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. Nooran Mai vs Shafi Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 3825 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Khatoon And Another vs Sultan Muhammad And Another1989 MLD 3345 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Jehan vs The State1989 MLD 2725 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Jehan vs Mst. Razia alias Rajjo1989 SCMR 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a defendant against the dismissal of her civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the trial court's ex parte decree in a money suit and the dismissal of her application to set aside the decree as time-barred. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of the explanation for non-appearance before the trial court and the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the non-appearance was not sufficiently explained, and no sufficient grounds existed to interfere with the decree or grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal will be refused where a party fails to sufficiently explain non-appearance before the trial court and where no valid justification is shown to disturb a concurrent finding regarding an ex parte decree.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when an application for setting aside an ex parte decree is dismissed as time-barred?
- Does failure to provide a sufficient explanation for non-appearance before the trial court justify refusing leave to appeal?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent decisions upholding an ex parte decree where no valid grounds are shown?
- Mst. Noor Jehan vs Jan Muhammad and others1989 P Cr. L J 2374 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 686 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Begum and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1989 SCMR 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an Inter-Court Appeal regarding a dispute over a mutation of inheritance. The core legal question was whether the Assistant Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to initiate fresh review proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, given that previous review proceedings concerning the same mutation had been quashed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Assistant Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, does not prohibit the initiation of new review proceedings on different grounds, even if prior proceedings were quashed. The Court noted that the initial proceedings were based on the claim that the land was evacuee property, whereas the current proceedings were based on the contention that the beneficiary was not the daughter of the deceased. Furthermore, the Court observed that the parties involved in the two sets of proceedings were different, and the matter remained pending for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does the quashment of earlier review proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 bar the initiation of fresh review proceedings on different grounds?
- Can a revenue officer initiate a review of a mutation of inheritance if the parties involved in the new proceedings differ from those in previous, quashed proceedings?
- Mst. Nighat Mustafa vs Mst. Sardar Begum1989 MLD 3210 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Niaz Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 4174 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naziran and others vs The Deputy Settlement Commissioner and another1989 SCMR 743 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the transfer of the upper floor of a property in Lahore under the Settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the property was 'available' for transfer to the appellants under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, and whether a previous High Court consent order, which directed the transfer of the entire upper floor to the respondent, Muhammad Deen, precluded the appellants' claims. The Supreme Court held that the previous High Court order was a consent order based on an agreement between parties, not a judicial finding that Muhammad Deen had validly filed an N.C.H. Form. Consequently, the appellants, who were not parties to that earlier litigation, were not bound by it. The Court determined that the upper floor portions in the appellants' possession were indeed 'available' for transfer when they filed their applications. The Court set aside the lower orders and directed that the portions in the respective possession of the appellants and the respondent be transferred to them, with joint use of the staircase. This establishes that consent orders do not constitute binding adjudications on non-parties regarding property availability.
Questions settled- Is a consent order passed by a High Court binding on persons who were not parties to the litigation?
- Does a consent order regarding property transfer constitute a judicial finding on the eligibility of the transferee?
- When is a property considered 'available' for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Mst. Nazima Begum and others vs Mst. Hasina Begum and others1989 SCMR 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns the maintainability of a suit for specific performance filed after the withdrawal of a prior suit for permanent injunction based on the same agreement of sale. The trial court rejected the plaint, citing the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Additional District Judge reversed this decision and remanded the case, a view subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioners, who purchased the property in dispute, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts' findings contradicted established precedent regarding the application of Order II, Rule 2. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the filing of the second suit for specific performance was legally competent after the withdrawal of the earlier suit for permanent injunction, specifically in light of the principles laid down in Aziz Ahmad and others v. Mst. Hajran Bibi and others (1987 SCMR 527). The Court stayed trial proceedings and ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding possession pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Is a suit for specific performance barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a prior suit for permanent injunction based on the same agreement was withdrawn?
- Does the withdrawal of a suit for permanent injunction preclude a subsequent suit for specific performance regarding the same subject matter?
- Mst. Nazi vs Officer on Special Duty And 2 Other1989 MLD 2789 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nawab Jehan Begum vs Dr. Imdad Ali1989 SCMR 1798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order granting the respondent/plaintiff permission to amend their pleadings. The petitioner challenged the amendment on the grounds of significant delay, arguing that the application for amendment was filed nearly two decades after the commencement of the proceedings. The Supreme Court considered whether such a lengthy delay should preclude the amendment of pleadings. The Court held that while delay is a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant or refuse an amendment, it must be balanced against the potential harm caused to the cause of justice by adhering strictly to technicalities. The Court affirmed that there is no statutory limitation period for seeking amendments to pleadings. Relying on established precedents, including Ahsan Kausar and others v. Ahmad Zaman Khan and Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others v. Sarsa Khan, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the distinction of the present case from settled law. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does a significant delay in seeking an amendment to pleadings automatically bar the court from granting permission for such amendment?
- Is there a statutory limitation period for filing an application to amend pleadings?
- Should the court prioritize the cause of justice over procedural technicalities when considering an application for amendment of pleadings?
- Mst. Nasri Begum vs Virgil L. Moore, Consular for Administration, Embassy1989 CLC 511 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant filed an application under Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis against a trial court order holding that a suit for damages for malicious prosecution had abated upon the death of the original plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 1 of the Code. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the right to sue for damages arising from malicious prosecution survives to the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff who dies during trial prior to the passing of a decree. The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the appeal in limine. The Court held that under the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, the right to seek compensation for personal torts such as malicious prosecution is personal to the wronged individual and is extinguished upon his death if no decree was passed in his lifetime. Consequently, the suit abated and could not be continued by the legal representatives.
Questions settled- Does the right to sue for damages for malicious prosecution survive to the legal representatives of a plaintiff who dies before a decree is passed?
- Does the legal maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona apply to a suit for damages arising out of malicious prosecution?
- Can leave to appeal in forma pauperis under Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be granted where the impugned judgment is not contrary to law or otherwise erroneous?
- Mst. Nasreen Bano vs Mirza Ali and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 823 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen and others vs Nazar Hussain and others1989 SCMR 1818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioners' civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the lower courts' orders closing the petitioners' evidence for late production of documents under Order XIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question involves the proper exercise of jurisdiction regarding the late production of public documents of unimpeachable authenticity and the necessity of notice under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, converting the petition into an appeal, noting that the contentions raised involve points of law requiring consideration. The Court ordered security for costs, directed the appeal to be fixed for final hearing, and ordered that while proceedings could continue, no final judgment should be announced until the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the late production of public documents of unimpeachable authenticity can be refused under Order XIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a notice under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 required to be sent in appeals that do not fall under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mst. Nasreen Akhtar Alias Farah Nasreen vs Sh. Mushtaq Ahmad1989 MLD 84 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasira Mazhar vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And Economic Affairs (Finance Division), Islamabad And 3 Other1989 MLD 396 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Muhammad Athar Siddiqi1989 MLD 119 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Khalil and 10 others1989 SCMR 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave of the Court arose from a property dispute that had generated multifarious litigation between the parties. During the hearing, the parties successfully negotiated an out-of-court settlement through their respective counsel. The core legal question concerned the lawful resolution and final compromise of conflicting claims over the disputed property and the inheritance shares therein. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the written compromise memorandum produced and signed by the counsel for both sides. The Court held that upon the appellant depositing the agreed sum of Rs. 70,000 in Court for payment to the legal heirs of Malik Chanan Din representing their 1/12th share, all further claims to the property by the respondents or persons claiming through them would stand relinquished. The key principle laid down is that the Court actively encourages and gives effect to lawful out-of-court compromises reached by parties to bring an end to protracted litigation.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court dispose of an appeal on the basis of a written compromise agreement reached between the parties out of court?
- How are payments agreed upon in a court compromise involving multiple legal heirs to be deposited and disbursed?
- Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Khalil Ahmad and 10 others1989 SCMR 1529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a Civil Revision, which arose from the respondents' initiation of fresh litigation regarding title to a property before complying with a prior Supreme Court judgment directing the handover of possession. The core legal question was whether the respondents could initiate new litigation or retain partial possession of the disputed property (a shop) prior to fulfilling the Supreme Court's earlier mandate to surrender possession. The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to comply with the spirit of the previous order, as they could not justify retaining possession of a fraction of the shop while the majority share was ordered to be handed over. The Court granted leave to appeal and, in the interest of justice and to ensure the implementation of its final order, directed the respondents to vacate the premises within five days, authorizing police assistance if necessary. While noting the situation could prima facie constitute contempt, the Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings to preserve familial relations and facilitate potential out-of-court settlement.
Questions settled- Can a party initiate fresh litigation regarding title to a property before complying with a prior Supreme Court order to hand over possession?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the immediate vacation of property to ensure the implementation of its final order?
- Under what circumstances might the Supreme Court decline to initiate contempt proceedings despite a prima facie violation of its order?
- Mst. Nargis vs Muhammad Anwar1989 MLD 4893 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Najma Rana vs S.M. Maroof, and Another.K.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 68 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Najma Rana vs S.M. Maroof And Another1989 MLD 1317 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction by a plaintiff seeking to restrain the defendant from evicting her from premises and from transferring the property, pending a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. The core legal question was whether an existing landlord-tenant relationship is automatically terminated by an agreement to sell the premises, thereby granting the tenant protection against eviction under the doctrine of part performance. The Court held that an agreement to sell does not, by itself, extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship unless explicitly stipulated. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was absolved of rent payments or that her possession was solely in part performance of the contract. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the equitable relief of an injunction requires promptitude, which the plaintiff lacked by waiting until after an ejectment order was passed. Consequently, the Court vacated the status quo order, ruling that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case for the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell property automatically terminate the existing relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
- Can a tenant in possession claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to stay eviction proceedings without proving the termination of the tenancy?
- Is promptitude a necessary condition for the grant of an equitable relief like an injunction?
- Does a contract of sale, by itself, create an interest in or charge on the property under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Mst. Naila Arshad and others vs Mst. Qaisera Sheraz1989 PLD Revenue 17 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nafees Begum vs Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Hyderabad and others1989 SCMR 1963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court was directed against the judgment of the High Court upholding the declaration of the disputed property as an evacuee trust property. The core legal question was whether a private religious trust property constitutes an evacuee trust property attached to a religious, educational, or charitable institution under the relevant statutes. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the authorities and the High Court were correct in law, affirming that the expression "religious trust" encompasses both public and private religious trusts, and that the property in question was validly declared as evacuee trust property. The key principle laid down is that private religious trusts fall within the statutory definition of evacuee trust properties, and transfer documents issued in respect of such properties contrary to law confer no protection.
Questions settled- Whether the expression 'religious trust' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 includes private religious trusts?
- Does a private religious trust property fall within the definition of evacuee trust property under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
- Are protections available under section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 to a transferee where a Permanent Transfer Deed was not issued prior to the mandated date?
- Mst. Naeema Begum vs Rafiq Ahmad and 2 others1989 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nabeela Parveen vs Roshan Din And Another1989 MLD 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Musarrat Bibi vs Mehndi Khan and others1989 SCMR 1220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant in a declaratory suit regarding inheritance, following the dismissal of her Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The core legal controversy centers on the inheritance of one Fateh Muhammad, who passed away in 1967. The central question requiring resolution is the determination of the petitioner's paternity, specifically whether Mst. Musarrat Bibi is the daughter of the deceased. The opposing party contended that the deceased had divorced the petitioner's mother, who subsequently remarried, thereby severing the petitioner's status as the daughter of the deceased. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the material presented by both sides, determined that the matter warranted a deeper examination of the paternity issue and the legal implications of established precedents, including the principles set forth in Shah Nawaz v. Nawab Khan. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to further scrutinize the lower courts' findings on these factual and legal issues, while ordering that the appeal be prepared on the existing record with the option to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Whether the petitioner is the legitimate daughter of the deceased for the purposes of inheritance?
- What is the effect of the alleged divorce of the mother on the paternity status of the child?
- Does the evidence on record sufficiently establish the paternity of the petitioner?
- Mst. Munawara Begum vs Muhammad Aslam and another1989 SCMR 1706 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Mst. Munawara Begum, sought leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed in limine her revision petition challenging the acquittal of the respondent, Muhammad Aslam, in a murder case involving her son, Tufail Khalid. The core legal question concerned whether there were sufficient grounds to challenge the acquittal. The Supreme Court observed that the initial report was lodged by the father of the deceased, and during the trial, both the father and other witnesses testified that the deceased had been murdered by an unknown person, thereby failing to implicate the respondent. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no basis to interfere with the High Court's order of dismissal. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that an acquittal cannot be overturned in revision proceedings where the prosecution witnesses themselves have failed to identify or implicate the accused during the trial.
Questions settled- Can a revision petition against an acquittal be maintained when prosecution witnesses have testified that the perpetrator was an unknown person?
- Is leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition justified when the trial evidence fails to implicate the accused?
- Mst. Mumtaz Akhtar vs Muhammad Anwar And 2 Other1989 CLC 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mukhtar Begum vs Land Commissioner and others1989 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a land reforms matter involving the Land Commissioner. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal could be condoned. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the learned counsel regarding the application for condonation of delay, the Court determined that the circumstances did not warrant such condonation. Consequently, the Court declined to examine the merits of the case, dismissing the petition as time-barred. While the petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the Court noted the grievance raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the possession of land, specifically that the petitioner only retained one square of land out of the permissible area. The Court advised the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities to address these grievances, expressing an expectation that any genuine issues would be resolved by those authorities. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural requirements, such as limitation, must be satisfied before the merits of a case can be adjudicated.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained if it is time-barred and the delay is not condoned?
- Is it appropriate for the Court to examine the merits of a case if the application for condonation of delay is rejected?
- Mst. Muhammad Jan vs Mir Akbar And 2 Other1989 MLD 3772 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mubarik Jan vs Sultan and anothers1989 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mubarak Bibi and others vs The Additional District Judge, Sargodha and others1989 SCMR 1786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment arising from a civil suit for declaration regarding a land transaction. The plaintiffs had sought multiple reliefs in a single suit, prompting the trial court to order an amendment to the plaint to correct the suit's form. The defendants challenged this via civil revision, resulting in the District Court setting aside the amendment order and dismissing the suit entirely. The High Court subsequently declared the dismissal of the suit by the Revisional Court to be without lawful authority but upheld the setting aside of the amendment order, effectively remanding the case for trial on the original plaint. Both parties, aggrieved by the High Court's decision, sought leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the trial court's initial order for amendment was lawful, whether the Revisional Court acted correctly in dismissing the suit rather than remanding it, and whether the High Court's partial intervention was appropriate in the circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether a Revisional Court has the authority to dismiss a suit entirely when challenging an order for the amendment of a plaint?
- Under what circumstances is a trial court's order directing the amendment of a plaint considered lawful or improper?
- Whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction by upholding the setting aside of an amendment order while declaring the dismissal of the suit unlawful?
- Mst. Moondan vs Muhammad Amin1989 MLD 3427 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Moondan vs Judge, Family Court And Other1989 MLD 339 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Meno and others vs Abdus Sattar Ansari and others1989 SCMR 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioners under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act XI of 1963. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the Peshawar High Court subsequently allowed the landlord's appeal and ordered the ejectment of the tenants. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the landlord failed to testify on oath regarding his requirement for the premises as a retired government servant. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the requirement was clearly pleaded in the original application. Furthermore, the Court observed that the High Court's order for ejectment was also independently supported by a finding of subletting, a ground the petitioners' counsel failed to challenge. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition, holding that the High Court's decision was sound and did not warrant interference. The judgment affirms that where multiple grounds for ejectment exist, such as subletting, the failure to challenge such findings renders the appeal unsustainable.
Questions settled- Is an ejectment order sustainable if it is supported by a finding of subletting that remains unchallenged?
- Does the failure of a landlord to testify on oath regarding a specific requirement invalidate an ejectment application if that requirement was duly pleaded?
- Mst. Mehtab Bano And Others vs Abdul Rauf1989 MLD 4749 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mehar Khatoon And Others vs Karim Bakhsh And Other1989 MLD 5000 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Matab Bibi vs Shamim Akhtar and others1989 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant (donee) against the High Court's dismissal of her civil revision in a declaratory suit. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether, in the event a gift is annulled, the portion of the gift corresponding to the donor's own share (specifically one-fourth) should be preserved and allowed to remain intact under the relevant Shariat Application Laws. The petitioner relies on the precedent established in Hadayat v. Mehtab Bibi (1972 SCMR 243) to argue that the lower courts erred by failing to consider the partial validity of the gift. The Supreme Court, finding that the question raised requires further examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record, with liberty to file additional necessary documents, thereby setting the stage for a determination on whether a gift can be partially upheld regarding the donor's rightful inheritance share despite the annulment of the remainder.
Questions settled- Can a gift be partially upheld regarding the donor's own share of inheritance if the remainder of the gift is annulled?
- Does the annulment of a gift in a declaratory suit necessitate an examination of the donor's specific share under Shariat Application Laws?
- Mst. Marriam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 337 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Manzooran vs The State1989 MLD 832 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Manzoor Bibi vs Muhammad Afzal HaqK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 59 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Manzoor Bibi vs Muhammad Afzal Hao1989 P Cr. L J 749 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mahtoom vs District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner1989 P Cr. L J 755 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mahmooda Begum vs Muhammad Iqbal1989 MLD 311 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Lobia Jan and others vs Rogh a N Shah and others1989 PLD Peshawar 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kulsoom Bibi vs Syed Hussain Mian1989 MLD 1610 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kishwar Begum vs Qadir Khan. And Another1989 CLC 1818 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khushnoodi vs Aziz Khan1989 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had dismissed her revision petition against concurrent findings of the lower courts granting the respondent a decree for possession and mesne profits in respect of a portion of a property. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the licensee status and lack of adverse possession or oral purchase suffered from any legal infirmity justifying interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below did not suffer from any infirmity or deficiency that would have justified the High Court in reopening the issues under revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of jurisdictional error or material irregularity under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact can be reopened in a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without showing material infirmity or deficiency?
- Can a licensee claim adverse possession or ownership based on an alleged oral purchase without proper proof?
- Mst. Khurshid Begum And Others vs Muhammad Hussain And Other1989 MLD 115 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khurshid and another vs Mst. Latif Fatima and 8 others1989 SCMR 1776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court which accepted a writ petition concerning the disposal of evacuee property and set aside certain departmental orders as without lawful authority. The core legal question involves whether the High Court failed to adjudicate upon certain prior impugned orders and an alleged transfer made in favour of the petitioner in 1968 prior to the repeal of settlement laws. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's judgment did not formally set aside an order dated 18-11-1978 nor addressed the alleged 1968 transfer order in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court for clarification or further hearing regarding these specific unresolved questions. The key principle laid down is that matters not explicitly adjudicated or clarified by the High Court in writ proceedings should be remitted back to it for clarification rather than being entertained initially by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court entertain arguments regarding an impugned order that was not formally set aside or adjudicated upon by the High Court?
- Whether a party can seek clarification from the High Court regarding unaddressed claims such as a pre-repeal property transfer?
- What is the appropriate recourse when the High Court's judgment omits adjudication on specific orders impugned before it?
- Mst. Khalida Mumtaz vs Hamid Ali Khan and others1989 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal challenging an order passed by the High Court, which had suspended the sentences of the respondents/convicts in a criminal case involving offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned the validity of the High Court's exercise of discretion in suspending the sentences of the convicts under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon consideration, the Supreme Court deemed the matter a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. Noting that one of the respondents was currently in custody following the issuance of non-bailable warrants by the Supreme Court due to his failure to appear, the Court converted the petition into an appeal. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record and scheduled it for final hearing and disposal, emphasizing that no adjournments would be granted. The decision reflects the Court's supervisory jurisdiction over the suspension of sentences pending appeal in criminal matters.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal when a respondent is in custody?
- Is the suspension of a sentence by the High Court under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to review by the Supreme Court?
- Mst. Khaista Jana and anothers vs Bak-as and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khair UN Nisa vs Abdul Majeed And Other1989 MLD 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khadeeja Begum vs Muhammad Khalil and 4 others1989 SCMR 665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the inclusion of a 'Chaubara' in a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether a P.T.D. is immune from scrutiny by settlement authorities when it contradicts the original entitlement order, particularly when issued in violation of a stay order passed by an appellate authority. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in declaring the P.T.D. final and beyond challenge. The Court ruled that a P.T.D. must strictly conform to the entitlement order passed by the competent authority. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that once a stay order is issued by an appellate authority, any subsequent administrative action, such as the issuance of a P.T.D., taken in defiance of that order is a nullity. The principle laid down is that settlement authorities retain jurisdiction to rectify inconsistencies between a P.T.D. and the underlying entitlement order, and a P.T.D. does not enjoy absolute immunity from scrutiny if it is not in accord with the law or pending judicial proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a Permanent Transfer Deed immune from scrutiny by settlement authorities if it contradicts the underlying entitlement order?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed in violation of a stay order passed by an appellate authority render the deed a nullity?
- Do settlement authorities have the jurisdiction to rectify inconsistencies between a Permanent Transfer Deed and the original entitlement order?
- Mst. Kausar Parvin vs Muhammad Yaqoob1989 MLD 179 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kausar Iqbal and others vs Mst. Mahmooda Akhtar and others1989 SCMR 674 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the legitimacy of a marriage and the status of children in a partition suit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, Mst. Kausar Iqbal, was the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased, Kiramatullah, and whether her children were his legitimate heirs, specifically focusing on whether she had been validly divorced by her previous husband prior to her marriage to Kiramatullah. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the lower courts failed to properly appreciate the evidence. The Court reasoned that the deceased, a practicing lawyer, would not have knowingly entered a bigamous marriage, and the absence of protest from the previous husband suggested a valid divorce had occurred. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the presumption of legitimacy for children. The key principle laid down is that in determining the validity of a marriage, courts must consider the conduct of the parties and the legal awareness of the deceased, while avoiding findings that render children illegitimate without compelling evidence to the contrary.
Questions settled- Does the conduct of a party, such as a lawyer, in entering a marriage create a presumption against the existence of a legal impediment like bigamy?
- Should courts prioritize the presumption of legitimacy for children when evaluating evidence regarding the validity of a marriage?
- Can the Supreme Court reappreciate evidence if lower courts have ignored critical circumstantial factors in a family dispute?
- Mst. Kaniz Yousuf and 10 others vs Bakhsh Elahi1989 SCMR 938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of a second appeal by the Lahore High Court under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The respondent had sought the eviction of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest from a shop on various grounds, including personal requirement, which was ordered by the Rent Controller and upheld through the appellate stages. The petitioners raised contentions regarding the protection period under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the bona fide personal requirement in light of the respondent owning a factory, and the non-disposal of an application for additional evidence. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding statutory protection and alternative premises were either not raised before the High Court or lacked factual foundation, and that the alternative factory premises were unsuitable for the respondent's intended business. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, granting the petitioners two months to vacate the premises upon complying with tenancy terms.
Questions settled- Can a new factual contention not raised before the High Court be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Whether owning a factory at a distance negates the bona fide personal requirement of a commercial shop by a landlord?
- Does failure to press an application for additional evidence in the High Court preclude a party from challenging it in the Supreme Court?
- Mst. Kaniz Fatima vs Wali Muhammad and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 490 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the validity of an appellate judgment and decree regarding a family dispute over dower and maintenance. The petitioner and respondent were married, and later entered into a written compromise agreement before the Martial Law Authorities dissolving their marriage and settling prompt dower and gold payments, although no notice of the divorce was given under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Subsequently, the wife filed suits for remaining dower and maintenance. The trial court decreed the claims, but the first appellate court modified it, holding the divorce effective from the compromise date. The core legal questions involved the constitutional validity of Sections 7 and 8 of the Ordinance 1961 vis-a-vis Islamic injunctions and Article 2-A of the Constitution, and whether the marriage subsisted due to non-compliance with Section 7 notice requirements. The Lahore High Court held that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 remains a valid and protected law and that High Courts lack jurisdiction under Article 199 to declare constitutionally protected laws repugnant to Islam. However, relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court affirmed that notice under Section 7 is mandatory, but dismissed the petition on equitable grounds because the petitioner herself had initiated the compromise, accepted its benefits, and waived recourse.
Questions settled- Whether sections 7 and 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 offend the basic principles of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah?
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction on account of newly-added Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan to declare and treat the provisions of the Ordinance as un-Islamic and ineffective?
- Whether the marriage is still subsisting on account of contravention of the provisions of Section 7 of the Ordinance where no notice was given to the Chairman?
- Whether a party who entered into a compromise agreement and accepted benefits can claim the benefit of Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 for claiming maintenance?
- Mst. Kalsoom Zohra vs The United Bank Ltd. and others1989 SCMR 1120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the defendant in a loan recovery case, challenging the dismissal of her Intra-Court Appeal by the High Court, which had previously dismissed her Writ Petition. The underlying dispute arose from the refusal of the Banking Court to grant the petitioner's application for the issuance of a notice to the opposing party to produce specific documents and record statements. The core legal question was whether leave to appeal should be granted against an interlocutory order in a pending suit. The Supreme Court observed that no stay of proceedings had been granted in the original suit and that the case was already ripe for final decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that it was not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal against an interlocutory order. The petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts generally decline to interfere with interlocutory orders when the main suit is nearing final adjudication.
Questions settled- Should leave to appeal be granted against an interlocutory order when the main suit is ripe for final decision?
- Is an order refusing the production of documents and recording of statements in a Banking Court a fit subject for leave to appeal?
- Mst. Jindan Mai vs Mst. Taj Bibi And Other1989 MLD 3896 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Janna T Bibi And Others vs Mst. Faheeman And Other1989 MLD 3138 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jameela Hameed vs Atta Muhammad1989 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the demarcation and identity of two adjacent properties belonging to the parties. The respondent obtained an ex parte decree against the petitioner, which was upheld on appeal. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a separate civil suit challenging the ex parte decree on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, illegalities, and jurisdictional errors. This suit was dismissed as time-barred, and subsequent appellate and revisional forums upheld the dismissal, leaving the petitioner unable to defend her case on the merits. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's separate suit challenging the ex parte decree in the second round of litigation was barred by time under the given circumstances. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the case warrants a detailed examination of the limitation question to ensure the petitioner is not foreclosed from defending herself on merits, thereby setting the premise for the formal hearing of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a separate civil suit challenging an ex parte decree on grounds of fraud and illegality is barred by time under the circumstances?
- Can a party be denied the opportunity to defend a property dispute on merits due to the dismissal of a suit as time-barred?
- Mst. Irshad Mai vs Allah Ditta1989 P Cr. L J 595 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Inshah Allah Begum and others vs Izzat Khan and 2 others1989 SCMR 528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Division Bench of the Sind High Court, which upheld an order appointing a receiver for 20 shops in Liaquatabad, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the appointment of a receiver was justified in a suit for declaration, rendition of accounts, and cancellation of a lease, given the competing claims of ownership and the history of the property's management. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's discretionary order was sound. The Court found no error of law or fact in the lower courts' decisions. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle of agency: where a party has acted as an attorney or agent for another regarding a property, that agent is legally precluded from setting up a title adverse to their principal. Since the lease in favor of the petitioner's predecessor had been cancelled by the Karachi Municipal Corporation, the High Court correctly determined that a prima facie case for the appointment of a receiver existed to preserve the property during the pendency of the litigation.
Questions settled- Can an agent or attorney set up a title adverse to their principal regarding the property they were appointed to manage?
- Is the appointment of a receiver a valid exercise of discretionary jurisdiction when a prima facie case of ownership is established?
- Does the cancellation of a lease by a municipal authority affect the title claims of the lessee in a pending civil suit?
- Mst. Inayat Bibi and others vs Issac Nazir Ullah and others1989 SCMR 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the widow and two daughters of a deceased Christian male owner against the judgment of a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed their writ petition in an inheritance dispute. The core legal questions raised involve determining whether the Succession Act, 1925 or the Punjab Laws Act, 1872 governs the inheritance of the deceased, and whether a customary rule excluding female heirs from inheritance is contrary to justice, equity, and good conscience as understood either within the Pakistani jurisprudential context or within the Christian community. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions of law and general public importance. In granting leave, the Court directed the appeal to be prepared on the existing record with additional documents, ordered a maintain status quo, and prohibited any alienation of the disputed property during the pendency of the appeal before the Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Succession Act 1925 governs inheritance matters in respect of a Pakistani Christian male owner?
- Whether Section 5 of the Punjab Laws Act 1872 is applicable to determine succession in cases involving Pakistani Christians?
- Whether a rule of customary law depriving female heirs of inheritance is contrary to justice, equity, and good conscience under Pakistani jurisprudence?
- Mst. Inayat Begum and others vs The Additional District and Sessions1989 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal arising from proceedings under urban rent restriction laws concerning two adjacent houses leased to a school, where landlords sought ejectment of the tenants on the grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment upon finding the tenants to be wilful defaulters and the personal need not bona fide, but the first appellate authority reversed the finding on default, holding that a past practice of accepting delayed lump-sum rent negated wilful default, which decision was upheld by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the exercise of discretion by the appellate court. The Supreme Court held that while the past practice did not condone the default—as the tenant could have remitted rent by postal money order or cheque—the premises were subject to a requisitioning order during a significant portion of the default period, which suspended the statutory liabilities under the rent ordinance, and that the dilapidated condition of the property rendered the personal need unsustainable. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a past practice of accepting delayed lump-sum rent constitute a condonation of default under urban rent restriction laws?
- Can a tenant be held liable for statutory default in rent during the period a property remains subject to an official requisitioning order?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal need of a landlord can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Mst. Inayat Begum and another vs Muhammad Boota and others1989 SCMR 1716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a civil suit involving the sale of property. The core dispute arose from a transaction where property belonging to Mst. Alam Bibi was sold by her General Attorney, Madad Ali (petitioner No. 2), to his own wife, Mst. Inayat Begum (petitioner No. 1). The respondents challenged the transaction, alleging it was fraudulent. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the petitioners' subsequent first and second appeals were dismissed by the lower courts. The Supreme Court addressed whether there were grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the three lower courts. The Court held that the lower courts had properly dealt with the issues raised and that no justification existed for interference with the concurrent findings of fact. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the fraudulent nature of the property transaction.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts where no justification is shown?
- Is a property transaction valid when executed by a general attorney in favor of his own wife?
- Mst. Imam Bibi vs Allah Ditta and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff appealed against a High Court judgment restoring the trial court's dismissal of her suit for a share in the inheritance of her deceased father. The deceased held a tenancy under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 in the former Bahawalpur State and died on 28-2-1951 before paying all purchase instalments. The plaintiff claimed her inheritance share under Islamic Shariat Law or Section 19-A of the Act. The Supreme Court addressed whether subsequent amendments to an incorporated statute automatically apply to the adopting jurisdiction, and whether general Shariat legislation impliedly repeals a prior special enactment governing government tenancies.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 (introduced in Punjab in 1951) was not automatically applicable to Bahawalpur State without specific adaptation or extension. Applying the maxim *generalia specialibus non derogant*, the Court held that the subsequent general Shariat Act did not abrogate or override the special provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 governing government tenancies. Succession was rightly governed by Section 20 of the Act.
Questions settled- Do subsequent amendments made to an adopted or incorporated statute automatically apply in the adopting jurisdiction without express extension?
- Does a general law governing personal or Muslim inheritance impliedly repeal or override prior special statutory provisions governing government land tenancies?
- Which legal provisions govern succession to a government tenancy under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 where full purchase instalments have not been paid prior to the tenant's death?
- Mst. Ikhlaq Fatima vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 1979 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ijaz Bano and 3 others vs Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala1989 PLC 251 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hawa Bai And Another vs Mst. Rashida Khatoon And Other1989 MLD 601 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hassan Bano and 3 others vs Mrs. Mumtaz Younus1989 PLD Supreme Court 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order of the High Court granting a stay of ejectment in favor of the petitioners subject to the condition of depositing arrears of rent dating back to November 1971 and ongoing monthly rent. The core legal question raised was whether the High Court acted without jurisdiction in imposing a condition to pay arrears of rent beyond the three-year period of limitation prior to the impugned order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that even if a technical jurisdictional objection or limitation bar exists, the grant of leave to appeal is discretionary and depends on the fitness of the case and the conduct of the parties. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary relief under Article 185 of the Constitution or similar appellate jurisdiction will be denied to litigants who do not approach the court with clean hands, particularly where the liability for rent relates to a period during which protracted litigation was pending at the behest of the petitioner.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can impose the deposit of historical rent arrears as a condition for granting a stay of ejectment?
- Does the bar of limitation automatically render an interim condition for the deposit of rent arrears without jurisdiction?
- Is the Supreme Court bound to grant leave to appeal against every interim order found to be technically without jurisdiction?
- Does a litigant who prolongs litigation and withholds rent qualify for discretionary relief without clean hands?
- Mst. Hamida Bibi vs Fateh Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 1201(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of her civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the decree against a gift made in her favour by their predecessor-in-interest. The core legal question raised was the application of the doctrine of 'Musha' to the disputed gift. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that leave to appeal cannot be granted merely to examine the doctrine of 'Musha' when the lower courts concurrently found that the making of a genuine gift was otherwise not established. The Court concluded that since the factual finding regarding the non-establishment of the genuine gift was unexceptionable, granting leave would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision.
Questions settled- Will leave to appeal be granted to examine the doctrine of Musha when the genuineness of the gift has not been established as a matter of fact?
- Can a civil revision be dismissed on the basis of unexceptionable concurrent findings regarding the validity of a gift?
- Mst. Hamida Begum and another vs The State and 3 others1989 SCMR 711 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking the enhancement of sentences imposed on the respondents. The underlying incident occurred in 1964, resulting in the death of Muhammad Siddiq and injuries to others. The trial court had convicted the respondents under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarding sentences that the petitioners argued were inadequate and based on legal errors regarding the application of Exception 4 to Section 300. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether it was appropriate to interfere with the High Court's refusal to enhance sentences after a significant lapse of time. The Supreme Court held that while the trial court's judgment contained legal defects, the inordinate delay of twenty-two years since the occurrence, coupled with the fact that the respondents had already served their sentences, justified the High Court's refusal to disturb the position. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretion to interfere, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with a High Court's refusal to enhance a sentence when there has been an inordinate delay in the disposal of the matter?
- Does the fact that a convict has already served their sentence influence the court's discretion in deciding whether to enhance that sentence upon revision?
- Mst. Haliman Bibi vs Muhammad Bashir And 2 Other1989 CLC 1588 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment and decree whereby the District Judge dismissed the petitioner's suit solely on the ground that it was barred by the proviso to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, due to the petitioner's admitted lack of physical possession. The core legal question was whether a suit seeking to declare a gift deed void falls under section 39 or section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and whether the bar regarding further relief applies. The Lahore High Court held that the suit was governed by section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which does not require a prayer for further relief or possession, unlike section 42. Furthermore, as a co-heir and co-sharer, the petitioner's possession was deemed to be through the other co-sharer. The High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does a suit seeking to declare a gift deed void and illegal fall under section 39 or section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
- Is a plaintiff in a suit under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 required to sue for further relief or possession?
- Whether a co-heir out of actual physical possession can be deemed to be in possession as a co-sharer for the purposes of maintaining a suit?
- Mst. Hajiani Aisha and others vs Abdul Wa Heed1989 PLD Supreme Court 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal arising from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent/landlord against the appellants/tenants under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the grounds of subletting, non-payment of rent, and personal requirement. While the Rent Controller and the first appellate court dismissed the eviction application, the High Court ordered eviction on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a landlord's acceptance of rent in lump sum amounts on sporadic occasions establishes a practice or agreement to alter the mode of payment, thereby shielding the tenant from eviction for default. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to prove a practice of accepting lump-sum rent, as the record demonstrated that rent was generally paid in advance. The Court laid down that the mere acceptance of rent at irregular intervals or periodically by a landlord does not constitute an agreement to alter the terms of tenancy or waive the statutory obligation of timely monthly rent payment, and a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove a binding fresh agreement.
Questions settled- Whether the acceptance of rent in lump sum on isolated occasions by a landlord establishes a practice of receiving rent at irregular intervals?
- Does the mere fact that a landlord accepts rent periodically imply that the landlord has agreed to alter the terms of tenancy regarding the time of payment?
- What is the burden of proof required to establish an agreement between a landlord and tenant to alter the mode of rent payment?
- Mst. Hajan Begum Bibi vs Muhammad Shafiq and OtherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 128 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajan Begum Bibi vs Muhammad Shafio And Other1989 MLD 4324 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hafizan vs Barkat Ali And Other1989 MLD 3368 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Gulnaz Bano And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4978 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Zuhran vs Superintendent of Police, Rahimyar Khan and others1989 P Cr. L J 1826 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Sughran Alias Sughra Naz vs Muhammad Ayub Dar1989 CLC 2493 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Janat vs Muhammad ZaffarK.L.R. 1989 Revenue Cases 74 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Janat vs Muhammad Zaffar alias Allah Rakha1989 PLD Lahore 98 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 710(1) · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Karam Shah and others1989 SCMR 994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court arising out of a pre-emption suit. The original owners sold land to initial vendees, who subsequently transferred the land to the petitioner in recognition of her superior right of pre-emption. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession through pre-emption based on his status as a co-sharer and estate owner. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the sale to the petitioner was completed upon sanction of the mutation. The District Judge reversed this, finding the sale complete on the earlier entry date, but the High Court restored the trial court's decree in revisional jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the sale was complete on the date of entry under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, regardless of attestation or delivery of possession, and that the High Court improperly interfered in revision. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding the completion of sale and the propriety of interference in revisional jurisdiction require further consideration, and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a sale is completed on the date of entry of mutation or the date of its sanction?
- Is attestation of mutation or delivery of possession necessary for the completion of a sale under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- When can a High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with a finding of fact recorded by a lower appellate court?
- Mst. Ghazala Zakir vs Muhammad Khurshid and 7 others--Defendants1989 PLD Karachi 350 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an administration suit concerning the estate of a deceased person, specifically a workshop business. The plaintiff sought the appointment of a Receiver for the workshop, which had remained inactive due to ongoing disputes and litigation among the legal heirs. The core legal question was whether the appointment of a Receiver was justified under Order XL, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given the disputes over title and the alleged exclusion of some heirs from the business. The Court held that in administration suits involving co-sharers or partners, the appointment of a Receiver is appropriate when it is 'just and convenient' to safeguard the estate from waste or dissipation, especially when the property is in limbo. The Court affirmed that the rule against dispossessing a party in possession does not apply where the applicant is a co-sharer or partner entitled to joint possession. The key principle laid down is that the appointment of a Receiver is an equitable remedy to be exercised in aid of justice to prevent the scramble for assets and to preserve the subject matter of litigation.
Questions settled- Is the appointment of a Receiver permissible in an administration suit where the property is currently inactive and subject to competing claims by legal heirs?
- Does the rule against dispossessing a party in possession apply to an application for a Receiver filed by a co-sharer or partner in an administration suit?
- What are the primary considerations for a court when determining if an appointment of a Receiver is 'just and convenient' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a Receiver be appointed in an administration suit even if the title to the property is disputed among the legal heirs?
- Mst. Fazal Begum And Others vs The State And 5 Other1989 MLD 85 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima and another vs Mst. Rehmat Mai1989 SCMR 1202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the District Judge's order restoring an inheritance declaratory suit that was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerned the propriety of restoring a suit upon an application for restoration and condonation of delay, particularly relying on the testimony and affidavit of the plaintiff's counsel. The Supreme Court held that the reliance placed by the High Court on the counsel's testimony and affidavit was unexceptionable and that the concurrent findings of fact did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding the restoration of a suit based on satisfactory explanation of absence, supported by counsel's testimony, warrant no interference under appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's reliance on the testimony and affidavit of a party's counsel for restoring a suit dismissed for non-prosecution is unexceptionable?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the restoration of a suit be interfered with when they suffer from no legal infirmity?
- Mst. Fateh Bibi and others vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and others1989 SCMR 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute concerning the alleged sale of State land allotted to the respondents. The petitioners claimed that an oral agreement existed under which they paid Rs. 6,000 to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest to cover land installments in exchange for half ownership of the land. The respondents denied the sale, asserting the money was a loan evidenced by a pronote. The trial court initially decreed in favor of the petitioners, but the appellate court reversed this, finding no evidence of a sale agreement and noting the absence of required government permission under the Colony Act. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' subsequent revision. The Supreme Court addressed whether the petitioners had established the existence of an oral agreement of sale. The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove the agreement, as the payment was evidenced by a pronote indicating a loan. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact, dismissing the petition. The principle affirmed is that where an alleged agreement of sale is not established by evidence, claims of title based on such agreements must fail.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a pronote regarding a payment for land installments negate the claim of an oral agreement of sale?
- Can a court grant a declaration of title based on an oral agreement of sale when the existence of such an agreement is not proven by evidence?
- Is permission under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 required for a sale agreement that has not been established as a matter of fact?
- Mst. Fareeda Khanum vs Raza Muhammad1989 CLC 1745 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Faiz Elahi vs District Judge And Other1989 MLD 937 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Elahi Sain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2264 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Datan Mai and 5 others vs Mst. Sardaran Bibi and 5 others1989 SCMR 1807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two petitions arose from a common subject matter wherein the High Court had disposed of a First Appeal from Order (FAO) based on the mutual concurrence of both parties to abide by the statement of a designated individual regarding whether an arbitrator had participated in the proceedings. The High Court, upon the statement being recorded in the affirmative, set aside the Additional District Judge's order and restored the Civil Judge's order. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that an illegality occurred because the suit land belonged to the State and was subject to alienation restrictions under section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Court does not interfere with the enforcement of agreements as distinguished from alienations, and to that extent the statutory bar does not operate. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the impugned orders passed on the basis of a lawful award and party concurrence.
Questions settled- Does section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 operate as a bar to the enforcement of agreements concerning State land as distinguished from actual alienations?
- Can a party challenge an order passed by the High Court on the basis of their own express concurrence and agreement?
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an impugned order founded upon a lawful award and mutual consent of the parties?
- Mst. Dani vs Mst. Bashiran Bibi1989 SCMR 1990 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit where the petitioner/plaintiff challenged a gift of suit land made to her niece (the respondent) on the ground of fraud. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the first appellate court accepted the appeal. On second appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the first appellate court on the ground of misreading of evidence and dismissed the suit. Before the Supreme Court, the parties, with the permission of the Court, negotiated an out-of-court settlement. Under this agreement, the parties agreed that the disputed gift in favor of the respondent would remain intact and operative, while the respondent and her son undertook to maintain the petitioner for the remainder of her life by paying her an amount equal to one-half share of the income received from the land. The Supreme Court accepted this arrangement and disposed of the petition accordingly, binding the respondent and her surety to the undertaking.
Questions settled- Can a dispute regarding the validity of a gift deed be resolved through a negotiated out-of-court settlement during the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Whether an undertaking for lifetime maintenance given by a donee in favor of a donor can be legally enforced as part of a court-decreed settlement?
- Mst. Bushra vs District Magistrate, Sahiwal1989 P Cr. L J 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bilqis Bibi vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and others1989 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a Supreme Court judgment regarding the inheritance rights of the respondent, Mst. Zainab Bibi, and her children. The petitioner challenged the previous holding that Mst. Zainab Bibi was the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased, arguing that her prior marriage to another man remained intact despite her alleged conversion to Christianity. The core legal question was whether the grounds raised—including the alleged misinterpretation of evidence, failure to frame specific issues, and the applicability of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939—constituted sufficient cause for review. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the review jurisdiction is extraordinary and limited to exceptional circumstances, such as an error apparent on the face of the record or the inadvertent omission of a crucial statutory provision. The Court reaffirmed that a review petition cannot be utilized as a mechanism for a rehearing or an appeal merely because a party is dissatisfied with the previous decision. Consequently, as the issues were already adjudicated, no valid grounds for review were established.
Questions settled- What are the parameters for exercising the extraordinary power of review by the Supreme Court?
- Can a review petition be treated as an appeal or a rehearing of the merits of a case?
- Is the mere incorrectness of a conclusion reached by the Court a valid ground for review?