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.
- Highway Cycle Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 79 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Highnoon Laboratories Limited vs Mst. Farida Jawaid Malik and another1991 CLC 271 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
- Hidayatullah vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Hazrat Umar vs Zafar Majeed and 13 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a rent restriction matter where the appellant challenged the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld an eviction order based on default in rent payment. The core legal question concerned the applicability of the proviso to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (N.-W.F.P.) Ordinance, 1972, which allows a tenant to avoid eviction for a first default by admitting liability and paying the rent. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to satisfy the statutory requirements because he did not unequivocally admit his liability to pay the rent at the appropriate time, instead contesting the eviction while maintaining that rent remained due. The Court clarified that the benefit of the proviso is contingent upon the tenant's prompt admission of liability and payment. Furthermore, while a Rent Controller is generally required to direct the deposit of rent, the Court noted that a tenant's immediate payment or deposit in the Controller's presence may suffice to invoke the proviso's protection. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings.
Questions settled- Does a tenant qualify for the protection against eviction under the proviso to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (N.-W.F.P.) Ordinance, 1972, if they contest the eviction rather than admitting liability for the rent?
- Is it a mandatory requirement for the Rent Controller to pass a formal order of deposit of rent for a tenant to benefit from the proviso to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (N.-W.F.P.) Ordinance, 1972?
- Can a tenant obtain the benefit of the proviso to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (N.-W.F.P.) Ordinance, 1972, if they pay or deposit rent immediately in the presence of the Rent Controller without a prior formal order?
- Hazrat Jamal vs Fazal Rabbi And Another1991 SCMR 1727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-25Read 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 dated 28-1-1986, whereby the death sentence awarded to the respondent for murder was reduced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was that the deceased and the respondent exchanged hot words after the respondent flashed a torch light on the complainant party, leading shortly thereafter to the fatal shooting of the deceased by the respondent. The High Court had reduced the sentence on the ground of sudden provocation following the verbal altercation. The appellant contended that it was a cold-blooded murder without mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court considered that the occurrence took place in 1982, and following the reasoning in analogous precedent cases regarding the passage of time and general amnesties, it would be incongruous to re-impose the death sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declined to enhance the sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment by the High Court on the ground of sudden provocation?
- Does the passage of a long period of time since the occurrence affect the re-imposition of a death sentence in appeal?
- Hazrat Jalal and 30 Others vs Shabbir Tiles and Ceramics Ltd1991 PLC 545 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-01Read full judgment →
- Hazrat Imam and another vs Messrs Star Textile Mills Limited1991 PLC 702 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
- Haydari Construction Co. Ltd. vs Bank of Credit and Commerce1991 CLC 149 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses multiple civil miscellaneous applications arising out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the encashment of a tender bond bank guarantee. The core legal questions involved whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on disputed factual assertions in the written statement, whether an interim injunction takes effect from its passing or service, and whether the delivery of a pay order constitutes complete payment so as to negate a charge of breach of injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that for the purpose of rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are to be examined, and disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved via statements in the written statement. Furthermore, an injunction order takes effect from the time and date of its service, and the delivery of a bank pay order amounts to payment equivalent to cash, meaning no breach of injunction occurs if the pay order was delivered prior to the service of the restraint order. All applications filed by the plaintiff were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on factual pleas raised in the written statement?
- From what point in time does an interim injunction order take effect against a party?
- Does the delivery of a bank pay order amount to payment equivalent to cash so as to constitute completed payment?
- Whether the breach of an injunction order under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be established without full proof of violation?
- Hayatullah Khan and others vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1501 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
- Hayatullah Khan & Other vs Additional District Judge & OtherK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 524 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
- Hayat Kaleem vs Sher Hassan1991 CLC 566 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-01Read full judgment →
- Hatiz Abdul Sattar vs Mahmood Ali1991 CLC 234 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-28Read full judgment →
- Hassan Muhammad Khan vs Aslam ShamiK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 107 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
- Hassan Din vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Hassan Din vs Hafiz Abdus Salam and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil dispute concerning property foreclosure, an ex parte decree, subsequent execution sales, and concurrent revision and constitutional proceedings. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the decision in Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan ousted the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed by a District Judge under section 115(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The core legal questions involved the necessity of impleading subsequent vendees and decree-holder auction-purchasers when setting aside an ex parte decree, and the extent of constitutional intervention against revisional orders. The Supreme Court held that while notice to the decree-holder on record is generally sufficient under Order IX, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the auction-purchaser is the decree-holder himself and subsequent transferees' titles are adversely affected, such transferees are necessary parties entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Failure to implead them constitutes a jurisdictional error violating natural justice. The principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction remains available to correct jurisdictional errors of this magnitude, notwithstanding section 115(4) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Questions settled- Does the bar under subsection (4) of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code completely oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with an order passed by a District Judge?
- Is a subsequent vendee from a decree-holder auction-purchaser a necessary party to an application for setting aside an ex parte decree?
- Does the setting aside of an ex parte decree automatically affect a bona fide third-party auction-purchaser who was not a party to the decree?
- What constitutes a jurisdictional error versus a mere illegality in proceedings involving the setting aside of an ex parte decree and auction sale?
- Hassan Ali Esaji Bhaiji Trust through Managing Trustee vs Administrator, Central Zakat Administration, Islamabad1991 PTD 43 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-20Read full judgment →
- Hashmat Rai vs The Chief Secretary and Another(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 120) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
- Hashmat Rai vs The Chief Secretary and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 1162 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
- Hashmal Khan vs Umaid Khan and others1991 MLD 2369 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Hashim Bin Sayeed vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Ex-Office Chairman,1991 PTD 497 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- Hashim Ali vs Muhammad Rafique And Other1991 SCMR 1833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 seeking a declaration that he was the owner in possession of land and that a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner was forged. The trial court decreed the suit, and the Additional District Judge and High Court dismissed the subsequent appeal and revision petition. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge the plaintiff's title based on an alleged fraudulent allotment when the petitioner did not claim to have purchased the land from the plaintiff and the plaintiff's allotment remained intact. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts were justified in granting the declaration since the plaintiff was the true owner and his allotment had not been set aside by any competent authority. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot impeach the title of a recorded owner on the ground of fraud in allotment when that allotment remains valid and un-cancelled by a competent forum.
Questions settled- Whether a civil court can ignore a subsisting allotment of land that has not been set aside by a competent authority?
- Is a defendant entitled to challenge a plaintiff's title on the ground of fraudulent allotment when the defendant denies purchasing the property from the plaintiff?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding ownership warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Hasham Khan vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 567 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court confirming the appellant's conviction under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, Section 10(3) of the same Ordinance, and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the offence fell under Section 11 or Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, and whether the Court could supply an inadvertent omission in the text of Section 11 regarding the punishment of imprisonment for life. The Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court held that the evidence clearly established forcible abduction and Zina-bil-jabr, confirming the application of Section 11 rather than Section 16. Furthermore, the Court held that to avoid injustice and give effect to the true intention of the law-maker, it could supply the inadvertent omission of the word 'extending' in Section 11, reducing the mandatory life imprisonment to a sentence extending to life. The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the appellant's sentence under Section 11 to ten years' rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the offence of taking away a woman by force against her will falls under Section 11 or Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a court supply an inadvertent omission in a statutory provision to give effect to the true intention of the law-maker and avoid injustice?
- Whether the sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 is mandatory or can be read as imprisonment which may extend to life?
- Hasamul Haque Agha vs Mrs. Saeeda Beg Um1991 CLC 1121 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Haryana Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd., Karachi vs United BankK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 652 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Haryana Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. and 15 others vs United Bank1991 MLD 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz vs The State1991 MLD 870 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz vs Ghulam Hussain and 8 others1991 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition concerns a dispute over the inheritance of 5/24 share of land left by the deceased, Sikandar Khan. The core legal question was determining the preferential right of inheritance between two rival claimants, both claiming to be residuaries of the deceased. The Revenue authorities had initially favored the petitioner, Haq Nawaz, but later reversed this in favor of the respondent, Jiwana, based on the degree of relationship. The Lahore High Court examined the principles of Mahomedan Law regarding the succession of residuaries. The Court held that the petitioner, being a descendant of a common ancestor (Gama Khan) in a nearer line, was entitled to succeed as a residuary in preference to the respondent, despite the respondent's claim based on a different line of descent. The Court established the principle that in the absence of specific provisions, the rule of proximity of line governs the succession of residuaries, where a nearer line succeeds in preference to a more remote line, even if the remote line claimant is closer in the actual number of steps.
Questions settled- In Islamic law of inheritance, does a residuary in a nearer line succeed in preference to a residuary in a more remote line, even if the latter is closer in the actual number of steps to the deceased?
- Does the principle of proximity of line apply to the succession of residuaries in the absence of specific statutory provisions?
- Can a civil court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct errors in the application of inheritance laws by lower appellate courts?
- Haq Nawaz Khan and another vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 3 others1991 CLC 1606 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz And 2 Others vs Mazhar Ali And Other1991 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard two petitions for leave to appeal arising from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court. The High Court had maintained the convictions of two accused under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of a couple, while acquitting two other co-accused. The complainant sought enhancement of the life imprisonment sentences to death, while the convicted accused challenged their convictions. The motive for the crime was family honor, as the deceased couple had eloped and married. The Supreme Court observed that although the parties were on inimical terms requiring corroboration of ocular evidence, sufficient corroboration existed against the convicted accused through the recovery of blood-stained weapons and positive chemical reports. Conversely, the acquitted co-accused lacked corroborative evidence due to conflicts between medical and ocular testimonies. On the question of sentence, the Court held that murders committed to vindicate family honor constitute a mitigating circumstance justifying the lesser sentence of life imprisonment. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a murder committed in the name of family honor constitutes a mitigating circumstance justifying the lesser sentence of life imprisonment instead of death?
- Is corroboration of ocular testimony necessary when the prosecution witnesses and the accused are on inimical terms?
- Can recoveries of weapons from open fields or reeds be discarded solely on the ground of the location of recovery if witnessed by credible witnesses?
- Haonawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 807 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
- Hanan Alias Abdul Manan vs Khalilur Rehman Khan And 6 Other1991 SCMR 1239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the Member, Board of Revenue, to declare a disputed garage area as 'available property' and order eviction following the repeal of settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue had the authority to determine the status of the property and whether the appellant held a valid claim to it as part of his transferred house. The Supreme Court held that the Board of Revenue acted within its jurisdiction in determining that the property was 'available' (untransferred) under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, as mutation records confirmed the disputed area was excluded from the appellant's transfer. However, the Court established the principle that while the Board of Revenue may identify available property, it lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate private easement rights or order the removal of obstructions, as such disputes fall under the plenary jurisdiction of civil courts. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Board's authority to classify the property while limiting its adjudicatory scope.
Questions settled- Does the Member, Board of Revenue have the jurisdiction to determine whether a property is 'available property' under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Can the Board of Revenue adjudicate private easement rights or order the removal of obstructions between parties?
- Does a mutation record serve as evidence to determine the extent of property transferred via a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Hamid vs Mst. Latifan and others1991 MLD 1442 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
- Hamid Siddique and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 540 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Hamid Qayyum and others vs Muhammad Azeem and others1991 CLC 812 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Hamid Majid vs Discipline Committee And 4 Other1991 SCMR 2317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a student challenging a disciplinary action that barred him from appearing in certain examinations due to the alleged possession of an incriminating written note during an examination. The core legal question involved whether the finding of fact regarding the possession of the note and the procedural steps taken by the detecting authority warranted interference by the court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that concurrent findings of fact and circumstantial evidence justified the disciplinary action, and no substantial injustice had been done to the petitioner, notwithstanding minor procedural flaws. The court dismissed the petition while observing that systemic corruption in examinations could potentially attract constitutional jurisdiction under Article 184(3) in appropriate future proceedings, but the facts of the present case did not suffice for such an examination.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding examination malpractice in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a technical or procedural failure on the part of a detecting authority automatically vitiate a disciplinary action against a student?
- Can systemic corruption in educational examinations attract the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Hamid Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 958 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Hamid Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Hamid Ali Almakki and others vs Settlement Commissioner and others1991 CLC 981 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
- Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf), Pakistan, Karachi vs The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,1991 PTD 674 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-10Read full judgment →
- Hamad Ali vs The Province of Punjab And Other1991 SCMR 1859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit regarding the allocation of State land under the Bara Reclamation Scheme. The petitioner, having fulfilled the conditions for proprietary rights in half of the 198 Kanals of land granted to him, sought the Northern half. The Collector, exercising the Government's right to select the moiety for transfer, allocated the Southern half instead. The petitioner challenged this allocation through a civil suit, which was initially decreed but subsequently dismissed by the Additional District Judge, a decision upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had a vested right to choose the specific portion of land to be transferred. The Supreme Court held that the terms of the grant explicitly reserved the choice of the moiety to the Government. As the petitioner failed to prove any binding agreement granting him the Northern portion, and because the Reclamation Department lacked the authority to make such a choice, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, noting the petitioner could separately approach competent authorities regarding the purchase of the remaining Government share.
Questions settled- Does a grantee of State land under the Bara Reclamation Scheme have an inherent right to choose which specific portion of the land is transferred to them?
- Does the Reclamation Department possess the authority to make binding choices on behalf of the Government regarding the allocation of land moieties?
- Is the Government entitled to select the specific moiety of land to be transferred to a tenant under the terms of a State land grant?
- Hakeem Syed Ashiq Hussain vs Mirza Nasrullah Baig1991 SCMR 1866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil suit for possession of a shop, wherein the respondent claimed ownership based on a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) issued by the Settlement Authorities. The petitioner, who was in possession, contested the suit, asserting his own ownership. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, and subsequent appeals by the petitioner were dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the Lahore High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the lower courts failed to consider a specific document (Ex.D-7) and argued that a portion of his own transferred property was erroneously included in the respondent's property. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had failed to raise this specific plea regarding the overlapping boundaries of the properties in his original written statement. The Court held that a party cannot be permitted to introduce a new case or raise fresh disputed questions of fact at the leave to appeal stage that were not pleaded in the trial court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce a new plea or disputed question of fact during a petition for leave to appeal that was not raised in the original written statement?
- Is a petitioner entitled to challenge the boundaries of property in a possession suit if such a defense was not pleaded before the trial court?
- Haji Zainul Abedeen vs Mst. Shar1fan Begum1991 CLC 1515 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first rent appeal was filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller directing the tenant's eviction from commercial premises under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 on the ground of personal requirement for the landlady's husband. The tenant contended that the landlady failed to establish good faith as her husband had not obtained any distribution agency or produced correspondence with companies, rendering the claim a mere wish rather than a genuine need. The High Court rejected this argument and affirmed the eviction order. The Court held that a landlord is not required to establish minor preliminary details or existing formal agencies to prove bona fide personal requirement for a proposed distribution business, as acquiring such agencies logically depends on first securing suitable business premises. Once honest and consistent evidence of capability and intent is presented by the landlord, the burden shifts to the tenant to substantiate counter-allegations. Furthermore, the choice and extent of premises required rest within the discretion of the landlord.
Questions settled- Is a landlord required to obtain prior agencies or contracts from companies to prove good faith for a proposed business in an eviction application?
- What constitutes 'good faith' of a landlord seeking eviction for personal use under the rent laws?
- Does the landlord have the discretion to decide the extent of space or premises required for their personal business use?
- Haji Zainul Abedeen vs (Mst) Sharifan BegumK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 408 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
- Haji Taj Din Etc vs Govt. of Punjab EtcK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 650 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
- Haji Syed Abdul Haleem Shah vs Wali Dad And 6 Other1991 SCMR 1351(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court regarding the law of pre-emption. The core legal dispute centers on the sufficiency of evidence required to establish the two essential requirements of pre-emption under Islamic law: Talab-e-Mowasibat (the immediate demand) and Talab-e-Ishhad (the demand with invocation). The Majlis-e-Shoora had previously determined that the evidence regarding Talab-e-Mowasibat was deficient. Conversely, the High Court, in the impugned judgment, concluded that the evidence regarding Talab-e-Ishhad was deficient. The petitioner challenged these findings, contending that the evidence on record was sufficient to satisfy both legal requirements. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in their respective assessments of the evidentiary record concerning these demands. The Court's decision to grant leave signifies that the findings of the lower forums regarding the deficiency of evidence in the pre-emption process require further judicial scrutiny to determine if the legal standards for establishing these demands were correctly applied to the facts presented.
Questions settled- Does the evidence on record sufficiently establish the requirements of Talab-e-Mowasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad in a pre-emption claim?
- Can a finding of evidentiary deficiency regarding Talab-e-Mowasibat by the Majlis-e-Shoora be reconciled with a finding of deficiency regarding Talab-e-Ishhad by the High Court?
- Haji Sharif Khan and 9 others vs Asif Mahmood and another1991 CLC 1124 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
- Haji Shakar Khan (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs vs Abdul Qadir And Other1991 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal arising from an ejectment proceeding under the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The appellant-tenant faced an application for striking off his defence due to a nine-day delay in depositing the monthly rent for October 1985 pursuant to a tentative rent order. The Rent Controller accepted the appellant's explanation of illness supported by a medical certificate and condoned the delay. However, the High Court set aside this order and directed the tenant's eviction, holding the explanation to be an afterthought. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Rent Controller's discretion, as the appellant's medical explanation and certificate remained uncontroverted by any counter-affidavit, and sweeping generalizations regarding diabetes were unwarranted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Rent Controller's order condoning the delay, and remanded the matter for further proceedings in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Rent Controller's discretion in condoning a minor delay in depositing rent based on uncontroverted medical evidence?
- Does diabetes constitute an illness that can incapacitate a tenant from depositing rent within the prescribed time under a tentative rent order?
- Whether an un-controverted explanation supported by a medical certificate regarding illness constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay in rent deposit?
- Can a tenant raise the defense of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act in rent ejectment proceedings where an agreement to sell is claimed?
- Haji Saindino Khan And Another vs Mst. Zaibunnissa Through Legal Heirs1991 SCMR 972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract concerning agricultural land. The petitioners had leased the suit land under a registered lease deed containing a pre-emptive clause (Clause 15) stating that if the lessors decided to sell the land, the first option to purchase would be given to the lessees. The lessors subsequently sold the land to a third party. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that Clause 15 did not constitute a complete and concluded agreement of sale, particularly due to the absence of an agreed price. The High Court affirmed this decision, further noting uncontradicted evidence that the lessors had in fact offered the land to the petitioners first, but the petitioners had declined. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, confirming that Clause 15 was vague, uncertain, and lacked essential terms such as consideration, and therefore did not form a binding contract. Furthermore, since the lessors had offered the option and the lessees refused, no breach occurred.
Questions settled- Does a clause in a lease deed granting lessees the first option to purchase land constitute a binding and concluded contract of sale if no price or lawful consideration is specified?
- Can a party enforce a right of first refusal through a suit for specific performance if evidence establishes that the offer was made to them and rejected prior to sale to a third party?
- Haji Said Muhammad And Another vs Mistri Muhammad Hassan1991 SCMR 1178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a long-standing property dispute involving a suit for declaration of title and possession of a house. The appellants claimed ownership, while the respondent alleged purchase of the property, which the appellants denied. After multiple rounds of litigation, including remands and amendments to the plaint, the High Court eventually affirmed the appellants' title but declined to grant the consequential relief of possession, citing the absence of a specific issue framed regarding possession. The core legal question was whether the court could grant the relief of possession based on established title despite the technical omission of a specific issue regarding possession. The Supreme Court held that since the appellants' ownership was conclusively established and the respondent failed to prove the alleged purchase, the relief of possession was a natural consequence of the title. The Court ruled that technical omissions, such as the failure to frame a specific issue, should not defeat the ends of justice when the evidence on record is sufficient to support the relief claimed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a decree for possession was granted.
Questions settled- Can a court grant the relief of possession in a suit for declaration if the issue of possession was not formally framed but the evidence on record supports the claim?
- Does the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a separate claim for possession if the issue was not determined in previous proceedings?
- Should a court refuse the relief of possession on technical grounds when the ownership of the property has been conclusively established?
- Haji Saadat Hussain vs Inayatullah Khan And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of a Constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld an eviction order based on the landlord's stated requirement for reconstruction. The core legal question is whether an eviction for reconstruction is sought in good faith when the landlord seeks to evict only one tenant while leaving a contiguous tenant undisturbed, and whether such construction could feasibly proceed without the tenant's eviction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the landlord failed to adequately address why the petitioner could not be treated similarly to the other tenant or why the construction could not be executed without disturbing the petitioner's possession. The Court held that these issues require deeper examination to determine the bona fides of the eviction claim. The key principle established is that where a landlord seeks eviction for reconstruction, the court must scrutinize whether the eviction is genuinely necessary for the proposed construction or if it is a pretext, particularly when similar tenants are not subjected to eviction.
Questions settled- Whether an eviction for reconstruction is valid if the landlord fails to demonstrate that the construction cannot be completed without evicting the tenant?
- Does the selective eviction of one tenant while leaving a contiguous tenant undisturbed raise a presumption of lack of good faith in a reconstruction claim?
- Is a landlord required to prove that the specific area occupied by a tenant is essential for the proposed reconstruction to justify eviction?
- Haji Rais Ahmed vs AslamK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 322 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Haji Rais Ahmed vs Aslam1991 CLC 602 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was directed against the judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi (South), which affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The plaintiff had failed to appear or produce evidence after being granted a final opportunity. On the date of hearing, the trial court initially passed a short order in the order sheet dismissing the suit for non-appearance, but subsequently rendered a separate detailed judgment dismissing the suit on merits without considering the defendant's partial admission in the written statement.
The High Court held that a subordinate trial court is not competent to pass a short order and subsequently write a detailed judgment later in the day. The High Court further held that a decision under Order XVII Rule 3 requires a proper adjudication on the merits based on available material on record. Consequently, both lower court decisions were set aside, and the suit was remanded for a decision afresh, subject to costs.
Questions settled- Is a subordinate civil court competent to announce a short order dismissing a suit and write a detailed judgment subsequently?
- Does a decision under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require the court to decide the suit on merits based on the available material on record?
- Can a concurrent finding of fact by lower courts be set aside in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where lower courts acted illegally or with material irregularity?
- Haji Noorwar Jan vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P.1991 PLD Supreme Court 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three consolidated civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan examine the scope and limits of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere in administrative appointments of Lambardars (headmen) by revenue authorities. The core legal questions involved whether revenue tribunals committed errors of law apparent on the face of the record regarding the creation of Lambardari posts, the application of primogeniture rules, and the rights of minor successors or heirs of removed Lambardars, and whether such administrative discretion shields revenue decisions from judicial review. The Supreme Court held that while the appointment of a Lambardar is an administrative function and courts cannot sit as courts of appeal on facts, tribunals are bound to apply the law correctly. An error of law or jurisdictional defect committed by the Board of Revenue—such as rewriting statutory rules or acting on nonexistent posts—subverts the rule of law and is amenable to correction through constitutional jurisdiction. The Court established that supervisory courts may quash illegal orders of tribunals but cannot substitute their own administrative choices or finalize appointments, which remain the exclusive executive domain of revenue authorities. Consequently, one appeal was dismissed and two were remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh decisions.
Questions settled- Does the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to interfering in the administrative appointment of a Lambardar if revenue tribunals commit an error of law apparent on the face of the record?
- Can a supervisory court, upon quashing an illegal order of the Board of Revenue regarding a Lambardar's appointment, finalize the appointment itself instead of remanding the matter?
- Does the removal of a Lambardar for becoming landless extinguish the right of primogeniture for his heir under the Land Revenue Rules?
- Does minority operate as a disqualification for the appointment of a successor Lambardar under the rules of primogeniture?
- Haji Noor Shah vs Hakim Khan and others1991 CLC 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Murad Ali And Others vs The Political Agent, Chagai And Other1991 SCMR 1466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding a dispute over water rights from a stream known as Manda-e-Khaiser. The petitioners, claiming to be upper riparian landowners, sought a declaration and injunction against private respondents, alleging interference with their water supply and attempted dispossession. The trial court initially granted an interim injunction, which was subsequently vacated by the Additional District Judge, a decision upheld by the High Court in civil revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that their position as upper riparians made interference by downstream respondents unlikely, yet feared potential forceful obstruction. The respondents denied using force and undertook to pursue any grievances regarding water rights solely through official legal channels. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of evidence of forceful interference and given the respondents' undertaking to act through legal agencies, there was no ground for interference. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that it does not ordinarily interfere with interlocutory orders of a tentative nature, as parties must establish their respective cases during the full trial.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court ordinarily interfere with interlocutory orders of a tentative nature?
- Can a party seek an injunction based on a mere apprehension of force without supporting evidence?
- Is a statement by a party to pursue grievances through official agencies sufficient to resolve a dispute regarding potential interference with water rights?
- Haji Muhammad Yousaf vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1991 PLC (C.S.) 665 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-10-09Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad vs The State1991 SCMR 966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Mst. Mukhtar Begum, which resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when based on the testimony of a single witness (the deceased's father) who allegedly held a grudge against the appellant, and whether such testimony required independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, as the testimony of the complainant was not only unimpeachable but was also strongly corroborated by independent evidence. Specifically, the Court noted the appellant was apprehended at the scene of the crime, the blood-stained weapon was recovered from his possession, and the appellant was wearing blood-stained clothing at the time of his arrest. The Court affirmed that where testimonial evidence is supported by recovery of the murder weapon and forensic evidence of blood-stained clothing, the conviction rests on a firm legal footing, even if the primary witness is related to the deceased.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the testimony of a single witness if it is corroborated by independent evidence?
- Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon and blood-stained clothing from an accused at the scene of the crime constitute sufficient corroboration for a conviction?
- Is the testimony of a deceased's relative inherently unreliable in a murder trial absent proof of deep-rooted enmity?
- Haji Muhammad vs The State1991 MLD 6 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad vs Syed Muhammad Shafi1991 SCMR 1831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order against a tenant. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a shop on the grounds of personal need and default in rent payment. The Rent Controller initially rejected the eviction application, finding no evidence of a Musafirkhana (guest house) and concluding the landlord's true motive was to force a rent enhancement. However, the Baluchistan High Court reversed this decision, relying on the tenant's admission in the pleadings regarding the existence of the Musafirkhana. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Musafirkhana was merely a private guest house, that the landlord had already vacated other premises (a hotel), and that the landlord's involvement in other businesses negated his claim of personal need. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the tenant's admission regarding the Musafirkhana was conclusive. Furthermore, the Court held that a landlord is not disentitled from seeking eviction for personal need simply because they previously vacated other premises, nor does the ownership of other businesses automatically disqualify a landlord from asserting personal necessity for a specific property.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's admission in pleadings regarding the existence of a facility like a Musafirkhana dispense with the need for further proof?
- Does a landlord's possession of other business interests or properties automatically disqualify them from seeking eviction on the ground of personal need?
- Can a landlord seek eviction for personal need if they have previously vacated other premises?
- Haji Muhammad Shafi And Others vs Wealth Tax Officer And Other1991 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the validity of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. The petitioners raised significant legal questions regarding the constitutionality of the Act and the legality of concurrent taxation by both the Federation and the Province on the same immovable property. Specifically, the Court identified two core issues for authoritative determination: first, whether the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, is ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan; and second, whether the imposition of tax on the same immovable property by both the Federation under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and the Province under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, constitutes double jeopardy and is therefore illegal. Finding these questions worthy of consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, directing that the appeal be heard on the existing record while permitting the parties to file additional documentation if necessary.
Questions settled- Is the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the imposition of tax on the same immovable property by both the Federation and the Province constitute double jeopardy and illegality?
- Haji Muhammad Salim vs The State and 3 others-1991 P Cr. L J 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Khan And Others vs Muhammad Farooq Khan And Other1991 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises five petitions for leave to appeal directed against the judgments of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 10-11-1988. The Service Tribunal had allowed seniority to Muhammad Farooq Khan with retrospective effect from 10-4-1982 and expunged adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1980, 1981, and 1985. The core legal questions relate to whether the Service Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeal on merits without recording reasons for condonation of delay, whether retrospective seniority could be granted over persons promoted earlier, whether the Tribunal's decision amounted to determining fitness for promotion barred by law, the effect of remission of penalty under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1973, and the competency of the Countersigning Authority regarding adverse remarks. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions and suspended the operation of the impugned orders pending final disposal.
Questions settled- Whether or not the Service Tribunal was legally justified in considering and allowing the appeal on merits without recording any reason for condonation of delay when a preliminary objection was raised?
- Whether under the law seniority in the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judge could take effect from a retrospective earlier date over the heads of persons promoted earlier?
- Whether the decision of the Service Tribunal amounts to the determination of fitness of a civil servant to hold a particular post or to be promoted in respect of which no appeal lay?
- Whether remission of penalty or stoppage of promotion imposed under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1973 entitled a civil servant to be considered for promotion retrospectively?
- Whether the Countersigning Authority is competent under the law to disagree with the Reporting Officer in the matter of Annual Confidential Reports?
- Haji Muhammad Jawed. vs Government of Sindh Local Government1991 MLD 2584 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-18Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Javed vs The State and 2 others-1991 P Cr. L J 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the Illaqa Magistrate's order dated 8-3-1989, which had accepted a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and cancelled FIR No. 47. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether a Magistrate can cancel an FIR under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after taking cognizance of the matter, and whether such a cancellation order passed mechanically constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The High Court held that where prima facie ocular evidence exists supporting the complainant's report, the investigating agency cannot usurp judicial functions by deciding guilt or innocence. Furthermore, once a Magistrate is seized of the matter and takes cognizance, cancellation of the FIR under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is impermissible, and the Magistrate must follow standard proceedings until proper legal termination. Finding that the Magistrate acted mechanically without conscious application of mind, the High Court set aside the impugned cancellation order and directed the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate cancel a criminal case under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after taking cognizance of the matter?
- Does an investigating officer have the authority to decide the credibility of conflicting evidence instead of sending the accused to trial?
- Is a Magistrate's order cancelling an FIR subject to quashment under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. if passed mechanically without applying a conscious mind?
- Haji Muhammad Islam vs Muhammad Rafique and 2 others1991 CLC 84 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for possession through specific performance. The trial court decreed the suit, and the petitioner appealed. The appellate court directed the petitioner to annex Appendix 'G' to the memo of appeal. Due to the unavailability of a printed form, a handwritten form was prepared, but the appellate court rejected the memo of appeal under Order XLI Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the omission of the jurisdictional valuation column. The petitioner eventually filed a revision petition in the High Court after a delay of about one year and eight months. The High Court addressed whether the revision petition was barred by limitation or laches, and whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the appeal. The High Court held that no specific limitation period is prescribed for filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 provides a three-year residuary period. On merits, the Court ruled that minor clerical errors in the form of appeal should be corrected rather than leading to rejection, emphasizing that procedural technicalities must not obstruct the administration of justice. The revision was allowed, and the case was remanded.
Questions settled- What is the limitation period applicable to a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of a specific statutory provision?
- Can a memorandum of appeal be rejected under Order XLI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for minor clerical errors or omissions in the jurisdictional valuation column of Appendix 'G'?
- Whether procedural technicalities in filing forms should be allowed to defeat the adjudication of a civil appeal on its merits?
- Haji Muhammad Ibrahim vs Messrs Shafi Tenneries and 7 others1991 CLC 904 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Ibrahim vs Additional District Judge and others1991 MLD 1752 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Hussain vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and 24 others1991 CLC 1093 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Ashraf vs Mian Muhammad Akhtar1991 MLD 2718 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Mitha Khan vs Muhammad Younus And 2 Other1991 SC MR 2030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that rejected a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing a lack of cause of action and procedural defects. The appellant had filed a suit alleging violation of a 1915 compromise agreement, which had been previously adjudicated by a Qazi and subsequently remanded. The High Court, in revision, concluded that the plaint was vague, lacked a clear cause of action, and suffered from procedural deficiencies, thereby rendering the entire proceedings incompetent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the plaint on these grounds. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding regarding the lack of cause of action was unsustainable. It established that the test for a cause of action is whether the plaintiff's stated facts, if accepted as true, would entitle them to legal relief. The Court further held that procedural defects, such as vague pleadings or deficient court fees, require an opportunity for the party to rectify the errors rather than immediate rejection of the plaint.
Questions settled- What is the legal test for determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action?
- Can a plaint be rejected for procedural defects like vagueness or deficient court fees without first allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to rectify them?
- Does the filing of an incompetent plaint preclude a court from deciding the matter on its merits?
- Haji Mir Ghulam Mustafa and 2 others vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior, Interior Division, Islamabad through its Secretary and 3 others1991 PLD Quetta 57 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
- Haji Mir Baz Khan vs Chairman, Town Committee And Another1991 SCMR 2025 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the court arises from the dismissal of the appellant's suit for declaration and injunction by the trial court, which decisions were upheld by the District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether a tenant in possession of land owned by a local authority, who has continuously paid rent to the landlord, can maintain a suit for declaration of title and challenge the landlord's title based on long possession. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, being a tenant who paid rent to the respondent without objection, is estopped under the doctrine of estoppel from challenging the title of his landlord and possesses no legal character to claim equitable relief. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord under the law?
- Can a person in possession of property as a tenant maintain a suit for declaration of title against the landlord?
- Whether long possession alone confers a right to seek a declaration and equitable relief against the true owner or lessor?
- Haji Maqbool Ur Rehman Khan And Others vs Deputy1991 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a review application filed by the petitioners against an earlier order allowing them to withdraw their writ petition with permission to file a fresh one, subject to the payment of costs. The High Court had permitted the withdrawal due to formal and technical defects in the original petition, relying on the principle that no error apparent on the face of the record existed to justify a review under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the imposition of costs, they should have challenged that specific order or sought to amend their petition rather than withdrawing it conditionally. The Court further observed that since the petitioners had already filed a fresh writ petition pursuant to the High Court's order, there was no merit in their grievance. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court exercised its discretion appropriately in granting withdrawal on specific terms, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is a review application maintainable against an order allowing the withdrawal of a writ petition where no error apparent on the face of the record exists?
- Can a petitioner seek review of an order allowing the withdrawal of a writ petition on the ground of costs imposed as a condition for withdrawal?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to impose costs as a condition for granting permission to withdraw a writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one?
- Haji Mahmood Khan vs Khalilurrehman Khan and another1991 MLD 1001 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Ladhoo Etc vs M.B.R. EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 382 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
- Haji Ladhoo and others vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and others1991 MLD 99 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
- Haji Khushi Mohammad vs A.C. Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
- Haji Khan And 2 Others vs The State and others-1991 PCr.LJ 2110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-08-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Jewana vs Nadir Ali and others1991 CLC 1505 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Haji Gulshan vs Abdul Qayum EtcK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 502 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Haji Gulshan vs Abdul Qayoom and 4 others1991 PLD Peshawar 85 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from a declaratory suit challenging two inheritance mutations (Mutation No. 5034 of 1963 and Mutation No. 6061 of 1981) regarding the estate of a deceased landowner. The petitioner, husband of a deceased daughter, contended that the grandson (son of a predeceased son) was allotted an excess share under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, thereby diminishing the legal shares of other Muslim Law heirs. Both lower courts dismissed the suit, holding Section 4 valid and the suit time-barred. The Peshawar High Court upheld the dismissal. It held that Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 remains valid legislation and operative unless declared un-Islamic by the Council of Islamic Ideology under Article 227 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It further affirmed that lower courts should not decide extraneous issues not pleaded or framed under Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Finally, the Court ruled that claims under Muslim Personal Law are subject to the Limitation Act 1908, and the suit challenging a 1963 mutation brought in 1981 was hopelessly barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908.
Questions settled- Is Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 valid and operative legal authority in Pakistani courts?
- Can a court decide an issue that was neither raised in the pleadings nor framed as an issue for determination?
- Are inheritance claims made under Muslim Personal Law subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 bar a suit challenging an inheritance mutation brought after long delay?
- Haji Gulab Baig vs Mst. Syeda Tayaba Ishtiaq1991 MLD 1377 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-13Read full judgment →
- Haji Gamun vs Muhammad Afzal and 2 others1991 PLD Peshawar 54 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, in a case registered under Section 325/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether delay in registering an F.I.R. constitutes a valid ground for pre-arrest bail and what criteria must be met to grant anticipatory bail. The Peshawar High Court held that delay per se in registering an F.I.R. is not a ground for pre-arrest bail as it can be explained at trial. The Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of genuine apprehension of imminent arrest, physical surrender, bona fide merits, and demonstrated mala fides or ulterior motives to humiliate the accused. Finding direct allegations, medical evidence, and no proof of mala fides against respondent No. 1, the Court cancelled his pre-arrest bail, while maintaining bail for respondent No. 2 due to his lesser role.
Questions settled- Does delay in the registration of an F.I.R. constitute a sufficient ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- What essential conditions must be satisfied before a court can grant pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a mere allegation of mala fides or apprehension of arrest in a bail application sufficient to grant anticipatory bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail granted by a Sessions Judge be cancelled if it was allowed without legal and factual justification contrary to established principles?
- Haji Fazal Karim vs Amanullah Khan and others1991 MLD 1887 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Haji Butt and others vs National Bank of Pakistan1991 CLC 778 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Atta Muhammad vs Abdul Rasheed1991 CLC 1341 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Haji Altaf Ansari vs Divisional Superintendent, Railways1991 PLC 505 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Allah Bakhsh And 2 Others vs Ghulam Ali And Other1991 SCMR 1493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, who were plaintiffs and pre-emptors, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a revision petition, reversed the judgment of the first appellate court, and dismissed their pre-emption suit. The trial court had dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court ruled in favor of the petitioners, establishing their superior right of pre-emption and rejecting the respondents' claim as cultivating tenants due to alleged forgeries in the revenue record. The High Court, however, reversed this finding of fact regarding tenancy and record interpolation. The core legal question concerns the proper judicial approach in examining allegations of forgery and interpolation in revenue records, particularly regarding primary evidence and the finality of revenue proceedings before the Collector. The Supreme Court held that the matter required fuller examination and an authoritative pronouncement, as the approach adopted by the High Court in accepting the correctness of the record without examining original records or primary evidence warranted closer scrutiny. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal along with interim protective orders regarding the suit property.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can reverse a finding of forgery and interpolation in revenue records without examining the original record and primary evidence?
- Does a proceeding before the Collector regarding revenue record corrections possess finality and exclusiveness when the matter is simultaneously under examination in a civil court?
- Whether a pre-emptor's superior right of pre-emption can be defeated by a tenant's claim established through interpolated revenue entries?
- Haji Ajab Gul And 3 Others vs Rahim Gul And 28 Other1991 SCMR 2500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal and petition arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 15-12-1987, which dismissed a declaration suit filed by the heirs of Habibullah concerning property given as dower. At the time of Mst. Shamala's marriage to Waheed Gul, Habibullah executed a deed giving a house and two shops as dower, subject to the condition that she would enjoy the usufruct for her life without power to mortgage, after which the property would revert to the legal heirs. Mst. Shamala subsequently transferred the property to third parties, prompting the plaintiffs to challenge the sale. The trial court decreed the suit, holding the deed was an 'Areeat' (limited interest) rather than a dower deed. However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the transaction was a dower and conditions derogating from absolute ownership were void. The core legal question was whether dower can be validly fixed in the form of a life interest and whether conditions attached to a dower deed limiting ownership are enforceable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where property is demanded and given as dower in compliance with a marriage contract, the wife takes the property absolutely as her own, and any restrictive conditions attached to it without her express consent are void. The appeal and petition were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether dower can be fixed in the form of a life interest in property under Muslim Law?
- Can a condition attached to a dower deed restricting the wife's ownership to a life interest be enforced without her express consent?
- Does a grant of property given as dower operate to transfer absolute ownership, rendering repugnant conditions void?
- Haji Abdullah Lahooty vs Government of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1141 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Wali Khan And Another vs Muhammad Hanif And Another1991 SCMR 2457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals addressed whether an order passed by a Rent Controller during execution proceedings under Section 17 of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is appealable under Section 15, given that Section 17 is not explicitly enumerated in the appeal provision. The High Court had previously held such orders non-appealable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals, holding that an order passed by a Rent Controller in execution proceedings is appealable under Section 15. The Court reasoned that execution proceedings are a continuation of the original ejectment proceedings initiated under Section 13. Consequently, an order passed in execution is effectively an order under Section 13, making it appealable. The Court emphasized that statutes must be liberally construed to preserve the right of appeal, and such a right should not be extinguished by implication unless the legislative intent is clear. This case was distinguished from Muhammad Arif v. Mst. Amina Begum, as Section 13-B constituted a self-contained code, whereas Section 17 execution remains part of the original proceedings.
Questions settled- Is an order passed by a Rent Controller in execution proceedings under Section 17 of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, appealable under Section 15 of the same Ordinance?
- Are execution proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance considered a continuation of the original ejectment proceedings?
- Does the omission of Section 17 from the list of appealable orders in Section 15 of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, imply that no appeal lies against execution orders?
- Haji Abdul Wahab vs Mst. Ramzan Bibi And Other1991 SCMR 1644 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, which decreed the respondents' suit for declaration relating to the allotment of State land. The petitioner sought to non-suit the respondents primarily on the ground of limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered it proper to examine whether the suit filed by the respondents was within limitation and whether it was a suit for mere declaration or whether it was essential for the plaintiffs to seek the setting aside of certain orders passed in favour of the petitioner, either directly or indirectly. Pending further examination, the Court granted security terms regarding the possession of the land in dispute, directing the petitioner to furnish security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the executing or trial court.
Questions settled- Whether the suit filed by the respondents was within limitation?
- Whether the suit was for mere declaration or if it was essential for the plaintiffs to seek setting aside of certain orders passed in favour of the defendant side?
- Haji Abdul Sattar vs Haji Abdul Fatah1991 MLD 426 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Sattar Chapri- vs Secretary, Karachi Grains & Seeds1991 MLD 2697 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil miscellaneous application arose out of a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from disposing of 7,200 bags of cotton seeds oil cakes, or alternatively for a decree for their value and damages. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the goods through delivery orders after making full payment. The defendants contested the suit, asserting that the full sale consideration had not been paid, that the plaintiff still owed a balance, and that the goods were readily available in the open market. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or that he would suffer irreparable loss, noting that the goods were standard commodities easily available in the market for which monetary damages constituted an adequate remedy. The court established the principle that interlocutory injunctions for specific movable property will not be granted where satisfactory equivalents are readily available in the market and money damages provide adequate relief. Consequently, the application for injunction was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an interlocutory injunction can be granted for the delivery of goods when a satisfactory equivalent is readily available in the open market?
- Does a plaintiff claiming alternative damages in a suit for specific performance lose the right to seek an interlocutory injunction?
- Can a contract for the sale of goods be specifically enforced when monetary compensation affords an adequate relief?
- Whether an admission made by one defendant in a counter-affidavit binds a co-defendant or constitutes conclusive proof without trial?
- Hakim Khan And Others vs The State and others-1991PCr.LJ 218 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Razaq and others vs Muhammad Ishaq and others1991 CLC 1374 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Qayyum vs The State1991 PLD Federal Shariat Court 74 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-02Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Karim And Others vs Ahmed Yar Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court partly allowing a revision application arising out of a civil suit initiated under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The original suit involved claims for ownership, 1/4th share of produce by way of Haq Malkana, and eviction of the appellants as Lath Band Bazgars. The Qazi decreed the suit for ownership and share of produce, which was modified by the Majlis-e-Shoora to include eviction. The High Court maintained the declaration of ownership and entitlement to produce but set aside the eviction relief. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the courts below failed to decide the question of Shishak. The Supreme Court held that the High Court adequately and properly dealt with all raised questions for cogent reasons. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs, establishing that concurrent findings adequately addressing the points in controversy are unexceptionable.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court properly dealt with all questions raised in the revision application regarding ownership and produce share?
- Did the courts below fail to decide the important question of Shishak expressly raised in the case?
- Haji Abdul Hayee And Another vs Mst. Mehboob And Other1991 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a shop. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal after the repeal of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws, specifically in light of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, having themselves invoked his authority to decide the appeal after the relevant repeal date. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under the repealing Act, pending proceedings were to be disposed of by notified officers, and since the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was a notified officer, his actions were lawful. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by invoking the jurisdiction of an authority and subsequently challenging that same authority's competence to decide the matter.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of an authority after having actively invoked that authority's jurisdiction to decide the matter?
- Are pending proceedings under the repealed Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws valid if decided by a notified officer?
- Does the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973, mandate the transfer of all pending appeals to the Commissioner?
- Haji Abdul Ghaffar vs Haji Rauf1991 CLC 734 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning a plot in Karachi, seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from transferring the property. The core legal question was whether a contract involving both the sale of land and complex construction obligations is specifically enforceable, and whether an interim injunction is warranted when the main relief appears barred by statute. The Court dismissed the application, holding that while contracts for the sale of immovable property are generally enforceable, this agreement was coupled with construction obligations requiring personal supervision and detail. Consequently, it fell under the bar of Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act. As the construction and sale aspects were interlinked, the entire agreement was deemed prima facie unenforceable. The Court established that if the main relief of specific performance is prima facie barred, interim relief should be declined. Furthermore, the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provides sufficient protection against transfers made during the pendency of a suit, rendering an injunction unnecessary.
Questions settled- Can a contract involving both the sale of land and construction obligations be specifically enforced?
- Does the non-production of an ancillary document referred to in an agreement automatically render the agreement unenforceable under Section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act?
- Is an interim injunction necessary to protect a plaintiff's interest when the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies?
- Can a court decline interim relief if the main relief of specific performance is prima facie barred by statute?