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 Afzal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Faiz Ahmed And 5 Other1991 SCMR 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-28
  pre-emptionwrit jurisdictionremandabandonment of pointsmarket valuecourt-feeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of writ petitions concerning a pre-emption dispute under Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue, after deciding the court-fee issue in favor of the respondents, was legally obligated to remand the case to the lower forum to adjudicate other pending issues, specifically the market value of the property. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that because the petitioner had consciously abandoned other points, including the market value, before the appellate and revisional forums, remanding the case would be a futile exercise. The judgment reinforces the principle that points abandoned or not pressed at earlier stages of proceedings cannot be reopened subsequently. Furthermore, it establishes that appellate or revisional courts are not obligated to remand cases for issues that were not actively pursued or where the outcome would remain unchanged, thereby justifying the High Court's refusal to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party reopen a legal point in higher forums that was consciously abandoned at an earlier stage of the proceedings?
  • Is a court required to remand a case for the determination of issues that were not pressed before the appellate or revisional forums?
  • Does the failure to raise specific points before a revisional authority preclude a party from seeking a remand on those same points in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Tariq vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government1991 PLC (C.S.) 1187 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan vs S.S.P., Multan And Other1991 SCMR 1159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16
  service appealdeposit of securitynon-complianceservice tribunalleave to appealprocedural default
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a police constable, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal for failure to deposit the required security within the stipulated time. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal when the appellant failed to comply with the direction to deposit security and did not seek an extension of time. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal was justified as the petitioner failed to satisfy the Court regarding his non-compliance with the deposit order and made no application for an extension of time. The key principle laid down is that failure to comply with procedural directions such as depositing security, without seeking an extension of time or offering a valid explanation, warrants the dismissal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal is justified in dismissing an appeal when the appellant fails to deposit the required security within the given timeframe?
  • Can an appellant who fails to deposit security within the stipulated period claim relief without filing an application for extension of time?
  • Does the failure to comply with procedural orders of the Service Tribunal warrant the refusal of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Others vs Rehmatullah And Another1991 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-13
  pre-emptionsale versus giftmutationrevenue recordcivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision and upholding the concurrent finding that a disputed land transfer constituted a sale rather than a gift. The core legal question was whether the transaction recorded in the revenue mutation as a sale for a monetary consideration could be treated as a gift in pre-emption suits. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact by the lower appellate court, supported by oral and documentary evidence as well as statutory bar, was unexceptionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that alienations purporting to be sales must be treated as such under the applicable pre-emption law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an alienation purporting to be a sale in a revenue mutation can be treated as a gift in pre-emption proceedings?
  • Does Section 4 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act prohibit the court from holding that an alienation purporting to be a sale was not in fact a sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Another vs The State1991PCr.LJ 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Another vs Capital Development Authority And Other1991 SCMR 1796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-24
  land acquisitioncompensationpast and closed transactionreview of awarddelay and lachesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition, which challenged the dismissal of their review application seeking enhanced compensation for land acquired by the Capital Development Authority. The core legal question is whether a concluded acquisition award and compensation finalized years prior can be re-opened and reviewed based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' case constituted a past and closed transaction that could not be re-opened after an inordinate delay of nearly twelve years from the date of the original award and nine years from the subsequent judgment relied upon. The key principle laid down is that subsequent judicial pronouncements cannot serve as a basis to re-open long-settled past and closed transactions or belatedly challenge finalized land acquisition awards.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finalized land acquisition award can be re-opened after an inordinate delay to claim enhanced compensation based on a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court?
  • Can a belated review petition against an acquisition award be entertained when the matter has already attained finality as a past and closed transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzaal Chughtai vs Muhammad Abdullah And Another1991 SCMR 1325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-29
  civil revisioninterim orderdiscretionary orderleave to defendstay of proceedingsmoney recovery suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had stayed trial court proceedings in a civil suit for money recovery. The petitioner had originally obtained an order from the trial court granting the respondents leave to defend the suit, subject to the condition of furnishing the entire suit amount or a bank guarantee. The respondents challenged this conditional leave to defend by filing a civil revision in the High Court, which subsequently stayed the trial court proceedings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's interim order staying the trial proceedings warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was discretionary in nature. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court's interim order while the civil revision remained pending, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts generally decline to interfere with discretionary interim orders passed by a High Court during the pendency of a civil revision.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary interim order passed by the High Court during the pendency of a civil revision?
  • Is an order staying trial court proceedings while a civil revision is pending subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Achar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 522 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-05
  murderappellant convictionocular testimonychance witnessinterested witnessrecoverybenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a suo motu revision for sentence enhancement. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, accompanied by others, visited the complainant's house to retrieve his wife and, upon refusal, fired a shot at the complainant and subsequently killed the deceased minor. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of interested and chance witnesses, the reliability of retracted recoveries, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitnesses—being either interested or chance witnesses—improvised material details, contradicted each other, and failed to tell the truth, while the alleged recovery of the weapon was discredited by the mashir himself. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and recalled the enhancement notice, laying down that testimonies of partisan witnesses with shifting stances and tainted recoveries cannot sustain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of interested or chance witnesses whose statements contain material contradictions?
  • Does the lack of enmity against an accused person guarantee that an eyewitness is speaking the absolute truth?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the mashir witness testifies that the articles were shown and sealed at the police station?
  • How should the court evaluate the credibility of prosecution witnesses who shift their versions of the incident between the First Information Report and the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abobakar vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home1991 MLD 2596 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdur Rashid Ajmal Khan vs Hassan Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1742 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-21
  pre-emptionremand of caseex parte decreeopportunity of hearingcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the High Court dated 27-1-1986 regarding a suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question concerns the propriety of decreeing a pre-emption suit based on the evidence of only one party when the vendor and vendee did not produce evidence and contested the transaction. The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, both the vendor and the vendee should be given an opportunity to present evidence to enable the trial Court to reach a correct conclusion. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case to the trial Court for a decision on merits after examining all contesting parties, including the heirs of the alleged vendees and vendors. The key principle laid down is that a matter should be remanded for fresh evidence when a decree is passed upon the testimony of a single party without affording contesting parties a proper opportunity to defend and lead evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption suit be validly decreed on the sole evidence of the plaintiff when the vendor and vendee fail to produce evidence?
  • Is it appropriate to remand a case to the trial Court for recording evidence of all contesting parties in the interest of justice?
  • Whether the High Court's order accepting a revision petition against concurrent findings can be set aside when material parties were not given a proper chance to contest?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1991 MLD 2090 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Settlement Commissioner and others1991 CLC 1634 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah and others vs Allah Yar and others1991 PLD Revenue 1 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Razzak vs Zafarullah Khan1991 MLD 500 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Extra Assistant Commissioner And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-28
  Urban SettlementSettlement Scheme No. VIIIAuction-purchaserLeave to appealAvailable propertyProperty transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in an Urban Settlement dispute. The petitioner, a local, sought the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, initially obtaining possession and a transfer order based on the property's valuation. Subsequently, the property was auctioned to the respondent, despite a stay order issued by the High Court. The petitioner's application under Settlement Scheme No. VIII was later allowed, effectively nullifying the respondent's auction purchase. The High Court, however, allowed the respondent's writ petition, holding that the petitioner's application under the Scheme was either not filed or unavailable, and that the property was not 'available' for transfer because it had already been auctioned. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the petitioner's application was validly filed and whether the property remained 'available' for transfer under the relevant settlement laws despite the prior auction. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the auction of a property render it unavailable for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
  • Can a transfer of property be upheld if the application under Settlement Scheme No. VIII is alleged to be missing or unfiled?
  • Does a stay order by the High Court prevent the confirmation of an auction sale of disputed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2075 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad a Kbar and anothers vs Allah Ditta and 3 others1991 CLC 282 · Board of Revenue · 1990-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muhamm4d Bashir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2422 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-08-07
  post-arrest bailbail on medical groundssickness exceptionstatutory prohibitory clausedeterioration of healthmedical board report
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed before the Peshawar High Court by Muhammad Bashir seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of sickness under the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an accused suffering from a deteriorating internal ailment, specifically bilateral renal stones and hydronephrosis requiring specialized treatment unavailable in jail or local hospitals, qualifies as a sick person entitled to bail under the statutory exception, despite an earlier rejection. The court held that where medical board reports establish that the petitioner's condition has worsened, involves delicate internal organs, and cannot be adequately treated in custody, the accused falls within the protective scope of the statutory provision. The court laid down the principle that courts cannot arbitrarily qualify or quantify sickness when it threatens life, and that temporary release for surgery is inappropriate due to the critical nature of post-operative care, granting the petition accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can file a subsequent bail application on the ground of sickness when an earlier bail plea on similar grounds was dismissed?
  • Does bilateral renal calculi and hydronephrosis constitute sickness under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to warrant bail?
  • Is it appropriate to release an accused on bail for a specified limited period for medical treatment and terminate the bail thereafter?
  • What is the relevance of the availability or non-availability of adequate treatment facilities in jail hospitals when determining bail on medical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhamamd Afzal And Another vs Rehmat Ali And Other1991 SCMR 1785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27
  agreement to sellproprietary rightscivil revisionspecific performancealienation of landcolonization of government landsdeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that allowed a civil revision in a suit for declaration. The respondent-plaintiff sought a declaration that they were in possession of suit property under an agreement to sell and that subsequent mutations in favour of the petitioners were illegal. The trial and appellate courts initially dismissed the suit as premature, but the High Court reversed this, relying on precedents regarding the validity of agreements to sell land. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell land, executed before the acquisition of proprietary rights and without obtaining sanction under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, could form the basis of a valid civil action. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that such agreements are enforceable despite the lack of prior sanction, affirming that the absence of proprietary rights at the time of the agreement does not bar a civil action for declaration against the vendors or subsequent transferees.

  Questions settled

  • Can an agreement to sell land be enforced if the vendor had not yet acquired full proprietary rights at the time of the agreement?
  • Does the lack of prior sanction under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, invalidate an agreement to sell land for the purposes of a civil action?
  • Is a suit for declaration based on an agreement to sell maintainable against subsequent transferees where the original vendor lacked proprietary rights at the time of the agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhamad Arshad alias Achha and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 179 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhabbat Ali vs Abdul Jabbar and 4 others1991 CLC 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Shah vs Faiz Muhammad Khan and 7 others1991 PLD Peshawar 107 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mubusher-Ul-Haque, S.D.O., P.W.D., Muzaffarabad vs Azad Government1991 PLC (C.S.) 426 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-08-15
  service lawpromotion to higher postown pay and scalestop-gap arrangementfinal orderdismissal in liminegraduate engineersdiploma holders
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir challenged the Service Tribunal's in limine dismissal of an appeal filed by an S.D.O. (a graduate engineer). The appellant challenged a government order posting senior diploma-holder S.D.Os. as Executive Engineers in their own pay and scale, arguing that under the adapted Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1976 and quota rules, only qualified graduate engineers could hold those posts. The Service Tribunal had dismissed the appeal as incompetent under Section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, holding that the posting was a stop-gap arrangement conferring no additional financial benefits and was not a final order. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal, holding that promotion is fundamentally to a higher post carrying higher status and powers, not merely to a higher grade or pay scale. The Court ruled that whether an order is final depends on case facts and that the appellant raised substantive issues warranting a regular hearing, remanding the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment or posting of a civil servant to a higher post in their own pay and scale constitute a promotion affecting service rights?
  • Can an appeal before the Service Tribunal be dismissed in limine as not against a final order when the posting order does not explicitly state it is a temporary stop-gap arrangement?
  • Whether the absence of an immediate salary increase in a higher post precludes an order from conferring additional status and powers amounting to a promotion?
  • Is a government posting order appealable under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act if it allegedly violates statutory qualification requirements and promotion quotas of aggrieved civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubeena Begum and 5 others vs Deputy Land Commissioner, Khairpur1991 CLC 918 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Muhammad Khan vs Federation of Pakistan1991 PLC (C.S.) 830 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Khan vs Ali Rehman And Other1991 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-11
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptionInjunctions of Islamleave to appealpre-emption decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a revision petition concerning a right of pre-emption. The core legal question involves the effect of the Supreme Court's judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah on pre-emption claims where no decree had been passed prior to 31-7-1986. The Supreme Court held that following Said Kamal Shah's case and its subsequent clarification by the Shariat Appellate Bench, section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 ceased to have legal effect after 31-7-1986, and consequently no pre-emption decree could be granted in favour of the petitioner after that date. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption decree can be passed after 31-7-1986 in view of the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah?
  • What is the legal effect of the Shariat Appellate Bench's clarification regarding the judgment in Said Kamal Shah's case on pre-emption laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Parveen vs Deputy District Education Officer1991 PLC (C.S.) 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum vs Muhammad Saeed through L.Rs, and 2 others1991 MLD 1312 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30
  rejection of plaintnatural justiceres judicatacivil court jurisdictionmala fidesnullityfresh cause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges an appellate court order that set aside the trial court's rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The dispute arose from the removal of a cabin, where the respondent sought a declaration that the Mayor's order allowing the cabin was valid and that a subsequent order by the Appellate Tribunal was void due to lack of notice and mala fides. The applicant argued that the suit was barred by Section 117 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the appellate court failed to consider evidence. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint, the court must exclusively consider the averments in the plaint and documents filed therewith, disregarding the defendant's pleadings or external evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that statutory bars on jurisdiction do not protect orders passed in violation of natural justice, which are nullities, and that res judicata does not apply where a suit arises from a fresh cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • What material is a court permitted to consider when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a statutory bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts apply to orders passed in violation of the principles of natural justice?
  • Can the doctrine of res judicata be invoked when a subsequent suit is based on a fresh cause of action that did not exist during the previous litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohran And Others vs Mst. Fazlan And Other1991 SCMR 1344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-06
  gift mutationdeclaratory suitalienation of propertyinheritance rightsvalidity of gifttransfer of possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of a declaratory suit filed by the petitioners challenging a gift mutation. The petitioners contested the validity of a gift made by their father, Nabi Bakhsh, in favour of the respondents, arguing that it deprived them of their inheritance rights. The core legal question was whether the donor possessed the unfettered right to alienate his property through a gift, thereby excluding his heirs from inheritance. The Supreme Court observed that the gift was validly executed, with the petitioner herself admitting its execution and the subsequent delivery of possession to the respondents. The Court held that the petition lacked merit, affirming that the donor held full legal power to dispose of his property as he saw fit, and there existed no legal restraint on his right to alienate the same. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing the principle that a property owner has an absolute right to alienate their property during their lifetime, which cannot be challenged solely on the grounds of depriving potential heirs of inheritance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a property owner have the legal authority to alienate their property through a gift despite the potential impact on the inheritance rights of their heirs?
  • Is a gift mutation valid if the execution of the gift is admitted and possession of the property has been delivered to the donee?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Mai And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue And 6 Other1991 SC M R1905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26
  constitutional petitionmutationgiftalternative remedyrevenue authoritiescivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court through two petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petitions and subsequent review petitions. The core legal question concerns the propriety of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to challenge revenue authorities' decisions regarding property mutations involving disputed questions of ownership and the nature of a gift. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional petition filed before the High Court was misconceived because questions regarding whether a gift made in favor of a spouse was absolute or merely for maintenance fall exclusively within the domain of the Civil Court. Since an adequate alternative remedy was available, invoking writ jurisdiction against mutation orders was unwarranted. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming that title and disputed gift nature must be resolved through civil litigation rather than revenue mutation proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable to challenge revenue mutation orders involving disputed questions of ownership?
  • Does a dispute regarding whether a gift was absolute or for maintenance fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court?
  • Can writ jurisdiction be invoked when an adequate remedy is available to resolve questions of property title?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Begum and anothers vs Muhammad Sharif1991 MLD 676 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zenab Bibi And 4 Others vs Nisar Ahmad And 37 Other1991 SC M R 1360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-19
  interim orderlegal heirssubstitution of partiessecond appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging an interim order passed by the High Court in a pending second appeal, whereby the legal heirs of a deceased pro forma defendant were impleaded subject to objections. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with an interim order of the High Court allowing the substitution of legal representatives during the pendency of a regular second appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the impugned interim order was expressly made subject to objections and could be assailed by the petitioners if the final decision in the regular second appeal went against them, there was no justification for granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused the petition for leave to appeal, establishing that interlocutory orders subject to future objections and ultimate appealability do not ordinarily warrant interference under extraordinary appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against an interim order that allows the impleading of legal heirs subject to objections?
  • Can an interlocutory order passed by the High Court during a pending second appeal be assailed after the final decision if the appeal is decided against the aggrieved party?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeenat Begum vs Mst. Iqbal and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-12
  customary lawlimited owneralienation of landwidow's estateInjunctions of Islamsuccessionproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the alienation of land by a widow who had inherited the property of her deceased husband under customary law. The appellant, claiming to be the step-sister of the deceased, challenged the sale on the grounds that the widow held the land as a limited owner under custom and lacked the authority to alienate it without legal necessity. While the appellate court initially ruled in favor of the appellant, the High Court reversed this decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a widow inheriting under customary law remains subject to traditional restraints on alienation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that restrictions on the power of alienation imposed by customary law are opposed to the Injunctions of Islam. Relying on the precedent established in Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ishaq, the Court affirmed that such customary limitations are inconsistent with the spirit of Islamic law, thereby validating the widow's full ownership and her right to alienate the property.

  Questions settled

  • Does a widow inheriting agricultural land under customary law remain subject to restraints on alienation?
  • Are restrictions on the power of alienation under customary law consistent with the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Can a widow who inherits property under customary law transfer that land without legal necessity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarqa And Others vs Malik Haji Abdul Salam And Other1991 SCMR 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-05
  pre-emptionTalabsconstitutional petitionremand of suitex parte decreeMuhammadan Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, whereby a Constitution Petition filed by the first respondent was allowed, setting aside the pre-emption decree passed in favour of the appellants and dismissing their suit. The pre-emption suit was originally filed in 1971 in respect of tenancy rights, water, and shamilat land. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether, in the absence of the framing of an issue on the question of Talabs (demands under Muhammadan Law) and the recording of evidence thereon, the suit could be dismissed on the ground that no Talabs had been made. The Supreme Court held that since the pre-emptor had mentioned the Talab in the plaint and no issue was framed due to ex parte proceedings and no fault of the pre-emptor, the High Court was not justified in interfering in its constitutional jurisdiction; however, it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove the Talabs in accordance with Muhammadan Law. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the suit for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit can be dismissed in constitutional jurisdiction for want of proof of Talabs when no specific issue regarding Talabs was framed during trial?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a pre-emption decree under constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that the formalities of Talabs were not strictly observed?
  • Is it necessary for a pre-emptor to prove the making of Talabs in accordance with Muhammadan Law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina vs The State1991 MLD 518 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zareena Jan vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Farooq vs Chairman, Union Council,and another1991 CLC 1720 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05
  constitutional petitiondissolution of marriageArbitration CouncilSection 7 Muslim Family Laws Ordinancecertificate of divorceeffectiveness of Talaqreconciliation proceedingsdeath of husbandinheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order dated 22nd October 1989 and a subsequent divorce certificate dated 15th November 1989 issued by the Chairman, Arbitration Council, declaring that the petitioner's marriage stood dissolved. The petitioner asserted she remained the wife of her deceased husband until his death on 15th July 1989, and that proceedings were unlawfully initiated posthumously by her in-laws to deprive her of her inheritance. The core legal questions were whether the Chairman had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality or validity of a Talaq, issue an effective divorce certificate, and initiate or continue reconciliation proceedings under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 after the husband's death. The High Court held that the primary objective of Section 7 is reconciliation, which becomes frustrated upon the husband's death, rendering post-mortem proceedings impermissible without proof of service during the husband's lifetime. Furthermore, the Chairman lacked legal authority to decide the validity of Talaq or issue divorce certificates. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the impugned order and certificate were declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chairman of an Arbitration Council have the jurisdiction or legal authority to adjudicate upon the validity or legality of a Talaq and issue a certificate making the divorce effective?
  • Can proceedings under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 be initiated or continued by an Arbitration Council after the death of the husband?
  • Whether the primary objective of reconciliation under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 stands frustrated upon the death of one of the spouses?
  • Can a divorce certificate be lawfully issued upon an application filed posthumously by a relative of the deceased husband without proof of service of the notice of Talaq during the husband's lifetime?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Begum vs The State1991 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-28
  pre-arrest bailleave to appeallalkaracriminal appealbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Zakia Begum against the dismissal of her pre-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in respect of a criminal case registered at Police Station Wannekey Tarrar, District Gujranwala. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of an accused woman to pre-arrest bail where she is attributed a proverbial lalkara and alleged to have exhorted a co-accused to strike the deceased with the butt of a shotgun, alongside considerations of mala fides and family circumstances. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, permitted the challenge of a subsequent High Court order, treated the petition as an appeal, and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted, thereby allowing bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is only imputed a proverbial lalkara and interim bail has been enjoyed without abuse, the court may confirm pre-arrest bail pending the final disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed where an accused is only imputed a proverbial lalkara in the F.I.R.?
  • Can an appellate court treat a petition for leave to appeal as an appeal and allow bail to the accused?
  • Whether interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed if no application for its revocation was filed by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaidat vs Shahadat And Other1991 SCMR 1899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25
  leave to appealconcurrent findingsmental capacitydisposing mindsale-deedpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession of land sold by her deceased father. The core legal question concerns the mental capacity and disposing mind of the vendor at the time of executing the registered sale-deed amidst allegations of advanced age, paralysis, and senility. The Supreme Court held that the question of mental fitness was one of fact, and finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts affirming the vendor's capacity, the petition for leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding mental capacity in the absence of any legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mental fitness of a vendor to execute a sale-deed is a question of fact?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts regarding a vendor's mental capacity in the absence of legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaahran Mai and others vs Muhammad Mutiullah Khan and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-03
  limitationcondonation of delaycertified copycopying agencyregular second appealexclusion of timeact of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the High Court which dismissed a Regular Second Appeal as barred by time. The core legal question was whether the time spent in obtaining certified copies, including the period lost due to a clerical error in mentioning the date of the judgment in the copy application sent by registered post and its subsequent rectification, should be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were diligently prosecuting their case without negligence, that the fault of the Copying Agency—part of the judicial administration—cannot penalize a party, and that the time spent must be excluded as of right under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 without requiring an application under section 5. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the case remanded for decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that a party shall not suffer on account of the acts or defaults of the court's machinery, and the period requisite for obtaining copies via postal applications under the applicable rules must be excluded from limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time spent in obtaining a certified copy through post, including delays caused by rectifying a clerical error in the copy application, is excludable under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a litigant be penalized for the non-observance of rules or delays by the Copying Agency?
  • Does the exclusion of the period requisite for obtaining copies under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 operate as of right without requiring an application under section 5?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wazir Beg Um vs Zafar Iqbal and others1991 CLC 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wasim Zohra vs Superintendent, Telegraph Workshop, Kotri and 21991 PLC 672 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umme Laila vs Moiz Hussain1991 CLC 385 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tilyan vs Moula Bux and another1991 CLC 1729 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Talia Bibi and others vs Settlement Department and others1991 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Begum and 4 others vs Abdul Haq and 6 others1991 PLD Lahore 377 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Sultana And Others vs Dr. S. S. Naeemul Hamid And Other1991 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-06
  limitationcopying agencycertified copycomputation of timepetition for leave to appealtime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dated 22-3-1989, which addressed whether an appeal before the lower appellate court was barred by time by one day. The core legal question revolved around the computation of the period of limitation for obtaining copies under the Limitation Act, specifically regarding when an application for a copy is deemed to be made when it is initially entertained with defects by the copying agency. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the High Court, which concluded that the application for a copy was made on the date it was originally entered in the register despite formal defects like the absence of a court-fee stamp or presiding officer sanction, was unexceptionable and supported by the record. The key principle laid down is that a defective application for the supply of a copy, once entertained and entered in the register by the copying agency, shall be deemed to have been made on that date for computing the period of limitation under Section 12 of the Limitation Act.

  Questions settled

  • From what date should an application for a copy be deemed to have been made for computing the period of limitation under Section 12 of the Limitation Act when the application was initially entertained with defects by the copying agency?
  • Whether an appeal held to be within time by the High Court based on the correct computation of time spent in obtaining copies is sustainable when no misreading of evidence is pointed out?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Shaukat vs The State1991 MLD 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Swaleha Khatoon vs The Trustees of Hussaini Mission Trust1991 MLD 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughra And Another vs Additional Deputy Commissioner And Other1991 SCMR 1539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-20
  bona fide purchaserallotment cancellationleave to appealsettlement claimswrit jurisdictionstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions challenging the cancellation of an allotment of land. The petitioners contend that they are bona fide purchasers for value and were denied a fair hearing regarding the cancellation of the allotment originally made to their predecessor-in-interest, Daud Khan. They argue that the finding that the allotment was bogus is incorrect, asserting that the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court had previously upheld similar claims from the same estates even in the absence of verified records from India. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions, specifically addressing the validity of the cancellation of the allotment and the petitioners' status as bona fide purchasers, while also noting that the second petition is subject to a question of limitation. The Court ordered that the status quo be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bona fide purchaser for value challenge the cancellation of an allotment made to their predecessor-in-interest?
  • Does the absence of verified records from India invalidate an allotment claim if similar claims were previously upheld by the Settlement Commissioner?
  • Is the cancellation of an allotment valid if the affected parties were not provided a hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Siddiqan Bibi and anothers vs Additional District Judge III, Muzaffargarh and another1991 CLC 692 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharman Bibi And Others vs Mahboob Ali And Another1991 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-27
  admissibility of evidencemode of proofwaiver of objectionpedigree-tableappellate reviewremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court order that remanded a case to the District Judge for re-evaluation of evidence, specifically regarding the admissibility of a pedigree-table (Ex.P.3). The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly held that the objection regarding the mode of proof of the pedigree-table had been waived by the appellants due to their failure to raise it before the Trial Court. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that, contrary to the High Court's finding, the appellants had indeed raised a timely objection to the document's admissibility when it was tendered in evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's premise—that the objection was not taken and thus waived—was factually incorrect and against the record. The Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the appeals, establishing the principle that an appellate court must accurately verify the record regarding whether objections to the admissibility of evidence were raised at the trial stage before concluding that such objections were waived.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court conclude that an objection to the mode of proof of a document was waived if the record shows the objection was raised at the trial stage?
  • Is a finding by the High Court that is contrary to the trial record sustainable in appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi and others vs Asghar Ali and others1991 CLC 1470 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs The State and another-1991 P Cr. L J 1679 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Muhammad Sadiq And Other1991 SCMR 1798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-21
  pre-emption decreeexecution of decreeQabza Malkanasymbolic possessionactual possessionres judicatalandlord and tenantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed her civil revision and affirmed the lower courts' rulings restricting her to 'Qabza Malkana' (symbolic/proprietary possession) rather than actual physical possession under a pre-emption decree. The Supreme Court observed that during prior litigation between the parties, the High Court had already determined that the decree-holder was entitled only to Qabza Malkana and not physical possession, a finding that became final as it was not challenged further. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower forums, holding that the finality of the earlier finding bound the execution proceedings. Furthermore, the Court addressed the petitioner's apprehension regarding her remedy by clarifying that holding the petitioner entitled to Qabza Malkana establishes the respondents' status as tenants, thereby entitling the petitioner to initiate lawful proceedings against them in that capacity. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding in prior revision proceedings regarding the nature of possession under a decree, which has attained finality, operates as a bar to claiming actual physical possession in execution?
  • What legal remedies remain available to a decree-holder who is awarded Qabza Malkana (symbolic possession) instead of physical possession of suit land?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Government of the Punjab1991 PLD Lahore 389 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-09
  writ petitiontransfer and postingcivil servantpolitical pressureadministrative ordermala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional writ petition filed by a school teacher challenging the administrative cancellation of her transfer order, which was recalled by the Deputy Education Officer upon the desire of a Member of the National Assembly and a Member of the Provincial Assembly. The core legal question is whether an administrative transfer or cancellation order passed by a competent authority under political influence or pressure warrants interference by the High Court under writ jurisdiction in the absence of established mala fides. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that transfer and posting orders are purely administrative in nature and courts ought not to interfere with them without cogent reasons or clear proof of malice, as doing so would hamper the smooth functioning of government machinery. The key principle laid down is that while political pressures on civil servant postings are common, administrative orders issued by competent authorities will not be struck down unless specific mala fides or injustice is properly pleaded and established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with administrative transfer and posting orders of civil servants without cogent reasons?
  • Does the cancellation of a transfer order at the instance of public representatives vitiate the order in the absence of proven mala fides?
  • Is an administrative order passed under political pressure automatically illegal if particulars of malice are not furnished?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Ahmad Khan and another1991 MLD 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Additional District Judge, Sialkot and another1991 CLC 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09
  maintenanceNikahnamaRukhsatiFamily Court jurisdictionMuslim Family Laws Ordinanceconjugal rightsconcurrent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, which dismissed a wife's suit for maintenance on the grounds that Rukhsati had not occurred and that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal questions were whether maintenance is payable under a Nikahnama despite the absence of Rukhsati, and whether the Family Court has concurrent jurisdiction to grant maintenance alongside the Arbitration Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The High Court held that in the absence of a plea that the wife refused conjugal society without reasonable cause, the lack of Rukhsati does not disentitle her to maintenance stipulated in the Nikahnama. Furthermore, the Court held that the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964, does not exclude the Family Court's jurisdiction to grant maintenance. The principle laid down is that Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, is an enabling provision and does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Arbitration Council; thus, a wife may choose to seek maintenance either through the Arbitration Council or by filing a suit before the Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of Rukhsati automatically disentitle a wife to maintenance stipulated in the Nikahnama?
  • Does the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Arbitration Council to grant maintenance?
  • Can a wife file a suit for maintenance before a Family Court despite the existence of the Arbitration Council mechanism under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Additional District Judge and 2 others1991 CLC 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahzada Begum vs Ahmad Kamal and 18 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-19
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictiondivisibility of housesettlement authoritydisplaced personsfailure to exercise jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of an urban settlement matter was allowed and the case was remanded to the Settlement Authority to examine the divisibility of the disputed house. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction on the question of the divisibility of a house under settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authority failed to apply an independent mind to the physical characteristics of the house regarding its divisibility, instead treating it as indivisible based on preferential rights. The ratio decidendi is that failure by a settlement officer to apply an independent mind to the question of divisibility constitutes a failure to exercise vested power, rendering the order without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that under the proviso to Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, authorities must properly consider divisibility to fulfill the legislative object of accommodating as many displaced persons as possible, and High Courts can lawfully interfere under writ jurisdiction when authorities fail to exercise this power.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere in its Constitutional writ jurisdiction on the question of divisibility of a house?
  • Does the failure of a settlement authority to apply an independent mind to the divisibility of a property constitute a failure to exercise vested power?
  • Can a settlement authority treat a house as indivisible based on preferential rights without examining its physical characteristics?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Begum vs Mst. Zulaikha Bibi And 5 Other1991 SCMR 1943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-19
  rejection of plaintallotment of landexhaustion of remediessettlement and rehabilitationcivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's plaint by the lower courts. The petitioner, Mst. Shahnaz Begum, challenged the allotment of 5 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land to respondent Mst. Zulaikha Bibi, claiming the land had previously been allotted to her uncle, Chaudhry Muhammad Abdullah, on an industrial basis. The core legal question was whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action or if the rejection of the plaint under summary procedure was justified. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had provided cogent findings justifying the rejection of the plaint. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Chaudhry Muhammad Abdullah, had already exhausted his legal remedies before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities regarding the disputed land transfer. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that a civil suit cannot be maintained to re-litigate matters where administrative remedies have already been exhausted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil suit be maintained to challenge land allotments when the predecessor-in-interest has already exhausted remedies before Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities?
  • Is the rejection of a plaint justified when the plaintiff fails to disclose a valid cause of action after previous administrative adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Begum and others vs Home Department and others1991 CLC 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04
  constitutional petitionrequisition of immovable propertyeducational institutionprivate educational institutionswithout lawful authoritystatutory protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges a notification issued by the Home Department under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, whereby a property used for an educational institution was requisitioned. The core legal question was whether a building used for imparting education through private educational institutions could be lawfully requisitioned under the Act. The Lahore High Court held that, in light of the second proviso to section 3 of the Act and the fact that the property had been continuously in use as an educational institution prior to the nationalization of schools under Martial Law Regulation 118, the requisition order was uncalled for and illegal. Consequently, the court declared the impugned notification to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, accepting the writ petition. The key principle laid down is that buildings used for imparting education through private educational institutions are protected from requisition under the relevant statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a building used for imparting education through private educational institutions be lawfully requisitioned under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956?
  • Whether a requisition notification issued in violation of the second proviso to section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahana Jawed vs Haroon1991 MLD 1914 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Jaiian Begum vs Mst. Shabbir Fatima and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-19
  settlement matterdivisibility of housedisplaced personsconstitutional petitionC.H. Formspreferential claimphysical possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose out of an urban settlement dispute concerning the allotment and transfer of a residential house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Both parties occupied portions of the house and sought its transfer under C.H. Forms. The Settlement Commissioner refused to divide the property and transferred the entire house to the respondent, holding that the respondent had a preferential claim and that the house was indivisible, which decision was affirmed by the High Court in a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the Settlement Commissioner's order. The Court held that the power to determine divisibility under the Proviso to Section 2(4) of the Act depends strictly on the physical aspects of the property—such as independent staircases, exits, and access roads—and not on the personal legal qualifications or preferential rights of the rival claimants. The Settlement Commissioner erred by considering extraneous legal rights rather than physical divisibility. To accommodate both displaced persons, the Court deemed the house divided according to physical possession.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power to determine divisibility under the Proviso to Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 governed by physical aspects of the property or the relative legal qualifications of the applicants?
  • Can a Settlement Authority refuse to divide a house on extraneous grounds relating to a party's preferential claim despite physical evidence of independent exits, staircases, and road access?
  • Does the High Court commit a legal error in upholding a Settlement Commissioner's order that refuses property division by confusing physical divisibility with the comparative rights of rival claimants?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabnam Bano vs Sh. Muhammad Salim and 2 others1991 CLC 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Satbharai vs Mst. Mahmood Khatoon and 3 others1991 CLC 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwary Begum vs Muhammad Tufail and others1991 MLD 2131 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue And Other1991 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29
  land allotmentevacuee propertyexchange of landstate landrevenue recordsleave to appealstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition concerning the cancellation of an allotment of land comprising Killa No. 2, Square No. 51, which was withdrawn from the petitioner on the ground that it constituted State land not subject to exchange with evacuee land. The core legal question is whether an allotment of land made and maintained in favor of the petitioner since 1953, and reflected in subsequent Jamabandis, can be lawfully taken away when the area remains unallotted to anyone else. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised by the petitioner require deeper consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that long-standing allotments shown in revenue records warrant a full review by the court when disputed by state authorities, and an interim status quo preserving possession must be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of land shown in the owner's favor in Jamabandis since 1953 can be cancelled on the ground that it forms part of unexchanged State land?
  • Does a long-standing land allotment that remains unallocated to any other party require consideration for the grant of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sara Bai vs Kassam and others1991 CLC 1151 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sania And Another vs Mst. Zarjana And Other1991 SCMR 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-27
  civil revisionpartition suitcontinuing cause of actiondismissal of suitleave to appealres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' civil revision in a suit for possession through partition of a house. The High Court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that an earlier similar suit had been dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners contend that in a suit for partition, the cause of action is a continuing one, and therefore, a subsequent suit is not barred by the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court, finding that the question raised requires examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court directed the appeal to be prepared on the existing record, with parties instructed to file all necessary documents for final disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second suit for partition barred by Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if an earlier similar suit was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8?
  • Does a suit for partition involve a continuing cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Su Leman And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1341 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-27
  revision applicationconviction alterationnon-examination of investigating officermaterial contradictionscriminal trialprejudice to accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, which maintained the sentence of the applicants while altering their conviction from Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer by the prosecution causes serious prejudice to the accused by depriving them of the right to cross-examine and confront the witness with material contradictions in the evidence. The court noted precedents establishing that failure to examine the Investigating Officer is a serious defect. The judgment highlights the legal implications of omitting material witnesses and the effect of such omission on criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer seriously prejudice the rights of the accused?
  • Can an appellate court maintain a sentence while altering a conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the production and examination of the Investigating Officer a necessary requirement in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sandal Begum vs Bassan Muhammad1991 PLD Azad J & K 14 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-12-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Begum vs Muhammad Ali1991 MLD 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Begum vs Mohammad AliK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 449 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salima Bibi vs Sardar Khan and 4 others1991 MLD 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26
  pre-emptioncompromise decreeburden of proofuneducated litigantcivil appealremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a decision of the District Judge recording a compromise and dismissing a pre-emption suit. The original pre-emptor had secured a pre-emption decree, which the vendees appealed. During the appeal, the vendees filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 alleging a compromise, which the pre-emptor denied, claiming her thumb-impressions were taken on a blank paper due to a prior quarrel. The lower appellate court upheld the compromise. Upon appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(m) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Lahore High Court examined the evidence and held that the vendees failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving a lawful and voluntary compromise by an uneducated pardanashin lady, noting numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the composition deed. The High Court set aside the impugned decision and remanded the matter to the lower appellate court to decide the appeal on merits. The key legal principle laid down is that the party relying on a compromise in a judicial proceeding bears the strict burden of proving its voluntary and lawful execution, particularly when involving vulnerable or uneducated litigants.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the onus of establishing that an appeal was adjusted in a lawful manner through a compromise?
  • Can a compromise deed executed by an uneducated village lady without independent advice and under suspicious circumstances be sustained?
  • What is the appellate court's recourse when the lower appellate court erroneously upholds an unverified compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salamat Bibi vs Mst. Sardaran Bibi1991 MLD 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Younas vs Administrator, Women's Christian Hospital, Multan and 2 others1991 PLC 798 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-20
  writ petitionindustrial relationscharitable organizationworkmanlabour court jurisdictionhospital
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an Aid-Nurse challenging the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside her reinstatement and held that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a charitable hospital operated on a non-profit basis qualifies as a commercial or industrial establishment under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, so as to bring its employees within the definition of a workman. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Women's Christian Hospital, Multan, being a charitable organization registered under the Societies Act, 1860 and run on a non-profit basis, is neither a commercial nor an industrial establishment. Consequently, the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 do not apply to its employees. The key principle laid down is that charitable hospitals functioning without profit motives do not fall within the ambit of labor laws governing commercial or industrial establishments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a charitable hospital operated on a non-profit basis qualifies as a commercial or industrial establishment under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to entertain grievances of employees of a charitable organization?
  • Are employees of a charitable hospital covered under the definition of a workman for the purposes of labor legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi vs Collector, Lahore and 4 others1991 MLD 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi and others vs Raja Khushi Muhammad and others1991 CLC 1403 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina and others vs Muhammad Akram and others1991 MLD 1891 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Parveen vs The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 21991 MLD 745 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-09
  child custodyguardianshipFamily Courts Actjurisdiction of Civil Judgewelfare of minorappellate jurisdictionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Appellate Court regarding the custody of a minor child. The petitioner contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate guardianship matters and that the Additional District Judge was incompetent to hear the appeal. The Court held that, pursuant to the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, a Civil Judge, 1st Class, possesses the requisite jurisdiction to try guardianship and custody applications. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that, under the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, a District Judge may validly assign appeals to an Additional District Judge, who then exercises the same powers as the District Judge. On merits, the Court reiterated that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and under Muslim Law, a father is generally entitled to the custody of a boy over seven years of age. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no jurisdictional defect in the lower courts' proceedings or their determination regarding the minor's welfare.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Judge, 1st Class have the jurisdiction to try guardianship and custody matters under the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965?
  • Can an Additional District Judge hear and decide an appeal assigned by a District Judge under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in determining the custody of a child under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida And Another vs S.H.O. and another-1991 P Cr. L J 1974 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Akhtar vs Province of Punjab and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 439 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahar Begum vs Salahuddin1991 MLD 1594 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-18
  rejection of plaintagreement to sellpermanent injunctiondeclaratory reliefSpecific Relief ActTransfer of Property Actpeaceful possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the rejection of a plaint by the trial court in a suit seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction regarding immovable property. The trial court had rejected the plaint on the premise that a claim for declaration based solely on an agreement to sell was legally unsustainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court examined whether the rejection was proper. The Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part; it must be accepted or rejected as a whole. Consequently, even if the declaratory relief faced technical hurdles, the claim for permanent injunction based on peaceful possession remained maintainable. The Court further clarified that while a bare agreement to sell does not create an interest in property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, specific clauses within such agreements may indeed create such interests or charges. Thus, the trial court erred in summarily rejecting the entire plaint, and the matter was remanded for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected in part if one of the reliefs claimed is legally barred?
  • Does a contract of sale of immovable property always fail to create an interest in or charge on the property?
  • Is a suit for permanent injunction maintainable based on peaceful possession even if title is disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Begum vs Taj Din And 2 Other1991 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-26
  leave to appealspecific performanceprocedural technicalitysecond appealcertified copy of judgmentmesne profits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a second appeal filed by the petitioner. The underlying dispute involved a suit for specific performance regarding a house in Lahore Cantonment. Following various proceedings in the trial court and the District Court, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal on the procedural ground that the petitioner had failed to file a certified copy of the trial court's judgment, a requirement deemed mandatory by the Court. The High Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to rectify this omission despite a lapse of six years. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether an appeal can be dismissed solely on the technical ground of failing to attach a copy of the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this issue, noting that similar questions were pending in other petitions, and ordered the maintenance of the status quo subject to the petitioner furnishing security for mesne profits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of failure to file a certified copy of the trial court's judgment?
  • Is the filing of a certified copy of the trial court's judgment a mandatory requirement for maintaining a second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safaidi And Others vs Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan And Other1991 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30
  land allotmentMukhbari applicationDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Actfinality of administrative ordersleave to appealres judicatacancellation of allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the cancellation of land allotments originally sanctioned under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question involves whether a Mukhbari application filed in 1974 could legally challenge land allotments that had been previously scrutinized and upheld by the Deputy Commissioner in 1958 and Martial Law authorities in 1961. The petitioners further challenged the validity of the Additional Settlement Commissioner's subsequent cancellation order, arguing it relied on a previously quashed decision and that the evidence used—documents in Hindi—was unintelligible to the court and counsel. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contentions raised by the petitioners required detailed consideration. The Court held that the legal questions surrounding the finality of the earlier administrative decisions and the procedural propriety of the subsequent cancellation orders warranted a full hearing. The Court ordered that the interim relief previously granted on 10-4-1988 shall continue pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Mukhbari application be entertained against land allotments that have already been scrutinized and upheld by competent authorities?
  • Does an order of an Additional Settlement Commissioner based on a previously quashed decision hold legal validity?
  • Can a court render a decision based on documents that are in a language neither the court nor the counsel can read?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeedan and 4 others vs Mst. Hajran and others1991 MLD 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Parveen vs Mst. Saeeda Sheikh1991 MLD 2347 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Begum vs Mukhtar Ahmad Butt And Another1991 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26
  special leave to appealcooperative societynomineesuccessionplot ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the ownership of a plot in Model Town, Lahore, originally belonging to Seth Rahim Bakhsh, who had nominated the petitioner in 1933 before his death in 1935. The core legal question is whether a nominee is entitled to succeed to the deceased member's share or interest in the property in preference to the legal heirs, specifically under the Cooperative Societies Act. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the effect of nomination and the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directing security for costs and permitting the parties to rely on the present record along with any additional documents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a nominee is entitled to succeed to a deceased member's share or interest in property in preference to legal heirs under the Cooperative Societies Act 1912?
  • Does the appointment of a nominee by a property owner imply a sale or transfer of ownership in the absence of a registered sale deed?
  • What are the rights of a society's nominee versus the legal heirs of a deceased member regarding disputed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saddan vs Muhammad Nawaz and another1991 CLC 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24
  custody of minorguardianshipwelfare of minormaternal grandmothernatural guardiancustody vs guardianshipmaintenance of minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a custody dispute under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, concerning a minor child. The petitioner, the maternal grandmother, challenged an appellate order by the Additional District Judge that reversed a Guardian Judge's decision and granted custody to the respondent, the minor's father. The core legal question was whether the father's status as a natural guardian automatically entitles him to custody, and whether the grandmother's lack of independent financial means is sufficient grounds to deprive her of custody. The Lahore High Court held that the father's status as a natural guardian does not grant an absolute right to custody, which is distinct from guardianship. The Court ruled that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration and that a lack of financial means is not a valid ground to deny custody, as the father is legally obligated to provide maintenance. The Court restored the Guardian Judge's order, emphasizing that under personal law, custody rights in the absence of the mother vest in the maternal grandmother.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of a father as a natural guardian automatically entitle him to the custody of his minor child?
  • Is a lack of independent financial means sufficient grounds to deprive a maternal grandmother of the custody of her minor grandchild?
  • Is there a legal distinction between the right to custody and the right to guardianship under personal law?
  • Does the obligation to maintain a minor child rest with the father even if the child is in the custody of another relative?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabihia And Another vs Moosa And Another1991 PCr.LJ 2165 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saadia Shirin vs Javed Ali Bhatti and 2 others1991 MLD 784 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ruqayya Yasmin vs Muhammad Riaz and others1991 MLD 166 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04
  custody of minorswelfare of the minorHizanatremarriage of motherconstitutional jurisdictionguardianship
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent orders of the Guardian Judge and the appellate court regarding the custody of two minors. The core legal question was whether the custody of minors could be determined solely on the ground of the mother's remarriage, effectively terminating her right of Hizanat, without evaluating the welfare of the minors. The High Court held that the lower courts erred by treating the mother's remarriage as the exclusive factor for denying custody. The impugned orders were declared to be without lawful authority, and the matter was remanded to the Guardian Judge for a fresh decision. The Court affirmed that the paramount and overriding consideration in all custody disputes is the welfare of the minor, encompassing their material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being. While a mother's remarriage is a relevant factor, it cannot serve as the sole basis for determining custody; the court must weigh all evidence to ensure the decision serves the minor's best interests.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court determine the custody of a minor solely on the basis of the mother's remarriage?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in custody disputes under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  • Does the factum of a mother's remarriage automatically disqualify her from the custody of her minor children?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Kausar vs Mian Abdur Rauf and another1991 CLC 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Bibi And Others vs Lal Hussain And Other1991 SCMR 2049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-26
  inheritance disputeconcurrent findings of factmisreading of evidenceleave to appealcivil revisionsectarian status
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision regarding an inheritance dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court and the appellate court erred in their concurrent findings of fact regarding the religious sect of the deceased last owner, Nazar Hussain, which directly impacted the inheritance distribution. The petitioners contended that the lower courts misread the evidence, specifically regarding the deceased's donations to Shia causes, his attendance at Majalis, and the performance of his funeral rites. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts were unexceptionable. The Court found no evidence of misreading or non-reading of the record, nor any legal infirmity or violation of principle in the lower courts' determinations. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that findings of fact supported by the record are not subject to interference in the absence of demonstrable legal error or misappreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does the performance of religious rites or donations to specific religious causes conclusively determine the sect of a deceased person for inheritance purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rozi Samuel Shad vs The Superintendent Jail, Lahore and another-1991 P Cr. L J 405 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →