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hussain Jan And 8 Other vs Muhammad Suleman Through Legal Heirs1994 PLD Peshawar 95 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hayat Bibi vs District Judge1994 MLD 2007 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hamidan Bibi vs Sadar Din and 4 others1994 MLD 124 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hameeda Begum And Others vs Haji Abdul Ghani And Another1994 CLC 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajran vs Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore and another1994 MLD 801 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated writ petitions arising from a dispute over the allotment of State land reserved for Mangla Dam oustees. The petitioner, an oustee, was allotted land in Sargodha, which was subsequently challenged by a respondent claiming temporary cultivating possession and asserting the land fell within a prohibited five-mile radius of the Municipal Committee. The Board of Revenue had previously set aside the allotment, citing the prohibitory zone. The core legal question was whether the Government could cancel a valid allotment on the ground of a prohibitory zone notification when the land had already been placed in the allotment pool for oustees. The Court held that the inclusion of the land in the allotment pool superseded prior prohibitory notifications. Furthermore, the Court invoked the principle of locus poenitentiae, ruling that once an allotment is made in good faith, the Government cannot arbitrarily rescind it. The Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition, set aside the revision order, and dismissed the respondent's petition for lack of locus standi.
Questions settled- Does the inclusion of land in an allotment pool for oustees supersede prior notifications imposing a prohibitory zone on that land?
- Can the Government invoke Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 to rescind an allotment once it has been made in good faith?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to prevent the arbitrary cancellation of a land allotment by the Government?
- Mst. Hafiza Bibi vs Ali Hussain and others1994 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the validity of a sale-deed executed by a female appellant in favour of her stepbrothers. The appellant filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale-deed on the ground of fraud, asserting that she never alienated her inherited land and was only made to thumb-mark papers while staying at her stepbrothers' house. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court and the High Court dismissed it. The core legal question was whether the transaction involving a female under fiduciary care and without independent advice could be sustained as valid. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the alienate stood in a fiduciary relationship and, in the absence of independent advice, the transaction could not be sustained. The Court laid down the principle that alienations by vulnerable female relatives without independent advice in fiduciary settings are legally unsustainable, restoring the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Whether a sale-deed executed by a female in favour of her stepbrothers can be sustained without independent advice?
- Does a transaction involving a vulnerable female relying on family members stand vitiated in the absence of independent legal advice?
- Can a registered sale-deed be set aside on the ground of fraud when executed while the executant is residing with the beneficiaries?
- Mst. Gul Pari alias Gulbaro vs Zarin Khan and others1994 PLD Peshawar 249 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Gul Pari Alias Gulbaro vs Zarin Khan And Other1994 PLD Peshawar 249 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Chiragh Muhammad Khan and others1994 MLD 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghaus Bibi vs Government of Punjab Through Member (Colonies), Board Of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And Other1994 CLC 2169 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Firdous Sabir vs Haji Mushtaq Ahmed Pervaiz1994 SCMR 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from ejectment petitions filed by a landlady against tenants for shops in a cantonment area, citing bona fide personal need for business expansion. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the High Court reversed this, finding the landlady's requirement not bona fide. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the evidence supported the claim of bona fide personal need and whether the statutory provision regarding premises becoming unsuitable for needs encompasses business expansion. The Supreme Court held that the landlady successfully established her bona fide requirement for the additional shops to expand her business. The Court clarified that the statutory requirement for "own use" does not restrict a landlord from conducting business through agents, such as a spouse or relatives. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Rent Controller's eviction orders, and granted the tenants one year to vacate the premises. The key principle established is that "own use" in rent restriction laws is broad enough to include business operations managed by the landlord's family members.
Questions settled- Does the statutory requirement of 'own use' for a landlord preclude conducting business through a spouse or relatives?
- Can a landlord seek eviction of a tenant for the purpose of expanding an existing business?
- Does the evidence of a landlord's need to install additional machinery constitute a bona fide requirement for additional shop space?
- Mst. Fazelat Begum vs Public in General And Another1994 PLD Azad J&K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima vs Said Muhammad And 5 Other1994 CLC 1923 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima Bibi and others vs Noor Dad and another1994 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit relating to agricultural land filed on 1-4-1975, where the core legal question involved the determination of court-fee based on the table of net profits and the consequences of submitting a deficient or flawed table. The trial Court had dismissed the suit, holding that it was undervalued and insufficiently stamped due to discrepancies in the net profit tables supplied by the plaintiffs. However, the First Appellate Court and subsequently the High Court found that the omissions were clerical, that the plaintiffs' conduct was not contumacious, and that under the binding precedent of Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan, it was the duty of the court to afford an opportunity to make good any deficiency in court-fee. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower appellate and high courts correctly applied the law regarding court-fee deficiency and that the parties had sufficient opportunity to lead evidence on the valuation issue.
Questions settled- Whether the court is mandated to grant time to a plaintiff to supply deficient court-fee in the absence of contumacy?
- Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed for undervaluation without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to make good the deficiency in court-fee?
- Whether discrepancies in the table of net profits relating to agricultural land justify the outright dismissal of a pre-emption suit?
- Mst. Fatema Bibi vs Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue, Government1994 CLC 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farzana Khatoon vs Mst. Bushra and 3 others1994 PLD Karachi 92 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farzana Khatoon vs Mst. Bushra And 3 Other1994 PLD Karachi 92 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farhat Naz vs Umar Hayat and others1994 MLD 1771 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Faqraz Bibi vs Elahi Bakhsh and 2 others1994 SCMR 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision application regarding a dispute over property ownership. The petitioner, the wife of respondent No. 3, filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming possession of a house allegedly transferred to her in lieu of dower by her father-in-law (respondent No. 1) at the time of her marriage. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in her favor, the first appellate court reversed this decision, a finding subsequently upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the entry in the 'Nikah Nama' regarding the transfer of the house, coupled with the father-in-law's signature confirming the stipulation, constitutes sufficient evidence of a valid transfer of proprietary rights. Finding that the contentions regarding the evidentiary value of the 'Nikah Nama' and the established exercise of proprietary rights require deeper judicial examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further consider the merits of the petitioner's claim.
Questions settled- Does an entry in a Nikah Nama regarding the transfer of property in lieu of dower, signed by the transferor, constitute sufficient evidence of a valid transfer of proprietary rights?
- Can a suit for permanent injunction be maintained based on a claim of property ownership transferred as dower?
- Mst. Dauli And Others vs Mst. Rasulan And Other1994 CLC 1847 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bushra Raheel vs Sajjad Haider Khan and 2 others1994 SCMR 2009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a wife involved in multiple family law proceedings, invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking the transfer and consolidation of various suits pending between her and her husband. The husband had initiated proceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights and custody of minor children in Peshawar, while the petitioner had filed suits for the dissolution of marriage and dower in Lahore. The petitioner argued that prosecuting cases in Peshawar posed a threat to her life and caused inconvenience, requesting the Court to exercise its powers under Article 186-A of the Constitution to transfer and consolidate these cases to a single forum to avoid conflicting judgments. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Article 186-A, noting it was introduced to allow the transfer of cases pending before one High Court to another. The Court held that it could not interpret the expression "pending before" to include cases pending within the jurisdiction of lower courts without violating the legislative intent and the federal scheme. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does Article 186-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 empower the Supreme Court to transfer cases pending before lower courts or family courts?
- Can the expression 'pending before' in Article 186-A of the Constitution be interpreted to mean cases pending within the jurisdiction of a High Court?
- Is the Supreme Court authorized to consolidate family law suits pending in different provinces under its constitutional transfer powers?
- Mst. Bushra and 5 others vs Muhammad Yasin and another1994 SCMR 1622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition and a jail petition challenging a judgment of the High Court, which had altered the death sentence of the accused Muhammad Yasin to life imprisonment for the murder of his brother and mother, while maintaining a sentence of fine. The High Court based its decision to commute the death sentence on the waiver of Qisas and Diyyat by some of the legal heirs under section 309 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners, including the widow and children of one of the deceased, challenged the judgment on the grounds that no mitigating circumstances existed for a lesser sentence and that certain heirs could not lawfully waive Qisas and Diyyat to the exclusion of other qualified Walis or on behalf of others. The Supreme Court found that the questions raised were of general legal importance and granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine the legality of the waiver and appraise the evidence.
Questions settled- Whether some of the legal heirs can waive the right of Qisas and Diyyat on behalf of other Walis?
- Whether a sister and a cousin can be termed as the sole Walis in the presence of other qualified heirs such as a maternal uncle?
- Whether the waiver of Qisas by certain heirs constitutes a sufficient mitigating circumstance to warrant the conversion of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Mst. Bismillah and 7 others vs Muhammad Din and another1994 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellants, which was initially allowed by the Rent Controller. The Additional District Judge subsequently set aside the Rent Controller's findings on both the issue of default in rent payment and the necessity of a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The High Court, in a constitutional petition, accepted the respondent's argument regarding the notice requirement and restored the Rent Controller's order, effectively ordering ejectment. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to address the finding of the appellate authority regarding the issue of default, which remained unresolved. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by overlooking the lack of a clear finding on the default issue, as the appellate authority had not conclusively determined whether the respondent's demand for rent was genuine or complied with. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment to the extent of the default issue and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh determination of the default question after hearing the parties.
Questions settled- Can a High Court restore a Rent Controller's order in a constitutional petition without adjudicating on the issue of rent default?
- Is a finding on the issue of rent default required to be clearly recorded by an appellate authority before an ejectment order can be sustained?
- Does the failure of an appellate authority to record a clear finding on the genuineness of a rent demand necessitate a remand of the case?
- Mst. Bilqees Begum vs Haji Ghulam Rasool1994 CLC 2296 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Roshan Ara vs Government of Sindh through Deputy1994 MLD 882 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Bilquis vs The Sindh Land Commissioner Through Secretary,1994 PLD Karachi 18 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bashiran vs Hao Nawaz and 6 others1994 SCMR 1145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the mother of the deceased against the acquittal of the respondents in a murder case. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the appellant and her daughter, being the sole legal heirs of the deceased, stated categorically that they had forgiven the accused respondents voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion, solely for the sake of God, and requested permission to withdraw the appeal. The core legal question concerned the effect of a voluntary compromise and forgiveness by the legal heirs in a criminal murder appeal. The Court, being satisfied that the compromise and request for withdrawal were made freely and voluntarily, recalled its earlier order granting leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will permit the withdrawal of a criminal appeal and recognize the compounding of an offense or forgiveness by the legal heirs of the victim when made voluntarily and without coercion.
Questions settled- Can legal heirs withdraw an appeal against an acquittal after forgiving the accused?
- Will the court permit the withdrawal of a criminal appeal when the legal heirs state they have forgiven the accused voluntarily and without coercion?
- Mst. Barkat Bibi vs The State1994 MLD 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bakhan vs Mst. Bhag Bhari and 2 others1994 MLD 1667 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Azmat Through Legal Heirs vs M.B.R. And Other1994 CLC 976 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aslam Khatoon vs Muhammad Shafiq1994 CLC 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Arifa Parveen vs Muhammad Ameen Puri And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 176 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amira Bokharir vs Faqir Syed Jameel Ud Din Bokhari And 2 Other1994 PLD Lahore 236 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amira Bokhari vs Faqir Syed Jameeluddin Bomar' and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 236 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amina Bai through Legal Heirs vs Karachi Metropolitan1994 SCMR 804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a dispute concerning the Moledina Musafir Khana in Karachi, constructed in 1893 for poor Muslim travellers through joint contributions by Haji Moledina and the then Karachi Municipality. The core legal question was whether a charitable property dedicated for public use and managed for decades can be demolished or converted to commercial use by the municipal authority. The Supreme Court held that the Musafir Khana constitutes a public trust or charitable dedication of a permanent nature, and its user cannot be arbitrarily altered or destroyed by the controlling authority. The Court ruled that while the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation manages the property, it cannot demolish the building for commercial exploitation; any utilization must align with the original charitable purpose or public welfare, and the historical plaque bearing Haji Moledina's name must be preserved. The appeal was accordingly allowed, restoring the concurrent findings of the lower courts with specific directions regarding management and scheme approval.
Questions settled- Whether a property constructed and used for decades as a charitable Musafir Khana acquires the character of a public trust preventing its conversion to commercial use?
- Can a municipal corporation alter the charitable purpose or demolish a building dedicated to public welfare and established through joint contributions?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court regarding the charitable nature of a property can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction without proper justification?
- Mst. Amanat Bibi vs Khuda Dad And Other1994 CLC 979 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Allah Jawai and others vs Muhammad Ali and others1994 MLD 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Alif Noor and 2 others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1994 MLD 650 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bashir vs Allah Ditta and others1994 SCMR 1870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit challenging a gift deed executed by the petitioner's father, Budha, in favour of the respondent. The petitioner alleged that the gift was procured through undue influence and that the donor lacked the mental capacity to execute the deed. The trial court, the district court, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the suit, finding that the evidence established the donor was in a fit state of mind and acted voluntarily. The Supreme Court examined whether a Muslim donor possesses the right to alienate property during their lifetime and whether the lower courts erred in their factual findings regarding undue influence. The Court held that a Muslim donor has unfettered power to dispose of property by gift during their lifetime, provided they are of sound mind and acting voluntarily. Finding that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of mental incapacity or undue influence, and noting the donor lived for ten years post-gift without complaint, the Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a Muslim donor have the power to alienate property by way of gift during their lifetime?
- Can a gift deed be invalidated on the grounds of undue influence if the donor remained alive for a significant period without challenging the transaction?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts regarding the mental capacity of a donor binding in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Mst. Aisha Khan vs Muhammad Yusuf And Another1994 PLD Quetta 97 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-05-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aisha Bibi vs Nazir Ahmad and 10 others1994 SCMR 1935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted a second appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and decreed the respondents' suit. The dispute concerns agricultural land sold via a registered sale-deed that was subsequently reviewed and set aside by revenue officers under Martial Law Regulation 64. The core legal question was whether revenue officers exercising review jurisdiction under the land revenue laws could simultaneously annul a transaction on grounds of violating Martial Law Regulations. The Supreme Court held that an officer acting under a specific statute must strictly follow its procedure and cannot exercise powers under another statute; if a violation of Martial Law Regulations was suspected, the matter should have been referred to the Land Commission or Deputy Land Commissioner. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings that the revenue officers' orders were without jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that statutory authorities must exercise powers strictly within the four corners of the specific statute conferring them.
Questions settled- Can a revenue officer exercising review powers under revenue laws simultaneously set aside a transaction for violating Martial Law Regulations?
- Whether revenue officers are bound to give effect to transactions completed through registered deeds in the revenue record in the absence of a patent mistake?
- Does the power to declare any transaction as offending Martial Law Regulation 64 vest exclusively in the Land Commission or appointed Land Commissioners?
- Ms. Sarosh Sultan vs Ghulam Haider Wyne The Chief Minister, Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 24 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shaista Begum vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1994 MLD 274 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shaista Begum vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1994 PTD 194 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the Registrar of Firms to register a partnership firm involving a Pakistani citizen and a foreign national. The core legal question was whether the Registrar possesses the authority to demand extraneous documents, such as No-Objection Certificates from government ministries or details regarding foreign investment, beyond the statutory requirements prescribed by the Partnership Act 1932. The Court held that the Registrar’s refusal based on these extraneous objections was without lawful authority. The Court clarified that the Registrar’s satisfaction is strictly limited to verifying compliance with the specific procedural requirements of Section 58 of the Partnership Act 1932. Consequently, the Registrar cannot inquire into the nature of the business or the necessity of foreign investment. However, the Court upheld the Registrar’s right to demand proper verification and attestation of the application form as mandated by the Act and its rules. The key principle established is that the registration of a firm is a ministerial act contingent solely upon compliance with the specific procedural requirements of the Partnership Act 1932, and the Registrar lacks jurisdiction to impose additional, unauthorized conditions.
Questions settled- Does the Registrar of Firms have the authority to demand a No-Objection Certificate from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the registration of a partnership firm?
- Is the Registrar of Firms empowered to inquire into the nature of business or foreign investment details when registering a firm under the Partnership Act 1932?
- To what extent is the Registrar of Firms required to be satisfied before recording an entry in the register of firms under the Partnership Act 1932?
- Can the Registrar of Firms refuse registration based on grounds not specified in Section 58 of the Partnership Act 1932?
- Mrs. Shahnaz Nawaz And 4 Other vs Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1308 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-08-04Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Rukhsana Tufail And Other vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 384 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-11-11Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Rehana Mahar vs Pakistan And Others1994 P LC (C.S.) 854 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Qamarun Nisa Usmani vs The Secretary, Education Department, Government of Sindh And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1296 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nasrin Temur vs Principal, OPF Girls College, Islamabad And 31994 PLC (C.S.) 1700 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-07-18Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nasreen John vs Sister Mary John William Bibi1994 PLC (C.S.) 792 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Naseer Fatima and 2 others vs Mst. Surayia Abid Ali1994 PLD Karachi 468 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Naseer Fatima And 2 Other vs Mst. Surayia Abid Ali1994 PLD Karachi 468 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. MJ. Hemani vs Abid Ali1994 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Fakhra Javed vs Noor Ali1994 SCMR 971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the landlady against the judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had set aside the Rent Controller's order and dismissed her eviction application against the tenant. The core legal question concerns whether actual professional training or possession of a certificate is a condition precedent for a landlady seeking the eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide personal need to start a garments and boutique business. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that it must be considered whether such training or certification is legally required as a prerequisite for establishing bona fide personal need for commercial premises under the relevant rent restriction laws. The key principle laid down is that the necessity of specific training or prior experience for establishing a bona fide personal need to run a business requires examination by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Is actual training of a landlady in a proposed business a condition precedent for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide personal need?
- Whether possession of a certificate or experience is mandatory to establish bona fide personal need for commercial premises?
- Can an appellate court reverse an eviction order on the ground that the landlord lacks prior experience in the intended business?
- Mrs. Daulat Roshan Ali vs Mrs. Shahnaz Begum1994 MLD 485 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Home1994 SCMR 1532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged the preventive detention orders dated 21-7-1993 and 20-10-1993 issued against the detenu under Section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The detenu was detained on allegations of threatening the U.S. Embassy and attempting to recruit men to execute kidnapping threats following his brother's arrest in a drug-trafficking case. The core legal question was whether allegations amounting to individual criminal offenses triable under ordinary law justify preventive detention on grounds of being prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order. The Supreme Court held the detention unlawful, quashed the detention order, and directed the immediate release of the detenu. The Court laid down that 'public order' refers to activities affecting the public-at-large and local peace, as distinguished from ordinary breaches of law and order or individual offenses triable under penal statutes.
Questions settled- Can an individual accused of specific criminal offenses triable under ordinary penal laws be subjected to preventive detention under public order laws on the same allegations?
- What is the distinction between 'public order' and 'law and order' for the purpose of justifying preventive detention under Section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
- Can vague or repetitive grounds furnish a legal justification for extending an order of preventive detention?
- Moula Bux vs The State1994 PLD Supreme Court 592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed for the murder of the appellant’s wife. The core legal questions concern whether the High Court correctly reversed the trial court's exclusion of a chemical examiner's report due to unexplained procedural delays, and whether the conviction remained sustainable upon the remaining evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on the chemical examiner's report, as the delay in dispatching samples was unexplained and the responsible officer was not examined. However, the Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and the appellant's apprehension at the scene. The principle laid down is that while unexplained delays in forensic testing can invalidate such reports, a conviction may still be sustained if independent evidence sufficiently establishes the accused's guilt. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that brutal crimes involving excessive violence, such as the infliction of twenty incised wounds, do not warrant the reduction of a death sentence.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in sending sealed parcels to a chemical laboratory invalidate the forensic report?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on eye-witness testimony and medical evidence if the chemical examiner's report is excluded?
- Is the High Court required to evaluate the entire evidence on record when confirming a death sentence under Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Moolchand and 9 others vs Muhammad Yousuf (Udhamdas) and 31994 PLD Supreme Court 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil dispute over inheritance rights in ancestral property following the death of a Hindu male, Assandas, in 1957. The primary legal questions were whether the plaintiff’s suit for partition and possession was time-barred due to alleged ouster and whether the High Court could grant relief to a pro forma defendant (the plaintiff's mother) who had not filed a separate suit. The Court held that the suit was not time-barred, affirming that mere mutation of records does not constitute ouster or adverse possession against a co-heir. The Court emphasized that possession of one co-heir is legally considered possession of all, and defendants failed to prove hostile, exclusive possession. Furthermore, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant a share to the plaintiff's mother, ruling that a court may grant relief to a pro forma defendant if they are found entitled to inherit alongside the plaintiff. The key principle established is that co-sharers are not obliged to sue merely because of a wrong mutation, and adverse possession cannot be established against a co-heir without clear evidence of express ouster.
Questions settled- Does the mutation of property records in the name of some heirs to the exclusion of others constitute sufficient evidence of ouster to trigger the limitation period against a co-heir?
- Can a court grant a share in the property to a pro forma defendant who did not file a separate suit but is found entitled to inherit?
- Does the possession of one co-heir constitute possession of all co-heirs for the purposes of adverse possession?
- Does the conversion of a member of a joint Hindu family to Islam result in the automatic break-up of the joint family status?
- Moolchand And 9 Other vs Muhammad Yousuf (Udhamdas) And 3 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh concerning a suit for declaration, partition, and separate possession of ancestral immovable property filed by the plaintiff, claiming to be the legitimate son of the deceased owner through his second wife under Hindu law. The primary legal questions revolved around whether the suit was barred by limitation under sections 6 and 8 of the Limitation Act, 1908 in light of prior mutation proceedings, and whether a decree could be passed in favor of a pro forma defendant (the mother). The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the defendants failed to establish ouster or adverse possession against the plaintiff, who was a minor at the time of the mutation, and that mere non-participation in profits or erroneous mutation entries do not constitute adverse possession among co-sharers. The Court further held that conversion to Islam by a member of a joint Hindu family severs the joint status, attracting Articles 127 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and that relief can be granted to a pro forma defendant entitled to inherit. Both appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a wrong entry in revenue mutation proceedings against a co-heir constitute adverse possession or start the period of limitation?
- Can knowledge of mutation proceedings and dismissal of revenue appeals by a mother be imputed to her minor son for the purpose of limitation?
- Whether conversion to Islam by a member of a joint Hindu family breaks the status of the joint family and extinguishes rights of survivorship?
- Can a court grant relief to a pro forma defendant who has not formally filed a suit as a plaintiff but is found entitled to inherit?
- Momin Khan and 2 others vs Additional Secretary, Home and Tribal1994 SCMR 1766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities regarding a boundary dispute. The proceedings originated from an application for demarcation between two villages, leading to the constitution of a Jirga under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation No.II of 1975. After previous rounds of litigation and remand orders, the trial court ultimately dismissed the petitioners' suit. The petitioners contended that the trial court failed to comply with specific directions in a prior remand order regarding the framing of issues, thereby vitiating the proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the remand order was based on a written agreement between the parties' counsel consenting to decision on the basis of already recorded evidence without producing fresh evidence. The Court held that the direction to frame issues was directory rather than mandatory in light of the parties' agreement, and the omission to frame fresh issues caused no prejudice or miscarriage of justice. Consequently, finding no illegality or misreading of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the direction to frame fresh issues in a remand order is mandatory or directory when parties have agreed to decide the case on previously recorded evidence?
- Does the omission to frame fresh issues vitiate proceedings where no prejudice or miscarriage of justice is caused to the parties?
- Can a party challenge procedural steps taken in contravention of a directory remand direction when such steps align with a prior written agreement of the parties?
- Momin Bai vs Muhammad Ismail1994 MLD 418 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-08Read full judgment →
- Moman vs Chief Land Commissioner And Other1994 CLC 112 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
- Molasses Trading & Export (Pvt.) Limited. vs Federation Of Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1994 CL. 222 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four appeals challenging the enhancement of customs duties on imported goods via notifications issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the newly inserted Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, nullified the vested rights of importers established in Al-Samrez Enterprise v. Federation of Pakistan, and whether this retrospective provision could reopen past and closed transactions. The Court held that while Section 31-A effectively nullified the Al-Samrez principle regarding vested rights, it did not extend to past and closed transactions. The Court determined that where bills of entry were presented prior to the enactment of Section 31-A, the tax liability was already crystallized and the transaction finalized; thus, the retrospective law could not disturb these rights. Additionally, the Court reaffirmed that regulatory duties exceeding 50% of the rates specified in the First Schedule of the Customs Act, 1969, are ultra vires. The key principle laid down is that while the legislature possesses plenary power to legislate retrospectively, such laws cannot disturb rights in past and closed transactions unless expressly intended.
Questions settled- Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 nullify the principle of vested rights established in the Al-Samrez Enterprise case?
- Can retrospective legislation reopen transactions that have already been finalized and closed?
- Is the imposition of regulatory duty exceeding 50% of the rate specified in the First Schedule of the Customs Act 1969 legally valid?
- Does the presentation of a bill of entry crystallize the tax liability of an importer?
- Molasses Trading & Export (Pvt) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 116 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil appeal arising from a common judgment of the Sindh High Court dismissing constitutional petitions filed by importers challenging enhanced customs duties on imported palm oil and soyabean oil. The core legal questions involved the effect of section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, introduced retrospectively by the Finance Act, 1988, which nullified the rule in Al-Samrez Enterprise regarding vested rights under exemption notifications, and whether such retrospective legislation re-opens past and closed transactions where bills of entry were presented prior to its enactment. The majority of the Supreme Court held that while section 31-A effectively destroyed vested rights and the distinction between taxability and payability established in Al-Samrez Enterprise, it did not operate to re-open past and closed transactions. Since the bills of entry were presented before the enactment of section 31-A and liabilities had crystallised under section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969, the transactions were past and closed and not affected by the new provision. The key principle laid down is that while the legislature is competent to enact retrospective fiscal laws taking away vested rights, such provisions will not be construed to disturb past and closed transactions unless expressly or by necessary intendment stated.
Questions settled- Whether section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, nullifies the principle laid down in Al-Samrez Enterprise regarding vested rights created by exemption notifications?
- Does the retrospective insertion of section 31-A in the Customs Act, 1969, have the effect of re-opening past and closed transactions?
- What is the effect of the presentation of a bill of entry under section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969, in crystallizing tax liability?
- Can regulatory duty be imposed in excess of fifty percent of the rate specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Act, 1969?
- Moin Alam vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 66 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
- Mohibullah, Chief Officer, Town Committee, Amangerh and others vs Mansoor Khan, Planning Officer, District Council, Mardan and others1994 SCMR 1658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed writ petitions challenging a combined seniority list of Local Council Service (LCS) officers. The core legal question was whether the respondents, initially appointed as Planning Officers in the Planning Branch, could be placed in a combined seniority list with officers in the Administration Branch, and whether their placement above the petitioners was legally justified. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the posts occupied by the respondents were explicitly designated as part of the Administration Branch of the Local Council Service. Consequently, the Court held that the department acted correctly in preparing a combined seniority list. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondents were absorbed into BPS-16 positions in 1984, whereas the petitioners held lower-grade positions at that time and were only promoted to BPS-16 later. The principle established is that where specific posts are statutorily or administratively designated as part of a particular service branch, the seniority of officers holding those posts is properly determined within the combined seniority list of that service branch.
Questions settled- Whether officers appointed to specific posts designated as part of the Administration Branch of the Local Council Service can be included in a combined seniority list with other officers of the same service?
- Does the prior absorption of officers into BPS-16 positions justify their placement above officers who were promoted to BPS-16 at a later date in a combined seniority list?
- Can a department prepare a combined seniority list for officers whose posts are borne on the same service branch, despite their specific departmental assignments?
- Mohan Pandey and another vs Smt. Usha Rani Rajgaria and others1994 SCMR 212 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-08-19Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Tufail vs Nasir Mahmood EtcK.L.R. 1994 Crimial Cases 133 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Sadique Umrani And Other vs Government of Sindh Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Sindh, Sindh Secretariate Karachi And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 170 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Hussain vs Ilyas EtcK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 136 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Fayyaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 35 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Akbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
- Mohabbat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 495 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
- Mobina BEGUMPlaintiff vs The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1994 MLD 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arose from an application filed under section 12(2) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the defendants to set aside an ex parte decree obtained by the plaintiff in a suit concerning a lease of land claimed to be evacuee trust property. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. in the presence of prior orders, concluded proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., and whether allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and want of jurisdiction were prima facie sustainable. The court held that the application under section 12(2) C.P.C. was maintainable and competent, as the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of jurisdiction constitute distinct substantive remedies that are not barred by the dismissal of an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. The court laid down the key principle that an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. provides an independent and substantive mechanism to challenge judgments tainted by fraud, misrepresentation, or jurisdictional defect, and the dismissal of a separate procedural remedy like Order IX Rule 13 does not preclude its invocation unless the exact same vital ground has been fully examined and determined in the prior proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable after the dismissal of an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the dismissal of proceedings for setting aside an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 bar a subsequent challenge based on fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the provisions of section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide a substantive right that supersedes procedural technicalities regarding finality of previous judgments?
- Can a decree obtained by concealing material judicial orders and binding decisions of superior courts be assailed as having been procured through fraud or misrepresentation?
- Mitsui Employees' Union, Karachi vs M/s. Mitsui & Company Ltd., Karachi1994 PLC 119 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-09-09Read full judgment →
- Miss Yasmin Khan and anothers vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary and another1994 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Pakistani citizens residing abroad, filed a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking enrolment as voters to participate in National and Provincial Assembly elections. They contended that despite holding Pakistani passports and National Identity Cards, they were denied registration under Section 7 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, because their ordinary place of residence is outside Pakistan. Furthermore, they argued that even if registered, the current electoral system lacks mechanisms for overseas Pakistanis to cast their votes without physically returning to their constituencies. The Supreme Court observed that while the petitioners had not personally attempted to register using their available documentation, a significant impediment exists for all overseas voters regarding the actual exercise of their franchise. Recognizing the constitutional implications of this denial and noting that the grievance is a continuing one not limited to a single election, the Court admitted the petition for regular hearing and issued notices to the concerned parties to examine the matter in depth.
Questions settled- Does the denial of voter registration to Pakistani citizens residing abroad, based on their ordinary place of residence, raise constitutional questions regarding the right of franchise?
- Is the absence of mechanisms for overseas Pakistanis to cast their votes while residing abroad a justiciable impediment to the exercise of their right to vote?
- Miss Shahnaz Pervin vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary, Education, Karachi And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1277 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
- Miss Sajida Parveen and 2 others vs Principal, Dean, Khyber Medical1994 SCMR 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from petitions regarding educational certificates and marks obtained by candidates seeking admission to medical colleges. The core legal question involved the verification of original result sheet registers from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education against certificates submitted by candidates to the Khyber Medical College to detect discrepancies in reported marks. The court examined the administrative officer of the Board and the original records. The Supreme Court held that interim orders previously granted in favor of the petitioners should be recalled upon finding discrepancies between the official result registers and the certificates submitted by the candidates. The key principle laid down is that official educational board registers prevail over unverified or manipulated certificates submitted for admission purposes.
Questions settled- Whether interim orders granted in admission matters can be recalled upon inspection of original board registers?
- Do entries in official result sheet registers prevail over certificates submitted by candidates to educational institutions?
- Miss Parveen Kassimali Popatiya vs Nizari Cooperative Housing1994 PLD Karachi 348 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →