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.
- Noor Muhammad vs Judge, Family Court, Burewala, District Vehari1989 PLD Lahore 31 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a Family Court decree that dissolved a marriage on the ground of Khula, despite the wife failing to prove specific allegations of cruelty and non-maintenance. The petitioner-husband contended that the failure to prove these grounds negated the basis for Khula and that the court erred by not conditioning the decree upon the return of ornaments. The Court held that the inability to prove specific grounds does not preclude a finding of hatred or aversion, which are subjective matters for the Qazi's conscience. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Zar-i-Khula (consideration for Khula) is not mandatory; it is a right of the husband that must be explicitly demanded and proven. Since the husband failed to make an unequivocal demand for compensation or prove that the ornaments were indeed given by him, the Family Court could not arbitrarily impose such a condition. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the Qazi cannot force compensation upon an unwilling or non-demanding husband.
Questions settled- Does the failure to prove specific grounds for dissolution of marriage preclude a court from granting a decree of Khula?
- Is a Family Court judge empowered to arbitrarily fix and impose Zar-i-Khula without a specific demand from the husband?
- Can a husband's written statement regarding the provision of ornaments serve as evidence in the absence of corroborating testimony?
- Does the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction extend to re-evaluating questions of fact determined by a Family Court?
- Noor Muhammad vs Hakim Bibi1989 CLC 1584 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Ghulam Jaffar And Other1989 MLD 2791 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways /1989 PLC 378 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura and others1989 SCMR 1270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal, involving the contention that the petitioner's possession of the disputed property could not be disturbed and that he was entitled to retain the property under a statutory right. The core legal question concerns the interpretation and application of statutory protections regarding property retention under Act XIV of 1975. The court examined the contentions raised and held that the point raised requires further examination. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal, directed security to be furnished, and issued instructions for the preparation of the appeal along with permission for the parties to file additional documents within two months. The principle laid down is that contentions regarding statutory rights of property retention that merit deeper scrutiny warrant the grant of leave to appeal for a comprehensive final hearing.
Questions settled- Does a party have a statutory right to retain property under Section 3, subsection (1), clause (b) of Act XIV of 1975?
- Can possession of a petitioner be disturbed in violation of rights accrued under Act XIV of 1975?
- Noor Muhammad vs Allah Ditta1989 MLD 4819 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 74 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad And Others vs Amir Muhammad Khan And Other1989 MLD 3487 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and another vs Muhammad Murad and 3 others1989 SCMR 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court which set aside the concurrent judgments of the courts below in favor of rival pre-emptors. The pre-emptors had initially succeeded on the ground that they were co-sharers of the Khatas from which the sale was made. However, the High Court held that the vendor was an allottee of specific Khasra Numbers rather than a co-sharer, thereby going behind the sale-deed. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court re-evaluating factual aspects of the sale-deed at the revisional stage to the detriment of pre-emptors, and the adequacy of notice given to the petitioners regarding the hearing of the revision petitions. The Supreme Court held that the sale-deed demonstrated a sale of a share in the Khata rather than specific Khasra Numbers, and that it was improper to go behind the sale-deed at the revisional stage. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can go behind the sale-deed at the revisional stage to determine the nature of the property sold?
- Does a sale of a share in a Khata constitute a sale of specific Khasra Numbers for the purpose of pre-emption?
- Whether inadequate notice of the hearing of revision petitions vitiates the High Court's judgment?
- Noor Muhammad and 2 others vs Muhammad Ramzan and 3 others1989 SCMR 1264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by a pre-emptor challenging the High Court's decision in a civil revision concerning the deficiency of court-fee paid by the petitioners. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court's determination regarding the deficiency of court-fee remained sustainable in light of established Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court held that the legal principles established in the case of Siddique Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289) were directly applicable to the present dispute. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the civil revision, which is to be treated as pending. The key principle affirmed is that lower courts must adhere to the binding precedents of the Supreme Court regarding the adjudication of court-fee deficiencies in pre-emption suits, ensuring that procedural determinations align with the authoritative interpretation of the law.
Questions settled- Does the judgment in Siddique Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289) govern the determination of court-fee deficiencies in pre-emption suits?
- Can a High Court decision on court-fee deficiency be set aside if it contradicts established Supreme Court precedent?
- Noor Muhammad alias Noora vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 445 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-28Read full judgment →
- Noor Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 700 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Noor Khan vs Mst. Alam Khatoon1989 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court, which had upheld an appellate decision setting aside a gift deed. The core legal question concerned whether the findings of fact regarding the validity of the gift, specifically the respondent's lack of independent advice and the failure of the petitioner to satisfy the burden of proof on the relevant issue, were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had carefully examined the respondent's version, found that she lacked independent advice, and rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. The Court affirmed that there was no justification to interfere with these factual findings or to doubt the veracity of the respondent's testimony at the leave-to-appeal stage. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the principle that the Supreme Court will not typically disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless they are perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a gift deed?
- Does the absence of independent advice for a donor invalidate a gift?
- Is a petitioner entitled to leave to appeal when lower courts have rendered consistent findings of fact against them?
- Noor Khan vs Karachi Port Trust and 3 others1989 PLC 321 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Noor Khan vs A.C., Depalpur and another1989 SCMR 1279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his constitutional petition regarding the resumption and adjustment of excess land allotted to him. The core legal question was whether the authorities were legally bound to first restore the entire land inclusive of the excess to the petitioner before making necessary reductions and adjustments. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's insistence on restoring the entire land first was untenable as it would create an unwarranted entitlement, and found that the previous judgment of the Court had been duly implemented by giving the petitioner the necessary choice regarding the excess area. The key principle laid down is that questions of fact settled concurrently by lower forums, in the absence of any substantial question of law, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an informer is entitled to the prior restoration of excess land before adjustments are made?
- Does a concurrent finding of fact by lower forums warrant interference by the Supreme Court when no question of law arises?
- Noor Jehan vs Ansar Ahmad1989 MLD 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Noor Hussain vs Muhammad Amir and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 1505 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
- Noor Hussain vs Fauji Foundation Hospital1989 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This batch of fifteen connected civil revisions challenged a common appellate order remanding suits to the trial court for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a fresh demarcation. The plaintiff hospital had instituted suits for possession against the defendants alleging encroachment, which the trial court dismissed after finding the encroachments unproven due to defects in the initial demarcation report. On appeal, the District Judge remanded the matters for proper demarcation. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was justified in ordering a remand for local investigation in a boundary dispute. The Lahore High Court held that in boundary disputes and cases regarding the identity of land, oral evidence is insufficient, and proper exercise of judicial discretion requires local investigation by a Local Commissioner. The court affirmed that remanding the case for local inspection to reach the truth and properly assess the evidence serves the cause of justice, and dismissed the revisions in limine.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is justified in remanding a case for the appointment of a Local Commissioner in boundary and encroachment disputes?
- Is oral evidence sufficient to prove encroachments in boundary and land identity disputes?
- When should a court exercise its discretion to order local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Noor Hassan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 17 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-30Read full judgment →
- Noor Elahi Rathore vs National Bank of Pakistan1989 PLD Lahore 537 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4154 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2449 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad vs The Deputy Inspectorgeneral Police and others1989 SCMR 1483(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a police constable, challenged his dismissal from service before the Punjab Service Tribunal, further seeking promotion to the rank of Head Constable while maintaining his seniority. The Punjab Service Tribunal, after evaluating the applicable service rules and relevant judicial precedents, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner subsequently sought leave to appeal against the Tribunal's judgment before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found no error of law in the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that there was no legal justification to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to uphold the dismissal order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal where no error of law is demonstrated?
- Is a police constable entitled to promotion to Head Constable as a matter of right following dismissal from service?
- Noor Ahmad vs Additional District Judge1989 CLC 466 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad Mirza vs Government of the Punjab, through Services1989 SCMR 693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report by the Commissioner. The Commissioner justified the adverse assessment based on pending departmental inquiries regarding the attestation of a bogus affidavit and the alteration of a date of death in a case. The core legal question was whether adverse remarks could be recorded in an officer's confidential report during the pendency of a departmental inquiry, and whether such remarks should stand when the officer is subsequently exonerated of the charges. The Supreme Court observed the contention that the petitioner was ultimately exonerated in the inquiries and that instructions of the Establishment Division mandated that adverse remarks should only be recorded after a punishment order is made following an inquiry. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to submit a report on these submissions within six weeks, while holding that further examination was required.
Questions settled- Whether adverse remarks can be recorded in an Annual Confidential Report while a departmental inquiry is pending against a civil servant?
- Does the subsequent exoneration of an officer in departmental inquiries render previously recorded adverse remarks unsustainable?
- Whether instructions of the Establishment Division regarding the procedure for making entries in confidential reports were violated when remarks were recorded prior to the conclusion of inquiries?
- Noor Ahmad and others vs Nawazish Ali1989 SCMR 1542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the District Judge's reduction of the purchase price in a pre-emption suit despite the pre-emptor not filing cross-objections. The core legal question before the Supreme Court involved the scope and extent of the appellate court's powers under Rule 33 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to vary a decree in favour of a respondent who had not filed cross-objections or an appeal, noting conflicting previous authorities of the Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further consider the proper interpretation of Rule 33 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that the question requires authoritative examination.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can vary the terms of a decree to reduce the purchase price in a pre-emption suit in the absence of cross-objections by the respondent?
- What is the scope of the powers of an appellate court under Rule 33 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding parties who have not filed an appeal or objection?
- Noon Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Market Committee and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed thirty appeals by special leave concerning whether sugar mills, which purchase sugarcane from assigned areas under the Sugar Factories Control Act 1950, are liable to pay market fees to local Market Committees under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939. The appellants challenged the demands, arguing they were not 'dealers' as they only purchased sugarcane (a 'one-end' transaction) and did not sell it, and that the Sugar Factories Control Act 1950, as a special law, eclipsed the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939. The Court held that the statutory definition of 'dealer' and the licensing requirements under Section 4(2) of the 1939 Act apply to 'one-end' transactions of purchase or sale. It further held that the Sugar Factories Control Act 1950 does not eclipse the 1939 Act as their fields of operation do not coincide, and that the market committees render services benefiting the agro-industries, justifying the levy of a fee.
Questions settled- Whether the term 'purchase or sell' in Section 4(2) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 applies to a person engaged in a one-end transaction of purchase only?
- Does the Sugar Factories Control Act 1950 eclipse or override the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 regarding the regulation of sugarcane purchases?
- Can a sugar mill claim exemption from market licensing requirements under the proviso for 'private use' when purchasing sugarcane for commercial manufacturing?
- What is the distinction between a tax and a fee under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939?
- No Name vs StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 254 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- No Name vs RespondentK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 705 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Nizamuddin vs Mian Hassanullah And 11 Other1989 MLD 61 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-31Read full judgment →
- Nizam Din and others vs Amir and others1989 SCMR 1958 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil revision and affirming the lower appellate court's judgment. The core legal question revolved around whether a widow who acquired proprietary rights in state land originally held by her deceased husband as a tenant was a full owner or a limited owner, and consequently, whether her alienations of the land made after the enforcement of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962 were valid. The Supreme Court held that the case was governed by the principle laid down in Mst. Bagan v. Mst. Bai (1983 SCMR 80), wherein such a female holder is regarded as a limited owner whose powers of alienation are restricted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that no interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below was warranted.
Questions settled- Whether a widow holding state land tenancy rights as a limited owner can alienate the entire land after the enforcement of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962?
- Whether a suit challenging the alienation of land by a limited owner stands abated under section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act 1962 as amended by Act XIII of 1983?
- Whether the acquisition of proprietary rights by a widow on land originally held by her deceased husband converts her status from a limited owner to a full owner?
- Nityananda Subudhi and Partners vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 265 · Orissa High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nishat Talkies, Karachi vs The Income Tax Officer, Companies Circle a-1989 PTD 513 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
- Nishat Talkies, Karachi vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 591 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 885 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1445 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 694(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad vs District Manager, PRTC, Lahore1989 PLC 356 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-03Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad Charan vs Government of Sind and others1989 PLC 721 · Service Tribunal · 1989-02-09Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad Alias Booti vs The State1989 MLD 4639 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Nikka Khan vs Settlement Authorities, Lahore Division1989 MLD 3311 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
- Nifasat Ali Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 208 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Nifasat Ali Khan vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 198 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Niazi Grammar School vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 1241 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
- Niaz Muhammad vs Board of Revenue And Another1989 MLD 459 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Niaz Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
- Niaz Gul vs Muhammad Rehman and 10 others1989 SCMR 1627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the election of a District Council member. The petitioner, declared elected by the Returning Officer, faced an election petition filed by a rival candidate alleging that polling at a specific station was interrupted by firing, necessitating a fresh poll. The Election Tribunal declared the result of the disputed polling station void, deseated the petitioner, and ordered a re-election. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Tribunal's findings on the factual plane while modifying the order to allow all original candidates to participate in the re-poll. The Supreme Court considered the petitioner's argument that he was not responsible for the disturbances and that the election results remained unaffected. The Court held that the High Court’s judgment was based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of evidence. Finding no legal defect justifying interference in the High Court's writ jurisdiction, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, thereby upholding the order for a re-election at the disputed polling station.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with the factual findings of an Election Tribunal in its writ jurisdiction absent a legal defect?
- Is a re-election order by an Election Tribunal limited only to the original contesting parties or must it include all candidates?
- Does the interruption of polling due to uncontrollable circumstances justify an Election Tribunal declaring a polling station's result void?
- Niaz Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 1397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his constitutional petition challenging the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner claimed the benefit of a government notification dated 18-1-1975 regarding the confirmation and benefits of railway staff with three years of service, seeking regularization as a plumber. The Labour Court initially allowed his petition, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed it, holding that the three-year requirement necessitated continuous service without breaks and that the petitioner had no vested right to the post. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view, noting the petitioner's service breaks and unauthorized absences. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner fulfilled the criteria for confirmation under the notification and whether continuous service was required. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not render service as a plumber when the notification was issued and had service breaks and absences during the relevant period, making the notification inapplicable. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether a government notification regarding the confirmation of railway staff requires continuous service for the qualifying period?
- Can an employee claim the benefit of a confirmation notification issued after a date on which they had not yet rendered service in the relevant post?
- Does an employee who remains absent from duty and has breaks in service possess an enforceable right to challenge the appointment of another person to the post?
- Niaz Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 778 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
- Niamat Ali vs Qudratullah1989 SCMR 1258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, whereby his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell was dismissed throughout on the ground of limitation. The core legal question was whether the suit filed for specific performance was within the period of limitation, taking into consideration a subsequent payment and handing over of possession which allegedly extended limitation. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the extension of the limitation period and the date of refusal needed consideration, as a subsequent payment on 1-11-1969 indicated no refusal had occurred until that date, rendering the suit filed on 23-10-1972 potentially within the three-year period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, fixed security, ordered maintenance of status quo, and directed that the appeal be prepared on the present record.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent payment and handing over of possession can extend the period of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance?
- When does time begin to run for the purpose of limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell?
- Niamat Ali and others vs Mst. Aasia Begum and others1989 SCMR 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a complex property dispute involving competing claims of specific performance and pre-emption. The petitioners, heirs of Ghulam Ahmad, sought specific performance of an agreement to sell land, while the respondent, Mst. Aasia Begum, claimed ownership through a gift from a pre-emptor, Muhammad Yousaf. The trial court initially dismissed Aasia Begum's suit, citing the doctrine of lis pendens regarding the pre-emption decree. However, the appellate court reversed this, holding that Aasia Begum was not bound by the previous decree as she was not a party to the proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the lower courts failed to adequately examine whether the next friend of the minor pre-emptor, Muhammad Yousaf, acted in the minor's best interest when gifting the suit property to Aasia Begum. Given the public importance of determining the validity of the minor's next friend's conduct and the subsequent impact on the compromise decree, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve these underlying legal questions regarding the integrity of the pre-emption proceedings and the resulting title.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to a pre-emption decree obtained while a suit for specific performance is pending?
- Is a subsequent transferee bound by a compromise decree if they were not impleaded as a party in the original proceedings?
- Can the conduct of a next friend in gifting property on behalf of a minor be challenged in a subsequent suit for declaration?
- Niamat Ali Alias Deena vs The State1989 MLD 3978 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
- Ni Uhammad Azam vs City Superintendent of Post Office, North1989 PLC (C.S.) 414 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
- New Jehang Ir Vakil Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay1989 PTD 79 · Supreme Court of India · 1959-05-12Read full judgment →
- Nek Muhammad vs Atta Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 4690 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
- Nek Muhammad and another vs Hafiz Shamshad Hussain1989 SCMR 920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the validity of a land mutation and subsequent transfer of occupancy tenancy rights. The petitioners challenged an order by the Collector (Consolidation) which had set aside a previous mutation (No. 6189) on the grounds that it was procured through fraud and in the absence of the respondent, the original owner. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who claimed title through a sale deed from the alleged donee of the disputed land, could establish their ownership despite the finding of fraud regarding the initial mutation. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the petitioners failed to produce the revenue staff to verify the original mutation and neglected to implead the original donee in their suit. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners failed to prove their title. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, based on proper consideration of material evidence, will not be interfered with in the absence of a substantial point of law.
Questions settled- Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in civil revision when no point of law is raised?
- Does the failure to implead the original transferor in a suit challenging a mutation affect the claim of title?
- Is a mutation procured in the absence of the owner and through fraud valid?
- Nek Bibi vs Muhammad Tufail And Other1989 MLD 3990 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-21Read full judgment →
- Nazir vs The State1989 SCMR 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for murder and murderous assault. The petitioner, Nazir, along with his father and brother-in-law, was tried for the murder of Mst. Fatima and the assault on Mst. Maqsoodan. While the trial court convicted the petitioner and his father under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the High Court subsequently acquitted the father but upheld the conviction of the petitioner. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel did not challenge the conviction on its merits but sought a reduction in the sentence. The core legal question was whether there existed any mitigating circumstances or material to justify a reduction of the sentence imposed by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that as the petitioner's counsel failed to provide any material or grounds to support the prayer for sentence reduction, the petition must be dismissed. The judgment affirms the principle that in the absence of mitigating evidence or legal justification, the appellate court will not interfere with a sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court.
Questions settled- Can a sentence be reduced on appeal if no material or mitigating circumstances are presented to the court?
- Does the failure to challenge a conviction on merits preclude a request for sentence reduction?
- Nazir vs Rabnawaz and others1989 P Cr. L J 2179 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir vs Rabnawaz and OtherK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 342 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir Muhammad Khan vs Sehraj Umar1989 CLC 1739 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir Muhammad and anothers vs Muhammad Yasin and another1989 SCMR 1015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside the order of a Single Judge and quashing the order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a composite property. The core legal question involved the determination of whether the disputed premises, being part of a composite property, were rightly transferred as a residential portion or a shop, and the extent of the revisional and writ jurisdiction over findings of settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner failed to apply an independent mind and properly appreciate the record regarding the occupation and priority of possession of the disputed premises, and that the High Court's Division Bench correctly interfered with the flawed order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the remand or setting aside of the Settlement Commissioner's order.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere under constitutional jurisdiction with an order of the Settlement Commissioner passed without proper appreciation of the record?
- Whether a Settlement Commissioner must apply an independent mind while treating a disputed portion as part of a residential unit?
- Whether the finding of possession and occupation in settlement proceedings requires proper examination of evidence by the authorities?
- Nazir Hussain Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-23Read full judgment →
- Nazir Hussain Shah vs Pakistan Steel Mill Corporation Ltd. And Another1989 MLD 514 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Nazir alias Jeera vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1905 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ali vs Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot and others1989 SCMR 1962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had ordered the abatement of a writ petition filed by a retired typist challenging his compulsory retirement. The core legal question was whether the High Court was correct in holding that the writ petition had abated under section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, given that the impugned departmental order was passed before 1st July 1969. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ordering abatement because, under clause (c) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, no appeal lay to the Tribunal against orders made before 1st July 1969, meaning the matter was excluded from the operation of section 8. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's abatement order, and remanded the matter for decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that matters excluded from the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by statutory proviso do not abate under section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition abates under section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 when no appeal lies to the Tribunal against the impugned departmental order?
- Does the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 bar appeals against departmental orders made before the 1st of July, 1969?
- Is an order of abatement passed by the High Court sustainable when it fails to consider the statutory provisos excluding certain matters from the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Nazir Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 741 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Crimnal Cases 377 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Syed Zafar Hussian Shah1989 SCMR 1505(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioner-defendant's civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree compensating the respondent-plaintiff for malicious prosecution. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent was duly acquitted by a criminal court on the facts, and whether the prosecution launched by the petitioner was based on true facts and was bona fide. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since all three lower courts concurrently decided the facts and merits against the petitioner, the petition for leave to appeal should be refused, notwithstanding any potential technical defects in the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal against concurrent factual findings of lower courts in matters of malicious prosecution unless the case warrants interference, declining to overturn such findings based solely on alleged technical defects.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against concurrent findings of lower courts in a suit for malicious prosecution?
- Does a technical defect in proceedings warrant interference by the Supreme Court when findings on facts and merits are against the petitioner?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Shaukat Ali and 3 others1989 SCMR 1746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a plaintiff against the High Court's dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal arising from a suit for declaration. The petitioner claimed that a transaction intended as a lease was fraudulently recorded and attested as a sale mutation by respondents in collusion with revenue authorities. The petitioner further argued that he remained unaware of the entries for nearly ten years, thereby seeking to overcome the bar of limitation, and alleged misreading of evidence by lower courts regarding the fraud. The Supreme Court evaluated the contentions, including the testimony of the officer who attested the mutation. Finding no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts on the core question of fraud, the Court held that the petitioner consequently failed on the issue of limitation as well. Observing no misreading of evidence or error of law, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud in a sale mutation can be interfered with by the Supreme Court when no misreading of evidence is established?
- Does failure to prove fraud in challenging a mutation affect the petitioner's claim on the question of limitation?
- Can a claim of ignorance regarding revenue entries override the period of limitation without establishing fraud?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Mst. Sardar Bibi and others1989 SCMR 913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding an ejectment order against a tenant. The core legal question was whether a tenant, who purchased a partial share of the rented property during the pendency of ejectment proceedings, could challenge the landlord's title and the maintainability of the ejectment petition under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment petition remained competent. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had admitted the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the execution of the rent deed. Consequently, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the landlord's status. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a Rent Controller, exercising limited jurisdiction under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, cannot adjudicate complex questions of title or ownership rights arising from subsequent property acquisitions. The key principle laid down is that a tenant who has admitted the landlord-tenant relationship cannot defeat an ejectment petition by acquiring a partial ownership share in the property during the pendency of proceedings, as the Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction to determine title disputes, leaving such matters for the Civil Court.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the landlord's title after admitting the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship?
- Does the acquisition of a partial ownership share by a tenant during the pendency of ejectment proceedings render the ejectment petition incompetent?
- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon ownership rights or title disputes between parties?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Hassan Shah1989 MLD 486 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Bashir And Other1989 CLC 153 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Abdur Razzaq And Other1989 MLD 4620 · Board of Revenue · 1989-02-09Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Abdur Razzaq and OtherK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 155 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-02-09Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui And Others vs District Judge (West) Karachi And Other1989 MLD 1873 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad alias Rashid Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Nazir & Co. (Private) Ltd. vs The Punjab Province And Other1989 MLD 4683 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
- Nazim Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1726 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Nazeer and 2 others vs The aSTA Te1989 PLD Karachi 466 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference from the Sindh High Court arises from the judgment of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, convicting appellants Nazeer, Rasheed, and Mukhtar under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and appellant Haji Dildar under section 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing all to death for the murder of Muhammad Din. The core legal question involved the reliability of partisan and chance witnesses, the value of an FIR omitting material accused and witnesses, and the sufficiency of joint weapon recoveries without examining mashirs. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to interested witnesses, uncorroborated motive, and defective recoveries. The appeals were accepted, the convictions and sentences set aside, and the death reference rejected. The key principle laid down is that in capital cases resting on enmity, ocular testimony must be unimpeachable or strongly corroborated, and joint recoveries without examining mashirs are legally insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of partisan and chance witnesses with a background of enmity is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a capital case without strong corroboration?
- What is the legal effect of omissions in an First Information Report regarding the names of accused persons and alleged eye-witnesses?
- Can a joint recovery of weapons at the instance of multiple accused persons be relied upon when the mashirs of recovery are not examined during the trial?
- Is proof of motive alone sufficient to base a conviction for murder when ocular and circumstantial evidence has been discarded?
- Nazar MUHAMMADPctitioner vs Muhammad Jamil and others1989 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision, which had challenged the appellate court's reversal of a trial court decree in a suit for specific performance of a contract. The core legal dispute involved whether the petitioner successfully proved that the respondents' predecessor-in-interest executed an agreement to sell half of a disputed house and received earnest money. The Supreme Court held that since both the first appellate court and the High Court concurrently examined the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner regarding the non-establishment of the agreement and payment, no interference was warranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual findings by lower courts based on evidence will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding the execution of an agreement to sell warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Is a successor-in-interest bound by an alleged agreement to sell executed by their predecessor when the execution and receipt of earnest money are not proved?
- Nazar Muhammad vs The State and others1989 SCMR 1483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a former private school teacher inducted into government service following the nationalization of educational institutions, claimed entitlement to an advance increment based on his Master's degree and prior pay scale, which benefit was initially granted and subsequently withdrawn. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal without considering the facts of the case. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal failed to consider the facts at all, finding substance in the petitioner's contention. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed that the appeal be made ready for hearing on the present record, and ordered that no recovery of the previously paid amount be made during the pendency of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that appellate tribunals must adequately consider the facts of a case when adjudicating service matters.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal is required to consider the facts of a case while dismissing a service appeal?
- Can recovery of an amount already paid on account of an advance increment be made during the pendency of an appeal?
- Nazar Muhammad vs S.H.O. and others1989 P Cr. L J 470 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad vs Ali a KB Ar1989 PLD Karachi 635 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Inter-Court Appeal arises from an order passed by a Single Judge directing the appellant-defendant to furnish security in a suit for possession and mesne profits. The core legal question was whether a civil court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct a defendant to furnish security for potential mesne profits when the defendant has no assets, notwithstanding the specific provisions regarding attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5. The Sindh High Court held that the inherent powers of the court are complementary to the express provisions of the Code and can be exercised to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the court, provided such exercise does not conflict with express statutory provisions. The Court affirmed that Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 does not expressly or by implication preclude the invocation of Section 151 where a defendant lacks assets and a prospective decree risks becoming a paper decree. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the inherent powers of a court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked to direct a defendant to furnish security when specific provisions like Order XXXVIII Rule 5 exist?
- Can a court order a defendant to furnish security for prospective mesne profits to prevent a decree from becoming an unexecutable paper decree?
- Does Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 expressly or by necessary implication exclude the exercise of inherent powers under Section 151?
- Nazar Muhammad and others vs Sami Khan1989 SCMR 1066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit initially decreed in favor of the plaintiff, Sami Khan, who asserted a superior right of pre-emption based on his status as a collateral and owner in the estate. The petitioners, who were defendants, claimed they held superior rights as tenants of the disputed land. The lower courts determined that while one petitioner was a tenant, he had forfeited his superior position by joining non-tenants in the purchase. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, arguing that the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court due to their claim of tenancy. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the mere assertion of tenancy by a defendant to defeat a pre-emption claim does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or render the matter exclusively triable by a Revenue Court. The Court affirmed that the Civil Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit.
Questions settled- Does a claim of tenancy by a defendant in a pre-emption suit automatically oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in favor of the Revenue Court?
- Does a tenant who joins non-tenants in a purchase forfeit their superior right of pre-emption?
- Nazar Muhammad and others vs Maluk1989 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree for possession of a shop in favour of the respondent. The respondent claimed ownership based on a transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and allotment, alleging misreading and non-reading of evidence, and further contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court addressed whether the respondent was in possession and if the property was validly transferred under the Settlement Scheme. The Court held that the findings of fact regarding allotment and possession were concurrent and did not warrant re-appraisal. Furthermore, the Court determined that the matter concerning the disposal of the shop under Settlement laws had become a past and closed transaction, thereby removing it from the jurisdiction of Settlement authorities and confirming the civil court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification for interference and refused leave to appeal, affirming the respondent's ownership and entitlement to possession.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a civil revision where concurrent findings of fact have been rendered by lower courts?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction over a property dispute once the disposal of the property under Settlement laws has become a past and closed transaction?
- Is a claim based on a transfer occurring after the repeal of Settlement laws sustainable if the respondent's prior claim under those laws is valid?
- Nazar Hussain vs The State1989 SCMR 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that confirmed the death sentence awarded by a trial court for the murder of Mst. Bashiran. The petitioner, Nazar Hussain, was accused of murdering the deceased in a sugarcane field after she rejected his marriage proposal. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony from the deceased's father and maternal uncle, who witnessed the attack, corroborated by the recovery of a blood-stained Toka from the petitioner and the post-mortem report detailing multiple fatal injuries. The petitioner admitted to the killing but claimed it was under grave and sudden provocation, alleging the deceased was involved with another man. The Supreme Court considered the defence plea but found no evidence to support it, noting the lack of preservation of alleged footprints and the negative chemical examiner's report regarding sexual intercourse. The Court concluded that the prosecution's version was correct and proved beyond reasonable doubt, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a defence plea of grave and sudden provocation be accepted without corroborative evidence?
- Is ocular testimony, corroborated by weapon recovery and post-mortem findings, sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case?
- Should a doctor's casual observation regarding a deceased's sexual history be given importance without supporting forensic evidence?
- Does the non-preservation of alleged defence evidence (e.g., footprints) weaken a claim of grave and sudden provocation?
- Nazar Hussain vs Abdul Salam And Other1989 MLD 2944 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1718 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain Shah vs Punjab Province through Collector, Vehari and another1989 SCMR 1060 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the lower courts' decisions dismissing his civil suit regarding the disputed allotment of an Ahata. The petitioner contended that upon depositing the sale price following the initial allotment by the Collector, he acquired a vested right and that revenue authorities lacked appellate and revisional jurisdiction to alter it. The core legal question was whether the petitioner acquired an indefeasible vested right through the initial allotment and payment of the price, ousting the jurisdiction of appellate and revisional revenue authorities. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not acquire any such absolute right through allotment and payment alone, and the appellate and revisional authorities retained their jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the mere allotment of property and payment of the price do not divest revenue authorities of their statutory appellate and revisional powers.
Questions settled- Does the payment of a sale price following an allotment of property create an absolute vested right that bars appellate and revisional review by revenue authorities?
- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to interfere with the lawful exercise of appellate and revisional powers by revenue authorities in property allotment matters?
- Nazar Abbas vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 967 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Nayaz Ahmad Khan vs Messrs Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited1989 PLC 186 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
- Nayab Ali Khan vs Messrs Pakistan Auto Mobile Corporation1989 PLC 845 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Nawazish Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 468 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Nawazish Ali Shah vs The State1989 MLD 881 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Nawaz vs The State1989 MLD 702(1) · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Nawaz and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
- Nawabuddin vs Qamar Oil Mills through its Proprietor represented by his1989 SCMR 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, claiming to be a landlord, obtained an eviction order against tenants from a property. During the pendency of the tenants' first rent appeal in the High Court, certain intervenors filed applications under Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to be impleaded as parties, claiming to be co-owners. The High Court allowed the applications. Upon the petitioner seeking leave to appeal, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and examined the affidavits and assertions of the intervenors. The Court held that the intervenors were not joining as co-owners but were setting up a title adverse to the petitioner, alleging fraud and collusion, and denying his title. Therefore, they were neither necessary nor proper parties to the rent proceedings, and the rent forum was inappropriate for resolving such title disputes. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the impleadment applications.
Questions settled- Whether a person setting up an adverse title against the landlord can be impleaded as a party in a rent appeal under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Are claimants alleging fraud and collusion against a landlord considered necessary or proper parties in ejectment proceedings?
- Can the forum of a Rent Controller be utilized for resolving title disputes and claims of adverse ownership?
- Nawab vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-12Read full judgment →