Latest Judgments

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

• Mst. Nathi vs Mst. Hamidan and others1993 MLD 760 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Iqbal vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another1993 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03
  Lambardar appointmentgender discriminationrule of primogenitureconstitutional petitionultra viresPunjab Land Revenue Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, which set aside the appointment of the female petitioner as a Lambardar solely on the basis of rule 19(2)(d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, restricting the ordinary appointment of females. The core legal question is whether rule 19(2)(d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, which places restrictions on the appointment of females as Lambardars, is ultra vires Article 25(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, for discriminating on the basis of sex alone. The Lahore High Court held that rule 19(2)(d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, directly offends the constitutional command of Article 25(2) by placing females at a disadvantage based strictly on sex, and is therefore void and of no legal effect. The Court established that constitutional guarantees against sex-based discrimination prohibit disqualifying or restricting women from holding public offices such as a Lambardar unless the provision operates exclusively as a protective measure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether rule 19(2)(d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, is violative of Article 25(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a female be appointed as a Lambardar under the rules of primogeniture?
  • Does Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, apply to matters concerning the appointment of a Lambardar?
  • Does a rule preventing the appointment of a female Lambardar merely on the ground of sex amount to unconstitutional discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Akhtar and 5 others vs Raja Muhammad Asghar1993 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasima Begum vs Ali Dost1993 PLD Karachi 137 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-03
  evictiondefault in payment of rentunilateral rent increasefair renttax assessmentlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was directed against the Rent Controller's order dismissing an eviction application filed on the ground of default. The landlord (appellant) contended that because the Excise and Taxation Authorities had increased the tax on the premises, she was entitled to unilaterally increase the monthly rent from Rs. 75 to Rs. 120, and that the tenant's failure to pay at the enhanced rate constituted a wilful default. The tenant (respondent) maintained that he had deposited the agreed rent of Rs. 75 in court after the landlord refused to accept it. The High Court held that under the scheme of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, specifically Sections 8 and 9, the power to determine fair rent and authorize rent increases is vested solely in the Rent Controller. A landlord cannot unilaterally increase rent based on an enhancement of taxes by taxation authorities without initiating proceedings before the Rent Controller. Consequently, the tenant was not in default, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord unilaterally increase the rent of a premises based on an enhancement of taxes by the Excise and Taxation Authorities?
  • Does the failure of a tenant to pay a unilaterally increased rent constitute a wilful default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Which authority has the jurisdiction to determine fair rent and authorize an increase in rent due to imposition of new taxes under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Khuda Bakhsh and 5 others1993 CLC 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nargis Bano vs Rehman Bhai1993 CLC 266 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30
  ejectmentpersonal requirementgood faithlandlord and tenantpleadings and evidencecommercial premisesSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant-landlord's ejectment application against the respondent-tenant. The appellant sought the eviction of the respondent from commercial premises on the ground of personal good faith requirement to start her own business. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that good faith was not established because the respondent claimed the appellant's sons were minors and no cross-examination rebutted that fact. The core legal question was whether the appellant established personal good faith requirement and whether the application suffered from material improvements or lack of particulars. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant specifically pleaded personal requirement in her application, and her affidavit-in-evidence introduced no inconsistent facts, distinguishing it from cases where new pleas are raised at the evidence stage. The Court also held that failure to provide extensive details of the business or funds does not negate good faith, and goodwill payments are not recognized defenses against eviction. The appeal was allowed, directing the respondent to hand over vacant possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's statement in an affidavit-in-evidence regarding personal business requirements constitutes an impermissible improvement if the initial ejectment application was concise?
  • Does the failure of a landlord to provide complete particulars about the nature of the intended business or available funds automatically disprove good faith under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a tenant successfully resist eviction from rented premises on the ground of having paid goodwill or Pugri?
  • Whether an ejectment application can be dismissed solely because the tenant asserted the landlord's sons were minors without the landlord being cross-examined on that specific fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musharraf Sultana vs Fazal Hussain1993 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17
  pre-emptioncivil revisioncertified copiespre-emption moneywithdrawal of depositremandimprovements compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision before the Lahore High Court arose from a pre-emption suit instituted by the petitioner (the vendor's wife) in 1960. The trial court decreed the suit in her favor, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the sale of evacuee land was not pre-emptible. In the High Court, the respondent raised three preliminary objections: first, that the revision was improperly presented because certified copies of the lower court's judgment and decree were not annexed; second, that the petitioner's withdrawal and subsequent redeposit of the pre-emption money during the pendency of the proceedings entailed dismissal of the suit; and third, that the issue of compensation for improvements made by the vendee remained undetermined. The High Court held that the omission to file certified copies was a directory procedural irregularity, not a mandatory bar, especially after the revision had been admitted and pending for decades. It further held that since the suit stood dismissed at the appellate level when the money was withdrawn, the withdrawal and subsequent redeposit did not prejudice the petitioner's claim. Finally, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the Court remitted the issue of improvements to the lower appellate court for a finding on the existing record.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to annex certified copies of the judgment and decree with a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or directory?
  • Can a civil revision petition be dismissed for improper presentation on the ground of missing documents after it has been admitted and listed for final hearing?
  • Does the withdrawal and subsequent redeposit of pre-emption money by a pre-emptor during the pendency of a revision petition, after the suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate court, prejudice the pre-emptor's claim?
  • Can the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, remit a specific issue to the lower appellate court for a finding on the existing record without remanding the entire case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarrat vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 678 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mural) Khatoon vs Muhammad Afzal Khan and 3 others1993 MLD 719 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Begum vs Said Zaman and 11 others1993 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Begum vs Allauddin and 2 others1993 PLD Queeta 41 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 2 others1993 CLC 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mir Jan and 5 others vs Ghulam NABIPetitioner1993 SCMR 2334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-05
  pre-emptionoccupancy tenancyright of contiguitysuperior rightownership conversionland mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside decrees for possession through pre-emption in favor of the petitioners. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners could claim a right of pre-emption based on contiguity when their property was recorded as occupancy tenancy, and whether the petitioners possessed a superior right of pre-emption over the respondent regarding a specific land parcel where both parties held contiguous property. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not claim pre-emption based on contiguity because, at the time of the suit, they were mere occupancy tenants and had not fulfilled the statutory requirements to convert their status to ownership. Furthermore, regarding the second parcel, the Court held that since both the pre-emptor and the respondent were owners of contiguous property, their rights were equal, rendering the pre-emption claim unsustainable. The Court affirmed the principle that occupancy rights do not automatically convert to ownership without payment of prescribed compensation, and equal rights of contiguity defeat a pre-emption claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does an occupancy tenant automatically acquire ownership rights for the purpose of claiming pre-emption without paying the prescribed compensation?
  • Can a pre-emption claim succeed based on contiguity if the pre-emptor's status as an owner is not established at the time of the suit?
  • How are competing claims of pre-emption resolved when both the pre-emptor and the respondent hold contiguous property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mima and 6 others vs Mukadam Wali and another1993 MLD 610 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Meraj Bibi vs S.H.O. , P.S. Baghbanpura and 4 others1993 SCMR 1633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-16
  habeas corpusillegal detentionleave to appealmatrimonial disputecustody of detenu
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a habeas corpus petition regarding the alleged detention of a woman, Mst. Surraya. The High Court had dismissed the petition after the father and brother of the alleged detenu stated she was living happily with her husband and that the petitioner, Mst. Meraj Bibi, was not related to the detenu. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan summoned the alleged detenu, Mst. Surraya, and recorded her statement on oath. The detenu explicitly testified that she was living with her husband, was under no restraint, and that the petitioner was not related to her and had previously taken her forcibly. Finding that the detenu was not in illegal restraint and that the matrimonial dispute had been settled for the time being, the Supreme Court held that no further inquiry was warranted. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, directing the parties to pursue any further grievances in the appropriate courts of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a habeas corpus petition is maintainable when the alleged detenu denies being in illegal restraint?
  • Can the Supreme Court record the statement of an alleged detenu to verify claims of illegal confinement?
  • Is a habeas corpus petition the appropriate forum to resolve underlying matrimonial disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehraj Bibi and others vs S.H.O. and another1993 P Cr. L J 1219 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Masooda Hassan Durrani vs Rashida Bukhari1993 SCMR 1516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-24
  rent evictiondefault in rentleave to appealdiscretionary reliefmisreading of evidencelandlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which upheld an eviction order against the petitioner (tenant) on the grounds of default in rent payment. The respondent (landlady) initiated ejectment proceedings alleging non-payment of rent for August 1985 and utility charges. The petitioner contested this, claiming she had paid the rent but the landlady failed to issue a receipt for October 1985, leading to subsequent rent deposits in court. The Rent Controller found the petitioner in default for October 1985 and utility charges. On appeal, the High Court upheld the finding of default for October 1985 but reversed the finding regarding utility charges. Crucially, the High Court declined to exercise discretion in the petitioner's favour, labeling her a 'compulsive liar' for taking a false plea regarding payment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitioner's contentions regarding the misreading of evidence and the legal basis for the High Court's adverse characterization of the petitioner as a 'compulsive liar' required further judicial consideration by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a false plea regarding rent payment automatically disentitle a tenant to the exercise of judicial discretion against eviction?
  • Can a finding of fact regarding a tenant being a 'compulsive liar' be sustained if it is not based on legal evidence on record?
  • Is an appellate court justified in upholding an eviction order solely on the basis of a character assessment of the tenant rather than the merits of the default?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mariam Bai and others vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 5 others1993 SCMR 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-10
  evacuee trust propertystatutory validationProvisional Transfer OrderPermanent Transfer DeedDisplaced Persons Actstrict construction
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan examine whether a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) holder, where no Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) was issued prior to June 1968, can claim statutory validation of the transfer under Section 10(1)(b) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975, notwithstanding that the transfer was otherwise void due to the property being evacuee trust property. The Supreme Court upheld the view taken by the Full Bench of the Sindh High Court, holding that provisions providing for statutory validation of an invalid or void transfer must be construed strictly. Since Section 10(1)(b) explicitly requires that a permanent transfer deed must have been issued prior to June 1968, a provisional transfer order cannot be equated with a permanent transfer deed for the purposes of statutory validation under the Act if the P.T.D. was not issued within the stipulated timeframe. Consequently, the appeal challenging the Full Bench judgment was dismissed, and the conflicting appeal was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a P.T.O. holder in which no P.T.D. was issued prior to June 1968 can claim statutory validation of the transfer under section 10(1)(b) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
  • How should provisions relating to the statutory conversion of an invalid transfer into a valid one be construed?
  • Does a Provisional Transfer Order stand on the same footing as a Permanent Transfer Deed for the purposes of satisfying the conditions of Section 10(1)(b) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maria Khan vs Muhammad Zubair Khan1993 P Cr. L J 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20
  habeas corpuschild custodyguardian and wardsforeign custody orderswelfare of minorsnatural guardian
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a habeas corpus petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the mother seeking recovery and custody of two minor children from the respondent father, alleging they were removed from the United States in violation of foreign court orders and child custody agreements. The core legal question was whether the father's custody of the minors was illegal and warranted interference under section 491, Cr.P.C., notwithstanding pending guardianship proceedings and an earlier ex parte custody order passed by a Pakistani Guardian Judge. The Lahore High Court held that the petition was devoid of force and dismissed it, reasoning that the father, as the natural guardian, held custody backed by a subsisting domestic order of the Guardian Judge which predated the foreign proceedings, that the minors were well-cared for and happy in Pakistan, and that disturbing their custody would not serve their welfare or override the exclusive jurisdiction of the Guardian Court where related proceedings remained pending.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the recovery of minors while guardianship proceedings are pending before a Guardian Judge?
  • Does the removal of minor children from a foreign country in alleged violation of foreign court orders render the father's custody illegal under Pakistani law when an earlier domestic guardian order exists?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration when determining whether to grant a writ of habeas corpus for change of custody?
  • Whether a foreign court's consent order regarding child custody automatically supersedes a prior domestic custody order passed by a competent court in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Majeedan through her L.Rs and anothers vs Muhammad Nasim and another1993 CLC 1209 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maimuna Bai and anothers vs Nooruddin and another1993 SCMR 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-03
  personal bona fide useejectmentrented premiseslandlord and tenantleave to appealmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which upheld an eviction order against the petitioners (tenants) based on the landlords' claim of personal bona fide use of the demised premises. The landlords, Nooruddin and his sister, sought ejectment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, citing default, subletting, and personal requirement. While the Rent Controller ruled against the landlords on the grounds of default and subletting, eviction was granted solely on the ground of personal bona fide use, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The petitioners contend that the lower courts misread the evidence, noting that the landlords possess several vacant flats in the same building, which should suffice for their needs, and that the landlords failed to specify which family member required the premises. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the evidence regarding the personal bona fide requirement was correctly assessed by the courts below, specifically in light of the availability of other vacant accommodation owned by the landlords.

  Questions settled

  • Does the availability of other vacant premises owned by a landlord negate a claim of personal bona fide requirement for eviction?
  • Is it necessary for a landlord to specify the exact family member for whom the premises are required in an eviction petition?
  • Can the Supreme Court re-examine evidence regarding personal bona fide use when leave to appeal is granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahmona Hamayun vs Abdul Hakim and 2 others1993 SCMR 893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-01
  bail cancellationundue influenceexecutive interferenceZina Ordinancejudicial independencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the grant of bail to accused persons in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly refused to cancel the bail of an accused whose release was allegedly procured through undue influence and executive interference. Upon reviewing the police case diary, the Supreme Court found that the accused, Noor Hakim, had been released on bail following direct intervention by a Provincial Minister’s office, bypassing standard judicial procedure. The Court held that such an order was unlawful and biased, as it was obtained through the improper exercise of influence on the investigating agency and the magistracy. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order refusing to cancel bail, ordered the immediate arrest of Noor Hakim, and directed the Advocate-General to initiate independent proceedings regarding the attempt to influence the judicial process. The principle established is that bail orders obtained through executive interference or undue influence are inherently invalid and subject to cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail order be cancelled if it was obtained through undue influence or executive interference?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on evidence of improper influence?
  • Is a bail order granted through the intervention of executive authorities legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mafia Khatoon vs District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East and others1993 MLD 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kubra Begum and others vs Mst. Shad Begum and others1993 SCMR 2096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-27
  evacuee propertySection 12(2) CPClimitation periodabatement of proceedingsfraud and misrepresentationwrit petitionsettlement of claims
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property (House No. H-66, Rawalpindi). The core legal question concerned whether an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging fraud and misrepresentation in a previous writ petition, was time-barred and maintainable. The High Court had dismissed the application as time-barred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the application was maintainable and within the period of limitation. Relying on established precedent, the Court clarified that Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to proceedings under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of abatement due to the death of a party, ruling that proceedings may continue and judgments pronounced despite such death possess full legal force. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, revived the original writ petition, and remanded the matter for disposal on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court proceed with a suit and announce a judgment notwithstanding the death of a plaintiff?
  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable after the final disposal of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kishwar Zohra vs Guardian Judge, Gujrat and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 549 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Superintendent of Police, Gujrat and others1993 P Cr. L J 1226 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Karam Nishan and others vs Sherbaz Khan and others1993 CLC 2312 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Fatima vs Wali Muhammad and another1993 PLD Supreme Court 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-08-01
  Article 2AObjectives ResolutionMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceSection 7 divorce noticeconstitutional jurisdictiondower and maintenancerepugnancy to Islam
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a High Court judgment dismissing a family suit filed by the appellant-wife for the recovery of dower and maintenance. The parties had previously entered into a written compromise before Martial Law Authorities dissolving their marriage and settling dower claims, but no formal notice of divorce was given to the Chairman of the Union Council under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The core legal question concerned the effect of Article 2A of the Constitution on existing statutory provisions like Section 7 of the Ordinance and whether courts could strike down laws on the touchstone of Article 2A. The Supreme Court held, following the precedent in Hakim Khan's case, that Article 2A is not a supra-constitutional document, nor is it self-executory for the purpose of testing the repugnancy of existing statutory laws, and courts lack jurisdiction to declare an existing statutory enactment void under Article 2A. The Court further held that while Section 7 notice requirements must be observed, where a divorce is effected and confirmed in writing with mutual consent, Section 7 should not be strictly construed to defeat bona fide settlements, and extraordinary writ jurisdiction may be refused. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on different grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is a supra-constitutional document empowering courts to strike down existing statutory laws?
  • Does the failure to send a notice of talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 render a divorce automatically revoked or merely ineffective?
  • Can the superior courts declare provisions of an existing legislative enactment void on the sole touchstone of Article 2A of the Constitution?
  • How should Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 be construed in cases where a divorce is effected and confirmed in writing with the mutual consent of both parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna T Bibi vs The District Judge, Vehari and 3 others1993 M L D258 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Begum vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner, West1993 MLD 429 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila and another vs Muhammad Arshad and another1993 P Cr. L J 993 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Bibi vs Muhammad Zulfiqar and another1993 CLC 1625 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum vs Farooq Inayat and others1993 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-22
  rejection of plaintorder 7 rule 11 cpcpartial rejection of plaintpre-emptioncause of actionprocedural lawmultiple causes of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from a suit filed by the appellant, Mst. Iqbal Begum, seeking a declaration regarding inheritance rights and a family settlement, as well as possession by way of pre-emption concerning a house sold by the respondents. Following the Supreme Court's declaration in Malik Said Kamal Shah's case that the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 was repugnant to Islam, the trial court rejected the plaintiff's entire plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the pre-emption claim was barred by law. The core legal question was whether a plaint containing multiple causes of action or multiple reliefs must be rejected in its entirety when only one part or relief is barred by law. The High Court held that Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not warrant rejecting a plaint as a whole unless the entire suit or all causes of action/reliefs contained therein are barred or defective. The Court laid down the principle that procedural rules must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, and where a suit includes multiple causes of action or alternative reliefs, the plaint should only be rejected in respect of the specific part or relief that is barred, allowing the remaining valid claims to proceed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when only one of multiple causes of action or reliefs is barred by law?
  • Does the term 'a cause of action' in Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply distributively to suits containing multiple causes of action?
  • Whether the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 necessitates the dismissal of the entire suit where valid causes of action subsist alongside a barred pre-emption claim?
  • How should procedural rules regarding the rejection of plaints be construed in relation to the advancement of substantial justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat Begum vs Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Islamabad and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 63 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iffat Chaudhry vs Ghulam Rasool and others1993 MLD 695 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husan Ara vs Dr. Muhammad Ali1993 C L C736 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Huma Hafeez vs Shaukat Javaid and another1993 CLC 855 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24
  dissolution of marriageKhularestitution of conjugal rightsfixed aversionfamily lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the Family Court and the Appellate Court, which dismissed the petitioner-wife's suit for dissolution of marriage and decreed the respondent-husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal question was whether the wife was entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the principle of Khula, despite failing to prove other specific allegations of cruelty or maintenance default, due to her fixed aversion towards her husband. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in refusing the decree. Relying on the principle established in Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Baboo Muhammad Amin (PLD 1967 SC 7), the Court held that where a wife has developed a fixed aversion to her husband and there is no possibility of a harmonious marital life, she is entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula. The Court set aside the lower courts' findings, decreed the wife's suit for dissolution, and dismissed the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is a wife entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula if she has developed a fixed aversion to her husband, even if other grounds for divorce are not proven?
  • Does the right of a wife to seek dissolution of marriage on the principle of Khula equate to the husband's right to pronounce Talaq?
  • Can a High Court set aside concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dissolution of marriage if those courts failed to correctly apply the principle of Khula?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hasina Khatoon and 2 others vs United Bank Ltd. and 6 others1993 MLD 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-11
  Section 12(2) CPCex parte decreelimitation periodfraud and misrepresentationabuse of processdismissal in liminemortgage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the daughters of a guarantor, seeking to set aside an ex parte decree obtained by a bank against their father. The applicants alleged that their father had fraudulently mortgaged property that he had previously gifted to them. The Court observed that the applicants had previously filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was dismissed in 1987, and they failed to appeal that decision. The Court held that the present application was time-barred under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, having been filed more than three years after the cause of action arose. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the bank in the suit proceedings, noting that Section 12(2) requires fraud to be committed in connection with the suit itself. The Court affirmed that an application under Section 12(2) can be dismissed in limine if it is mala fide, an abuse of process, or lacks merit on its face.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed in limine without framing issues or recording evidence?
  • Does the limitation period for an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 fall under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable if the alleged fraud was not committed in connection with the proceedings of the suit?
  • Can a party who failed to appeal the dismissal of an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 subsequently challenge the decree via Section 12(2) on the same facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamidan Bibi vs The State1993 MLD 2392 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamidan Begum vs Abdul Riaz and 2 others1993 CLC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Khatoon vs Mst. Nazir Begum and others1993 MLD 483 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hakim Mai vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajra Bai vs Allah Din1993 CLC 1693 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-07
  rent evictionwilful defaulttime-barred rentburden of proofsublettingclosure of evidencecross-examination delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal in a rent matter was filed against the order of the Rent Controller directing the tenant (appellant) to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord (respondent). The key legal questions related to whether eviction could be ordered based on rent default where part of the period claimed was time-barred, whether the landlord discharged the burden of proof regarding non-payment, whether closing the tenant's side after repeated non-appearance for cross-examination was valid, and whether vague allegations of subletting without specific details could sustain an eviction order. The High Court affirmed that while time-barred rent cannot be recovered or enforced, default occurring within the valid limitation period creates a fresh cause of action justifying eviction. The court held that the landlord discharges the initial burden of proving non-payment—a negative fact—by stating under oath that rent was not received. Closing the tenant's side was upheld due to over two years of unexcused delay. However, the finding on subletting was reversed as vague allegations lack evidentiary value. The appeal was dismissed, granting three months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord seek eviction on the ground of default in rent if a portion of the claimed default period is time-barred?
  • How does a landlord discharge the initial burden of proof regarding the non-payment of rent in an eviction proceeding?
  • Is a Rent Controller justified in closing a party's evidence if the party continuously fails to appear for cross-examination over an extended period?
  • Are vague allegations of subletting lacking dates and names sufficient to sustain an eviction order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajan Nawab Bibi vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 492 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-08
  Constitutional petitionAdditional evidenceCase decidedRevisional jurisdictionCode of Civil ProcedureDiscretion of trial courtPublic documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an Additional District Judge's order that reversed a trial court's decision to allow additional evidence in a civil suit. The core legal question was whether an order permitting additional evidence qualifies as a "case decided" under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the revisional court properly interfered with the trial court's discretion. The High Court held that an order allowing or disallowing additional evidence constitutes a "case decided" because it involves the application of a judicial mind to an interlocutory matter. Consequently, it is amenable to revisional jurisdiction. However, the Court ruled that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion by admitting certified copies of public documents essential for a just and fair resolution of the controversy. The High Court determined that the revisional court erred in interfering with this discretion, as the trial court's order suffered from no jurisdictional defect or material irregularity. The key principle established is that while such orders are revisable, appellate courts should not interfere with a trial court's sound discretion to admit essential evidence to prevent future remands.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order allowing or disallowing an application for the production of additional evidence constitute a "case decided" under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a revisional court set aside a trial court's order allowing additional evidence if the trial court's decision did not suffer from a jurisdictional defect or material irregularity?
  • Is the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 invokable to challenge a revisional order passed by a Civil Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulzar Begum and anothers vs Muhammad Ghaus and 10 others1993 CLC 448 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Siddiqa and others vs Mst. Noor Begum through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Samna and anothers vs Mohsin Ali Shah and 6 others1993 CLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Sakina vs The State1993 MLD 2009 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf Punjab and another1993 CLC 692 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima alias Gull Gotai vs Mufti Muhammad Yaq00b Khan, Advocate and 4 others1993 PLD Supreme Court 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-21
  leave to appealeviction proceedingsconstitutional petitionexecution proceedingsproperty ownershipland acquisitionLahore Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed her constitutional petition in limine. The underlying dispute originated from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner's sons regarding a property in the Gulshan Ravi Scheme, Lahore. Following an eviction order against her sons, the petitioner filed a civil suit and objections in the executing court, asserting her own ownership based on a 1958 conveyance deed. These objections and subsequent appeals were dismissed by the lower courts. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that her ownership rights were established by the 1958 document. However, the Court noted that the land in question had been subsequently acquired by the Lahore Development Authority for the development of the Gulshan Ravi Township, and the petitioner had failed to secure any recognition of her rights during that acquisition process. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not enforce an antiquated document to challenge established property rights in execution proceedings or through a constitutional petition. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party assert ownership of property based on a prior conveyance deed after the land has been acquired by a development authority?
  • Is a constitutional petition an appropriate remedy to challenge ownership claims already adjudicated in execution proceedings?
  • Can an eviction order against occupants be challenged by a third party claiming ownership through a prior conveyance deed in execution proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghafooran Bi vs Abdul Hafeez and others1993 PLD Karachi 668 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazal Bibi vs Messrs Asian Body Building Works and 4 others1993 CLC 90 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima vs Ghulam and others1993 CLC 567 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Versus Ghulam Etc. vs Heard On 16Th December, 1992.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 305 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima through Legal Heirs vs Mulla Faiz Muhammad through Legal1993 MLD 1850 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fahmida Begum vs The Allied Bank of Pakistan1993 MLD 1219 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ehsan Ullah and 2 others vs Fozia and others1993 CLC 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Dullan vs Muhammad Riaz and others1993 SCMR 2281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-24
  acquittalappreciation of evidenceinterested witnessinimical witnesscriminal appealmurdernight-time occurrence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Lahore High Court, which had overturned his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses and the reliability of the prosecution's case in a night-time occurrence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding no legal error in the High Court's reasoning. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses were interested and inimical towards the accused, noting their prior litigation and strained relations. Furthermore, the Court found the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the scene during the night-time incident to be doubtful, particularly citing the lack of credible evidence regarding the source of light (a lantern) and the unnatural conduct of a witness who failed to intervene. The Court reaffirmed that interference with an acquittal order requires meeting specific stringent criteria, which were not satisfied in this case, thereby dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal if the prosecution witnesses are found to be inimical and interested?
  • Does the presence of a lantern at a night-time crime scene require corroboration if the witness's prior statement omitted it?
  • Is the unnatural conduct of a witness, such as failing to intervene or raise an alarm, a valid ground for doubting their presence at the scene of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Chan Bibi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1317 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bush Ra Oas1m vs Dr. Abdul Rasheed and others1993 CLC 2063 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12
  past maintenancelimitation periodMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceArbitration Councilwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions arising from an order passed by the Controlling Authority regarding maintenance allowance. The core legal question involved the correct period of limitation applicable to claims for past maintenance under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Lahore High Court held that Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to claims for past maintenance, allowing a period of six years prior to the filing of the application, rather than the eleven years granted by the Arbitration Council or the three years fixed by the Controlling Authority. The Court modified the impugned orders accordingly, setting the past maintenance period to six years preceding the application date along with future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month, and directed the payment of arrears within sixty days. The key principle laid down is that claims for past maintenance by a wife are governed by a six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • What is the applicable period of limitation for a wife's claim for past maintenance?
  • Whether Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to claims for past maintenance?
  • Can past maintenance be granted for a period exceeding six years prior to the filing of an application?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Booti vs Ashiq Ali and others1993 MLD 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Begum vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2630 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Fatima vs Abdul Karim Khan alias Kiki Khan and 5 others1993 SCMR 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-16
  land disputesChitralRegulation III of 1974jurisdictionstatutory interpretationex-Mehtarland ownershipFederal Land Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the Peshawar High Court's judgment, which declared the orders of the Federal Land Commission and the Tribunal Land Disputes regarding a land ownership dispute in Chitral to be without jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the dispute fell within the ambit of the Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Regulation III of 1974. The High Court had ruled that the Regulation did not apply. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Regulation’s purpose was to settle disputes between the former Rulers and their subjects, including ownership claims. The Court established that the term "claimant landlords" in the Regulation must be interpreted to include "claimant owners" to prevent the statutory scheme from becoming redundant. Furthermore, the Court determined that the term "descendant" of the ex-Mehtar includes the male issue of the Mehtar, regardless of legitimacy, thereby confirming that the dispute was covered by the Regulation. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decision, and restored the orders of the special forums, affirming their jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term "claimant landlords" in the Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Regulation III of 1974 include "claimant owners"?
  • Does the term "descendant" of the ex-Mehtar under the Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Regulation III of 1974 include the male issue of a Mehtar born from a non-legally wedded wife?
  • Can a court supply an omission in a statute to give effect to the true and patent intention of the law-maker?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bhagan vs Feroze and 4 others1993 CLC 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Begum Mai vs S.H.O., Police Station Tapishen Dunyanpur1993 MLD 156 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Batool Begum through Legal Heirs vs The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore1993 CLC 683 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18
  waqf propertylimitationcondonation of delayshrinecreation of waqf by usernotificationjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant, Batool Begum, challenging the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which dismissed her petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. The appellant had contested the validity of a notification by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf taking over the control and management of the shrine of Baba Rehmat Shah and its adjoining land, claiming ownership over a portion of the acquired property. The High Court observed that the petition was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the prescribed thirty-day period from the publication of the notification. The Court held that pursuing a remedy in an incorrect forum or under wrong legal advice does not condone delay. On the merits, the Court ruled that a waqf may be created by long user for religious or charitable purposes without formal dedication. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pursuing a remedy in an incorrect forum or under wrong legal advice constitutes a valid ground for condonation of delay under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a waqf property be created through long-term religious or charitable user in the absence of an express deed of dedication?
  • What is the limitation period for challenging a notification issued by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bano Begum vs Karachi Development Authority and others1993 CLC 639 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhtawar by her Legal Heirss vs Sanatta and another1993 SCMR 1094 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-23
  Colonization of Government Lands Actinheritancelimited ownerfull proprietary rightsproprietary duesgift of landfemale tenant succession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a land inheritance dispute under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The original tenant, Ratta, died before acquiring proprietary rights, and his inheritance was mutated in favour of his two surviving sons, while a third son had predeceased him. The two surviving sons transferred one-third of the property to Mst. Bakhtawar, the widow of their predeceased brother, who subsequently paid the proprietary rights dues and later gifted the land to her daughters. The suit challenging the gift as void, on the premise that Mst. Bakhtawar held only a limited estate, was dismissed by the trial and appellate courts but decreed by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the nature of Mst. Bakhtawar's ownership and the applicability of section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the respondents' suit, holding that Mst. Bakhtawar's case fell under subsection (2) of section 30-A rather than subsection (1), making her a full owner upon acquiring proprietary rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female tenant who acquires proprietary rights in circumstances outside subsection (1) of section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 is a full owner or a limited owner?
  • Does section 30-A(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 preserve the applicable law of succession for female tenants who acquire tenancies in circumstances other than those specified in subsection (1)?
  • Whether payment of proprietary dues and voluntary transfer by co-sharers can establish full ownership rights for a widow receiving land from her deceased husband's family?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azizan and another vs Mehr Din1993 CLC 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07
  ex parte decreesubstituted serviceservice of summonslimitation perioddate of knowledgeinheritancecivil revisionadjudication on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed against the petitioners (a widow and daughter) in a suit concerning inheritance of agricultural land. The core legal question is whether the ex parte decree was obtained without lawful service of summons, rendering it void ab initio, and whether the limitation period for setting it aside ran from the date of the decree or the date of knowledge. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedural requirements for substituted service under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, making the ex parte proceedings and decree illegal and void. The Court laid down that law favors adjudication on merits rather than technical knock-outs, that substituted service cannot be ordered without exhausting ordinary service and examining the process-server, and that the onus lies heavily on the plaintiff to prove valid service and timely knowledge when dealing with illiterate female litigants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ex parte decree passed without complying with the mandatory provisions for substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is void ab initio?
  • Does the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree run from the date of the decree or from the date of knowledge when the defendant was not duly served?
  • Can a trial court order substituted service through affixation without first examining the process-server or verifying the return through an affidavit?
  • Where the defendants are illiterate female litigants, upon whom lies the heavy onus to prove that they had prior knowledge of the ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha Abdul Rehman vs Naeazish Malik1993 CLC 1715 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Athar Jabeen and anothers vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Circle III, Lahore and another1993 PLD Lahore 842 · Lahore High Court
  civil revisionfraudevacuee propertyinheritancetransfer orderinherent jurisdictionsettlement laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged concurrent judgments regarding the ownership of a residential house transferred by the Settlement Department. The plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased Feroze Din, claimed exclusive ownership, having obtained a transfer order by fraudulently omitting their sister, the defendant, from the list of legal heirs. The core legal questions concerned the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to rectify a transfer order procured through fraud and the determination of the true owner of the property. The Court held that the property was owned by Feroze Din, as the alleged gift to his first wife was not substantiated. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings, and authorities possess inherent jurisdiction to review their records to undo acts of fraud. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, confirming the defendant's entitlement to her share of the inheritance. The revision was dismissed, as the authorities acted within their jurisdiction to correct the record and ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court or tribunal have the inherent jurisdiction to recall or correct an order obtained through fraud?
  • Can a party who fraudulently excludes a legal heir from a transfer order benefit from such an act?
  • Does the repeal of Evacuee Laws by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 divest authorities of the power to correct records tainted by fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asmat vs Syed Hasan Mehtab Jafri and another1993 CLC 351 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asia Begum vs Nehmat Ali and 6 others1993 MLD 338 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ashraf Begum vs Sh. Muhammad Siddique and another1993 SCMR 2101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-06
  urban rent restrictionrelationship of landlord and tenantremand orderfragmentary litigationconstitutional writ petitionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by a tenant arises from an Urban Rent Restriction matter concerning an order of remand passed by the appellate authority on the issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application after finding against the landlord on the relationship issue, but the appellate court reversed this finding and remanded the matter for decision on merits. The Lahore High Court dismissed the tenant's constitutional petition against the remand order. The core legal question examined was whether the appellate court's judgment was based on a misreading of evidence and whether the High Court was obligated to set aside the remand order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that fragmentary decisions on preliminary issues such as the relationship of landlord and tenant should not be entertained to challenge piecemeal before higher forums while the main ejectment controversy remains pending. The principle against fragmentary litigation applies equally to constitutional writ petitions, and the tenant remains at liberty to raise the issue of relationship if finally ordered to be evicted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an affirmative or negative decision on the preliminary issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant can be made the subject-matter of further challenge before higher forums while the main eviction proceedings remain pending?
  • Does the principle against fragmentary decisions apply with equal force to proceedings in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether the High Court is bound to interfere in its writ jurisdiction with an appellate remand order on the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwary Begum vs Muhammad Ramzan and others1993 MLD 1955 · Board of Revenue · 1993-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina Bibi vs Station House Officer, Police Station Qila Gujjar1993 P Cr. L J 650 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina Begum vs Chairman, Karachi Development Authority and 51993 CLC 1307 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17
  civil revisiondeclarationbinding effect of decreethird party rightsindependent titleexecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to challenge an order of the 3rd Additional District Judge (East), Karachi, passed in a civil revision. The petitioner had obtained a decree for declaration, cancellation of documents, and injunction regarding a plot, which had attained finality. Respondent No. 5, who was not a party to the original suit, filed various unsuccessful proceedings, including an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In the revision proceedings, the revisional court observed that the petitioner's decree was not binding on Respondent No. 5. The High Court of Sindh examined whether a decree binds a non-party to the suit. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, a decree is only binding on the parties to the suit or persons claiming through them. It clarified that the decree would not bind Respondent No. 5 if he claimed an independent right, but would remain binding if his claim was derived through any party to the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil court decree binding on a person who was not a party to the suit and does not claim through any party to the suit?
  • Does a decree bind a third party if their claim to the suit property is derived from one of the parties to the suit?
  • What is the scope of Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 regarding the binding nature of declaratory decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina and 4 others vs Government of Sindh through the Secretary, .1993 PLD Karachi 5 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-07
  cinema taxmunicipal taxationmandatory procedurefiscal statutecivil revisionbudget proposals
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgments and decrees of the lower courts which dismissed the petitioners' suit seeking a declaration that the cinema tax imposed by a notification issued by the Commissioner Hyderabad Division was illegal. The core legal question was whether the imposition of a new cinema tax without following the mandatory statutory procedure of including it in the annual budget proposals and adhering to the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Imposition of Taxes) Rules 1960 is valid. The High Court held that the imposition of the tax was illegal and without lawful authority, as a fiscal statute requiring a particular thing to be done in a certain manner must be strictly complied with. The court laid down the principle that taxation powers under the Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960 must be exercised strictly in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure, failing which the levy is void.

  Questions settled

  • Can a municipal committee impose a tax without including it in the annual budget proposals as required by the rules?
  • Whether the failure to follow the prescribed statutory procedure for taxation renders a notification imposing a tax illegal?
  • How are fiscal statutes conferring taxation powers on municipal bodies to be construed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Wasai and 4 others vs WAPDA through its Chairman and 31993 CLC 809 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Rakhi vs Mehboob Akhtar and 2 others1993 MLD 687 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aliya Masood vs Mrs. Mussarat Musaver and others1993 PLD Karachi 676 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-30
  ex parte decreesubstituted servicesuit against deceased personnullity in lawrevision applicationprocedural fraudCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This Revision Application challenged an appellate court's dismissal of an appeal against an ex parte decree. The central legal questions concerned the validity of a suit filed against a deceased person and the propriety of substituted service. The High Court held that a suit filed against a deceased defendant is a nullity in law, rendering any subsequent decree and execution proceedings void ab initio. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, regarding substituted service. The Court emphasized that substituted service is not a substitute for ordinary service unless specific requirements—affixation on the court notice board and the defendant's last known address—are strictly satisfied. The Court affirmed that it cannot allow its process to be used as an instrument of fraud. Consequently, the ex parte decree, the appellate judgment, and the resulting sale deed were set aside, establishing that proceedings against a deceased person lack legal foundation and that procedural mandates for service must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit filed against a deceased person maintainable in law?
  • Does an ex parte decree obtained against a deceased person constitute a nullity?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for valid substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court set aside a decree obtained through fraudulent concealment of facts using its inherent powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtari Begum vs Muhammad Qasim1993 CLC 2250 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akbari Begum vs Nadeem Ahmed and 2 others1993 CLC 353 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-20
  pre-emptionTalab-e-MuwasbatTalab-e-Ishhadcivil revisionconcurrent findings of factShafi-e-SharikShafi-e-Jar
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Petition challenged concurrent judgments dismissing a suit for pre-emption. The petitioner claimed a right of pre-emption over property sold by the respondent, asserting status as a co-sharer and neighbor. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner established her pre-emption rights and whether she strictly complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of Talab-e-Muwasbat and Talab-e-Ishhad. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner failed to prove her status as a co-sharer or the existence of common amenities. Crucially, the Court affirmed the principle that a pre-emption claim is legally fatal if the pre-emptor fails to make a specific reference to the first demand (Talab-e-Muwasbat) when performing the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad). Furthermore, the Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts cannot be interfered with in revision proceedings absent jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The judgment reinforces the necessity of strict procedural compliance in pre-emption litigation and limits the scope of revisional jurisdiction regarding factual determinations.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a pre-emptor to reference the first demand (Talab-e-Muwasbat) when making the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad)?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil revision petition absent jurisdictional error?
  • Does the failure to prove co-ownership status defeat a claim of pre-emption based on being a Shafi-e-Sharik?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aimna Bi vs Mst. Bivi and others1993 MLD 1207 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-16
  regular second appealinheritancemutation entriesparentage disputelimitation among co-heirsbona fide purchaserTransfer of Property Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the appellant's suit for joint possession as a daughter of the deceased owner, Fazal Dad. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant successfully established her parentage through documentary evidence and whether her suit was barred by limitation or protected under the doctrine of bona fide purchasers. The Lahore High Court held that contemporaneous documentary evidence, including mutation records, sufficiently established the appellant's relationship as the daughter of the deceased, overriding negative oral evidence and misinterpretations by the lower courts. The Court further held that limitation does not bar suits among co-heirs, and that the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is unavailable to purchasers whose vendor lacked valid title to the extent of the co-heir's share. The regular second appeal was accordingly accepted and the suit decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mutation entries and contemporaneous documents are sufficient to establish parentage over negative oral evidence?
  • Does the bar of limitation apply to a suit for joint possession filed by a co-heir?
  • Is the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act available to a purchaser when the vendor lacks valid title to the property sold?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. A.B. Aisha vs Sultan Ahmad Tahir and another1993 CLC 1707 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mst, Karim Bibi and others vs Zubair and others1993 SCMR 2039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-01
  rejection of plaintamendment of plaintOrder VII Rule 11Order VI Rule 17permanent injunctioncause of actionabandonment of reliefremand of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave arose out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellants seeking to restrain the respondents from operating and installing heavy rolling machines and a furnace adjacent to their residence. During the trial and after the recording of substantial evidence, the appellants filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC to amend their plaint to reflect subsequent developments, which the trial court dismissed while simultaneously rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. Although the Additional District Judge remanded the suit for decision on merits, the High Court reversed that order in revision, holding that abandonment of the relief regarding installation amounted to abandoning objections against operation. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court, ruling that none of the statutory grounds under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC were made out. The Court held that abandoning one specific relief does not extinguish a subsisting cause of action or preclude the trial court from deciding remaining contested reliefs on the merits based on recorded evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if none of the statutory conditions specified in clauses (a) to (d) are met?
  • Does the abandonment of one particular relief in a suit necessarily extinguish the plaintiff's subsisting cause of action regarding other claims?
  • Is a court justified in rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when parties are seriously at issue and evidence has already been substantially recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst Salim Akhtar vs Muhammad Shafi1993 P Cr. L J 597 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
• MRS: Sheila Davar vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1993 PTD 671 · Calcutta High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mrs. Zakia J. Rehman and 4 otherss vs The State Life Insurance1993 MLD 1268 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Yasmeen Carim vs S.M. Saleem1993 PLD Karachi 614 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shabana Chaudhry vs The S.H.O. and others1993 MLD 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sartaj HABIWand 2 others vs Mst. Faizun Nisa1993 MLD 460 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Saima Khatoon vs Manzar Hussain1993 MLD 1542 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-17
  administration suitoral giftMuslim Lawburden of proofinheritanceco-sharerdelivery of possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for administration was filed by the plaintiff against her brother for the administration and division of properties left by their deceased father, claiming a one-third share under Sunni Hanafi Muslim Law. The core legal question concerned whether the defendant had established an oral gift of the disputed immovable property from the deceased father, and whether the deceased left movable and immovable assets to be inherited. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of movable properties, but established that the plot and ground floor belonged to the deceased, whereas the defendant had successfully proved he constructed the first floor. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant failed to prove the essential ingredients of an oral gift under Muslim Law, as wavering statements and lack of mutation or overt acts negated the claim of an exclusive gift. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to a one-third share in the plot and ground floor, while the defendant retained his self-constructed first floor.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the burden of proof to establish an oral gift of immovable property claimed by a defendant in an administration suit?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to prove a valid gift under Muslim Law?
  • Can the possession of one co-sharer be deemed to be the possession of all co-sharers in the absence of a proven ouster?
  • Whether the uncorroborated oral testimony of a defendant regarding an oral gift is sufficient when unsupported by contemporaneous official records or mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Rashida and 3 otherss vs Mrs. Shahzad Khanum Malick and 3 others1993 PLD Karachi 771 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-26Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Rani vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Il!Ahore1993 PTD 206 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08
  wealth taxclubbing of assetsminor propertyguardian of persondeeming clausereference applicationQanoon-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court disposes of a series of petitions relating to wealth tax assessments for the assessment years 1980-81 through 1988-89, addressing whether a minor daughter's share in a property gifted by her mother can be clubbed with the mother's assets. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Section 21 and Section 2(m), Explanation (i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, as well as the applicability of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984 to quasi-judicial proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that since the legal guardian appointed for the minor was only for her person and not her property, Section 21 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 did not apply. Furthermore, by virtue of the deeming clause in Explanation (i) of Section 2(m) of the said Act, the minor's share in the property is deemed to belong to the assessee mother, rendering the property assessable in her hands. The petitions were dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984 applies to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings before income tax authorities and tribunals?
  • Does the appointment of a guardian of the person of a minor exclude the clubbing of the minor's assets with the mother's assets under Section 21 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963?
  • Is a minor child's property deemed to belong to the assessee parent under Explanation (i) of Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963?
  • Can a question of fact regarding the service of notice and dispatch of appeal memoranda be agitated in reference proceedings before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Nilofar Mukarram and 2 others vs The National Bank of Pakistan, Stadium Road Branch, Karachi1993 MLD 2235 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Nargis Begum vs Wahiduddin Alvi1993 PLD Karachi 574 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Najma Ashraf vs Mst. Noor Jehan1993 MLD 866 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-03Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Maimuna Bai and another vs Nooruddin and another1993 MLD 2231 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Anjuman Shaheen. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Of IncomePTCL 1993 CL. 650 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →