Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Mst. Fahmida Parveen and anothers vs Ghulam Hussain and others1991 CLC 1440 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Eido vs Abdul Ghaffar And Other1991 SCMR 1517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular First Appeal in a suit for specific performance. The petitioner had originally filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was returned due to a lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking to exclude the time spent pursuing the appeal in the wrong forum on the grounds of a bona fide mistake and incorrect legal advice. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to determine whether the period spent pursuing the appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge qualifies for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, specifically addressing whether a mistake of counsel regarding the appropriate forum constitutes a bona fide error sufficient to warrant the exclusion of time for limitation purposes.
Questions settled- Does the time spent pursuing an appeal in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction qualify for the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a mistake of counsel regarding the appropriate appellate forum be considered a bona fide error for the purposes of condoning delay?
- Mst. Darveshan Jan vs Muhammad Aslam And Another1991 SCMR 1659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Mst. Darveshan Jan, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 7th November, 1988. The core legal question concerns whether respondent No.2, Sardar Hussain, possessed a superior right of pre-emption and was lawfully entitled to a decree for possession of the disputed land based on the facts and material on record. Upon hearing arguments, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question. The Court ordered the petitioner to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 5,000, directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record, and granted liberty to the parties to file additional documents deemed necessary for the final disposal of the appeal. The key principle established is that the determination of a superior right of pre-emption requires a careful appraisal of the factual matrix and record.
Questions settled- Whether a respondent can be held as having a superior right of pre-emption based on the facts and material on record?
- Is a party entitled to a decree for possession of land in a pre-emption dispute without establishing a superior right?
- Mst. Chunan And Others vs Ayub Hussain And Other1991 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had declared an allotment of land to a third party, Hafiz Ihsanullah, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The dispute originated from agricultural land originally proposed for the respondents in 1964, which was later cancelled in 1971. In the interim, a portion of this land was transferred to Hafiz Ihsanullah in 1969, eventually passing to the petitioners through successive sales and a pre-emption suit. The respondents successfully challenged the allotment to Hafiz Ihsanullah in the High Court. The petitioners, as subsequent owners, sought leave to appeal, contending that the initial proposal in favour of the respondents lacked specific khasra numbers, making it impossible for them to ascertain the illegality of the allotment to Hafiz Ihsanullah. The Supreme Court found that this contention required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine the validity of the allotment and the rights of the subsequent purchasers in light of the initial proposal's lack of specificity.
Questions settled- Does an allotment proposal lacking specific khasra numbers provide sufficient notice to subsequent purchasers regarding the illegality of the allotment?
- Can a subsequent purchaser of land claim protection if the initial allotment to their predecessor was declared without lawful authority?
- Mst. Channo Through Legal Heirs And Another vs Gulab And Other1991 SCMR 1844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the lower courts regarding a suit for the partition of land located in the urban area of Fateh Jang Town. The core legal question was whether a co-owner of joint property is entitled to a final decree for partition of their share from a specific Khasra number, or if they must claim their share across all Khasra numbers as a compact block. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the lower courts had correctly analyzed the facts and that the respondent, as a co-owner, was entitled to the relief granted. The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that the partition could not be restricted to a specific Khasra number, finding no legal justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by the courts below. Consequently, the Court determined that no point of law was involved, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, thereby affirming the final decree passed in favour of the respondent.
Questions settled- Can a co-owner of joint property be granted a final decree for partition of their share from a specific Khasra number?
- Is a party entitled to challenge a partition decree on the basis that the share should be allocated across all Khasra numbers rather than a specific one?
- Mst. Bismillah Begum through Legal Heirss vs Mahji1991 MLD 1303 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bilqis Bano vs Ghulam Rasool and others1991 MLD 2375 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bilqees Begum And Others vs Additional Deputy Commissioiner And Other1991 SCMR 1666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Mst. Bilqees Begum and others against the Additional Deputy Commissioner and others, concerning the transfer of property measuring eight kanals in Faisalabad originally transferred to their predecessor-in-interest, Fazal Muhammad. While portions of the property were distributed to various respondents through protracted litigation, the remaining area was ordered to vest in the Government. The core legal question is whether the authorities were justified in ordering the remaining undisputed property portion to vest in the Government when it had already been transferred to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest and was not allotted to any other claimant. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioners requires consideration and granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that property validly transferred to a predecessor-in-interest cannot be arbitrarily ordered to vest in the Government without lawful justification when it remains unallotted to third parties.
Questions settled- Whether property previously transferred to a settlement transferee can be ordered to vest in the Government without lawful justification?
- Does a challenge to the vesting of unallotted settlement property in the Government warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- Mst. Begi vs Muhammad Khan1991 CLC 1290 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Batool Begum vs Muhammad Younas Khan1991 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of her Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract of sale brought against her. The core legal question raised pertains to whether the petitioner, being a Parda Nasheen lady, was entitled to the special protections and benefits afforded to Parda Nasheen women regarding the contested transaction. Upon reviewing the relevant evidence, the Supreme Court found prima facie support for her status as a Parda Nasheen lady. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, suspended the impugned decree in the interim, directed the preparation of the appeal on the existing record with liberty to file essential documents, and permitted the substitution of legal representatives of the deceased party.
Questions settled- Whether the protections and benefits applicable to a Parda Nasheen lady can be extended in a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale?
- Under what circumstances will leave to appeal be granted against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal concerning a contract of sale?
- Mst. Bashiran vs Muhammad Abbas And Others1991 P Cr. L J 1509 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bashiran Bibi vs S.H.O. and others-1991 P Cr. L J 1045 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bashiran And Others vs The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 1774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a shop in Hafizabad, District Gujranwala, which was initially auctioned by the Settlement Department on August 26, 1960. The central legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the shop could validly be transferred to the occupant, Fazal Din, on October 13, 1971, despite a prior auction bid by one Nathu. The Court observed that while there was significant litigation regarding the identity of the original bidder and whether he had complied with payment requirements, these issues were secondary. The decisive factor was that the transfer price for the shop had not been cleared by the original auction purchaser before the property was declared 'available' for transfer and subsequently transferred to the occupant. Consequently, the Court held that the transfer to the occupant was valid under the circumstances. The Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower authority's decision to finalize the transfer to the occupant due to the failure of the auction purchaser to complete the necessary financial obligations.
Questions settled- Can a property be transferred to an occupant if the original auction purchaser failed to clear the transfer price?
- Does the failure of an auction purchaser to pay the transfer price render a property 'available' for transfer to an occupant?
- Mst. Barkat Bibi vs Mst. Sakina Bibi and 7 others1991 CLC 546 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner-plaintiff's suit for a share in agricultural land. The petitioner, daughter of the original temporary allottee, claimed a share in the land under inheritance following her father's death. The core legal question was whether agricultural land temporarily allotted to a head of a family for maintenance (guzara) is heritable by heirs outside the designated family unit, and whether the petitioner had any entitlement to proprietary rights subsequently acquired by the surviving associate members and sold to a bona fide purchaser. The Lahore High Court held that land temporarily allotted solely for maintenance does not form part of the estate of the deceased allottee and is not heritable, as the right to receive maintenance terminates upon death. Consequently, the temporary allotment enured only to the surviving associate family members who later purchased proprietary rights and validly sold them. The Court laid down the principle that temporary maintenance allotments do not constitute heritable property upon the allottee's death and dismissed the revision in limine.
Questions settled- Whether agricultural land temporarily allotted for maintenance purposes is heritable upon the death of the allottee?
- Does a daughter who was not part of the temporary allottee's associate family unit have a right to inherit or share in the temporarily allotted land?
- Can surviving associate family members who acquire proprietary rights in a temporary allotment validly convey title to a bona fide purchaser for value?
- Mst. Balqees Bano vs Shamim Ahmad alias Yasin and 2 others1991 CLC 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bakhtawara and others vs Mst. Amirzadgai1991 PLD Peshawar 96 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bakht Bano vs Mst. Zainab Khatoon1991 MLD 2389 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for a perpetual injunction and declaration regarding land, challenging a sale mutation on the grounds of impersonation, fraud, and lack of consideration. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding the sale mutation to be fictitious and invalid, which decision was subsequently affirmed by the Additional District Judge in appeal. The core legal question revolved around the genuineness of the oral sale evidenced through the disputed mutation and whether the beneficiary of the mutation successfully discharged the onus of proof regarding the payment of consideration and valid execution. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below suffered from no jurisdictional error, misreading, or non-consideration of evidence. The key legal principle laid down is that the onus of proof to establish the validity of a sale mutation heavily rests upon its beneficiary, and where evidence regarding payment of consideration and appearance before the Revenue Officer is discrepant and fraught with serious doubts, the mutation cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Where a sale mutation is challenged on the ground of fraud and impersonation, upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the validity of the sale?
- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding the ungenuineness of a sale mutation be interfered with in civil revision in the absence of jurisdictional error or misreading of evidence?
- Whether an oral sale of land through mutation is legally sustainable when the evidence regarding the payment of consideration is materially discrepant and uncorroborated?
- Mst. Badshah Begum and others vs Baradri Kashmiri and others1991 CLC 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Azizul Fatima vs Syed Liaquatullah Hussaini1991 MLD 1374 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aziz Bebum And 4 Others vs Muhammad Siddiqui1991 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had accepted the respondent's Regular Second Appeal arising from a suit previously decreed in favor of the petitioners by the District Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve a conflict between two statutory provisions: Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 2 of the Mesne Profits and Improvements Act, 1855. Additionally, the Court identified a procedural issue regarding the competency of the present petition, specifically whether the petitioners were required to file a direct appeal instead, and if so, whether such an appeal would be time-barred. The Court held that these legal questions regarding statutory conflict and procedural competency required further examination. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted, with directions for the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the property in dispute and to prepare the appeal on the existing record.
Questions settled- Is there a legal conflict between Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 2 of the Mesne Profits and Improvements Act, 1855?
- Does the filing of a petition for leave to appeal instead of a direct appeal render the proceedings incompetent?
- If a direct appeal is required but not filed, must the subsequent appeal be treated as time-barred?
- Mst. Awal Marjan vs Mst. Gul Jan1991 P Cr. LJ 717 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, brought by a mother seeking the custody of her four minor children from her mother-in-law and husband. The core legal question revolved around whether the High Court should grant custody of minor children to the mother in summary proceedings under Section 491, Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the pendency of guardianship proceedings before the Guardian Judge. The Lahore High Court held that under personal law (Hizanat), the mother holds a superior right to the custody of minor children compared to the grandmother or father, and summary habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy to restore custody to the mother despite pending guardianship litigation, as complex questions regarding the mother's financial circumstances and the welfare of minors are best settled by the Guardian Judge upon evidence. The key principle laid down is that the mother's right of Hizanat under personal law warrants the delivery of minor children's custody to her through summary proceedings, leaving broader factual determinations regarding welfare and suitability to the competent Guardian Court.
Questions settled- Can a mother seek the custody of her minor children through a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the pendency of an application before the Guardian Judge preclude the High Court from granting custody of minors in summary proceedings?
- Does the mother have a preferential right of Hizanat over the father and paternal grandmother under personal law?
- Can disputed questions of fact regarding the welfare of minors and the mother's financial circumstances be adjudicated in summary habeas corpus proceedings?
- Mst. Asma Begum and others vs Ghulam Muhammad and another1991 CLC 1464 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Asia Bano vs The Rent Controller, Gujranwala and 9 othersI991 MLD 813 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ashraf Alia vs Dr. Asif Majeed1991 CLC 53 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal arises from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlady against the respondent-tenant in 1976 on the grounds of personal requirement for her son to establish a mechanical business and material impairment of the premises. During litigation, the landlady also pursued an adjoining rent case against another tenant, securing possession of two shops which were subsequently utilized for a school and its office rather than the son's business. The core legal questions involved whether the landlady established a bona fide personal requirement in good faith, and the effect of acquiring alternate premises during the pendency of proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that a landlord seeking eviction for personal use must demonstrate genuine necessity and good faith, and failing to utilize alternate acquired premises or misrepresenting material facts negates such requirement. The court established that a mere desire or greedy wish does not constitute bona fide personal need, and 'good faith' requires honesty and sincerity under relevant statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Does the acquisition of alternate premises by a landlord during the pendency of ejectment proceedings extinguish the right to seek eviction of another tenant for personal requirement?
- What constitutes 'good faith' in the context of a landlord's claim for personal requirement under rent restriction laws?
- Does a mere desire or wish on the part of a landlord amount to a bona fide personal requirement for evicting a tenant?
- What is the effect of misstatements and concealment of material facts by a landlord or beneficiary regarding the genuineness of a personal requirement claim?
- Mst. Arjumand Bano vs Ch. Ali Muhammad1991 MLD 250 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Arash Noor And 2 Others vs Haji Ghulam Rabbani And 10 Other1991 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs (petitioners) seeking to declare certain exchange and sale deeds void and inoperative, alleging they were obtained through fraud, undue influence, collusion, and without consideration. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court dismissed the respondents' appeal, thereby maintaining concurrent findings of fact in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the High Court accepted the respondents' civil revision and set aside these concurrent findings. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was unjustified as the case did not meet the statutory criteria. They further contended that the judgment violated established precedent protecting the property rights of female heirs. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the protection of female property rights.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside concurrent findings of fact where no jurisdictional error is shown?
- Whether a judgment setting aside concurrent findings of fact in a property dispute involving female plaintiffs violates the protective principles established for female heirs' property rights?
- Mst. Anwar Begum and 7 others vs Syed Muhammad Siddique and another1991 MLD 1182 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by landlords against tenants for a shop in Rawalpindi. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, finding the tenants in default of rent and guilty of subletting. The core legal questions were whether the tenants committed willful default given an advance payment held by the landlords, and whether the presence of a relative in the shop constituted subletting. The High Court held that the advance payment of Rs. 50,000 was clearly intended as advance rent, not security, and the landlord’s admission of adjusting monthly rent from this sum negated the claim of willful default. Furthermore, the Court held that a relative assisting a tenant in business does not amount to subletting, especially absent evidence of a transfer of tenancy rights. The principle laid down is that where a landlord holds sufficient advance rent to cover alleged arrears, the tenant cannot be held a willful defaulter, and the mere presence of a relative assisting in business does not establish subletting. The eviction order was set aside.
Questions settled- Does the existence of an advance payment held by a landlord preclude a finding of willful default if the amount covers the arrears?
- Does a relative assisting a tenant in business operations constitute subletting of the premises?
- Can a landlord who admits to adjusting monthly rent from an advance payment later claim the payment was merely security?
- Mst. Amtul Mubin Alias Mst. Mubin Karim vs Magistrate Illaqa, South1991 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Magistrate Illaqa, which discharged the accused persons from a criminal case based solely on a police report. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate acts lawfully when discharging an accused person by mechanically adopting the police report without applying an independent judicial mind. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside. The Court reasoned that while the order of discharge is administrative in nature, a Magistrate is not permitted to render their discretion subservient to police dictates. The Court established the principle that a Magistrate is legally obligated to apply an independent mind to the facts presented by the investigating agency and must formulate their own opinion rather than acting in a purely mechanical fashion based on the police's recommendation. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the concerned Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring judicial scrutiny is exercised rather than mere rubber-stamping of police reports.
Questions settled- Is a Magistrate required to apply an independent mind when passing an order of discharge based on a police report?
- Can a Magistrate render their judicial discretion subservient to the police's opinion in a discharge proceeding?
- Does the mechanical adoption of a police report by a Magistrate in a discharge order constitute a legal error?
- Mst. Amtul Kabir And Others vs Safia Khatoon And Other1991 SCMR 1022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a revision application against the refusal to set aside a consent decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellants, legal representatives of a deceased defendant, alleged that the original decree, obtained via an application under Order XII, Rule 1, was fraudulent because the defendants had not engaged counsel and one defendant was deceased at the time of the decree. The lower courts found that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, who was alive for years after the decree, never challenged it, nor did the other defendants. Furthermore, the application was found to be time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish fraud or misrepresentation, noting the long delay and the fact that the deceased predecessor had acquiesced to the decree during his lifetime. Affirming the High Court, the Court held that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is subject to a three-year limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908.
Questions settled- What is the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a decree be set aside on the grounds of fraud if the party affected by it remained silent and failed to challenge it during their lifetime?
- Does an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by legal representatives on the same grounds as a previously dismissed application by a predecessor constitute res judicata?
- Mst. Amtul Begum vs Sarwar Qadri and 3 others1991 CLC 1157 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amina and another vs Haji Khan1991 PLD Peshawar 133 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ambrin Begum vs Dr. Devkishan alias Kishan1991 MLD 318 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amatullah Begum And Another vs Munawar Akhtar1991 SCMR 1681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over the specific performance of an oral agreement to sell an evacuee property, a bungalow in Lahore. The core legal question revolves around whether the parties entered into an oral agreement for a package deal for the entire property at a specific agreed rate of Rs.3,000 per marla for land and Rs.10 per square foot for the built-up area, or whether different rates applied. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, finding that documentary evidence, particularly a memorandum of agreement bearing handwritten corrections by the parties, conclusively proved the agreed package deal and rates. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an oral agreement for the sale of immovable property can be established through contemporaneous memoranda and subsequent part performance?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of a legal flaw or misreading of evidence?
- Whether the absence of alterations in a draft memorandum regarding agreed rates indicates acceptance of those rates by the parties?
- Mst. Ali Begum And Others vs Sabir Hussain And 13 Other1991 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit for possession of land originally belonging to a common ancestor, Abbas Khan, who died in 1920. The primary legal question considered by the lower forums was whether the deceased was a Shia by faith, which would determine inheritance shares and whether his daughter was the sole heir. The trial court and district judge concurrently held that the deceased was a Shia and dismissed the collateral's suit, but the High Court reversed these concurrent findings in a second appeal. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question, holding that the point raised merits detailed consideration, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below be called in question in a Second Appeal if they are erroneous?
- Whether the High Court can reverse concurrent findings of fact in second appeal under the applicable procedural law?
- Mst. Alamoon Khatoon vs Muhammad Khan And 7 Other1991 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a suit for declaration regarding inheritance. The petitioner, claiming as the daughter of Mst. Nurai, challenged the denial of inheritance rights, which had been predicated on the finding that Mst. Nurai was merely a maintenance holder rather than a limited owner of the property in question. The core legal questions involve determining whether Mst. Nurai should be classified as a maintenance holder or a limited owner, and whether the petitioner is barred from raising this issue in the Supreme Court after having abandoned the point in the High Court. Furthermore, the Court must examine the protection of female inheritance rights in light of public policy and recent jurisprudence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that these issues require thorough examination, particularly regarding the protection of the rights of females in inheritance matters.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a legal point in the Supreme Court that was expressly abandoned in the High Court?
- Does a distinction exist between a maintenance holder and a limited owner regarding inheritance rights?
- To what extent does public policy protect the inheritance rights of females in property disputes?
- Mst. Akhtar Noorani vs Collector of Customs (Preventive) and 21991 CLC 1889 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Akbari Bibi vs Muhammad Sajjad Alias Sajjad1991 P Cr. L J 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Akbar Jan Through Legal Heirs vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner1991 SCMR 1673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the legal heirs of the late Mst. Akbar Jan against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, dated 20th December 1989. The core legal questions concern whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner retains the power to extend the period for depositing an auction price after previously ordering that default in payment within the stipulated period would result in the resumption of the property; whether any appeal, revision, or review lies against an order passed by a Notified Officer under subsection (3) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975; and whether property resumed by the order of a Notified Officer must be disposed of under the North-West Frontier Province Disposal of Urban Evacuee Property Scheme-I of 1976. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider these questions, directed the petitioners to furnish security, and permitted the parties to rely on the present record and additional documents.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner retains the power to extend the period for deposit of the auction price after ordering that default in payment within the stipulated period results in property resumption?
- Is there any appeal, revision or review available against an order passed by the Notified Officer under subsection (3) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- If property stands resumed by the order of the Notified Officer, does it become available and have to be disposed of under the North-West Frontier Province Disposal of Urban Evacuee Property Scheme-I of 1976?
- Mst. Akbar Jan Through Legal Heirs And 2 Others vs Deputy Settlement1991 S CM R 1740 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a constitutional writ petition arising from an urban settlement case regarding a shop auctioned in 1960. The core legal question examined the validity of the auction by Settlement Authorities, the acceptance of delayed balance deposits made through compensation books after fraud by associates, and the extension of time for payment despite earlier threats of resumption. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly exercised its discretion to refuse interference in writ jurisdiction due to the considerable inactivity, laches, and lack of bona fide legal recourse by the appellants, alongside the lawful transfer of property and accrual of valuable rights to the auction-purchaser who deposited the purchase money. The key principle laid down is that discretionary constitutional writ jurisdiction will not be exercised in favor of a party showing prolonged inactivity and failing to challenge settlement proceedings in time, nor will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent legal orders of settlement authorities where time extensions for deposit were competently granted under exceptional circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise constitutional writ jurisdiction against settlement proceedings where the petitioner showed prolonged inactivity and failed to seek timely judicial recourse?
- Do Settlement Authorities possess the power to extend the time for depositing purchase money in favor of an auction-purchaser under exceptional circumstances despite earlier orders of presumptive resumption?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in a discretionary field where the lower forums and the High Court have concurrently upheld the legality of property transfer orders?
- Mst. Aisha vs Mst. Fatima and others1991 CLC 1499 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts in favor of the first respondent, who filed a suit for declaration, cancellation, and injunction concerning certain property. The petitioner contested the suit, claiming a lease obtained from the second authority, which the plaintiff alleged was procured through misrepresentation. Both the trial court and the first appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the plaintiff to be the rightful owner and the petitioner's lease illegal. Upon review, the High Court observed that the first appellate court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by not properly framing points for determination, discussing evidence, or recording reasoned findings. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned appellate judgment, and remanded the matter to the District Court for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether the first appellate court is bound to frame points for determination and record reasons under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a civil revision be maintained when both lower courts fail to properly apply their minds to the material facts and evidence of the case?
- What is the legal consequence of an appellate judgment that fails to discuss the evidence and record independent findings of fact?
- Mst. Afzal Begum vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. A.B. Aisha vs Sultan Ahmed Tahir1991 CLC 954 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mst Zubaida Parveen vs Deputy District Education OfficerK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 468 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst Siddiqan Bibi vs Additional District Judge and AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 467 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mst Mubin Khanam vs Javed Ahmad KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 392 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mst Fazlan Mai vs Tab Nawaz and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 464 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Zohra Sultana And Others vs Imam Din1991 SCMR 1808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and ruled in favor of the respondent occupant. The core legal question concerned whether a claimant's pending transfer application under Settlement Scheme No. VI could be dismissed merely because the original physical form was untraceable in the official records, despite the claimant producing an official receipt and certificate of its submission. The Supreme Court held that citizens cannot be made to suffer due to the failure of public authorities to maintain or safely custody official records. The ratio established is that an official receipt and certificate from relevant authorities constitute sufficient proof of the filing of a form, and lack of record availability cannot be used to defeat a valid claim or justify auctioning property already in lawful occupation under a pending application. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a transfer application under Settlement Scheme No. VI be dismissed solely because the original physical form is untraceable in official records?
- Does the production of an official receipt and certificate from relevant authorities suffice to prove the filing of a settlement form?
- Can citizens be made to suffer for the failure of public authorities to safely custody documents filed in public offices?
- Mrs. T.P. Bhandara vs Excise and Taxation Officer (Capital Gain Tax)1991 SCMR 1830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the assessment of capital gain tax. The core legal question was whether capital gain tax should be assessed based on the prevalent market value of the property or based on the specific status of the vendor and the vendee. The petitioner argued for a valuation based on a comparison with other properties in the vicinity. The Supreme Court observed that the subject plot was commercialized and possessed distinguished features compared to neighboring properties. The Court upheld the departmental authorities' determination that the declared sale price was an undervaluation intended to reduce tax liability, thereby justifying the authorities' decision to determine the fair market value for tax imposition. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition, holding that departmental authorities are justified in determining the fair market value when declared sale prices do not accurately reflect the transaction, particularly to prevent tax evasion.
Questions settled- Is the determination of fair market value by departmental authorities justified when the declared sale price is found to be an undervaluation?
- Should capital gain tax be assessed based on the prevalent market value of the property or the status of the vendor and vendee?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court decision regarding tax valuation when the property possesses distinguished commercial features?
- Mrs. Shaukat Khalid vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi And 21991 SCMR 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the custody of a minor female. The petitioner, the widow of the minor's paternal uncle, claimed custody as a foster mother who raised the child. The core legal question was whether the custody of a minor should remain with a foster mother or be handed over to her natural parents, and whether such a transfer of custody is contrary to the welfare of the minor. The Supreme Court held that the welfare and natural right of the child lie in the custody of her real parents rather than a foster mother, which is fully in accordance with Islamic injunctions derived from the Quran and Sunnah. The Court concluded that transferring custody to the natural parents is natural and lawful, and accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the custody of a minor female should remain with a foster mother or be given to her natural parents?
- Is the transfer of custody from a foster mother to natural parents considered unnatural under the law and Islamic injunctions?
- Does the welfare of a minor girl during adolescence lie with her natural parents rather than extended relatives or foster parents?
- Mrs. Salma Noorani vs In re: Winding Up of Mandiviwala Estates Limited1991 MLD 2675 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Robina Wahala vs Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal/Controlling1991 MLD 2243 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Riaz Akhtar Latif vs The Chief Administrator Auqaf1991 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioner's First Appeal by the High Court, which upheld the District Judge's order dismissing the petitioner's application under section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1961 as time-barred. The core legal question concerns the determination of limitation regarding applications filed to challenge notifications issued by the Chief Administrator Auqaf assuming administrative control of disputed Waqf properties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the question of limitation and the other points raised in the petition, while directing that the case be linked with a similar pending matter. Furthermore, the request for interim relief was refused subject to the condition that the respondent maintain full accounts to facilitate potential future reimbursement or compensation.
Questions settled- Whether an application filed under section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1961 is barred by limitation?
- Can leave to appeal be granted to examine the question of limitation in Waqf property disputes?
- Is interim relief granted against the assumption of administrative control of Waqf property by the Chief Administrator Auqaf?
- Mrs. Razia Aizazuddin and anothers vs Assistant Commissioner, South, Magistrate First Class, Karachi and 2 others1991 MLD 1277 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nagma Jawed vs Miss Shirin N. Essa and another1991 PLD Karachi 305 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Munawar Sanni vs Director, Army Education1991 SCMR 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a constitutional petition challenging an order of the Director of Army Education that modified a previous reinstatement order and denied the appellant her arrears of salary for the period she was kept out of service due to an illegal termination. The High Court had dismissed the petition, holding that the claim was a money claim for which the appropriate remedy lay with a Civil Court or the Service Tribunal. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that when an employee's termination is declared unlawful, the authorities are under a bounden obligation to satisfy the claim for arrears of salary without driving the litigant to unnecessary litigation. The Deputy Attorney-General conceded that the appellant was legally entitled to the arrears of pay for the disputed period. In light of this legal position, the appellant's counsel chose not to press the appeal further, opting to pursue the matter directly with the departmental authorities. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether an employee whose termination is declared unlawful is entitled to arrears of pay for the period they were kept out of service?
- Whether the state authorities are obligated to satisfy a valid claim for arrears of salary without forcing the employee to seek recourse in a Civil Court or Service Tribunal?
- Can a department modify a reinstatement order to deny arrears of salary after the termination has been declared illegal by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Mrs. Maryam Wasif vs Mrs. Shahida Khan and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 478 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mrs. K.P. Boga and others vs Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Deputy Settlement1991 MLD 835 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Janna T Bi Khan vs Messrs National Motors Co.1991 CLC 1950 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for declaration and injunction arose from a dispute regarding a contract for the import and assembly of 12 Bedford truck chassis. The plaintiff challenged the defendants' unilateral demand for increased local charges for engines, tyres, and assembly. The core legal question was whether the defendants were entitled to these enhanced charges and subsequent storage fees despite the plaintiff's adherence to the original contract price. The Court held that the contract was governed by Section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930, as the seller was required to perform specific acts to put the goods in a deliverable state. Consequently, property in the goods did not pass until such acts were completed and the buyer received notice. The Court found the defendants failed to prove proper notice of the price increase or that the goods were in a deliverable state. Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to the enhanced charges or storage fees, as the delivery delay resulted from their own conduct. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Does the property in specific goods pass to the buyer under the Sale of Goods Act 1930 before the seller performs the necessary acts to put the goods in a deliverable state?
- Can a seller unilaterally increase the price of goods under a contract without providing proper notice to the buyer?
- Is a plaint signed and filed by a general attorney holding a valid power of attorney legally competent under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are storage charges recoverable by a seller when the delay in delivery is caused by the seller's own unjustified demand for enhanced charges?
- Mrs. Hussan Ara Bugti vs The Government of Balochistan Through Secretary, Education Department, Quetta1991 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to examine whether departmental action and subsequent dismissal of a civil servant were vitiated because she was allegedly condemned unheard and remained under a bona fide impression regarding her leave entitlement for inter-provincial transfer to join her spouse. The appellant, an employee of the Education Department of Baluchistan, remained absent from duty after her application for earned leave was not accepted, leading to disciplinary proceedings and dismissal, which was later converted into compulsory retirement by the Service Tribunal. The core legal question centered on whether her absence from duty was wilful and whether proper opportunity of hearing was afforded. The Supreme Court held that the grant of leave is subject to the exigencies of service at the discretion of the competent authority, and a civil servant cannot simply relax without securing leave approval. The Court ruled that her absence was wilful and that sufficient notice via telegram and press publication was given, satisfying procedural requirements. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether departmental action against a civil servant is vitiated if the leave application remains pending and the civil servant stays away from duty without permission?
- Does the grant of leave to a civil servant depend on the exigencies of service and the discretion of the competent authority?
- Whether the absence from duty of a civil servant who assumes leave will be treated as wilful when the leave has not been sanctioned?
- Is publication of a notice in the press sufficient for disciplinary proceedings when direct communication fails?
- Mrs. Haliman Hanif Moonno O vs Mst. Ismat Kamal And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a long-standing property dispute concerning the allotment and subsequent auction of a plot in Murree. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in permitting the plaintiffs to delete the name of the appellant, an auction-purchaser of the disputed plot, as a party to the proceedings and deciding the appeal in her absence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in striking off the appellant's name and proceeding with the appeal without her, noting that the appellant was a necessary party whose title and interest would be directly affected by any enforcement of the plaintiffs' alleged title. The Court laid down the principle that where a suit for injunction and subsisting title directly conflicts with a pre-existing title vested in a third-party auction-purchaser, such purchaser is a necessary party in whose absence the suit cannot proceed, and matters requiring factual inquiry must be tried de novo with their active participation.
Questions settled- Whether an auction-purchaser whose title vests prior to the institution of a suit is a necessary party to a suit for permanent injunction concerning the property?
- Can the High Court permit the deletion of a necessary party after the Supreme Court has remanded the case specifically for a decision with that party impleaded and served?
- Does a suit for permanent injunction based on subsisting title proceed in the absence of a third party whose competing title and interest would be completely ousted by the decree?
- Mrs. Freni A. Cavina vs Mrs. Dhunmai Phiroze Dalal1991 PLD Supreme Court 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that allowed an ejectment application on the ground of subletting, overturning the First Appellate Court's decision. The core legal question was whether the High Court could maintain an eviction order on grounds not explicitly pleaded by the landlady and the retrospective application of the requirement for prior written permission for subletting. The Supreme Court held that the strict rules of pleading are not applicable to rent proceedings, but sufficient facts must be pleaded. Crucially, the Court ruled that the requirement of prior written permission for subletting, introduced by amendments in 1962, could not be applied retrospectively to subletting that occurred in 1958, when only oral or tacit permission was sufficient. The Court found that the landlady's inaction for over 13 years after purchasing the property constituted a waiver of her right to seek ejectment on the ground of subletting. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the First Appellate Court's judgment, which had set aside the ejectment order, was restored.
Questions settled- Can an ejectment order be maintained on a ground not explicitly pleaded by the landlady in the eviction application?
- Does the requirement of prior written permission for subletting apply retrospectively to subletting that occurred before its statutory enactment?
- Can a landlord's prolonged inaction constitute a waiver of the right to seek ejectment on the ground of unauthorized subletting?
- Are strict rules of pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to rent proceedings?
- Does an act that was legal at the time of its commission become illegal retrospectively due to subsequent changes in rent restriction law?
- Mrs. Firdousi Begum vs Jameeluddin1991 MLD 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Faiz Muhammad And 3 Others Haji Noor Din vs Widow of Late Syed1991 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Benazir Bhutto vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1991 MLD 2622 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by former Prime Minister Mrs. Benazir Bhutto challenging the validity of the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977 (P.O. 17 of 1977) along with certain rules framed thereunder, and seeking to declare pending presidential references before Special Courts as discriminatory and incompetent. The core legal questions involved the constitutionality of P.O. 17 of 1977 vis-a-vis fundamental rights, equality before law, executive immunity, and alleged conflicts with Articles 4, 25, 63, and 248 of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court held that P.O. 17 of 1977 is a valid piece of legislation creating a special tribunal for trying misconduct of high public office holders, that the proceedings are civil in nature rather than criminal, and that the references filed by the President on the advice of the Caretaker Prime Minister were competent and lawful. The Court struck down Rule 7 of the disqualification rules regarding adjournment limits as inoperative, but upheld the remainder of the statutory order and rules.
Questions settled- Whether the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977 (P.O. 17 of 1977) is violative of the fundamental right to equal protection of law under Article 25 of the Constitution?
- Does the immunity provided under Article 248 of the Constitution extend to acts amounting to misconduct under P.O. 17 of 1977?
- Whether a Caretaker Prime Minister is competent to tender advice to the President for filing references under P.O. 17 of 1977?
- Are proceedings before a Special Court under P.O. 17 of 1977 classified as criminal proceedings or civil proceedings?
- Whether the definition of misconduct in P.O. 17 of 1977 suffers from vagueness or constitutes an excessive delegation of legislative power?
- Mrs. Aqeela Asghar Ali and others vs Miss Khalida Khatoon Malik and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Supreme Court judgment addresses appeals against a Service Tribunal decision concerning the expunction of adverse remarks and pro forma promotions of civil servants. The core legal questions revolved around the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction regarding promotion matters, the nature of seniority as a vested right, the power of the competent authority to entertain subsequent representations for expunction of adverse remarks, and the conditions for granting pro forma promotions. The Court held that the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction over the principles of promotion and seniority assignment, but not over the question of fitness for promotion. It reaffirmed that seniority is a vested right in Punjab, distinguishing it from other provinces. While a civil servant's right to represent against adverse remarks is limited to one, the competent authority's power to review or reconsider executive decisions is not similarly restricted. However, pro forma promotion is only justified if supersession was based entirely on adverse remarks that were subsequently and fully expunged. The Court found the expunction of remarks and subsequent pro forma promotion in this case to be without lawful authority due to the absence of proper record and the influence of political appeals, setting aside the pro forma promotion.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction over questions of fitness for promotion?
- Is seniority a vested right for civil servants in Punjab?
- Can a competent authority entertain subsequent representations for expunction of adverse remarks after an initial rejection, even if the civil servant's right to represent is limited to one?
- Under what conditions can a civil servant be granted pro forma promotion?
- What is the impact of a government department failing to produce relevant service record when challenged before a Service Tribunal or higher court?
- Mrs. Amir Fatimah vs Government of the Punjab1991 PLC (C.S.) 517 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Ameta Fernandas vs Mst. Saran Bai alias Kaneez Fatima1991 CLC 1858 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Almas Abdul Rehman Bhamani vs Begum Hamida Nizam1991 PLD Karachi 315 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Afia Baig vs Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd.1991 PLD Karachi 239 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal is directed against an order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant-landlady's eviction application against the respondent-tenant running a petrol pump on the demised plot. The core legal questions involved whether time-barred rent extinguishes the right to seek eviction on the ground of default, how the burden of proof operates regarding non-payment of rent, and whether the Controller possesses discretionary power to refuse eviction under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 once default is established. The Sindh High Court held that while the remedy to recover time-barred rent may be barred, the right itself continues to exist, and a landlord can still seek eviction for default. Furthermore, once the landlord asserts non-payment on oath, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove payment. The Court laid down that Section 15(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 does not create a discretionary jurisdiction for the Controller; upon proof of default and fulfillment of statutory conditions, the landlord is mandatorily entitled to an order of eviction.
Questions settled- Does the limitation bar on the recovery of time-barred rent preclude a landlord from seeking the eviction of a tenant on the ground of default?
- How does the burden of proof shift between the landlord and tenant regarding the non-payment of rent in eviction proceedings?
- Does Section 15(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 create discretionary jurisdiction for the Rent Controller to refuse eviction once default is established?
- What constitutes waiver by conduct in the context of enforcing a landlord's right to demand rent or property tax shares?
- MRs, Rubina Muhajar vs Federation of Pakistan and others1991 MLD 2383 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
- Mr. Z.H. Jafri Appellant vs A. Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent1991 PTD (Trib.) 804 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Moracfco Industries Ltd. and another vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 21991 PLC 501 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
- Mooso vs The State and 2 others1991 MLD 173 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
- Moor Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1906 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
- Momin Khan Afridi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1325 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
- Molasses Trading & Export Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Ministry, Islamabad and 2 others1991 CLC 1673 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-30Read full judgment →
- Mojahid And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1799 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
- Moizur Rehman vs Mrs. Fakhra Javed1991 PLD Karachi 452 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant on grounds of rent default, personal bona fide requirement, and nuisance. The High Court held that the Rent Controller erred in disregarding evidence of rent payment, emphasizing that while the burden of proof lies on the tenant, the Controller must consider all ocular and documentary evidence, not just specific postal endorsements. Regarding personal requirement, the Court determined that while a lease in perpetuity requires a registered instrument under the Transfer of Property Act 1882, a landlord’s claim of "good faith" is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Court ruled that a landlord cannot ignore contractual commitments, such as an unqualified right to transfer tenancy granted by a predecessor, and attempting to evict a tenant in violation of such terms constitutes a lack of good faith. Finally, the Court held that the allegation of nuisance failed, as the landlord did not prove the board caused actual nuisance to neighbors. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller disregard evidence of rent payment simply because postal money orders lack a 'refused' endorsement?
- Does a landlord's failure to acknowledge a predecessor's contractual commitments regarding tenancy transfer rights negate the 'good faith' requirement for eviction?
- Is a lease in perpetuity valid without a registered instrument under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- What constitutes sufficient proof of nuisance by a tenant to justify eviction under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Mohiuddin Ansari vs Muhammad Arif Siddiqui1991 CLC 72 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The tenant appealed against an order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the grounds of the landlord's bona fide personal requirement for himself, his wife, daughter, son, and mother. The appellant raised pleas of res judicata based on a previous dismissed application, improper exclusion of defense witnesses, lack of formal proof of medical records, and the non-applicability of personal requirement provisions to the landlord's mother.
The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that res judicata did not apply because the cause of action differed from the previous application. It further ruled that while documents must be strictly proved under the Qanun-e-Shahadat if disputed, the landlord's medical ailment was sufficiently established through oral testimony and family evidence. Moreover, the expression 'his own occupation' in Section 15(2)(vii) must be given a liberal interpretation based on social, moral, and Islamic obligations, thereby covering the residential needs of dependent parents residing with the landlord.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata bar a subsequent ejectment application under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 when founded upon a different cause of action?
- Can a party in rent proceedings dispense with the requirements of the Qanun-e-Shahadat regarding the formal proof and admissibility of disputed documents merely by annexing them to an affidavit in evidence?
- Does the phrase 'his own occupation' under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 encompass the residential requirement of the landlord's dependent mother?
- Can a party summon witnesses under Section 19(4) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 without first producing their affidavits in evidence or establishing that they refused to provide them?
- Mohiuddin Ahmed vs Mst. Noor Aisha Khatoon1991 MLD 1054 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Zubair and Other vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 368 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Yousaf & Another vs Mohammad Ibrahim KhandwaniK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 587 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Yasin vs The State1991 KLR Criminal Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Tayyab vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 351 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Sadique vs Govt. of Sindhh and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 217) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Sadiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 297 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Riaz vs Mohammad Ehtesham Etc.K.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 195 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Riaz Khan Patwari vs Assistant Commissioner/CollectorK.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases201 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Ramzan vs Bashir Ahmad(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 53) · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Jamil Khan vs Selection Committee for EngineeringK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 250 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Ishfaq Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 200 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ibrahim vs Zeenat Bibi and others1991 CLC 1967 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These first rent appeals arose from ejectment orders passed ex parte against multiple tenants by the Rent Controller. The processes were originally returnable on a date subsequently declared a public holiday, and the Controller proceeded ex parte on the following day. The tenants' counsel asserted he had appeared in the morning and undertaken to file his power, but the Controller noted only the landlords' presence in the diary sheet. The High Court examined the validity of the service of process under Section 19 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. It held that service on minors or female family members did not constitute proper service under the applicable equitable principles of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the penal provisions of Section 19(2) of the Ordinance, which bar the Controller from recalling an ex parte order, apply strictly only when a notice explicitly requiring a written reply within fifteen days has been served and defaulted upon. Since the notices did not contain this requirement, and proceeding ex parte on the day following a public holiday without manifest contumacy violated natural justice, the ex parte and subsequent eviction orders were void. The appeals were allowed, and the cases were remanded.
Questions settled- Does service of process on a minor child or a female family member constitute valid service on a tenant under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a Rent Controller pass a non-recallable ex parte order under Section 19(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 if the issued notice did not explicitly require the tenant to file a written reply?
- What is the legal effect of proceeding ex parte on the day immediately following a declared public holiday without establishing contumacious neglect by the respondent?
- How should a court resolve a factual controversy when counsel asserts making an appearance but the court diary sheet does not record it?
- Mohammad Hassan vs Manzoor Ahmed & AnotherK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 591 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Hashim and Another vs Arshad Javed Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 101) · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Azam Khan and Other vs Nobat Khan and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-19Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Aslam vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 189 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Anwar vs The Sindhh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 160) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Anwar vs Nabi HussainK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 402 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
- Moeen Jan Naeem vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 181 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, an ex-Director in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, challenged his removal from service following a disciplinary inquiry arising from a charge-sheet containing sixteen charges. The inquiry officer exonerated him of thirteen charges but held him partially guilty on three aspects concerning alleged currency racketeering, suspicious activities, and acquisition of property in Canberra without prior government approval. The Federal Service Tribunal examined the record, the inquiry proceedings, and allegations of mala fides stemming from animosity between the Pakistani Ambassador in Kathmandu and the appellant's brother. The Tribunal held that the charges against the appellant were not proved beyond doubt, that findings based on mere suspicion and unverified observations of the Ambassador were untenable, and that the disciplinary proceedings bore elements of mala fides. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of removal from service, ordered the appellant's reinstatement with full back benefits, and substituted the penalty with a minor penalty of censure solely for the technical lapse of failing to report the property acquisition.
Questions settled- Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated and conducted on the basis of mala fides and unverified observations of a superior officer are sustainable in law?
- Can a civil servant be held guilty of a disciplinary charge based merely on suspicion without concrete evidence?
- Whether failure to report the acquisition of immovable property abroad to the government constitutes a technical misconduct warranting a minor penalty rather than removal from service?
- Modern Textile Mills Ltd, KARACHIs vs National Shipping Corporation1991 PLD Karachi 275 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a suit for compensation filed by the plaintiffs against a carrier, an insurance company, and the Karachi Port Trust for the short-landing and damage of imported textile machinery. The core legal questions concerned whether the suit was barred by time under Article 31 and Article 86 of the Limitation Act, and whether a suit against the Karachi Port Trust was barred under Section 87 of the Karachi Port Trust Act. The Sindh High Court held that the limitation period for filing the suit against the carrier commenced upon the discharge of goods and issuance of the short-landing certificate, and that ongoing correspondence or conditional extensions of time by the carrier could not legally extend the statutory limitation period. Consequently, the court concluded that the suit against all defendants was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit.
Questions settled- Does ongoing correspondence regarding a cargo claim extend the statutory period of limitation for filing a suit against a carrier?
- When does the period of limitation under Article 31 of the Limitation Act commence in a suit for compensation for non-delivery of goods?
- Whether a suit filed against the Karachi Port Trust without compliance with Section 87 of the Karachi Port Trust Act is barred by time?