Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Mst.Lob1a Jan Etc. vs Roghan Shah Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst.Guinaz Banc) Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zulekha Bai vs Muhammad Yaqoob1989 MLD 2882 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zubaida Mai vs Muhammad Yousaf And Other1989 MLD 3829 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zohra Khatoon vs Mehr Khan and others1989 SCMR 1493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking the enhancement of the respondents' conviction from Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 back to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from a capital charge to one under Section 325/34 PPC based on the appraisal of evidence regarding the parties' intentions during a land dispute. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court committed no legal error in its conclusion. The Court noted that the incident occurred without premeditation when the respondents resisted the complainant party's insistence on ploughing disputed land, and the respondents inflicted primarily simple blunt weapon injuries except for one fatal injury. The key principle affirmed is that where an altercations arises spontaneously over a land dispute without premeditation or intention to kill, altering a conviction from murder to grievous hurt under Section 325 PPC read with Section 34 PPC is legally justified.
Questions settled- Whether an alteration of conviction from Section 302 PPC to Section 325 PPC is justified where an incident arises spontaneously without premeditation during a land dispute?
- Can an intention to kill under Section 302 PPC be inferred when parties inflict mostly simple blunt weapon injuries while resisting the ploughing of disputed land?
- Is the Supreme Court bound to interfere with a High Court's appraisal of evidence regarding the sentence and conviction when no legal error is demonstrated?
- Mst. Zohra Bibi vs The StateK.L..R 1989 Criminal Cases 236 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zohra Bibi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1865 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zenab Bibi vs S.H.O.1989 MLD 4038 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zebo vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 594 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zar Bano vs The State1989 SCMR 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Sind High Court, which refused to grant pre-trial bail to the petitioner facing trial under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for allegedly possessing approximately 150 grams of heroin powder. The core legal questions concern whether the detention of a female petitioner with a suckling child in deteriorating health warrants bail, and whether recovery of contraband from a private house rather than a public place renders the offence bailable under Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and the Sessions Judge, and confirmed the interim bail previously granted to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that valid grounds relating to the welfare of a suckling child and the nature of the place of recovery can establish a fit case for the grant of bail in narcotics matters.
Questions settled- Does the detention of a woman with a suckling child whose health is suffering justify the grant of bail?
- Whether possession of a contraband article in a private house rather than a public place makes the offence bailable under Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Mst. Zainab Bibi vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima1989 SCMR 1634 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant sister against the dismissal of her civil revision by the High Court, concerning a dispute over property originally owned by the parties' deceased mother. The core legal question involves whether the trial court erred in examining the merits and dismissing the mother's suit without framing issues after the petitioner filed a written statement and subsequently absented herself. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not complain about the lack of framed issues since she had absented herself and suffered no prejudice, especially as the trial court initially dismissed the suit in her favor, and subsequent appellate and revisional forums properly heard and disposed of the matter on merits. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, establishing that a party who absents themselves cannot claim prejudice regarding the omission of framed issues where no actual prejudice is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether a defendant who absents herself after filing a written statement can challenge the trial court's decision on the ground that issues were not framed?
- Does the omission to frame issues cause prejudice to a party who is not present to contest the proceedings?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the concurrent dismissal of a civil revision regarding a property dispute?
- Mst. Zainab Bibi and others vs Mst. Resham Bibi and others1989 SCMR 1378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit concerning inheritance, which was dismissed by the trial court, with subsequent appeals also being dismissed by the appellate and High Court. The primary controversy involved the status of the respondent as the widow of the deceased. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower courts, alleging misreading and improper appreciation of evidence. During the proceedings, it was disclosed that some petitioners had reached an agreement with the respondents and no longer wished to pursue the petition, while others maintained their stance. Upon hearing arguments on the merits, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, holding that the case did not warrant interference with the concurrent findings of fact. The Court affirmed that it would not disturb findings of fact reached by lower courts in the absence of a compelling demonstration of misreading or misappreciation of evidence, effectively disposing of the petition.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil suit regarding inheritance?
- Does the allegation of misreading of evidence provide sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact?
- What is the effect of a partial settlement among petitioners on a petition for leave to appeal?
- Muhammad Akbar Paracua vs The State1989 MLD 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zaidat vs Shahadat and others1989 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of her writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the setting aside of an ex parte decree previously passed in her favour. The core legal question concerns whether the revisional order setting aside the ex parte decree warranted interference under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the revisional order passed by the District Judge was not liable to be set aside in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly as subsequent proceedings on merits had already concluded and a separate petition was pending. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with a revisional order setting aside an ex parte decree when the substantive suit has already proceeded and been decided on its merits.
Questions settled- Whether an order setting aside an ex parte decree is open to interference in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does the conclusion of proceedings on merits in the main suit affect a pending challenge against the setting aside of an ex parte decree?
- Mst. Zahur Bib1 vs Muhammad Siddioue And 3 Other1989 MLD 1090 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zahida Begum vs Abdul Aziz and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 181 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Z Ariz a Dga I vs Fida Muhammad and others1989 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Yasmin Zafar vs Muhammad Anwar Khan and others1989 PLD Lahore 38 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an appellate order of the District Judge which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a Guardian Judge's order rejecting an application for temporary custody of minor children under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The core legal question was whether an interlocutory order passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act qualifies as a 'decision' under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, thereby rendering an appeal competent. The Lahore High Court held that an order regarding the temporary custody of minors is not a routine order, but one requiring the determination of the welfare of minors, and constitutes a 'decision' within the meaning of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act read with Section 25 thereof. The Court ruled that appeals lie against such substantive interlocutory orders. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the appellate order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act regarding the temporary custody of minors is appealable under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act?
- Does the word 'decision' in Section 14 of the Family Courts Act cover interlocutory orders?
- Is the right of appeal in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act regulated by Section 14 of the Family Courts Act or Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act?
- Mst. Yasmeen vs The State1989 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Yasmeen against the refusal of bail by the High Court of Sind in a case involving the alleged recovery of contraband including Hasheesh, Heroin, and Opium under the Hudood Ordinance. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner, a young woman who was pregnant and incarcerated, was entitled to the concession of bail despite a previous withdrawal of her bail application. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the interim bail previously granted should be confirmed. The Court laid down the key principle that an advanced state of pregnancy entitles a female accused to bail to ensure that her child is born free rather than in prison, and so that she may receive the necessary medical care and attention.
Questions settled- Whether a pregnant female accused is entitled to bail to ensure her child is born outside prison?
- Does an advanced stage of pregnancy constitute a valid ground for confirming bail in narcotics cases?
- Is a female accused entitled to bail on humanitarian grounds such as medical care and pregnancy?
- Mst. Umme Laila vs Messrs Irtiza Hussain And 5 Other1989 MLD 519 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tayyabun Nisa and others vs Abdul Ghani and others1989 SCMR 1685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment quashing an order by Settlement authorities that had partitioned a property jointly owned by evacuee and non-evacuee interests. The core legal question was whether Settlement authorities possessed the statutory power to partition property jointly owned by evacuees and non-evacuees under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that Settlement authorities lacked the jurisdiction to effect such partitions. The Court held that the power to partition property is vested in Civil Courts, and no provision in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, explicitly or implicitly conferred this power upon Settlement authorities. The Court established that in the absence of express statutory authority, Settlement authorities cannot assume the judicial function of partitioning property between co-sharers. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Paragraph 16-C of the Schedule to the Act was inapplicable where the property in question was divisible, and that the Settlement authorities' actions could not bind parties who had already acquired interests in the property.
Questions settled- Do Settlement authorities possess the power to partition property jointly owned by evacuees and non-evacuees under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does Section 8 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, grant Settlement authorities the power to partition property?
- Can Settlement authorities partition property that is divisible under Paragraph 16-C of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Mst. Taj Bibi vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 53 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Taj Bibi vs The State1989 PLD Quetta 60 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Taj Bibi vs Syed Ahmad Shah1989 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a property dispute where the appellant sought possession based on a sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit, but the High Court reversed this, ruling the secondary evidence (a certified copy) inadmissible due to alleged insufficient stamp duty and failure to prove the original document's loss. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court's judgment. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of secondary evidence for a lost document, the necessity of proving execution, and the effect of failing to object to the mode of proof at the trial stage. The Court held that the trial court’s discretion to admit secondary evidence should not be disturbed absent a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, it established that where a party fails to object to the mode of proof at the trial, they cannot challenge it in appeal, as such objections are waived. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the execution of a document can be established through presumptive or circumstantial evidence rather than solely direct testimony, and that the document in question was not compulsorily registrable.
Questions settled- Can an objection regarding the mode of proof of a document be raised for the first time in an appellate court?
- Does the trial court's decision to admit secondary evidence for a lost document warrant interference in appeal?
- Is direct testimony required to prove the execution of a document, or can it be established through circumstantial evidence?
- Does the failure to object to a document's admission at the trial stage preclude a party from challenging its admissibility later?
- Mst. T Asleem vs Abdul Rasheed Bacha1989 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. T Ahira Bibi vs Shah Dad and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sultana Begum vs Muhammad Usman and others1989 P Cr. L J 1867 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sughran Bibi vs Mst. Hurmat Bibi Through Legal Heirs1989 MLD 455 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sughran Bibi vs Khushi Muhammad And Another1989CLC 2465 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sughran Begum vs The Additional District Judge, Lahore And 21989 MLD 4090 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sughra Bibi vs Khalil Ahmad1989 MLD 3199 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sohab Kulli And 3 Others vs Mst. Balour Jan And 8 Other1989 CLC 407 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sher Bano and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 602 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shehnaz Bibi And Others vs Muhammad Mansha And Other1989 MLD 4122 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sheerin Bai Muhammad Ali vs Tassadaq Mahmood1989 CLC 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sheedan Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 761 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs Khurshid Ahmad1989 MLD 482 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharifan and others vs Abdul Jabbar Khan and others1989 SCMR 1793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' First Appeal Against Order, which upheld the ejectment order passed against them. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners were validly considered defaulters in payment of rent regarding the disputed commercial shop. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact by both the Rent Controller and the High Court established that the petitioners were indeed defaulters in rent, notwithstanding the withdrawal of a previous ejectment petition following a rent increase and alleged private arrangement. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent by lower forums will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court in leave petitions unless compelling legal grounds are shown.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent by the Rent Controller and High Court can be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the withdrawal of a previous ejectment petition upon an increase in rent absolve the tenant from subsequent defaults?
- Mst. Sharam Mai vs District Magistrate and others1989 P Cr. L J 411 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamshad Begum vs The Principal, Federal Government Margala1989 PLC (C.S.) 835 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-07-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamshad Begum vs Muhammad Saad Bin Moghani and another1989 P Cr. L J 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a mother for the recovery of her infant son from the custody of the father, alleging an intent to remove the child abroad. The core legal question is whether the High Court should entertain a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in matrimonial disputes concerning child custody, or if the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court or Guardian Judge. The court held that habeas corpus proceedings are summary in character and ordinarily inappropriate for resolving child custody disputes arising from matrimonial discord, which are best adjudicated by Family Courts. However, in exceptional cases involving deceit or force, or where a patent defect in guardianship authority exists, the High Court may intervene. The petition was dismissed after recording the respondent's undertaking not to remove the child from the jurisdiction and directing him to furnish security. The key principle laid down is that custody disputes between parents must generally be pursued before the Family Court or Guardian Judge rather than through summary habeas corpus proceedings, barring exceptional circumstances.
Questions settled- Does a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lie for the custody of a minor child arising from matrimonial disputes?
- Whether habeas corpus proceedings are suitable for determining complex child custody and guardianship controversies?
- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in exceptional cases where a minor is removed by a parent through improper means?
- Mst. Shamimur Rehan vs Muhammad Yousuf Chaman1989 MLD 189 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Bibi vs Guardian Judge, Chunian1989 MLD 128 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Alias Aashee vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 59 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Muhammad AltafK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 131 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shameem Alias Aashee vs The State1989 MLD 4791 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shakila Kausar vs Divisional Engineer, Telephone Services, Rawalpindi1989 PLC 67 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shahnaz vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 712 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shahnaz Begum, vs Mst. Zulaikha Bib1,And 5 Other1989 CLC 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar vs Javaid Iqbal and others1989 SCMR 1255(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an order by a Collector regarding maintenance payments. The petitioner, a wife, had been granted maintenance by the Chairman of the Arbitration Council, which included a retroactive award for five years preceding the filing of her application. Upon revision, the Collector modified this order, disallowing maintenance for the period prior to the application's institution, citing a finding of fact that the respondent had already provided maintenance during that time. The petitioner challenged this modification in the High Court, which declined to interfere with the Collector's factual determination. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to disturb the Collector's finding of fact regarding the prior provision of maintenance. The Supreme Court held that the Collector's finding was a conclusive finding of fact, and the High Court acted correctly in not interfering with it. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the principle that appellate or revisional courts generally do not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a Collector in a revision petition?
- Is a finding that maintenance was already provided for a specific period considered a finding of fact?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to grant maintenance for a period preceding the institution of the application if maintenance was already provided?
- Mst. Shaheen Rafiq vs Khanzada And 3 Other1989 CLC 2049 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shagufta Jabeen vs Muhammad Tariq and others1989 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Seman vs Barkat Ali and others1989 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the vendees challenging the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners, as alleged tenants of the suit land, possessed a superior right to purchase the property, thereby defeating the respondents' claim of pre-emption. The High Court had dismissed the petitioners' contention on two grounds: first, that the argument regarding their status as tenants was not pressed before the lower appellate court; and second, that even if the status of tenancy were considered, the petitioners would still fail because they had joined in the purchase with a person who was not a tenant. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court's reasoning. The Court held that the factual determination by the High Court regarding the waiver of the argument in the lower appellate court was sufficient to dismiss the petition. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that joining a non-tenant in a purchase transaction defeats the claim of a superior right of pre-emption based on tenancy.
Questions settled- Does joining a non-tenant in a purchase transaction defeat a claim of superior right of pre-emption based on tenancy?
- Can a party raise an argument in a higher court that was not pressed before the lower appellate court?
- Mst. Seeman Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 4081 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sattan And Others vs Mst. Sahiban1989 MLD 1013 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sattan and others vs Mst. Rani and others1989 SCMR 1677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two petitions for leave to appeal arose from separate judgments of the Lahore High Court and involved similar questions regarding concurrent findings of fact on the religious denomination (Shia or Sunni) of deceased persons in succession matters. In the first matter, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully claimed the deceased was a Shia through revenue and civil proceedings, culminating in a dismissed civil revision. In the second matter, the plaintiffs successfully obtained a decree declaring the deceased a Shia, which was upheld in appeal and revision. The core legal question was whether the High Court should have interfered with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts suffered from no legal or other infirmity, and the revenue authorities' proceedings and alleged admissions did not warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless tainted by legal infirmity or misreading.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction?
- Can revenue mutation proceedings and alleged admissions warrant interference with concurrent factual findings by lower courts?
- Mst. Sardaran Bibi Through Legal Heirs vs Haider1989 MLD 4759 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others vs Islam Khan and others1989 SCMR 1938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the vendee side against the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the High Court in a pre-emption suit. The High Court had dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the question of limitation, having been denied by the Additional District Judge as having been argued before him, was deemed to have been abandoned. Before the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners conceded, in light of subsequent binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Allah Yar Khan v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others (1986 SCMR 1957), that he was unable to press the petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle governing the matter relates to the treatment of points raised in memorandum of appeal but not addressed or verified as argued before the lower appellate court.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is justified in treating a point of limitation as abandoned when the trial or lower appellate judge denies that it was argued?
- Does the failure to press a petition for leave to appeal in light of settled subsequent case law result in the refusal of leave?
- Mst. Sardaran Begum vs Provincial Government through Secretary1989 PLC (C.S.) 40 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sardar Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 3293 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sardar Begum vs Mst. Saeeda Begum1989 CLC 1754 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sardar Begum vs Mst. Maryam Hameed and others1989 SCMR 1233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Sardar Begum against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed her claim for the transfer of a residential property, House No. 2/1394, Sialkot. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner, as an occupant of the property, was entitled to its transfer based on her status as a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, and whether the previous auction of said property was void ab initio. The petitioner relied on a report from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which indicated that the occupants were indeed refugees from Jammu and Kashmir, thereby rendering the prior auction invalid. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court had failed to properly appreciate this crucial aspect of the case regarding the petitioner's entitlement. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the matter required further judicial consideration to resolve the entitlement dispute. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record, with liberty for parties to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Does the status of an occupant as a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir entitle them to the transfer of a property previously auctioned?
- Can an auction of a property be considered void ab initio if the occupants are found to be entitled refugees?
- Mst. Sardar Begum and others vs Settlement Commissioner and others1989 SCMR 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 30-5-1982 concerning the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The petitioners contended that their case was fully covered by paragraph 7 of chapter I Part II of the said scheme, an aspect which the High Court allegedly failed to consider. Finding that the contention requires examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal subject to the furnishing of security, directed the appeal to be made ready on the present record, allowed the parties to file additional documents within two months, and ordered the continuation of the interim order dated 7-2-1983.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court failed to advert to the legal aspect concerning paragraph 7 of chapter I Part II of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Should leave to appeal be granted when a contention regarding the applicability of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme requires examination?
- Mst. Sardar Begum And Others vs Mst. Chiragh Bibi And Another1989 CLC 825 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition assails an order of the Additional District Judge whereby a revision petition was accepted and an application for setting aside an ex parte decree was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The core legal questions involved whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree against a defendant who initially appeared but later absented is governed by Article 164 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act, and whether proceedings taken and an ex parte decree passed against a deceased defendant before the expiry of the 90-day period prescribed for bringing legal representatives on record under Article 177 of the Limitation Act are null and void. The Lahore High Court held that Article 181 applies to such ex parte decrees, and that proceedings taken against a defendant before the expiry of the limitation period for substituting legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure are void and without legal effect. The Court laid down the principle that the mandatory conditions regarding limitation for impleading legal representatives must be strictly fulfilled, and no ex parte proceedings can be validly conducted against a deceased person before the expiration of the statutory period.
Questions settled- Whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed against a defendant who initially appeared and later absented is governed by Article 164 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act?
- Can a court proceed against a deceased defendant and pass an ex parte decree before the expiry of the 90-day period prescribed under Article 177 of the Limitation Act for bringing legal representatives on record?
- Whether proceedings taken against a dead defendant in violation of Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure render the resulting decree void and of no effect?
- Mst. Sardar Begum And 4 Others vs K a Ma L U D Din1989 CLC 1024 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. Salma And Others vs Saeed Iqbal And 5 Other1989 MLD 3018 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sakina Mai through her mother and 3 others vs Malik Zahoor Hussain1989 SCMR 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the vendee/defendant side against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court in a suit for pre-emption concerning a house situated in a Mohallah of Multan City. The core legal question involved is whether the right of pre-emption was available to the respondent/plaintiff with respect to the said Mohallah, noting that leave to appeal had already been granted in a similar matter concerning the same Mohallah in Mst. Khurshid Bibi v. Allah Ditta (1985 SCMR 1097). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, directed that the present appeal be heard together with the pending connected appeal, ordered security of five thousand rupees, and directed the preparation of the appeal on the present record with liberty to file necessary additional documents.
Questions settled- Whether the right of pre-emption is available in respect of the Mohallah in question?
- Can leave to appeal be granted to be heard along with a pending connected appeal involving the same locality?
- Mst. Sakina Bim and others vs Murid Hussain and others1989 SCMR 1622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal regarding the ownership of an evacuee property shop in Jehania. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners, claiming through predecessors-in-interest, had a valid basis to challenge the transfer of the property to the respondent, Murid Hussain, and whether the High Court correctly dismissed the petitions based on the lack of merit and the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court held that the claim of the first petitioner (Muhammad Ismail) was correctly rejected as his initial claim was dismissed by Settlement Authorities and the High Court in 1962, with no further pursuit of the matter. Regarding the second petitioner (Gulzar Ahmad), the Court held that the High Court properly dismissed the petition due to unexplained laches, as the transfer to the respondent occurred in 1976 and was not challenged until 1982. The key principle laid down is that a claim to property, once rejected by competent authorities and courts, cannot be revived after significant delay, and that unexplained laches serves as a valid ground for dismissing a writ petition.
Questions settled- Can a claim to evacuee property be revived after it has been rejected by Settlement Authorities and the High Court decades prior?
- Does an unexplained delay of six years in challenging a property transfer order constitute laches sufficient to dismiss a writ petition?
- Is a petitioner entitled to challenge a property transfer if they failed to pursue their initial claim after a previous dismissal by the High Court?
- Mst. Sajida Yousaf vs Lahore Development Authority1989 MLD 225 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saira Bai vs Syed Anisur Rahman1989 SCMR 1366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns an eviction application filed by a landlady against her tenant under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, claiming the premises were required in good faith for her son’s independent business. The core legal question was whether the failure to specify the nature of the intended business in the application, and the existence of a prior demand for increased rent, invalidated the claim of good faith. The Supreme Court held that the eviction application was valid and restored the Controller’s order. The Court ruled that specifying the nature of the business is not a material fact essential to the cause of action, as circumstances may change, and the choice of business rests with the landlord. Furthermore, the Court established that a prior demand for increased rent does not, by itself, negate a bona fide personal requirement if the requirement is independently proven. The principle laid down is that 'good faith' requires the act to be done honestly, and courts should not impose external constraints on the landlord's choice of business or property usage unless explicitly provided by law.
Questions settled- Is it a mandatory requirement for a landlord to specify the nature of the intended business in an eviction application based on personal requirement?
- Does a prior demand for increased rent by a landlord automatically invalidate a subsequent eviction application based on personal requirement?
- What is the legal definition of 'good faith' in the context of eviction proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a tenant challenge the landlord's choice of business for which the premises are required?
- Mst. Safia Bibi And Others vs Muhammad Latif And Other1989 MLD 4535 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Safia Begum vs Ibrahim and 4 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by pre-emptors against the dismissal of their regular second appeal and civil revision by the High Court, as their pre-emption suits filed before 31st July 1986 had not resulted in a decree by that date. The core legal questions involve whether pre-emption suits filed under the former statutory law can continue without a decree past 31st July 1986, the applicability and mandatory nature of Islamic demands ('Talabs') as an integral substantive part of the right of Shufa, and the interpretation of previous judgments of the Supreme Court including Said Kamal and Sardar Ali. The Supreme Court held that the failure to make Talabs at proper times extinguishes the right of Shufa, that pending pre-emption suits in which no decree had been obtained prior to 31st July 1986 abated and could not be decreed thereafter, and that new legislation such as the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987 does not save pending suits from the requirement of Talabs. The key principles laid down are that the law of Shufa is substantive rather than procedural, that Talabs are an essential element whose absence extinguishes the claim, and that no decree can be granted in pre-emption suits filed under old laws unless secured before the constitutional cut-off date.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit filed before 31st July 1986 can be decreed after that date if no pre-emption decree was obtained prior thereto?
- Is the requirement of making 'Talabs' a procedural rule or a substantive and integral part of the right of Shufa?
- Whether the failure to make Talabs at proper times extinguishes the right of pre-emption?
- Does the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987 save pending pre-emption suits from the mandatory requirement of fulfilling Islamic demands of Talabs?
- Mst. Saeeda Begum and another vs Senior Civil Judge and 2 others1989 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a Constitutional Petition by the High Court of Sind concerning the custody of a minor male child. The mother (petitioner No. 1) and her father sought custody against the biological father (respondent No. 3). The Guardian Judge and Additional District Judge had previously awarded custody to the father, relying on grounds including the mother's denial of access to the father, the child crossing the age of seven years (thus terminating the mother's right of hizanat under the law), and issues concerning the child's school records and accommodation. The High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the welfare of the minor had been given paramount consideration in the lower adjudications, while issuing interim arrangements for visitation rights to facilitate the child's transition and education.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in child custody matters under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the mother lose her right of hizanat upon the minor male child crossing the age of seven years?
- Whether the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in determining child custody disputes?
- Mst. Sabran Bibi And Others vs Mst. Phagan And Other1989 CLC 73 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rukhsana Riaz And 3 Others vs Dr. Iqbal Ahmad Chaudhry1989 CLC 799 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Roshan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 660 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Roshan Ara vs Mst. Badri Kamala and 9 others1989 SCMR 1981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil revision where the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree in favour of the respondents, who filed a suit for declaration and possession of a house claimed as dower property. The core legal question concerns findings of fact regarding whether the suit property was given to the respondent by her deceased husband in lieu of dower, supported by a subsequent written acknowledgement. The Supreme Court held that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, noting that the deed of acknowledgement executed by the deceased husband regarding the previous transfer of property in lieu of dower has valid legal import and value, which the petitioner failed to displace. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the concurrent findings upholding the acknowledgement and the dower claim.
Questions settled- Whether a statement in an acknowledgement deed by a deceased husband regarding the previous transfer of property in lieu of dower carries sufficient legal weight to establish the claim?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a dower property and acknowledgement deed be interfered with when no legal infirmity is shown?
- Mst. Robina Riaz vs Additional District Judge And Other1989 MLD 3962 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Robina Alias Rubi vs The State1989 MLD 2939 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Riaz Elahi Etc. vs Ghulam Muhammad and OtherK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 14 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Riaz Elahi and another vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 1588 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehmat Bibi vs Additional District Judge EtcK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 121 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehmat Bibi vs Additional District Judge And Other1989 MLD 3120 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehm Ellahi vs Fazal Shah and 4 others1989 SCMR 1851 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehana Irshad And 6 Others vs Mst. Rashida Begum And 10 Other1989 MLD 50 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia vs Muhammad Sadiq Intervener1989 MLD 34 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Bibi vs Shahid Iqbal1989 MLD 248 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Begum and another vs Messrs Basco Enterprise Ltd. and others1989 SCMR 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Two petitions for leave to appeal were filed by landlords against the judgments of the High Court, which had allowed writ petitions filed by evicted tenants. The High Court had held that non-residential premises leased out for commercial purposes could not be vacated for the personal residential use of the landlord. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a non-residential building could be got vacated for residential purposes under the relevant rent restriction laws, a matter treated by the Court as one of first impression. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question, noting the absence of direct binding precedents supporting the proposition that non-residential premises cannot be converted or got vacated for residential use. The Court directed the preparation of appeals on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Can a non-residential building be got vacated for the personal residential use of the landlord?
- Whether premises leased out for commercial purposes can be claimed by a landlord for residential purposes?
- Mst. Razia Begum And 6 Others vs Muhammad Saleem (Represented By L.Rs.)1989 MLD 298 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rasulan and 7 others vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum and 2 others1989 SCMR 1778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioners' civil revision by the High Court. The petitioners had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming inheritance rights to the property of one Noora, the last male-holder, asserting he left only a son as an heir. The respondents contested the suit, claiming inheritance as the widow and daughters of the deceased. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the concurrent findings were upheld in appeal and revision. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court noted that oral and documentary evidence, including Nikahnama and birth entries, supported the respondents' status as legal heirs. The paternity and legitimacy of the daughters stood established and corroborated by the evidence, and the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts suffered from no legal error. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact warranted no interference, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be interfered with when supported by oral and documentary evidence?
- Does the paternity and legitimacy of daughters stand established when corroborated by the mother's testimony and official entries?
- Mst. Rashid Begum vs Abdur Rashid1989 SCMR 2046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a miscellaneous application submitted by the petitioner complaining about the murder of her son and the subsequent release of the accused, Abdur Rashid, on bail by the High Court, apprehending further harm and abduction of her daughter-in-law. The Supreme Court relaxed the rules to treat the application as a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question examined by the Court was whether the High Court's order releasing the respondent on bail satisfied the well-established practice of superior courts regarding the release on bail of accused persons involved in murder cases. The Court held that the case was a fit one for detailed examination and granted leave to appeal against the bail order of the High Court, while issuing non-bailable warrants for the appearance of the respondent and summoning the police record. The key principle laid down is that bail orders in heinous offences like murder passed by lower courts must strictly conform to the established practices and parameters of superior courts.
Questions settled- Whether an informal application complaining against the grant of bail can be treated as a petition for leave to appeal by relaxing the rules?
- Does the release on bail of an accused charged with murder satisfy the well-established practice of superior courts under the circumstances?
- Are non-bailable warrants properly issued upon the grant of leave to appeal against an order of bail?
- Mst. Rakhema and others vs The Provincial Government and others1989 SCMR 1949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the High Court which remanded two connected civil suits to the trial court for decision on merits. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court erred in setting aside concurrent findings of fact regarding the applicability of the principle of res judicata and whether the High Court misread or failed to consider material documentary evidence on record. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the submissions raised concerning the misreading of evidence and the improper application of res judicata to a suit where no such issue was framed required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions and stayed further proceedings on remand pending the final outcome.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts in civil revision?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply when a party was not involved in the earlier litigation and the property share in dispute was different?
- Can a case be remanded by the High Court when findings on material issues were left unaddressed by the trial court?
- Mst. Raj Bibi vs Payao Shah and another1989 P Cr. L J 1706 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rafia Khanum vs Additional District Judge, Okara and others1989 SCMR 1983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of a tenancy dispute between a landlady and her tenant. During the appellate proceedings, the learned counsel for both contesting parties jointly submitted that an out-of-court settlement had been reached and tendered a signed Deed of Compromise alongside a shaded site plan demarcating the disputed property. Under the terms of the settlement, the tenant agreed to deliver vacant possession of the shop to the landlady by a specified date, while the landlady undertook to reconstruct the premises per a sanctioned plan and deliver vacant possession of two newly-constructed ground-floor shops and a first-floor gallery back to the tenant by a subsequent stipulated deadline. The Supreme Court examined the settlement, confirmed that it was neither unlawful nor unfair, and held it to be mutually beneficial for both parties. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal strictly in accordance with the terms of the compromise deed and directed that the site plan be treated as an integral part of the judgment.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal can be disposed of in terms of an out-of-court Deed of Compromise signed by counsel for both parties?
- Can a site plan produced with a compromise deed be incorporated as an integral part of the court's judgment?
- What standard must the court satisfy regarding fairness and legality before accepting a compromise between a landlord and a tenant?
- Mst. Rafia Khanum vs Additional District Judge And Other1989 CLC 170 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rabina Bibi vs Liaqat Ali1989 MLD 249 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Raana Riaz vs SH. Ehsan Karim And Other1989 MLD 4877 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qamar Sultana vs Public at Large1989 MLD 360 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition filed under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925, seeking a succession certificate in respect of debts and securities left behind by the deceased, Abdul Mutalib. A public notice was duly published in a daily newspaper, and no objections were filed by the public. Furthermore, all legal heirs submitted affidavits recording their no-objection along with copies of their identity cards. A preliminary legal question arose as to whether affidavits sworn by the next-of-kin outside the province of Sindh on plain papers were legally valid and exempt from stamp duty. The court held, relying on established judicial precedent, that such affidavits do not require execution on non-judicial stamp paper and are valid. Consequently, the court allowed the petition subject to the rules, granting the succession certificate as prayed for.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925 can be granted when no objections are filed by the public or legal heirs?
- Are affidavits sworn by next-of-kin outside the province on plain paper valid and exempt from the requirement of non-judicial stamp paper?
- Mst. Parveen vs Dilshad Masih1989 MLD 2954 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Parveen and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2375 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →