Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Akram and 2 others vs Lahore Development Authority1993 MLD 790 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram alias Baba vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1993 MLD 370 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar and others vs The State1993 MLD 1382 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar and 2 others vs The State1993 MLD 1368 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Shah Zaman And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 108 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1309 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Nazar Muhammad and others1993 P Cr. L J 2578 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Munif vs Government of Sindh through Chief1993 CLC 2213 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs Government of Sindh, through Chief1993 MLD 14 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 241 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adam and 2 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 504 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-03
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processcriminal original applicationfalse implicationcustody disputeinconsistent statementsharassment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application moved under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of direct complaint Case No. 594 of 1990 pending before the Additional City Magistrate No. III, Central, Karachi, for offences under sections 452, 454, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants amounts to an abuse of the process of the court, given that the complainant named three different sets of accused persons on three separate occasions and shifted the date of the incident. The Sindh High Court held that the criminal proceedings were instituted falsely out of a dispute over the custody of a minor child and would result in unnecessary harassment without any likelihood of conviction. The court established the principle that where a complainant repeatedly changes the version of events, substitutes accused persons, and uses criminal proceedings as a pressure tactic to settle custody disputes, allowing such proceedings to continue constitutes an abuse of the process of the court warranting quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the institution of a criminal complaint with inconsistent statements and multiple versions regarding the accused constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is no likelihood of the accused being convicted?
  • Whether criminal proceedings initiated primarily to exert pressure in a civil or custody dispute can be allowed to continue?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2314 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2616 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Khaliq Saddiqi and others vs Settlement1993 CLC 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 607 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Syed Muhammad Mehdi Zaidi1993 CLC 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamir vs The State1993 MLD 2336 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamir and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 47 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhamma D Siddiq vs Rashid Alam1993 MLD 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhamamd Yasin and 3 others vs Akram and 7 others1993 CLC 169 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ahmad vs Subregistrar, District Courts, Faisalabad and 41993 CLC 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18
  registration of gift deedtransfer of immovable property taxPunjab Local Government Ordinancetaxing provision strict constructionregistering officer powerswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of twenty-one writ petitions raising a common question of law as to whether a registering officer under the Registration Act, 1908, can refuse to register a gift deed due to non-payment of the property tax levied under section 137 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Ordinance and the Punjab Local Councils (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 4 which refers to the registration of a sale-deed. The core legal question was whether Rule 4 applies to transfers by way of gift or is restricted to sales. The court held that since taxing provisions must be strictly construed and Rule 4 specifically mentions the registration of a sale-deed, it does not apply to gift deeds. Consequently, the court ruled that a registering officer cannot decline to register a gift deed for non-payment of this specific transfer tax, declaring such refusal to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a registering officer acting under the Registration Act, 1908, can decline to register a gift deed without payment of the property tax levied under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does Rule 4 of the Punjab Local Councils (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1981 apply to transfers of immovable property by way of gift or only to sales?
  • How should a taxing provision be construed when it is open to two reasonably possible interpretations?
  Read full judgment →
• Mt Jhammad Nasir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 212 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• Mst.Naz Bibi vs Abdul Wahab1993 CLC 1183 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst.Khurshid Begum, vs Haji Pir Abbas Khan1993 CLC 1962 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zulekha and 8 others vs Zikrur Rehman1993 MLD 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida vs Supreme Appellate Court, Lahore and others1993 SCMR 1951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-27
  leave to appealconstitutional petitionspecial court for speedy trialssupreme appellate courtjurisdiction oustercriminal murder casetransfer of case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a complainant in a criminal murder case, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of her Constitution petition by the Lahore High Court, which had declined to grant discretionary relief. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of a constitutional petition challenging the transfer and proceedings of a criminal case before a Special Court and Supreme Appellate Court in light of constitutional bars on jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that in view of clause (8) of Article 212-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, no court shall exercise any jurisdiction whatsoever in relation to proceedings, orders, or sentences passed by a Special Court or Supreme Appellate Court except as provided by the relevant law. The key principle laid down is that the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212-B(8) is absolute regarding proceedings of Special Courts, and objections thereto must be raised before the Special Court itself rather than through constitutional petitions under Article 199.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212-B(8) of the Constitution bar a High Court from entertaining a Constitution petition against the proceedings of a Special Court?
  • Where must a party raise objections regarding the transfer of a criminal case to a Special Court for Speedy Trials?
  • Whether discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution is available against orders passed by a Supreme Appellate Court constituted under Article 212-B?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Bibi vs Mst. Hashmat Bibi and 2 others1993 SCMR 1882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-31
  specific performanceamendment of plaintagreement to sellsuit for declarationnature of suitremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a suit for declaration of ownership regarding land, based on an agreement to sell executed by the respondent's attorney. The appellant paid a substantial portion of the consideration, but the respondent subsequently gifted the land to her husband and repudiated the agreement. The trial court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court and the High Court dismissed it, holding that the suit was improperly framed as one for declaration rather than for specific performance of the agreement. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant sought leave to amend the plaint to include a prayer for specific performance. The Supreme Court observed that the proposed amendment relied entirely on facts already pleaded and would not alter the nature of the suit. Consequently, the Court allowed the amendment, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision. The judgment affirms the principle that amendments to pleadings should be permitted when they do not change the nature of the suit and are based on existing assertions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff amend a plaint to seek specific performance in a suit originally filed for declaration of ownership?
  • Does an amendment to a plaint that relies on facts already pleaded change the nature of the suit?
  • Is a suit for declaration maintainable when the appropriate remedy is specific performance of an agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Alam vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1450 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeenat Bibi vs Naseer Ahmad and others1993 CLC 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina vs Additional District Judge, Jhang and 2 others1993 MLD 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab vs Majeed Ali and another1993 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-02
  specific performancesale agreementappraisal of evidenceattesting witnessesburden of proofpreponderance of evidencecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had maintained the dismissal of the appellant's suit for specific performance of contract concerning agricultural land. The core legal question revolved around whether the first and second appellate courts properly appraised the evidence on record and whether the reversal of the trial court's decree for specific performance was validly founded on minor contradictions in the testimony of attesting witnesses after a lapse of nearly 15 years. The Supreme Court held that the lower appellate courts erred in setting aside the trial court's judgment based on minor and understandable discrepancies in the testimony of attesting witnesses and by ignoring crucial supporting evidence, such as the possession of title documents by the appellant and the execution of a registered sale-deed by a co-vendor. The Court established that civil matters must be decided on the preponderance of the entire evidence on record and that minor variations in testimony after a long passage of time do not vitiate an otherwise proved transaction, though no decree can be passed against a non-party co-sharer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of attesting witnesses examined after a long passage of time are sufficient to discard an otherwise proved agreement to sell?
  • Does a plaintiff succeed on the basis of the preponderance of the entire evidence on record once both parties have led evidence?
  • Can a decree for specific performance be granted against a co-sharer who was not a party to the agreement to sell?
  • What is the evidentiary significance of title documents remaining in the possession of the vendee in a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Bibi vs Sardar and another1993 PLD Lahore 213 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahran vs Umar Draz and others1993 CLC 907 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22
  custody of minorwelfare of minorguardianshipstepmothermaintenance of minorconstitutional petitionhizanat
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, wherein the respondent father sought custody of his minor son, aged ten. The lower courts granted custody to the father, relying primarily on the presumption under Muslim Personal Law that a father is entitled to custody of a male child over seven years of age. The petitioner mother challenged these orders. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, declaring the lower courts' orders to be without lawful authority. The Court held that the paramount and overriding consideration in custody disputes is the welfare of the minor, which outweighs any statutory or personal law presumptions. The Court observed that the father had failed to maintain the child, defied a maintenance order, showed indifference, and remarried. Forcing the minor to live with a stepmother against his expressed preference was deemed contrary to his welfare.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the father's right to custody under Muslim Personal Law overrides the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor?
  • Does a father's failure to provide maintenance to his minor child, despite a court order, constitute a relevant factor in determining custody?
  • What is the legal significance of a minor's expressed preference regarding custody once they have attained the age of discretion?
  • Does the remarriage of a father and the presence of a stepmother affect the determination of the welfare of the minor in custody proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Kiani and anothers vs Capt. (Rtd.) Shahid Ali Khan1993 SCMR 2303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-02
  custody of minorguardianshipwelfare of minorterritorial jurisdictionframing of issuesvisitation rightsremarriage of mother
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a constitutional petition challenging the concurrent findings of the Guardian Court and the appellate Court, which had granted custody of an eleven-and-a-half-year-old minor son to his father (the respondent) under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The petitioners contended that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction, failed to frame a specific issue on jurisdiction, and that custody with the father was not in the minor's welfare since the mother had remarried while the father remained unmarried. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the failure to frame a specific issue on jurisdiction caused no prejudice, as the trial court extensively addressed the objection based on the evidence, and the petitioners had consistently avoided producing evidence. The Court affirmed that while Muslim Personal Law entitles the father to custody, the paramount consideration remains the welfare of the minor. Given the mother's remarriage and the concurrent findings of the courts below, the Court upheld the custody award, while regulating visitation rights for the mother.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a Guardian Court to frame a specific issue on territorial jurisdiction vitiate its proceedings if the court otherwise addresses the objection in its judgment based on the evidence?
  • Whether the entitlement of a father to custody under Muslim Personal Law is absolute, or remains subject to the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor?
  • Can a mother's remarriage to a stranger who has children from a previous marriage be considered a relevant factor in determining the welfare of the minor in custody disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida and another vs Capt, (Rtd.) Shahid Ali Khan1993 CLC 2116 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-04
  custody of minorhizanatwelfare of minorremarriage of motherconstitutional petitionguardianshipterritorial jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent orders of the Guardian Judge and the Additional District Judge directing the restoration of the custody of an eleven-and-a-half-year-old minor son to his natural father, the respondent. The core legal questions involved the legality of closing the petitioner-mother's evidence, the requirement of framing an issue regarding territorial jurisdiction, and the welfare of the minor in light of the mother's remarriage to a stranger and the minor's registration under a false parentage in school records. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the welfare of a grown-up male minor lies in the custody of his real father under Islamic law (Hizanat), particularly when living with a step-father creates future complications and violates injunctions against attributing false parentage. The Court held that the trial court's discretion in closing evidence after repeated adjournments was justified, and technicalities regarding jurisdiction do not vitiate concurrent findings of special tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the welfare of a grown-up male minor of eleven and a half years lies in the custody of his natural father rather than his mother who has remarried a stranger?
  • Does the mother's act of registering the minor under a step-father's name in school records affect the custody determination?
  • Whether the trial court is justified in closing the evidence of a party after granting multiple opportunities for adjournment in guardianship proceedings?
  • Does the non-framing of an issue regarding territorial jurisdiction vitiate proceedings where the material facts are admitted in the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran vs Ranjha1993 SCMR 1557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-05
  adverse possessionlimitationland mutationcustomary lawcivil suitlimited ownerdeclaration of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute over land ownership following the death of the last male holder, Rakhu, in 1939. The respondent, Ranjha, challenged the appellant's, Mst. Waziran's, title to specific land Khatas, arguing against her claim of ownership. The trial court and the District Judge initially dismissed the respondent's suit, finding it time-barred and ruling that the appellant had perfected her title through adverse possession. The Lahore High Court, in a Regular Second Appeal, reversed these findings, concluding that the suit was not time-barred. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the mutation records and possession history. The Court held that the mutation in 1943, which excluded the respondent, provided a clear cause of action. Furthermore, the Court determined that the appellant's limited interest in the property, held in lieu of maintenance, terminated upon her marriage, and her subsequent open, adverse possession for over twelve years perfected her title. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's suit, affirming the principle that long-standing adverse possession and the expiration of limitation periods bar such claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mutation entry excluding a claimant provide a valid cause of action for a declaratory suit?
  • Can a limited owner's interest in property held for maintenance terminate upon marriage?
  • Does open and adverse possession for more than twelve years perfect title against a rightful owner?
  • Is a suit for declaration of ownership barred by limitation if filed decades after the cause of action arose?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waheeda Khanum vs Ghulam Hussain1993 PLD Karachi 171 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umri vs Muhammad Boota and others1993 MLD 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07
  limited estatecustomary lawadverse possessionsuit for possessionlimitationwidow's maintenancemutation of gift
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision concerns a dispute over agricultural land inherited by a widow under customary law. The core legal question was whether the widow, Mst. Umri, held the land as a full owner or merely as a limited estate holder for maintenance, thereby affecting the validity of a gift mutation she executed in favor of the petitioners. The court held that the widow, belonging to an agriculturist Jat family, held the land as a limited estate holder under customary law, which terminated upon the enforcement of relevant legislation. Consequently, she lacked the authority to alienate the property via gift. The court further held that a suit for possession by an heir against a limited estate holder is governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908, not Article 14, and that the plea of adverse possession is barred by Section 4 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act 1975. The judgment affirms that mutation entries do not create title and that an heir's right to possession accrues upon the termination of the limited estate.

  Questions settled

  • Does a widow holding land for maintenance under customary law possess the authority to alienate that property through a gift?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a suit for possession filed by an heir against a limited estate holder?
  • Can a person claiming title through a mutation of gift plead adverse possession against the lawful heir of the last male holder?
  • Do mutation entries in revenue records create title to property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umatullah and anothers vs Maqbool Hussain and 4 others1993 MLD 247 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tauqeer Jehan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1886 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran Bibi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2376 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughrabai vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 477 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughra Bibi vs Additional Deputy Commissioner and others1993 SCMR 1312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-26
  displaced personsland allotmentclaim verificationbona fide purchaserfinality of ordersres judicatasettlement authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment upholding the cancellation of land allotments originally granted to displaced persons. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner could validly cancel an allotment that had previously been verified, reviewed, and upheld by the High Court, particularly when the appellants were bona fide purchasers for value. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation was legally unjustified. It found that the claim of the predecessor-in-interest, Dawood Khan, had already been subjected to scrutiny and attained finality through previous administrative and judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that once a claim verification order has been reviewed and upheld by the High Court, it cannot be reopened or interfered with by subordinate authorities on the same grounds. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned cancellation order and the High Court's judgment, affirming the validity of the original allotments and protecting the rights of the subsequent purchasers.

  Questions settled

  • Can an allotment of land be cancelled by settlement authorities after the underlying claim verification has been upheld by the High Court?
  • Does a review application filed after the statutory target date for challenging claim verification orders remain competent?
  • Can settlement authorities reopen a claim verification matter on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation once the verification order has attained finality?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sookhi and others vs The Punjab Province and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 129 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sobia Hanif vs The Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Lahore1993 CLC 2073 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-10
  stamp dutyvaluation tableurban land valuationnotifiedofficial gazetteexcessive delegationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of several constitutional petitions involving a common controversy regarding the demand for ad valorem stamp duty by the Sub-Registrar, Lahore, based on a valuation table prepared by the Collector under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioners challenged the validity of the valuation table, contending inter alia that it was neither notified nor published in the official Gazette and lacked legal effect. The Lahore High Court examined the import of the word 'notified' under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, read with section 2(41) of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956, and held that the use of the word 'notified' requires the contents of the valuation table to be made known to the general public, necessitating publication in the official Gazette or through recognized public modes of notification. Since the respondents failed to produce any record showing that the valuation table was ever published or brought to the notice of the public, the court ruled that the unnotified valuation table is of no legal effect. The petitions were accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a valuation table prepared by the Collector under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 requires publication to be legally effective?
  • Does the use of the term 'notified' in section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 necessitate publication in the official Gazette?
  • What is the legal effect of a valuation table that has not been brought to the notice of the public or published in the official Gazette?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Siddiqan and another vs Muhammad Ibrahim and another1993 MLD 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-07
  Parda-observing ladyilliterate executantpower of attorneyburden of proofundue influencesecond appealfraudulent transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arose from a dispute regarding a registered sale deed executed by an attorney on behalf of two illiterate, Parda-observing ladies. The appellants challenged the sale, alleging the underlying special power of attorney was fabricated and fraudulent. The core legal question was whether the respondents, as beneficiaries of the transaction, discharged the burden of proving that the ladies, being illiterate and Parda-observing, fully understood the nature and contents of the power of attorney before executing it. The Court held that the respondents failed to provide cogent evidence of such understanding, rendering the document invalid under Section 16 of the Contract Act 1872. Furthermore, the Court found the evidence presented by the respondents to be contradictory and mutually destructive. Consequently, the Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment, restored the trial court's decree in favor of the appellants, and affirmed the principle that beneficiaries of transactions involving Parda-observing women must affirmatively prove the executant's informed consent and comprehension of the document’s implications.

  Questions settled

  • What is the burden of proof on a beneficiary when a document is executed by an illiterate or Parda-observing lady?
  • Can a second appellate court interfere with a finding of fact by a first appellate court if the finding is based on misread or contradictory evidence?
  • Does the mere execution of a power of attorney by an illiterate Parda-observing lady satisfy the requirements of the Contract Act 1872 without proof of understanding?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shero Begum vs Abdul Qayyum Khan and another1993 CLC 2299 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shero Begum vs Abdul Qayyum Khan and another1993 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 34 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Munawar Din and 2 others1993 PLD Lahore 559 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16
  guardianship proceedingschild custodylimitation periodcertified copieswelfare of minorwrit jurisdictionappellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two consolidated writ petitions arising from guardianship proceedings concerning the custody of three minor children. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court correctly dismissed an appeal as time-barred by failing to apply the amended provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding the calculation of the time requisite for obtaining certified copies. The High Court held that the appellate court failed to consider the statutory amendment requiring that the period for obtaining copies must be calculated based on the date of delivery, provided the applicant was duly intimated of the preparation date. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside as being without lawful authority. The Court established the principle that the time requisite for obtaining certified copies for limitation purposes must be calculated from the date of application until the date of delivery, and that related appeals arising from the same evidence and subject matter must be adjudicated together to ensure a consistent and judicious determination of the minors' welfare, which remains the paramount consideration in custody disputes.

  Questions settled

  • How is the time requisite for obtaining certified copies calculated for the purpose of limitation under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the failure of a lower appellate court to consider statutory amendments regarding the calculation of limitation periods render its order without lawful authority?
  • Should appeals arising from the same guardianship proceedings and based on identical evidence be decided together?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in determining custody disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Nasim Bibi and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2508 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar . vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab and 21993 MLD 713 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Aichtar vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab and 21993 MLD 713 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shakooran vs Abdul Rashid through his L.Ts. and another1993 CLC 1270 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shafqat Bibi vs S.H.O., Saddar Police Station, Sargodha and 31993 MLD 1408 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabeona Per Veen vs M/s. Defence Officers, Housing Society1993 CLC 2523 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-27
  rejection of plaintcivil revisionjurisdictiondeclaration and injunctionmaterial irregularityvaluation of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Petition challenged the concurrent orders of the lower courts, which had returned the petitioner's plaint for lack of jurisdiction in a suit for declaration and injunction regarding a plot of land. The petitioner had sued the respondent, a housing society, after the cancellation of the allotment of a plot she claimed to have purchased. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its power to return the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on jurisdictional objections raised after the written statement had already been filed. The High Court held that the lower courts erred by failing to apply their minds to the legal requirements for rejecting a plaint. The Court emphasized that for rejection under Order VII, Rule 11, the plaint itself must be barred by law based on its own averments, and that defenses regarding valuation and maintainability should be addressed during the trial rather than as grounds for summary rejection. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the suit was remanded for adjudication on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on defenses raised in a written statement?
  • Must the court accept all allegations in a plaint as true when considering an application for rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is the lack of valuation or maintainability a valid ground for the summary rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabana Chaudhary vs Station House Officer, Police Station1993 PLD Lahore 416 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04
  quashment of FIRinherent powers of High Courtabuse of processcivil nature of disputecriminal breach of trustcheatingmala fide prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of FIR No. 75/91, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging fraud and misappropriation. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature and previous investigations by the Federal Investigation Agency had already resolved the matter. The Court held that the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law, noting that the allegations were vague, lacked specific details, and that the petitioner had been implicated only in the latest complaint despite earlier inquiries finding the matter civil. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR. The key principle laid down is that the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings if the prosecution is launched for improper motives, to harass the accused, or if the dispute is civil in nature, rendering the continuation of the trial an abuse of the court's process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings even if the petitioner could have approached the trial court under Section 249-A?
  • Are the powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 co-extensive with the powers of the trial court under Section 249-A and Section 265-K?
  • Does a dispute that has been previously investigated and settled as a civil matter justify the quashment of a subsequent criminal FIR based on the same allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwat Ara and 3 others vs Mst. Sabra Khatoon1993 CLC 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-20
  Civil revisionLimitation ActSplitting of claimsOrder II Rule 2 CPCUnregistered sale deedCollateral purposeProperty disputeDismissal for non-prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an appellate decision regarding a property dispute involving a plot of land in Karachi. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent’s suit was time-barred under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908, and whether it was barred by the principles of Order II Rule 2, and Order IX Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to the respondent’s failure to seek possession in a prior suit that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court held that the suit was indeed time-barred, as the cause of action arose in 1959, and was further barred by the prohibition against splitting claims and re-litigating matters dismissed for default. Additionally, the Court affirmed that an unregistered sale deed is admissible for collateral purposes to prove possession. The High Court ultimately set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the applicants, establishing that legal pleas can be raised at any stage and that plaintiffs must include all claims arising from a single cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a legal plea regarding limitation be raised at any stage of the proceedings?
  • Does the dismissal of a prior suit for non-prosecution bar a subsequent suit on the same cause of action under Order IX Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a plaintiff barred from filing a subsequent suit for possession if they omitted to seek that relief in a previous suit arising from the same cause of action?
  • Can an unregistered sale deed be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran Bibi vs TM Din1993 PLD Lahore 411 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07
  gift deeddelivery of possessionIslamic lawrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingsfraud and misrepresentationimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had declared a gift deed executed by the respondent in favour of his daughter, the petitioner, to be fake, fictitious, and invalid. The core legal questions were whether the execution of the gift deed was proven and whether the essential requirement of delivery of possession under Islamic law had been satisfied. The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, finding that the petitioner failed to prove the genuineness of the gift deed, which contained suspicious misstatements regarding the donor's family. Furthermore, the Court held that the gift was invalid due to the non-delivery of possession. It affirmed the principle that for a gift of immovable property, the donor must physically part with possession or, if the land is in the possession of tenants, direct the tenants to attorn to the donee. As neither occurred, the gift was incomplete and legally ineffective. The Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a gift of immovable property complete without the physical delivery of possession or the attornment of tenants to the donee?
  • Does the mere recital of delivery of possession in a gift deed constitute sufficient proof of actual delivery?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift in its revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others vs Adc (C) and others1993 CLC 1112 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran Begum vs Muhammad Fazil and another1993 CLC 2303 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-06-15
  ex parte decreesubstituted serviceservice of summonslimitation perioddate of knowledgecivil procedurepower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the District Judge maintaining an ex parte decree passed by the Additional Sub-Judge in a suit for declaration regarding a forged power of attorney and gift deed. The core legal questions involved whether due service of summons was effected on the defendant-appellant and how limitation is computed for filing a first appeal against an ex parte decree where service is disputed. The High Court held that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions governing service of summons, including examining the process-server under oath and recording requisite satisfaction before ordering substituted service, rendering the service defective and invalid. Consequently, the Court held that limitation for filing the appeal runs from the date of knowledge rather than the date of the decree, in accordance with Article 164 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was accepted, the ex parte decree and appellate order were set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that an order for substituted service cannot be sustained without prior judicial satisfaction regarding the avoidance of service, and in the absence of valid service, limitation commences from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order for substituted service is valid without the Court recording prior satisfaction that the defendant is avoiding service?
  • Does the failure of the Court to examine the process-server under oath invalidate the service of summons?
  • When does the limitation period for filing an appeal against an ex parte decree commence if due service is not proved?
  • What is the effect of an unrebutted affidavit regarding the date of knowledge of an ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum vs Muhammad Anwar Shah and others1993 SCMR 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-13
  impleading partieslegal representativescivil procedurelimitationinadvertent omissionabatement of suitamendment of proceedingsdiscretionary powerprocedural technicalitieslis pendens
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of an application to implead legal representatives of deceased parties in an appeal, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal itself, by the Lahore High Court and Additional District Judge. The core legal questions revolved around whether the power to bring inadvertently omitted legal representatives on record in an appeal, even after the limitation period, vested in the Court under Order XLI, Rule 20 and Section 153, C.P.C., and if such an omission justified the appeal's dismissal. The Supreme Court held that there is a marked distinction between adding a new party and bringing on record legal representatives of a deceased party. It ruled that the power under Order XLI, Rule 20, read with Section 153, C.P.C., allows for the impleading of legal representatives, even if the application is made after the limitation period, particularly when the omission was inadvertent and the legal representatives were already on record in the original suit. The Court emphasized that procedural laws are intended to foster justice, not defeat it, and allowed the appeal subject to payment of costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court exercise its power under Order XLI, Rule 20, read with Section 153, C.P.C., to implead legal representatives of deceased parties in an appeal, even if the application is made after the limitation period?
  • Is there a distinction between adding or substituting a new party and bringing on record legal representatives of a deceased party for the purpose of limitation?
  • Does Section 22 of the Limitation Act apply when bringing on record legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or defendant under Order XXII, C.P.C.?
  • Does a suit abate due to the omission to bring legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or defendant on record after the enforcement of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum and others vs Bashir Ahmad and others1993 MLD 2454 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02
  ex parte decreefraud and misrepresentationpleading particulars of fraudadverse possessiongift of landservice of summonsinheritance shares
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment and decree which had set aside the trial court's judgment decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for a declaration and setting aside an earlier ex parte decree. The original dispute arose when respondent No. 1 obtained an ex parte decree declaring himself the owner of the disputed land through an alleged gift and adverse possession, subsequently causing mutations to be sanctioned. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of the original owner, filed a suit alleging that the ex parte decree was obtained through fraud, collusion, and misrepresentation without valid service of summons. The core legal questions involved whether the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded fraud under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, whether the previous ex parte decree was vitiated by fraud, and whether the alleged gift was established. The court held that the pleadings adequately detailed the fraud, that the ex parte decree was indeed procured fraudulently through fabricated service of summons and collusion, and that the oral evidence regarding the gift was unreliable. The revision petition was accepted, restoring the trial court's decision in modified form.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a separate suit to set aside an ex parte decree on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation is maintainable alongside remedies under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What constitutes sufficient pleading of particulars of fraud under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether non-service of summons coupled with collusive acts in obtaining an ex parte decree amounts to fraud sufficient to vitiate the decree?
  • Can a party rely solely on uncorroborated and discrepant oral evidence to establish a gift of land against entries in the revenue record?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sara Bai vs Godhra Muslim Association and another1993 PLD Karachi 496 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saleeman vs Muhammad Aslam and others1993 CLC 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajidah Parveen vs Ubaid Ullah Khan and another1993 PLD Lahore 362 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Begum vs Syeda Ummerubab1993 CLC 500 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Begum vs Taj Din and 2 others1993 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-06
  regular second appealcertified copydispensation of certified copyprocedural technicalityinherent powersremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Regular Second Appeal as incompetent under Order 42, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the non-production of a certified copy of the impugned judgment. The core legal question is whether an appeal can be dismissed on such a technical ground when an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for dispensing with the certified copy remained undecided by the High Court and the original record had already been summoned to the court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without passing an order on the pending dispensation application, particularly when the original record was already available before the court. The ratio laid down is that while filing a certified copy in a second appeal is mandatory, the High Court possesses discretionary power to dispense with this requirement, and a litigant should not suffer due to the court's omission to pass orders on an application for dispensation when the original record is accessible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Regular Second Appeal be dismissed solely for non-production of a certified copy of the judgment when an application for its dispensation is pending?
  • Whether the High Court has the discretionary power to dispense with the production of a certified copy of a judgment in a second appeal?
  • Does the requisitioning of the original record by the appellate court justify the non-production of a certified copy by the appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Begum vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 4 others1993 MLD 2096 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Fatima vs G. Nizamuddin Jami and 3 others1993 PLD Karachi 473 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-03
  Share certificatesPledge of sharesBank liabilityGuarantorMisappropriation of sharesOverdraft facilityAppeal against decreeReturn of securities
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a trial court's judgment and decree, which had decreed the appellant's suit for the return of share certificates or their value against respondent No. 1 only, dismissing it against the bank (respondent No. 2) and others. The core legal question was whether respondent No. 2 bank was justified in utilizing the appellant's share certificates as security for a loan to respondent No. 1 and subsequently selling them, and whether the appellant had acted as a guarantor for respondent No. 1's loan. The High Court found that the appellant had delivered the shares for an overdraft facility for her husband, not as security for respondent No. 1's firm, and that no valid guarantee existed. The court held that respondent No. 2 had no right to utilize or dispose of the appellant's shares for respondent No. 1's loan, nor to hand over remaining certificates to respondent No. 1. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed against respondent No. 2 bank as well, establishing that a bank cannot unilaterally appropriate a third party's securities for a different loan without explicit authorization or a valid pledge.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bank utilize a third party's share certificates, submitted for a specific purpose, as security for a loan to another party without explicit authorization?
  • Is a bank justified in disposing of a third party's shares to recover a loan from another individual without proof of a valid pledge or guarantee from the owner?
  • What is the duty of a bank regarding the return of share certificates when an intended loan facility is cancelled and no valid pledge is established?
  • Can a trial court's finding that a bank is not responsible for the misappropriation of shares be overturned on appeal if the bank acted without proper authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Bano vs Abdul Aziz1993 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabra Rehmatullah vs Haji Jamaluddin1993 MLD 1815 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabira Begum vs Hakim Muhammad Akhtar and another1993 MLD 955 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Ansar and 2 others vs Mst. Raeesa Khatoon1993 MLD 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana and others vs Muhammad Ilyas and others1993 CLC 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-25
  auction saleexecution of decreepartition suitobjection petitionmaterial irregularitycivil revisionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a suit for partition and possession of a house, where a preliminary decree was passed and the property was subsequently auctioned. The respondents filed an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenging the auction proceedings on grounds of irregularity and fraud. The trial court dismissed the objection petition solely because the respondents failed to deposit 20% of the auction price. On appeal, the lower appellate court set aside this order and remanded the case, prompting the current revision. The core legal question was whether an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, can be dismissed for non-deposit of the 20% auction money without a prior court direction to do so. The High Court held that the proviso to Rule 90 requires the court to first issue a specific direction regarding the deposit amount. Absent such a direction, the court cannot dismiss the petition for non-compliance. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the necessity of a judicial order before the deposit requirement is enforced.

  Questions settled

  • Can an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed for non-deposit of the 20% auction money without a prior court order directing such deposit?
  • Is it mandatory for an executing court to specify the amount of deposit required under the second proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before rejecting an objection petition?
  • Does the failure to deposit 20% of the auction price automatically invalidate an objection petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana alias Shabana vs Rana Muhammad Tauhid and 3 others1993 P Cr. L J 1837 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rooh Afza vs Sher Aman Khan and others1993 PLD Peshawar 49 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-11-28
  minorguardian ad litemex parte decreecivil revisionadverse interestremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil revision petition arising from a suit for property originally filed in 1983 before the Civil Judge, Swabi, wherein minor defendants were unrepresented and improperly placed ex parte after their mother and proposed guardian failed to appear. The core legal question is whether a minor defendant or respondent can be placed ex parte and whether a decree passed against an unrepresented minor is valid. The Peshawar High Court held that a minor cannot be placed ex parte under any circumstances, and a decree passed against an unrepresented minor is a nullity, void, and without jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a minor must be continuously and properly represented by a qualified guardian ad litem who has no adverse interest, failing which the court lacks jurisdiction over the minor, necessitating a fresh trial upon remand.

  Questions settled

  • Can a minor defendant or respondent be placed ex parte if the proposed guardian does not turn up?
  • What is the legal status of a decree passed against an unrepresented minor?
  • What procedure must a court follow when a proposed guardian fails to appear or declines consent to represent a minor?
  • Is a mother disqualified from acting as a guardian ad litem if she has an interest adverse to her minor children?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Robina and anothers vs Ijaz Hussain Kazmi and others1993 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-07
  Pre-emption suitPre-emption moneyConditional decreeDeposit of moneyAppeal dismissalLeave to appealSuspension of orderDiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the appellants' decree was conditional upon depositing pre-emption money by a specific date, failing which the suit would be dismissed. Their subsequent appeal and civil revision were dismissed. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court on the assumption that the Additional District Judge, in the first appeal, had not applied his mind to the appellants' request for an extension of the deposit period or suspension of the order. However, the respondent's counsel pointed out that the Additional District Judge had, in fact, considered the application for suspension and, while admitting the appeal, only restrained the respondents from drawing the pre-emption money if deposited, without suspending the deposit requirement itself. The Supreme Court found that the Additional District Judge had applied his mind, contrary to the premise for granting leave. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as the ground for granting leave was found to be factually incorrect.

  Questions settled

  • Can leave to appeal be sustained if the factual premise upon which it was granted is found to be incorrect?
  • Does an order restraining respondents from withdrawing pre-emption money equate to a suspension of the decree-holder's obligation to deposit the money?
  • Is it necessary for an appellate court to explicitly state its reasoning when declining to suspend a lower court's order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Jan and 7 others vs Muhammad Malik and 11 others1993 CLC 1037 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi vs Shahzad Waheed and another1993 PLD Supreme Court 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-20
  pardanashin ladyregistered sale deedconcurrent findings of factfraudulent misrepresentationmortgage vs salefiduciary relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for declaration filed by the appellant, Mst. Rehmat Bibi, seeking to challenge a registered sale deed dated 9-11-1968 regarding a property in Lahore. The appellant contended that she, an illiterate pardanashin lady, intended to mortgage the property rather than sell it, and that the deed was fraudulently executed without independent advice. The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court in revision concurrently dismissed her claim, finding the transaction to be a valid sale. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the transaction was indeed a mortgage or a sale given the appellant's status. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were justified. The evidence demonstrated that the deed was executed at the appellant's residence, thumb-marked by her, and witnessed by her son, with the consideration paid in the presence of the Registrar. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that no fiduciary relationship existed to invalidate the transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent advice for an illiterate pardanashin lady automatically invalidate a registered sale deed?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the nature of a property transaction?
  • What evidence is sufficient to establish the validity of a sale deed executed by an illiterate pardanashin lady?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab and 12 others1993 PLD Lahore 21 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs Abdul Ghaffar1993 CLC 2051 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Begum vs Town Committee Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum1993 C L C687 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Bibi alias Rasheda vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasheeda Begum through her L.Rs, vs Mst. Saeeda and others1993 CLC 1263 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasheeda Begum and another vs Mst. Samina Mushtaq1993 MLD 1825 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rais Akhtar and another vs Muhammad Azizuddin1993 MLD 2555 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rafiqan and 3 others vs Land Acquisition Collector, Pakarab1993 CLC 2333 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rafia Begum vs Haji Abdul Aziz1993 MLD 2513 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Jehan vs Government of Paksitan through Board of Trustees1993 MLD 1104 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qaiser Sultana vs Hafiz Mansoor Ahmed and others1993 SCMR 2294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-08-03
  rent controlejectmentdefault in rentremandtenancy commencementrent receiptmiscellaneous rent case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondents against the appellant on grounds of default in rent payment and unauthorized alterations to the premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, finding no default and no unauthorized alterations. On appeal, the High Court maintained the finding regarding alterations but reversed the decision on default, concluding the appellant failed to prove that a specific rent receipt dated May 3, 1984, applied to the month of May rather than April 1984. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's finding, particularly given the appellant's contention regarding the commencement of tenancy and the filing of a miscellaneous rent case. The Supreme Court held that the matter required further factual determination, as crucial documents regarding the miscellaneous rent case were not properly placed before the lower courts. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision on the issue of default after recording further evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reverse a finding of fact by a Rent Controller without considering all relevant documents regarding the commencement of tenancy?
  • Is it appropriate for an appellate court to remand a case when crucial evidence regarding the payment of rent was not placed before the lower courts?
  • Does a tenant's failure to produce a miscellaneous rent case application before the Rent Controller justify an adverse inference regarding the payment of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Bibi vs Akbar Ali and 2 others1993 MLD 433 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Jehan vs Muhammad Siddiq Khan and another1993 P Cr. L J 522 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-29
  habeas corpuscustody of minorHizanatpersonal lawwrongful confinementguardian
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant mother, Mst. Nusrat Jehan, seeking the recovery and custody of her ten-year-old daughter, Norin, who was allegedly forcibly taken and wrongfully confined by the respondent father. The core legal question was whether a High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, can direct the custody of a minor child to the mother based on her right of Hizanat under personal law. The High Court held that under the personal law of the parties, the mother is entitled to the custody of her minor daughter until she attains puberty. The Court ruled that there is no substitute for a mother's custody, and therefore ordered that the temporary custody of the minor remain with the applicant mother, subject to any final determination by the Guardian Judge or Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a mother seek the recovery and custody of her minor child from the father under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the right of Hizanat under personal law entitle a mother to the custody of her minor daughter until she attains puberty?
  • Is a custody order passed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to final determination by a Guardian Judge or Family Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Fatima and anothers vs Muhammad Shafi and 18 others1993 SCMR 777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-26
  lachesallotment of landsettlement authoritieswrit jurisdictionestoppelrefugee claimconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants, Mst. Noor Fatima and others, who challenged the allotment of land originally made to Hakim Ali in 1964. The appellants claimed that the land was proposed in their name prior to Hakim Ali's allotment and that subsequent allotments to third parties were invalid. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly dismissed the petition on the ground of laches, given the appellants' failure to challenge the initial adverse order of the Settlement Authorities for approximately 17 years. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion correctly. The Court observed that the appellants had acquiesced to the initial rejection of their claim by the Settlement Authorities and failed to pursue higher remedies at the time. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellants were legally estopped from challenging the subsequent allotments made to other parties after such a significant lapse of time. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that long-standing silence and failure to pursue timely remedies preclude constitutional relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner invoke constitutional jurisdiction to challenge land allotment orders after a delay of 17 years?
  • Does a failure to challenge an adverse order from Settlement Authorities at the relevant time create an estoppel against future litigation?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has acquiesced to the rejection of their claim by lower authorities for an extended period?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Fatima and anothers vs Muhammad Khan through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nirmala Mehdi vs Iqbal Mehdi and others1993 PLD Revenue 19 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nayyar Khatoon vs Shujaat Hussain Zaidi and another1993 CLC 1742 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nausheba vs Muhammad Naseem1993 CLC 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →