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.
- Munir Ahmad and anothers vs The State and 2 others1993 MLD 537 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
- Munawar Zaman and others vs Elahi Bakhsh1993 PLD Lahore 527 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
- Munawar Khan vs Niaz Muhammad and 7 others1993 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution examines the legality of public office appointments made pursuant to governmental policy or practice involving land grants for primary schools and the allocation of recruitment quotas to Members of the Provincial and National Assemblies and Ministers. The core legal questions concern whether public representatives possess the authority to dictate government appointments, whether appointments can be made without open advertisement or competitive merit, and the validity of appointments tied to land donations. The Supreme Court held that allocating recruitment quotas to Ministers, MNAs, and MPAs, as well as making appointments based thereon, is entirely illegal ab initio, offensive to the Constitution and service laws, and an impermissible interference in the discretionary powers of competent departmental authorities. The Court further ruled that the practice of granting public office in exchange for free land donations amounts to the sale of public office and is unconstitutional. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the Service Tribunal that had favored quota-based or recommendee appointees, and restored the appointments of land donors and rightful claimants, laying down the principle that all future public appointments must be made objectively by competent authorities after open advertisement.
Questions settled- Whether Members of Legislative Assemblies or Ministers have the power and jurisdiction to direct or influence appointments to government offices and posts?
- Does the practice of granting public employment in exchange for free land donations violate constitutional law and public interest?
- Are appointments made on the recommendation or quota allocation of Ministers, MNAs, or MPAs void ab initio?
- Whether public office appointments can be legally sustained when made without open advertisement or publicity in the locality?
- Munawar Hussain alias Bobi and 2 others vs The State1993 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the concurrent judgments of the Federal Shariat Court and the Special Judge Customs, which convicted the three appellants under Section 156(1)(8) read with Section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969, and Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and fines for heroin smuggling. The core legal question revolved around the evidentiary value of an accomplice's testimony without formal pardon or discharge and whether sufficient independent corroboration existed on material particulars. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that an accomplice remains a competent witness under Article 16 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and that while a rule of prudence requires corroboration, the prosecution had successfully brought forth overwhelming independent evidence—such as recovered diaries, telephone records, and witness testimonies—linking the appellants to the crime. The key principle laid down is that in organized narcotics smuggling cases, courts must adopt a dynamic approach by evaluating the entire material on record as a whole and requiring independent corroboration that satisfies the rule of prudence, without demanding technical formalities regarding accomplice testimony.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction can be recorded on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice?
- Does the failure to grant a formal pardon under Section 337 Cr.P.C. or discharge under Section 494 Cr.P.C. render an accomplice an incompetent witness?
- What constitutes sufficient independent corroboration of an accomplice's testimony in narcotics smuggling cases?
- Does the mere relationship of witnesses to an accomplice make them interested witnesses in criminal proceedings?
- Munawar Ali alias Munawar Hussain vs The State1993 PLD Supreme Court 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, Munawar Ali, for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the safety of maintaining a conviction based on ocular testimony where co-accused have been acquitted due to material discrepancies, and whether medical evidence or weakness in the defense plea can furnish sufficient corroboration against an appellant who lacked a motive and had no positive ballistic match. The Supreme Court held that when eye-witnesses compromise their integrity by falsely implicating some accused, their testimony cannot be safely relied upon against remaining co-accused without strong, independent corroboration regarding each individual. The Court laid down that medical evidence can establish the manner of injuries but cannot identify specific assailants, that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt without relying on weaknesses in the defense, and that no adverse inference can be drawn from an accused's failure to depose on oath.
Questions settled- Can medical evidence be used to identify a specific accused as the author of a particular injury?
- Whether the testimony of an eye-witness who has been discredited as to some co-accused can be relied upon against other co-accused without strong independent corroboration?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn against an accused for declining to make a statement on oath in defense?
- Is it permissible for the prosecution to rely upon the weaknesses of the defense plea to secure a conviction?
- Mumtaz Saleem And 3 Other vs Pakistan TelecommunicationK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 26 · National Industrial Relations Commission · -Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 333 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2430 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Hussain vs Messrs International Building Industries (Pvt.)1993 CLC 523 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali Shaikh vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 532 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali Shaikh and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1919 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two criminal bail applications filed by co-accused Mumtaz Ali Shaikh and Shahid Hussain, who were facing trial before a Special Court under sections 3 and 4 of the Explosives Act. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the primary evidence against one applicant was solely a co-accused's confession, and against the other, a judicial confession surrounded by doubtful circumstances and delayed forensic analysis. The Sindh High Court held that bail should be granted to both applicants. The court laid down the key principles that a confession of a co-accused cannot form the sole basis for conviction or sustain denial of relief without other supportive evidence, and that courts may conduct a tentative assessment of the legality and surrounding circumstances of a judicial confession at the bail stage rather than relying on it unconditionally.
Questions settled- Can the confession of a co-accused serve as the sole basis to deny post-arrest bail to an accused?
- Whether a tentative assessment of the legality of a judicial confession can be made at the bail stage?
- Does the unexplained release of the main accused named in the FIR justify granting bail to a remaining co-accused?
- Mumtaz Ahmed vs Mst. Razia Zaheer1993 CLC 1602 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order of eviction passed against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The original landlord filed the rent case but passed away during its pendency, whereupon the respondent daughter was substituted as a party on the basis of a relinquishment deed executed by other legal heirs. The core legal questions involved whether a transferee or legal representative can continue ejectment proceedings for pre-existing default, whether a letter of administration is mandatory under Muslim Law for inheriting and pursuing rent proceedings, and how the burden of proof operates regarding non-payment of rent. The Sindh High Court held that while a transferee cannot independently claim arrears of rent without an express assignment, a successor or transferee can lawfully continue pending ejectment proceedings commenced by the predecessor. Furthermore, heirs under Muslim Law acquire rights by operation of law without needing letters of administration, and the tenant failed to discharge the burden of proving rent payment. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a transferee or successor continue ejectment proceedings for default commenced by the original landlord?
- Does a Muslim heir require a letter of administration under the Succession Act 1925 to be joined as a party in a rent case?
- Where non-payment of rent is alleged, upon whom does the burden of proof lie when the landlord denies receipt?
- Is a right to recover arrears of rent considered an actionable claim distinct from the right to pursue pending eviction proceedings?
- Mukhtar alias Mokha vs Waryam and others1993 P Cr. L J 865 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ali Khan and 2 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works Islamabad and 2 others1993 CLC 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application was filed before the High Court of Sindh challenging the concurrent findings of the Senior Civil Judge and Fourth Additional District Judge, Karachi, whereby the applicants' plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The dispute concerned the cancellation of a Permanent Transfer Deed regarding a tenement and its subsequent transfer to respondent No. 3. The predecessors-in-interest of the applicants had previously challenged the cancellation through a Constitutional petition, which was dismissed in limine due to laches and the presence of factual questions. Subsequently, the applicants filed a civil suit, where the plaint was rejected on the basis of res judicata. The High Court held that the core controversy had attained finality through the decision in the Constitutional petition, barring re-agitation in a civil suit under the general principles of res judicata. Furthermore, the court held that rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is not strictly confined to the four corners of the plaint when extraneous material demonstrates a bar. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a Constitutional petition bar a subsequent civil suit concerning the same subject matter under the general principles of res judicata?
- Can a court look into material produced in defence beyond the averments of the plaint when considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply where Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply in terms?
- Mukhtar Ali and 3 others vs Sono and another1993 PLD Karachi 342 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Dadu, which directed the applicants—who were placed in column No. 2 of the police challan—to be summoned and tried as co-accused alongside those sent up for trial by the police. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the jurisdiction to summon persons placed in column No. 2 of a challan to face trial without first recording evidence. The Court held that the trial court is fully competent to summon such persons to stand trial upon taking cognizance of the offence, and it is not a legal requirement to record evidence prior to issuing such summons. The Court relied on established precedents confirming that a Magistrate or Sessions Judge takes cognizance of the offence as a whole, rather than only of the specific offenders named in the police report. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision application, finding no illegality or impropriety in the Sessions Judge's order, as the applicants were named in the FIR and implicated by witness statements.
Questions settled- Can a trial court summon persons placed in column 2 of a police challan to stand trial?
- Is it a legal requirement for a trial court to record evidence before summoning an accused person placed in column 2 of a challan?
- Does a trial court take cognizance of the offence as a whole or only of the specific offenders named by the police?
- Mukhtar Ahmed vs The Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1993 MLD 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 904 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad and others vs The State1993 MLD 2255 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad Alias Azhar Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 235 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad alias Azhar Iqbal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1511 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mujeebullah Khan Mohibullah Khan Deceased And Other vs BakhshK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 121 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mujeebullah Khan (Mohibullah Khan) (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Bakhsh Ilahi1993 MLD 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mujahid Ali vs Salamat Ali and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammadan College of Education, Toba Tek Singh through Principal1993 CLC 2528 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Zubair vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1939 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zubair and another vs Saleh Muhammad and 2 others1993 CLC 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a pre-emption suit concerning land sold via a registered sale-deed on June 17, 1979. The plaintiffs filed the suit on June 17, 1980. The petitioners (vendees) challenged the suit as time-barred, arguing that the limitation period expired on June 16, 1980, and that the initial failure to appoint a guardian for minor defendants until after the limitation period rendered the suit defective. The core legal questions were whether the suit was filed within the statutory limitation period and whether the subsequent appointment of a guardian for minor defendants affected the limitation status of the suit. The Court held that, in computing limitation, the first day is excluded, meaning the one-year period expired on June 17, 1980, rendering the filing timely. Furthermore, the Court held that the duty to appoint a guardian for a minor defendant lies with the Court under Order 32, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908; thus, a delay in this appointment does not prejudice the plaintiff, and the proceedings are validated retroactively to the date of filing.
Questions settled- How is the period of limitation calculated when a suit is filed following a registered sale-deed?
- Does the failure to appoint a guardian for a minor defendant at the time of filing a suit render the suit time-barred if the appointment occurs after the limitation period expires?
- Is the plaintiff responsible for the Court's delay in appointing a guardian for a minor defendant under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Muhammad Zaman and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 604 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman and 10 others vs Muhammad Ramzan Khan1993 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the judgment of the District Judge decreeing the respondent's pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the appellant vendees were co-sharers or tenants in the disputed land at the time of the sale, thereby possessing a superior right of pre-emption against the respondent co-owner. The Supreme Court held that the revenue records, including the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, did not support the appellants' claims of being co-sharers or tenants in the specific Khatas sold, and oral testimony could not override the documentary revenue evidence. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower appellate and high courts that the respondent, as a proven co-owner, had a superior right, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the vendees established their status as co-sharers in the joint Khatas based on the revenue record?
- Can oral testimony override the entries in the revenue record regarding tenancy of the disputed land?
- Whether a co-owner has a superior right of pre-emption against vendees who are neither co-owners nor tenants in the disputed Khatas?
- Muhammad Zahid and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 963 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahid And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 6 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yusuf vs M/s. Lucas Services (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi1993 CLC 245 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yusuf vs Mst. Quresha Begum1993 PLD Karachi 502 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Controller allowing a rent application filed under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for the ejectment of the appellant from the disputed flat on the ground of personal requirement due to the respondent's retirement from government service. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent landlady established a bona fide personal need, whether the application was maintainable without joining other co-sharers/legal heirs, and the effect of suppressing the ownership of an adjacent flat. The Sindh High Court held that the respondent failed to establish a bona fide personal requirement and had suppressed material facts regarding the ownership of the adjacent flat, mirroring a previous failed ejectment attempt by her late mother. The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment order was set aside. The key principle laid down is that personal requirement under rent laws must be scrutinized carefully to ensure it is genuine and not a mere wish, and suppression of material facts such as co-ownership of alternative premises vitiates the claim of bona fide need.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal requirement must disclose the ownership of other adjacent premises?
- Can an ejectment application under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 be maintained when the landlady suppresses material facts regarding alternate property?
- Whether a co-owner can unilaterally maintain an ejectment application without joining other legal heirs of the deceased original owner?
- What constitutes sufficient proof of bona fide personal need in rent restriction proceedings?
- Muhammad Yusuf vs Election Tribunal Local Council, District Kotli1993 CLC 460 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1374 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs Sarabevi alias Kaniz Fatima1993 CLC 345 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 752 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah and 5 others1993 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Court addresses a judgment of the Lahore High Court arising from a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for damages for malicious prosecution is maintainable under English common law or Islamic law, the applicable period of limitation, and the survival of liability against the heirs of a deceased tortfeasor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that malicious prosecution of an innocent person is impermissible under Islamic jurisprudence, which forms the applicable residuary law in Pakistan, and that findings of fact showing intentional harassment and malicious prosecution justify an award of damages. The Court further ruled that the residuary Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies, providing a six-year limitation period, and that where a tortfeasor dies after the passing of a decree, the liability survives against his estate in the hands of his heirs proportionate to their inherited shares. The appeals were accordingly dismissed with a modification that the decretal amount is a charge on the estate inherited from the deceased tortfeasor.
Questions settled- Whether the facts and circumstances of the cases gave any cause of action against the tortfeasor for damages for malicious prosecution or for libel?
- Whether any cause of action claiming damages for wrong done to any person survives against the tortfeasor after his death, or conversely survives to the heirs of the person wronged after his death against the tortfeasor?
- Whether a suit for damages can be decided under any other concept of law, apart from English common law, without there being legislation giving it retrospective effect and whether the lis is subject to English Common Law?
- Whether liability accruing out of the present suit can be deemed a charge on the estate of the deceased tortfeasor for which his heirs can be held responsible under the Muslim Law?
- Whether the appeal abated against Gharib Alam as he died in 1975, when there existed no decree against him?
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Bakht Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 8 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-08-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Abdul Majid1993 PLD Lahore 244 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of applications filed by a judgment-debtor seeking to set aside ex parte decrees passed in summary suits for the recovery of loans based on promissory notes. The core legal question was whether the appellant had demonstrated 'special circumstances' under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to justify setting aside the decrees, and whether the summary procedure itself was legally valid. The Court held that the summary procedure under Order 37 is a lawful mechanism designed to prevent debtors from employing delaying tactics and is not discriminatory or un-Islamic. The Court further held that the 'special circumstances' required to set aside a decree under Order 37, Rule 4 must be uncommon, rare, and exceptional, placing a heavy burden of proof on the defendant. As the appellant failed to seek leave to defend within the prescribed time and failed to establish such exceptional circumstances, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the lower court acted lawfully in decreeing the suits.
Questions settled- What constitutes 'special circumstances' for setting aside a decree under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the summary procedure for recovery of loans under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 discriminatory or un-Islamic?
- Can a court decree a suit summarily if the defendant fails to apply for leave to defend within the prescribed period?
- Does a minor clerical error in the amount claimed in a summons invalidate a decree passed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Muhammad Yousaf through his L.Rs. and others vs Noor Din and others1993 MLD 763 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the inheritance of land originally held by Wassan, who died in 1918. The core legal questions were whether Sultan, a brother of Wassan, survived him, thereby entitling his successors to a share in the estate, and whether the suit for declaration and possession was barred by the law of limitation. The Court held that the death entry (Exh.P.7) sufficiently established that Sultan survived Wassan, affirming the lower courts' findings. Regarding limitation, the Court held that the suit for possession was filed within the statutory period. It further clarified that for the purposes of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, a distinction exists between mutation orders passed by authorities competent to decide title (where the cause of action accrues upon the order) and those sanctioned under the Punjab Land Revenue Act for fiscal purposes (where the cause of action accrues when the aggrieved party feels aggrieved by the entry). The Court affirmed that revenue mutations do not decide title and thus do not trigger limitation in the same manner as orders creating rights.
Questions settled- Does a mutation sanctioned under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1967 constitute a document of title or presumptive evidence of title?
- When does the cause of action accrue for a suit challenging a mutation entry sanctioned under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Is a suit for possession of inherited land governed by the same limitation principles as a suit for declaration regarding a mutation order?
- Does a mutation order passed by an authority competent to determine rights trigger the limitation period from the date of the order?
- Muhammad Yousaf Etc vs Hassan RazaK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Nazar Muhammad1993 P Cr. L J 1180 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Hassan Raza1993 PLD Lahore 88 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Allah Yar and others1993 CLC 2337 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and anothers vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 819 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf and another vs Nadimuddin Malik1993 PLD Lahore 101 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction order against tenants who challenged the landlord's title and the validity of a notice under Section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions were whether the transfer of ownership via an oral gift was valid and whether the failure to serve a separate notice under Section 13-A to each of the joint tenants rendered the notice defective. The Court held that the landlord had sufficiently proven the transfer of ownership and that the notice served on one joint tenant was sufficient, as the other tenant had actual knowledge of the change in ownership. Furthermore, the Court held that the institution of an ejectment petition itself serves as notice and that tenants lack the locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift deed between a landlord and their predecessor. Consequently, the Court upheld the eviction order, ruling that the tenants' failure to pay rent to the new owner constituted wilful default, as depositing rent in the name of the previous landlord was invalid.
Questions settled- Is a notice under Section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 defective if served on only one of several joint tenants?
- Does the institution of an ejectment petition by a new owner constitute sufficient notice of the change of ownership under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does a tenant have the locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift deed through which the landlord acquired the property?
- Is the deposit of rent in the name of a previous landlord considered a valid tender of rent after the property has been transferred to a new owner?
- Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others vs Mst. Zubeda Begum and another1993 MLD 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from pre-emption suits that were consolidated and decreed by the trial court. The petitioners filed two separate appeals in the District Court; one was accepted and remanded, while the other was dismissed due to the failure to append copies of the judgment and decree. The petitioners then challenged the dismissal through a revision petition, which is the second such petition filed, the earlier one having been dismissed as withdrawn. The core legal question was whether a second revision petition is maintainable after an earlier one has been withdrawn by the party. The Lahore High Court held that a party has only one right of revision, and once exercised and decided—whether on merits, by consent, default, or withdrawal—no second revision petition can be filed. The Court based its decision on section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, general legal principles regarding estoppel and res judicata, and the applicability of Order XXIII read with section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether a second revision petition is maintainable after an earlier revision petition has been dismissed as withdrawn?
- Does a party have more than one right of revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are the provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to revision proceedings under section 115?
- Whether the withdrawal of a revision petition operates as an estoppel against filing a subsequent revision petition?
- Muhammad Younus vs Secretary, Ministry of Communications and others1993 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which partly allowed the appellant's service appeal by modifying his reduction in rank to a period of five years. The appellant, an Assistant Engineer, was initially subjected to a departmental inquiry, awarded a minor penalty of censure, and subsequently subjected to a fresh inquiry resulting in reduction to a lower post under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. During the pendency of his appeal before the Tribunal, the competent authority fixed the period of reduction to three years, but the Tribunal proceeded on the assumption of an unlimited period and enhanced it to five years. The Supreme Court held that once a departmental case has been disposed of by an authorized officer, it cannot be reopened or reviewed adversely against the civil servant without affording an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and Rule 6-A. Furthermore, the Court held that the Service Tribunal has no legal basis to enhance a penalty imposed by the departmental authority when no aggrieved party has challenged the adequacy of the punishment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.
Questions settled- Can a departmental inquiry be reopened and reviewed against a civil servant without affording an opportunity of hearing?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the power to enhance a penalty imposed by the competent departmental authority?
- Whether an order passed by an authorized officer imposing a minor penalty can be revised without notice to the accused officer.
- Muhammad Younis and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 316 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younis and 2 others vs Muhammad Anwar Latif1993 SCMR 2342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a revision petition for non-prosecution after the appellants' counsel failed to appear due to a conflicting engagement before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the revision petition for non-prosecution when the counsel had filed an adjournment request citing a professional engagement in the Supreme Court, despite the counsel's failure to make alternate arrangements. The Supreme Court held that while counsel are generally expected to make alternate arrangements when unable to attend, courts should exercise a modicum of indulgence when counsel faces unavoidable conflicts on short notice. The Court found that the counsel had acted in good faith given the short notice received for the Supreme Court appearance and that the dismissal was too harsh. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the revision petition. The key principle laid down is that courts should balance the necessity of judicial efficiency with the practical difficulties counsel face in managing conflicting professional engagements, particularly when short notice is involved.
Questions settled- Is a court justified in dismissing a case for non-prosecution when counsel has requested an adjournment due to a conflicting engagement in a higher court?
- Should a court grant indulgence to counsel who fails to make alternate arrangements for a hearing due to short-notice professional commitments?
- Does the failure of a counsel to appear due to a conflicting engagement in the Supreme Court warrant the dismissal of a revision petition in the High Court?
- Muhammad Younas vs The State1993 MLD 381 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younas vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 910 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younas vs Pirzada Ma. Qureshi and others1993 MLD 336 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yasin Tahir vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1993 CLC 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yasin and another vs S.H.O. and another1993 MLD 2253 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yasin and 2 others vs Ch. Muhammad Abdul Aziz1993 PLD Supreme Court 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from an order of the Balochistan High Court concerning the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Courts at Quetta in a suit for the recovery of the price of coal supplied. The core legal question was whether a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Quetta under section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, given that the agreement was made, coal was dispatched from Quetta through a Goods Company, and payment was to be made after receipt at Faisalabad. The Supreme Court held that the supply of coal at Quetta from where it was dispatched constitutes an essential part of the bundle of facts comprising the cause of action, alongside the place of the agreement. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and holding that the Civil Courts at Quetta possess territorial jurisdiction as at least a part of the cause of action accrued there.
Questions settled- Does a part of the cause of action arise at the place where goods are dispatched under a contract of supply?
- Do Civil Courts at Quetta have territorial jurisdiction in a suit for recovery of price of coal supplied from Quetta to Faisalabad?
- Is the place where an agreement is made and goods are dispatched considered an essential part of the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action under section 20(c) of the C.P.C.?
- Muhammad Yaseen vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2222 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaseen vs The State And OtherK.L.R 1993 Criminal Cases 254 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yar and 2 others vs Mst. Sawan Mai and 7 others1993 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a civil suit for declaration regarding land ownership filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which was decreed by the trial Court based on an oath taken on the Holy Qur'an. While certain co-defendants appealed the decree to the Additional District Judge, the present appellants did not appeal and accepted the trial Court's judgment. The Additional District Judge set aside the entire decree and remanded the matter, prompting a revision petition in the High Court by the plaintiffs, which was partly accepted to protect the decree vis-a-vis the appellants whose shares were severable. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that since the appellants had accepted the trial Court's decree and failed to challenge it before the first appellate court, they lacked locus standi to maintain the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a party who accepted the trial court's decree and did not file an appeal have the locus standi to appeal against the High Court's judgment?
- Can an appellate court set aside a trial court decree as a whole when the shares of the defendants are severable and some defendants have accepted the decree?
- Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1993 MLD 2012 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1852 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the offense of Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal questions concern the competency of a child witness to testify and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the completed offense of Zina-bil-Jabr. The Court held that the child witness was competent, as she demonstrated the capacity to understand and rationally answer questions, noting that the term 'tender years' refers to cognitive capacity rather than a specific chronological age. However, regarding the offense, the Court found that medical evidence—specifically the finding that the victim's vagina could not admit a finger—negated the occurrence of full penetration. Consequently, the Court held that penetration is a necessary ingredient for Zina-bil-Jabr, and in its absence, the offense is reduced to an attempt. The conviction was accordingly converted to an attempt to commit Zina under Section 10(3) read with Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
Questions settled- Is a child witness of tender age competent to testify if they demonstrate the capacity to understand and answer questions?
- Does the term 'tender years' in the context of witness competency prescribe a specific age limit?
- Is penetration an essential ingredient for the conviction of Zina-bil-Jabr?
- Can a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr be sustained when medical evidence indicates no penetration occurred?
- Muhammad Yaqub vs Moazzam Khan and others1993 MLD 73 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqub vs Essajee Ebrahimjee & Co. and 4 others1993 CLC 2245 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqub vs Baqir and 2 others1993 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a suit for possession based on the right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. During the pendency of the appeal before the Additional District Judge, the appellant filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the production of additional evidence, which was allowed. Subsequently, a second application for additional evidence was filed but remained undisposed of by the lower appellate court, which proceeded to dismiss the appeal and maintain the trial court's decree. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court's failure to adjudicate upon a pending application for additional evidence vitiated its judgment. The High Court held that it is the mandatory duty of the lower appellate court to decide such applications. Failure to do so constitutes a procedural irregularity resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the lower appellate court with directions to decide the pending application before disposing of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an appellate court to decide a pending application for additional evidence render its judgment liable to be set aside?
- Is it mandatory for a lower appellate court to adjudicate upon an application for additional evidence before deciding the main appeal?
- Muhammad Yaqub Butt Additional Registrar, Lahore High Court vs Government of the Punjab Through Chief Secretary And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 36 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqub and 63 others vs The Province of the Punjab through Home Secretary and another1993 MLD 2419 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil revision petition directed against the concurrent orders of the lower courts whereby the petitioners' plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from forcibly dispossessing them from the property in dispute, which had been transferred to the respondents by the Settlement Authorities. The core legal questions involved were whether the civil courts could look beyond the plaint when considering the rejection of a plaint, and whether the jurisdiction of the civil courts was barred under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that a court may consider material other than the contents of the plaint in deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., and that the civil court's jurisdiction is barred under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act where property has been validly transferred by settlement authorities to persons holding a Permanent Transfer Deed. The key principle laid down is that persons lacking valid title or lawful allotment cannot maintain a civil suit to challenge settlement transfers or restrain their dispossession.
Questions settled- Can a court take into consideration material other than the contents of the plaint while considering the question of rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the civil court have jurisdiction to question a property transfer made by the Settlement Authorities in view of section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?
- Can a trespasser or a person without title file a suit before the civil court to protect unauthorized occupation?
- Whether the High Court can interfere under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when both lower courts have lawfully exercised their jurisdiction in rejecting a plaint?
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 836 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1993 SCMR 2044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The Tehsildar had recommended respondent No. 4, but the Collector appointed the appellant, Muhammad Yaqoob. Following unsuccessful appeals and a revision petition before revenue authorities, respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition, noting that the Collector had failed to properly compare the merits and demerits of the candidates, specifically regarding educational qualifications and criminal history, and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The appellant challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court should not have interfered in the appointment process. During the proceedings, it was highlighted that the appellant was involved in a triple murder case. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the circumstances did not warrant interference with the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Court withdrew the leave to appeal previously granted and dismissed the appeal, effectively upholding the High Court's order for a fresh determination of the appointment.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere in the appointment of a Lambardar under its writ jurisdiction when the appointing authority fails to properly evaluate the merits of the candidates?
- Does the involvement of a candidate in a criminal case constitute a relevant factor for the appointing authority to consider in the selection of a Lambardar?
- Muhammad Yaqoob and 29 others vs Province of Punjab through Collector, District Sargodha and 4 others1993 MLD 918 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a civil revision against an appellate order vacating a stay in a suit concerning irrigation water rights. The core legal questions were whether the suit was maintainable despite previous final adjudications and whether the High Court could dismiss a frivolous suit during revision proceedings. The Court held that the suit was an abuse of the process of law, as the petitioners had repeatedly challenged a 1971 order that had already attained finality. The Court dismissed both the revision petition and the underlying suit, noting that a 'still-born' suit must be buried at its inception. It established the principle that courts possess the inherent power to dismiss frivolous, vexatious litigation to prevent the abuse of judicial process. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that public functionaries must not collude with private parties to frustrate lawful court orders. Consequently, the Court imposed compensatory costs on the petitioners and issued show-cause notices for contempt of court against the petitioners and involved irrigation officials for undermining the authority of the law.
Questions settled- Can a High Court dismiss an incompetent and frivolous suit while deciding a civil revision petition against an interim order?
- Does the principle of res judicata bar a party from filing successive suits to challenge an order that has already attained finality?
- Is a court empowered to dismiss a 'still-born' suit at its inception to prevent the abuse of judicial process?
- Can public functionaries be held liable for contempt for colluding with private parties to frustrate the implementation of a final court order?
- Muhammad Yaq00b vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 79 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaq00b Javed vs Mst. Azra Parveen and another1993 PLD Lahore 339 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaq00b Ichan vs Dalil Khan and 15 others1993 CLC 633 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a suit for a declaration of adverse possession, which the trial and appellate courts had dismissed on the ground of abatement due to the plaintiff's failure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased defendant. The core legal questions were whether a suit abates in its entirety upon the death of a defendant whose share is ascertainable, and whether a plaintiff is obligated to implead the legal representatives of a defendant against whom an ex parte order was already in force. The High Court held that where a deceased party's interest is distinct and ascertainable, the suit does not abate in its entirety but only to the extent of that party's share. Furthermore, the Court ruled that legal representatives of a defendant who was proceeded against ex parte cannot claim a higher procedural status than their predecessor. Consequently, the Court set aside the abatement order and the ex parte order, allowing the legal representatives to file a written statement, thereby emphasizing that procedural rules should advance justice rather than stifle it through technicalities.
Questions settled- Does a suit abate in its entirety upon the death of a defendant whose share in the subject property is distinctly ascertainable?
- Is a plaintiff required to implead the legal representatives of a defendant who was already subject to an ex parte order at the time of their death?
- Can legal representatives of a deceased defendant, who was proceeded against ex parte, claim a higher procedural right than their predecessor?
- Should a trial court decide mixed questions of law and fact as preliminary issues?
- Muhammad Yaq00b and others vs The State and others1993 MLD 1921 · Board of Revenue · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yamin Qureshi vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department, Karachi and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Wasi Qureshi vs Abdul Majeed and another1993 MLD 212 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Warras vs The State1993 MLD 2213 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Waris vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 846 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Walayat and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2122 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1993 MLD 2142 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail vs Mst. Viran Bibi1993 CLC 655 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the tenant, Muhammad Tufail, by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, due to non-compliance with a tentative rent order directing the deposit of arrears at the rate of Rs.300 per month under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could issue a tentative rent order based solely on the unverified oral assertions of the landlady without properly considering the tenant's documentary evidence showing advance payment of rent up to the year 2000. The Lahore High Court held that a Rent Controller is legally bound to make a tentative determination of the rate of rent by applying a judicial mind based on valuable material and rational estimation, rather than acting in a whimsical or arbitrary manner. The Court set aside the lower orders and remanded the case for a fresh, objective determination of the rate of rent.
Questions settled- Is it obligatory for a Rent Controller to make a tentative determination of the rate of rent by application of a judicial mind?
- Can a Rent Controller rely solely on the oral assertions of a landlord while ignoring prima facie documentary evidence produced by a tenant regarding advance payment of rent?
- Does a tenant have the right to challenge the correctness of a tentative pre-trial rent order at the final stage after his defence is struck off?
- What methodology should a Rent Controller adopt to determine tentative rent when no direct documentary evidence is instantly available?
- Muhammad Tariq vs The Directorgeneral Maritime Security Agency1993 SCMR 2302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the termination of the petitioner's services as a Draftsman in BPS-14, initially appointed on a temporary basis. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose temporary post was abolished due to administrative restructuring by the Ministry of Defence, possessed a vested legal right to retain his employment or insist on reinstatement at his original grade after the post was revived at a lower grade (BPS-7). The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal, finding the termination lawful as the appointment was temporary and the underlying post had been abolished. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that a temporary employee appointed against a temporary post holds no legal right to continued employment once that post is abolished. The Court held that the termination was valid and free from legal infirmity, as the petitioner could not demonstrate any entitlement to the position after its abolition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, reinforcing the principle that temporary appointments against temporary posts do not confer permanent rights of tenure.
Questions settled- Does a temporary employee appointed against a temporary post have a legal right to continued employment after the post is abolished?
- Can a temporary employee insist on appointment to a specific grade when the post has been revived at a lower grade?
- Is the termination of a temporary employee lawful when the underlying post is abolished by the competent authority?
- Muhammad Tariq Raza vs Province of Punjab and others1993 MLD 2332 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Taqi vs Lahore Development Authority and others1993 CLC 2533 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tanweer vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1643 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tahir Abid vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sultan vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 512 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Suleman vs The State1993 MLD 506 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Suleman vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2588 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Suleman vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi1993 CLC 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Suleman Dahri vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 726 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application arose from an armed bank dacoity where a security guard was killed, leading to charges under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicant sought post-arrest bail after his application was rejected by the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed to connect the applicant to the offence, or if the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court of Sindh observed that the applicant's name and features were absent from the FIR, natural bank witnesses failed to identify him, and the identifying witnesses were police officials who had custody of him, raising a strong possibility of exposure. Additionally, a telegram sent by an advocate prior to the officially recorded arrest indicated wrongful detention. The Court held that the cumulative circumstances, including a self-exculpatory judicial confession and questionable identification procedures, made the case one of further inquiry. The application was allowed, and bail was granted.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of natural eyewitnesses to identify an accused, coupled with identification only by police officials who had custody of the accused, makes a case fit for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is documentary evidence, such as a prior telegram and habeas corpus petition, suggesting the accused was arrested earlier than the official arrest date?
- Does a self-exculpatory judicial confession that does not implicate the accused or connect him to the crime constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can bail be refused solely on a single incriminating circumstance, such as the ownership of a vehicle allegedly used in a crime, when all other attending circumstances point towards a case of further inquiry?
- Muhammad Siddique vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 159 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique vs Nasir Ali1993 K.L.R. Revenue Cases 165 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Inayat and 4 others1993 CLC 2330 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique through Legal Heirs vs Munshi Khand and another1993 MLD 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique Malik vs Sardar Ghulam Rasool Khan (deceased1993 MLD 450 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique Haider Qureshi vs District Judge, Peshawar and 21993 PLD Supreme Court 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the eviction of a tenant for default in rent payment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the 'first date of hearing' in the proviso to Section 13(2) of the Ordinance, as amended by the N.-W.F.P. Amendment Ordinance, 1972, and whether a tenant who admits liability and pays arrears shortly after the initial appearance is entitled to the benefit of that proviso. The Supreme Court held that the tenant, by acknowledging liability and remitting the rent shortly after the first appearance, satisfied the requirements of the proviso. The Court determined that the Rent Controller was obligated to decide the applicability of the proviso upon the filing of the written statement. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had restored the Rent Controller's order dismissing the eviction petition, ruling that the appellate authority had erred in overturning the Rent Controller's findings. The principle established is that the benefit of the proviso to Section 13(2) is available to a tenant who acknowledges liability and demonstrates willingness to pay, even if payment is not made on the exact first date of appearance.
Questions settled- What is the precise meaning of the 'first date of hearing' within the context of the proviso to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is a tenant entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, if they acknowledge liability and pay rent shortly after their first appearance?
- Can the High Court interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction with a finding of an appellate authority regarding rent eviction?
- Muhammad Siddique and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 978 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique and another vs L.D A. and others1993 CLC 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique and 2 others vs Faqirmuhammad and another1993 CLC 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from a civil revision petition filed before the Lahore High Court against concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the lower courts, which had decreed respondent No. 1's suit for possession of disputed land on the ground of non-redemption within sixty years, while ignoring an earlier order of restitution and related mutation. The core legal questions involved whether a review petition is incompetent if copies of the judgment and decree are not annexed, and whether courts are bound to consider material documents present on the record even if not formally exhibited. The Lahore High Court held that copies of judgments or decrees need not necessarily be annexed to a review petition, and that the failure of lower courts to notice and read a material document (Mutation No. 2018) already placed on record constituted non-reading of evidence and grave jurisdictional irregularity. The Court laid down the principle that procedural technicalities and a party's failure to formally exhibit a document should not obstruct the administration of justice where such material is necessary for a just decision, and that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised to undo a miscarriage of justice caused by oversight of vital record evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition is legally incompetent solely due to the non-annexation of copies of the impugned judgment and decree?
- Does the failure of a trial or appellate court to consider a material document present on the record, merely because it was not formally exhibited, constitute non-reading of evidence?
- Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside judgments suffering from grave procedural irregularities and miscarriage of justice?
- Whether an order of restitution passed by a Collector under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 attains finality if its validity is not challenged in a regular suit?