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. Bibi vs Mst. Bibi and another1989 SCMR 1546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the Court could dispose of the pending litigation based on an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties. The parties submitted a written compromise deed, wherein the petitioner agreed to withdraw the case in exchange for the respondents transferring one killa of land to her. The compromise was facilitated by local respectables, and the parties declared that no further disputes or litigation existed between them. Although the petitioner's counsel noted that the petitioner did not thumb-mark the document in his presence, the respondent's counsel affirmed the genuineness of the thumb impressions. The Court, finding no reason to doubt the authenticity of the compromise and noting the signatures of the parties, accepted the settlement. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition in terms of the compromise, thereby affirming the principle that parties are free to resolve their disputes through mutual settlement, which the Court will recognize and enforce upon verification of the agreement's genuineness.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court dispose of a petition based on an out-of-court compromise reached between the parties?
- Is a compromise deed valid when the petitioner's counsel has not personally witnessed the petitioner's thumb impression but the respondent's counsel confirms its genuineness?
- Mst. Bibi Amina vs Ikramullah And 4 Other1989 CLC 698 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for a declaration of ownership and possession of a residential house and agricultural land claimed under a dower deed executed by her late husband. The petitioner asserted that the property was transferred to satisfy her dower debt, but the mutation was subsequently rejected after her husband allegedly denied the transfer before a court-appointed commissioner. The core legal questions involved the genuineness and execution of the dower deed, whether it was acted upon, and whether an unstamped and unregistered dower deed concerning immovable property valued over one hundred rupees could create a valid legal interest. The Peshawar High Court held that the dower deed was shrouded in doubt given that the husband was incarcerated at the alleged time of execution, that the deed was never acted upon as evidenced by revenue records, and that under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908, the document required compulsory registration to create any right or interest in immovable property. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an unregistered dower deed creating an interest in immovable property valued over one hundred rupees is admissible to transfer ownership?
- Can a dower deed executed while the husband was incarcerated be considered genuine without corroborative proof?
- What is the evidentiary value of a revenue mutation that has been formally rejected after recording the statement of the property owner?
- Mst. Bhagh Bhari and others vs Allah Ditta1989 SCMR 2004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land originally owned by Khushi Muhammad, who died in 1924. Following the death of his mother, Mst. Hussain Bibi, who held a limited interest, the land was mutated between Murad (the petitioners' predecessor) and Allah Ditta (the respondent). The central legal question concerned the order of death between Khushi Muhammad and his sister, Mst. Rani, during a plague epidemic, which determined the rightful heir to the property. The trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court concurrently found that Mst. Rani survived her brother, thereby entitling her successor to the disputed share. The Supreme Court reviewed the contention that the subordinate courts had misread the documentary evidence regarding the timing of the deaths. Finding no infirmity in the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the succession and the factual determination of the order of deaths.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the order of deaths in inheritance disputes?
- What was the effect of the Shariat Application Act 1962 on the limited interest held by a female owner under custom?
- Mst. Begum and others vs Mst. Begum Kaniz Fatima Hayat and others1989 SCMR 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction by a Single Judge of the Sindh High Court due to the non-appearance of the plaintiffs and their counsel. The plaintiffs' application for restoration of the suit and condonation of delay was dismissed by the Single Judge, and this dismissal was subsequently upheld by a Division Bench on intra-court appeal. The core legal question was whether the illness of the counsel, his sudden departure to attend to a terminally ill relative, and misleading information from the court's branch office regarding the hearing date constituted 'sufficient cause' for restoration under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that procedural rules must be construed to foster justice rather than penalize parties, unless there is positive evidence of contumacious negligence. The Court ruled that the uncontroverted affidavits of the attorney and a senior advocate, supported by medical evidence, sufficiently established 'sufficient cause' under the principle of preponderance of evidence.
Questions settled- What constitutes 'sufficient cause' for the restoration of a suit dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can the uncontroverted affidavit of a senior advocate supported by medical evidence be disregarded as vague without the opposing party requesting cross-examination under Order XIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether procedural rules should be applied technically to deprive a party of a trial on the merits in the absence of positive evidence of gross negligence?
- Mst. Basso vs Anwar Ali1989 SCMR 1756 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Reference, which had reversed a decision by a learned Single Judge regarding the transfer of property. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner possessed a preferential right over the respondent concerning the disputed transfer, and whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the parties' legal entitlements and factual claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had thoroughly examined the factual position and the respective legal rights of the parties before upholding the transfer in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning was sound and that no grounds existed to justify interference with the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to establish any superior claim or preferential right. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused and dismissed, maintaining the status quo established by the High Court.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that has thoroughly examined the factual position and legal rights of the parties?
- Can a petitioner succeed in an appeal against a property transfer without establishing a preferential right over the respondent?
- Mst. Bashiran vs Station House Officer and others1989 P Cr. L J 572 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Balqis Begum vs Karim Bakhsh and another1989 SCMR 1231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, concerning the transfer of a disputed property situated in Ramnagar, Lahore. The core legal question involves the challenge to the concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the property and the transfer made by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in favor of a claimant over a non-claimant, alongside the issue of laches. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, noting the presence of laches and that the matter stands conclusively settled by the concurrent findings of fact that the property was residential and validly transferred to a claimant. The court established the principle that concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding the character of a property, combined with substantial delay (laches), preclude interference by the superior courts.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding the nature of a property can be interfered with?
- Does unexplained delay and laches bar the grant of leave to appeal in property settlement matters?
- Can a non-claimant successfully challenge the transfer of a residential property made in favor of a claimant by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Mst. Balqees Bibi vs Baldia, Okara through the Chairman, Baldia, Okara1989 PLC 673 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bakhto Through Legal Heirs vs Bagh Ali1989 MLD 4128 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bakhshi vs Fazal Muhammad and another1989 SCMR 1737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the vendor challenged a decree granted in favour of the respondent/vendee. The petitioner argued that no sale had occurred, a plea rejected by the trial court and upheld by the first appellate court. In the Regular Second Appeal, the Lahore High Court affirmed the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact while also admitting additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in admitting such additional evidence during a second appeal and that the High Court's own finding of misreading of evidence by lower courts should have invalidated the concurrent findings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that, irrespective of the additional evidence admitted, there existed sufficient independent material on record to sustain the concurrent findings of fact made by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court found no justification to grant leave to appeal, dismissing the petition and declining to address the procedural question regarding the admission of additional evidence in second appeals, leaving it for a future appropriate case.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court dismiss a petition for leave to appeal where sufficient material exists to support concurrent findings of fact, despite procedural objections regarding the admission of additional evidence?
- Does the existence of sufficient material on record justify upholding concurrent findings of fact even if there are allegations of misreading evidence by lower courts?
- Mst. Azra Parveen vs The State1989 SCMR 1063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the appellant Mst. Azra Parveen challenged her conviction and sentence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for throwing kerosene oil on the complainant and setting her on fire, resulting in a sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000. The core legal question addressed is whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant warrants reduction in light of the surrounding circumstances and subsequent developments. The Supreme Court held that the plea for reduction of the sentence of imprisonment is justified, particularly given that the substantial fine of Rs. 15,000 has already been paid by the appellant and the Additional Advocate-General raised no objection. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine.
Questions settled- Whether a sentence of imprisonment under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be reduced to the period already undergone when the fine has been paid?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and dispose of it accordingly?
- Mst. Aziz Mai vs District Magistrate, Bahawalpur1989 P Cr. L J 547 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aziz Begum vs Fateh Sher and others1989 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 6-6-1984, which allowed the respondents' Regular Second Appeal and restored the trial court's decree in their favour. The core legal question concerns the doctrine of partial pre-emption and the amendment of plaints in pre-emption suits. The Supreme Court held that the respondents' suit did not suffer from partial pre-emption, noting that the court has consistently applied a liberal interpretation regarding the amendment of plaints in similar circumstances. Consequently, the Court found no merit to interfere and refused to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that technical pleas regarding partial pre-emption must be evaluated in light of established liberal interpretations governing plaint amendments to advance substantial justice.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit suffers from the bar of partial pre-emption under the circumstances of the case?
- How should the relevant law regarding the amendment of plaints be interpreted in pre-emption matters?
- Mst. Aziz Begum and others vs Malik Din and others1989 SCMR 1037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil petitions arise from a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over a residential house in Lahore. The core legal question involved whether the petitioners had established ownership of the suit house on the basis of adverse possession against the respondents whose predecessor-in-interest had successfully pre-empted the original sale and obtained possession through execution proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were unexceptionable as the petitioners miserably failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving adverse possession through contradictory oral and insufficient documentary evidence. The key principle laid down is that a claim of adverse possession requires clear, consistent, and unequivocal proof establishing both the identity of the property and the manner of possession, and mere silence and failure to defend title in prior related proceedings support a conclusion that a subsequent claim is collusive and mala fide.
Questions settled- Whether the onus to establish adverse possession over a suit property lies heavily on the party claiming it?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the failure to prove adverse possession be interfered with by the Supreme Court when evidence is contradictory and discrepant?
- Does silence and failure to join in defending title during earlier related litigation support a finding that a subsequent suit claiming adverse possession is collusive and mala fide?
- Mst. Aziz Begum and Other. vs Custodian of Enemy Property, and Other.K.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 54 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aziz Begum and 4 Other vs Custodian of Enemy Property, and 2K.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 122 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Aziz Akhtar vs Member (Settlement and Reh. Wing), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore1989 CLC 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aziman vs Abdul Sattar and State1989 MLD 4166 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Azeem Bibi vs Kammon Mai alias Karam Elahi1989 SCMR 1775(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute between two sisters over a will executed by their father in favour of the respondent. The petitioner successfully challenged the will before the lower two courts, but the High Court set aside those judgments in a civil revision filed by the respondent. The core legal question involves the validity of the disputed will and whether the petitioner had consented to its execution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of the will and the petitioner's consent thereto, reinforced by the petitioner's prolonged silence of nearly a quarter of a century, are conclusive and not open to interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that unexplained prolonged delay and tacit consent preclude a party from challenging a testamentary disposition.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of a will and consent can be interfered with in civil revision?
- Does prolonged silence and delay of nearly a quarter of a century bar a party from challenging a will?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the execution of the disputed will and the petitioner's consent stand concluded by findings of fact?
- Mst. Asif Jehan Begum vs Ghulam Rabani and others1989 P Cr. L J 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ashraf Bibi Widow and others vs Sardar Muhammad Khan and others1989 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the apportionment of compensation for land acquired for the Tarbela Dam project. The appellants and respondents, who are related, held conflicting claims regarding a one-fourth share of land, which was mortgaged by the appellants to the respondents. The Land Acquisition Collector, relying on an alleged joint statement by village landowners to distribute compensation based on revenue records and limit mortgagees to principal amounts, apportioned the compensation accordingly. The respondents sought a reference to the Court, arguing they had become owners due to the expiration of the redemption period. The Additional District Judge rejected the reference based on procedural grounds regarding the section under which it was filed, but the High Court remanded the case for a decision on merits. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, declined to resolve the underlying factual disputes—specifically whether the appellants lost their rights through non-redemption and whether the respondents were bound by the alleged joint statement—holding that these issues require a proper trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition to avoid prejudicing the trial proceedings.
Questions settled- Does an alleged joint statement by landowners regarding compensation apportionment preclude a party from seeking a reference to the Court under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Is a reference to the Court under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 invalid if it is filed under section 18 instead of section 30?
- Can a dispute regarding the ownership of land and the effect of a mortgage redemption period be resolved without a trial in land acquisition proceedings?
- Mst. Asghari Begum vs Mst. Rashid Akhtar1989 CLC 1582 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aqeedat Jabeen vs Muhammad Aslam Khan Sangi and others1989 SCMR 1024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court, concerned a land gift made in 1970 which was subsequently challenged under Martial Law Regulation 115. The Federal Land Commission (FLC) did not approve the transaction, leading the donee (appellant) to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court. The High Court partially succeeded, remanding the matter to the FLC for a fresh decision. Upon remand, the FLC again rejected the appellant's claim, and her subsequent writ petition was dismissed in limine. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the FLC abided by the High Court's directions and whether the High Court erred in holding that a donee could not challenge FLC orders. The Court found that the appellant was denied the opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claim, which was her legal right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was once again remanded to the Federal Land Commission for a fresh decision after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present her evidence.
Questions settled- Is it a legal right of a party to lead all necessary evidence in support of their case before the Federal Land Commission?
- Does the denial of an opportunity to lead evidence render the orders passed by the Federal Land Commission contrary to law?
- Can a donee, whose interests are directly affected by orders of the Federal Land Commission, be considered an aggrieved party entitled to file a constitutional petition?
- Must the Federal Land Commission provide a reasonable opportunity to a party to lead necessary evidence when deciding a matter on remand from the High Court?
- Mst. Amna Zakariya vs M. Zakariya Khan and another1989 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the validity of a divorce. The petitioner contended that the divorce (Talaq) pronounced by the respondent never became effective due to the alleged non-compliance with the notice requirements stipulated under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Supreme Court examined the record and determined that the core issue regarding the service of notice was a question of fact that had already been concluded by the High Court, which found that the requisite notice was indeed served upon the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the findings of the High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. Although the petition was time-barred, the Court exercised discretion to examine the merits due to the nature of the case, but ultimately found that the petitioner failed to substantiate her claims on the factual issues presented.
Questions settled- Does the failure to serve a notice of Talaq under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 render the divorce ineffective?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact regarding the service of notice in a divorce case?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable if it is barred by time but involves a question of fact already concluded by the High Court?
- Mst. Amina vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 40 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, Mst. Amina, sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the possession of 50 grams of heroin, charged under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of being a female with a suckling child, relying on precedents where bail was granted to women with nursing infants. The Court examined the evidence, specifically the child's birth certificate, and determined that the child was over two years old, thus not a 'suckling child' under the relevant societal and legal understanding. The Court held that the precedents cited were inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the societal menace of drug trafficking, noting that women are increasingly utilized in this illicit trade to evade detection. Given the legislative intent to curb such offenses by enhancing sentences for heroin possession exceeding 12 grams, the Court refused to exercise its discretion to grant bail, prioritizing the public interest. The application was rejected, with liberty granted to re-apply after the examination of the complainant.
Questions settled- Does a child over the age of two years qualify as a 'suckling child' for the purpose of seeking bail?
- Can a court take judicial notice of the increasing involvement of women in the illicit drug trade?
- Is bail automatically granted to a female accused solely on the ground of having a child?
- Mst. Ameeran Bibi vs Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar and 41989 P Cr. L J 2012 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ameena and others vs Mst. Aisha and others1989 SCMR 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which accepted the respondent's second appeal concerning the specific performance of an agreement to sell a plot measuring 120 square yards situated in Hussain Abad Co-operative Housing Society. The core legal question involved the validity of the sale-deed and the entitlement of the respondent to specific performance of the contract along with compensation for superstructure costs incurred on the plot. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and the trial court properly appreciated the evidence on record, and since the by-laws of the society were not placed on record to show any bar against the transfer of plots, the petition lacked merit. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence regarding the sale of co-operative housing society plots will not be interfered with in the absence of proof showing a legal bar to such transfer.
Questions settled- Whether specific performance of an agreement to sell a plot in a co-operative housing society can be granted when no by-laws barring the transfer are placed on record?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts based on proper appreciation of evidence regarding a property transaction?
- Mst. Aman Mai And Others vs Mst. Nasreen1989 MLD 4726 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Almay vs Hashmatay1989 MLD 3831 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Allah Rakhi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2488 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Allah Rakhi vs Settlement Commissioner and 3 others1989 SCMR 1447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner, Mst. Allah Rakhi, regarding the denial of her claim to a portion of property in village Piplan, Tehsil and District Mianwali, under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the transfer of two specific rooms in a rural building, given her father's prior possession and her own occupancy. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower authorities, noting that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had previously transferred three rooms to another party, while the remaining two rooms were transferred to Muhammad Siddique, the original allottee since 1952. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the findings that Muhammad Siddique was the rightful allottee and that the petitioner's father merely occupied the premises as a family member of the allottee. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the petitioner's possession did not confer an independent right of transfer superior to that of the established allottee.
Questions settled- Does mere possession of a property under Settlement Scheme No. VII confer an automatic right of transfer?
- Can a family member of an original allottee claim an independent right to transfer of property based on occupancy?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the status of an original allottee subject to interference in leave to appeal proceedings?
- Mst. Allah Rakhi vs Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement1989 MLD 3343 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Allah Rakhi And Another vs Ismail1989 CLC 446 · Board of Revenue · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Akhtar Sultana and others vs Mst. Karam Bibi and others1989 SCMR 1773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 5-5-1981. The core legal question concerns the challenge to a finding of fact regarding the indivisibility of a residential property, House No. P-20, Khalsa College, Faisalabad, which had been determined by the Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact by the Settlement Commissioner regarding the indivisibility of the property was properly upheld by the High Court, which rightly declined to interfere with it. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as the case was not deemed a fit one for interference.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with a finding of fact regarding the indivisibility of property determined by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a concurrent finding of fact regarding property transfer?
- Mst. Akhtar Ferozah vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 49 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Akhtar Bibi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 831 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Akhtar Bibi and others vs District Judge and others1989 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two connected petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners, as tenants, were justified in withholding rent due to rival claims of ownership between the respondents, who were registered purchasers of the property, and a third party claiming ownership based on an agreement to sell. The Supreme Court held that the respondents, as bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration holding a registered sale deed, were the rightful landlords. The Court determined that an agreement to sell does not carry legal weight against a registered sale deed. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioners' defense of confusion regarding rent payment, noting that the petitioners had failed to tender rent to the respondents. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that findings of fact regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and the validity of title documents are binding when supported by evidence, and that an agreement to sell cannot supersede a registered sale deed.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell confer ownership rights superior to a registered sale deed in the context of a landlord-tenant dispute?
- Can a tenant deny the relationship of landlord and tenant based on a rival claim of ownership by a third party holding only an agreement to sell?
- Is a purchaser for valuable consideration holding a registered sale deed entitled to seek eviction of tenants despite competing claims from third parties?
- Mst. Akhtar Begum And Others vs The State1989 MLD 798 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Akbari vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 179 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Akbar Jan vs Shahzad and 3 others1989 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected appeals arise out of a criminal judgment concerning the murder of Tariq Mahmud and a murderous assault on Liaqat Ali. The trial court acquitted two co-accused but convicted Shehzad under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court maintained the conviction under Section 304, Part I, but reduced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, while dismissing the complainant's petition for enhancement and acquittal challenges. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the correct applicable section was Section 302 or Section 304, Part I, and whether reduction of the sentence by the High Court was justified. The Court held that since the deceased was empty-handed and intervened in a sudden flare-up, the case did not strictly fall within the exceptions of Section 300 to warrant Section 304, Part I, but seeing that the trial court's conviction under Section 304, Part I carried life imprisonment and no sufficient grounds existed for the High Court to reduce it, the Supreme Court restored the original sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is convicted under Section 304, Part I, a reduction of a well-considered life sentence to ten years without compelling legal justification is unwarranted.
Questions settled- Whether an accidental killing during a sudden altercation without premeditation falls under the exceptions to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the High Court reduce a sentence of life imprisonment to ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 304, Part I, without sufficient legal grounds?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings regarding the acquittal of co-accused where their presence is found doubtful?
- Mst. Ajmana And Another vs Mst. Wazir Jan1989 CLC 1342 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ajaib Khanum and 2 others vs Khalid Rashid and another1989 SCMR 1114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which dismissed a suit for specific performance in its entirety. The underlying dispute involves a property originally owned by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, which was sold to the respondents with a condition of re-sale. Subsequent agreements were executed to facilitate this re-sale, but the respondents failed to perform, leading to litigation. The trial court initially decreed half of the claim, excluding the portion related to a minor vendor. The District Court subsequently decreed the suit in its entirety, finding in favor of the petitioners. The High Court, however, accepted the respondents' appeals and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the petitioners' counsel, granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court's judgment of variance is sustainable in law. The Court also ordered the continuation of a stay order, contingent upon the petitioners furnishing security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment of variance by the High Court in a suit for specific performance is sustainable in law?
- Can a suit for specific performance be decreed in its entirety when one of the vendors is a minor?
- Mst. Afroze And 3 Others vs Senior Member, Federal Land Commission1989 MLD 1732 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Afroz Begum And 2 Others vs Qutabuddin1989 MLD 2493 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Abida vs Syed Afroze Ali And Other1989 MLD 943 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. A.B. Aisha vs Sultan Ahmad Tahir And Another1989 MLD 2166 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. a Tiqua Khatoon and 6 others vs Muhammad Taqui1989 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. a SGH a Ri and another vs The ST a T E1989 PLD Supreme Court 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals directed against a common judgment of the Sind High Court, whereby the appellants Mst. Asghari and Muhammad Shafique were convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death for the alleged murder of Muhammad Ismail. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the pointing out of a burial place, alleged recoveries of bones and personal effects from a courtyard, motive, and retracted judicial confessions. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was murdered at all, noting severe discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding the alleged recoveries, the absence of a complete human skeleton or definitive identification of the bones, and the lack of a credible motive. The Court ruled that the retracted confessions were properly discarded and that the circumstantial chain was incomplete and unreliable. Consequently, the appeals were accepted, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when the recovery of the dead body or skeletal remains is highly doubtful?
- Can a retracted judicial confession recorded in the presence of co-accused be relied upon to support a conviction?
- Does the mere pointing out of a place of burial by multiple accused persons serve as reliable corroborative evidence under the law?
- Is the non-lodging of a missing person report by family members sufficient to infer guilt in a murder prosecution?
- Mst . Nasreen vs Government of Sind and 2 others1989 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Mrs: Tsering Dolkar vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi And1989 MLD 1495 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mrs. ST-Iamim Zafar Vaine vs Ministry of Finance, Islamabad1989 PLC (C.S.) 699 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima Bibi And Others vs Muhammad Ibrahim1989 MLD 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shreen G. Kandawala and 14 others vs Federation of Pakistan1989 PLD Karachi 471 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shaukat Khalid vs Additional District Judge, RAWALPINDIAnd 21989 CLC 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shamsunnisa Bakhtiar and another vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 2451 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nusrat vs Muhammad Bashir Alvi And 11 Other1989 MLD 233 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Naheed Anjum Sheikh vs Government of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mrs. Naheed Anjum Sheikh against the dismissal of her service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a Senior English Teacher, was promoted to National Pay Scale No. 17 in 1977 in relaxation of rules, superseding numerous teachers without justification. Following the imposition of Martial Law, her promotion was reviewed, and she was reverted to National Pay Scale No. 14. After her departmental representations were rejected in 1983, her writ petition was dismissed by the High Court for lack of jurisdiction, and her subsequent appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal was dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question concerns the limitation period for challenging a departmental reversion order before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the Service Tribunal regarding limitation suffered from no infirmity and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that appellate remedies before service tribunals must be pursued within the prescribed period of limitation.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing a service appeal as barred by time?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere in service matters relating to civil servants?
- Can a promotion made in relaxation of all service rules superseding other employees be lawfully reviewed and reverted?
- Mrs. Javed Butt vs III A.D.J. (East) Karachi And Other1989 MLD 4719 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Hajera Rashid Gardee vs The Deputy Collector, Customs, La Hore1989 PLD Lahore 58 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Farida Begum vs Government of N.-W.F.P. Health and Social1989 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Another1989 MLD 2209 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Dilnawaz Iqbal vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Education1989 SCMR 1166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed by Mrs. Dilnawaz Iqbal against the Province of Punjab, challenging a decision regarding her status following the nationalization of educational institutions. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to claim benefits or advantages associated with the office of Principal of a privately-managed college after the nationalization process. The learned Service Tribunal had previously determined that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned from her position as Principal prior to the nationalization of the college in question. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal, holding that because the resignation preceded the nationalization, the petitioner possessed no valid claim to any advantages or status derived from that office. The court affirmed that an individual cannot claim rights or benefits attached to a post that they had already vacated before the relevant legislative or administrative action took effect. The petition was accordingly dismissed, confirming the finality of the Tribunal's factual determination regarding the timing of the petitioner's resignation.
Questions settled- Can an individual claim benefits associated with an office held in a privately-managed college after that college has been nationalized if they had already resigned from that office?
- Does a resignation from a post prior to the nationalization of an institution preclude a claim for advantages related to that post?
- Mrs. Benazir Bhutto and another vs Federation of Pakistan and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the constitutional validity of section 21(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, as amended by Ordinances II and VIII of 1985, which provided for the allocation of election symbols to candidates by draw of lots, omitting recognition and participation of political parties. The core legal question was whether the statutory omission of political party symbols and participation in section 21 violated the fundamental right to form and operate a political party guaranteed under Article 17(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to form a political party necessarily includes the right to function, contest elections, and participate effectively through party symbols, particularly in a society with high illiteracy where symbols are vital for voters to identify candidates. The Court ruled that section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, to the extent it fails to recognize political parties and their participation in the allocation of symbols, is inconsistent with Article 17(2) of the Constitution and void. The key principle laid down is that the fundamental right of freedom of association under Article 17(2) encompasses the full operational capacity of a political party, including contesting elections on a party basis and obtaining party symbols.
Questions settled- Does the fundamental right to form a political party under Article 17(2) of the Constitution include the right to participate in and contest elections?
- Whether section 21(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, in providing for the allocation of symbols by draw of lots without recognizing political parties, is violative of Article 17(2) of the Constitution?
- Is the allocation of election symbols an integral part of the electoral process for political parties and candidates?
- How does statutory inconsistency between the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977 regarding party symbols resolve?
- Mrs. B.S. Khan vs Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd.1989 SCMR 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examines whether an exemption notification issued under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, ousts the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in a dispute between a lessee of land belonging to the Karachi Port Trust and a sub-lessee. The appellant, a lessee of the Karachi Port Trust, filed an ejectment application against its sub-lessee, the respondent, under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on merits, while the High Court held that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction because the premises belonged to the Karachi Port Trust and were exempted under the notification. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding that an exemption under section 3 of the Ordinance attaches to the immovable property itself in rem and immunizes the premises from the operation of the rent law, regardless of the intermediate leasehold relationship between the lessee and sub-lessee. Consequently, the property remained exempt and the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Questions settled- Does an exemption notification issued under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, exempt the property in rem so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in disputes between a lessee and sub-lessee?
- Whether an exemption granted to premises under rent restriction laws attaches to the property itself or to the specific relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Does property vesting in the Karachi Port Trust fall within the category of premises belonging to a local authority for the purposes of statutory rent exemption?
- Mrs. Arundhati Balkrishna vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad1989 PTD 1316 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Almas Pirzada vs Messrs United Investment Company And Another1989 MLD 2755 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- MR.Mazhar Ilahi vs The Inspector General of Police and OtherK.L.R. 1989 Labour & Service 51 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Moulvi Muhammad Ishaq and anothers vs The P.O.F. Cooperative House Building Society, Wah Cantt_1989 SCMR 1052 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the management of Jamia Masjid, Lala Rukh Colony, Wah Cantt, where the respondent society sought a declaration and permanent injunction against the appellants, who were acting as Khateeb and Muntazim of the mosque. The trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the suit was barred by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, specifically regarding the necessity of obtaining the Advocate-General's consent for suits concerning public religious trusts or Waqf properties. The Supreme Court held that the mosque, constructed on state land via public donations, constituted a Waqf property subject to the requirements of Section 92. Consequently, the suit was deemed incompetent ab initio due to the respondent's failure to secure the mandatory consent of the Advocate-General. The Court further established that there is no estoppel against a statute, and a suit filed without the requisite statutory permission by a party lacking locus standi must be dismissed as incompetent.
Questions settled- Does a suit concerning the management of a mosque constructed on state land via public donations require the consent of the Advocate-General under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a suit be dismissed for lack of statutory compliance under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the objection was not raised in the written statement or at the appellate stage?
- Is there an estoppel against a statute when a party lacks the legal right or locus standi to file a suit?
- Moulvi Abdul Hamid vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Moran Lal vs Jai Bhagwan1989 MLD 2529 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-23Read full judgment →
- Moosa vs Mst. Zohra Bai1989 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against an eviction order upheld by the Sind High Court. The petitioner challenged the eviction on the grounds that the respondent, while acting as the landlady, was not the legal owner of the premises, and therefore her claim of bona fide personal need was insufficient to justify eviction. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent's status as a landlady and daughter of the owner provided sufficient standing for eviction. The Court held that the petitioner was precluded from challenging the respondent's ownership due to clear admissions made in his own pleadings and appeal memo. Furthermore, the Court determined that even if the respondent were not the owner, her status as the daughter of the owner constituted a valid ground for establishing personal need for the premises. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments, affirmed the High Court's decision, and refused leave to appeal, establishing that a tenant's prior admission of ownership in pleadings binds them, and a landlord's family member's need can support eviction.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the ownership of a landlord after admitting to such ownership in their written statement and appeal?
- Does the bona fide personal need of a landlord's daughter constitute a valid ground for the eviction of a tenant?
- Is a landlord required to be the absolute owner of the premises to seek eviction on the grounds of personal need?
- Moorthy vs State of Tamil Nadu1989 MLD 1789 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
- Molvi Abdul Aziz and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1566 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
- Mokha And Others vs Mst. Sarwari Begum And Other1989 MLD 252 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- Moinulislam vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 1260 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
- Mohar Singh By His Legal Heir vs Devi Charan And Other1989 MLD 1908 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
- Mohan Laxman Hede vs Noor Mohamed Adam Shaikh1989 MLD 2459 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-07Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ramzan Etc. vs Abdul ShakoorK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 94 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Nawaz vs The State1989 MLD 4802 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-22Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 700 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-22Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Mumtaz Kaleem vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 568 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Khan vs SarwarK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 737 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Iqbal Khanzada Alias Iqbal Ahmad Khanzada vs The State1989 MLD 4648 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ibrahim vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 574 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-16Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Hussain vs Zahoor AhmedK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 98 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Aslam vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 749 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Aslam Khan vs The Superintendent of Police,Bannu and OtherK.L.R.1989 Labour & Service 42 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Arif Alias Dana Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 488 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ansar Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 484 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Alam vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 628 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mohabbat vs Asadullah Khan and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land in Peshawar. The appellant, a pre-emptor, claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on contiguity to the suit land. The trial court partially decreed the suit, finding contiguity only for specific Khasra numbers. The first appellate court expanded the decree, assuming that intervening 'Sailaba' (flood-irrigated) land, which lacked Khasra numbers, belonged to the adjacent owners, thereby establishing contiguity. In revision, the High Court summoned the Patwari to clarify the nature of the 'Sailaba' fields, discovering they were distinct plots with their own Khasra numbers owned by third parties, thus breaking the chain of contiguity. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the appellate court's erroneous assumption regarding the ownership of the intervening land constituted a material irregularity under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that a revisional court may, in exceptional circumstances, admit additional evidence under its inherent powers or Section 115(1)(c) to rectify jurisdictional errors and prevent grave injustice, even if the revision is not a continuation of the suit.
Questions settled- Can a High Court admit additional evidence while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the erroneous assumption of facts by an appellate court regarding land ownership constitute a material irregularity justifying interference in revision?
- Can a pre-emptor claim a superior right of pre-emption based on contiguity if intervening land owned by third parties breaks the physical connection?
- Does the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow a court to admit evidence for clarification in the interest of justice?
- Mohabat Ali vs Balanda and 7 others1989 PLD Revenue 9 · Board of Revenue · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
- Moambar vs Additional Secretary Home for Government of N.-W.F.P. and 4 others1989 PLD Peshawar 211 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mistri Abdul Majid vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and 41989 SCMR 1317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of a constitutional petition on the ground of laches. The petitioner, a claimant displaced person, sought the eviction of unauthorized occupants and applied for the transfer of the property in 1959 via a C.H. Form, showing his possession from 30-6-1959. The property was instead transferred to another occupant, and the petitioner's departmental appeal was dismissed in 1962. Although the petitioner claimed he filed a revision petition, he was informed in 1975 that no such revision was pending, yet he continued agitating before the department before eventually filing a constitutional petition. The core legal question concerned whether the constitutional petition was rightly dismissed on the ground of laches and whether any undisposed matter warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that given the petitioner's admitted lack of possession since 1959 and his knowledge since 1975 that no revision was pending, the petition lacked merit and was barred by laches. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed on the ground of laches when the petitioner delays approaching the court after being informed that no revision petition is pending?
- Does a claimant displaced person acquire a right to transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. 1 if they are not in possession of the property?
- Miss Nilouffar J. Marker vs The Income-Tax Officer, Circle D-1, Karachi1989 PTD 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
- Miss Beatrice Ben vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 435 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
- Miss Akhtar Roseline vs Chief Engineer, Telecommunications, WAPDA, Lahore and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 380 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Miss Abida Shabqadar vs Selection Committee through Principal, B.M.C. Quetta and others1989 SCMR 1585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petitions regarding medical college admissions. The core legal question was whether a selection committee could re-agitate and reject the domicile eligibility of candidates after a prior High Court consent order had conclusively resolved their eligibility status and directed their consideration on academic merits in a subsequent session. The Supreme Court held that the consent order passed in the earlier round of litigation had definitively settled the issue of the appellants' eligibility and domicile in their favour. By interpreting 'merits' as academic qualifications for the subsequent session, the court held that the selection committee lacked legal authority to re-open settled questions of domicile when domicile certificates remained valid and uncancelled. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed both appeals, set aside the impugned High Court judgment, and ordered that the appellants' claims be given effect.
Questions settled- Can a selection committee re-examine a candidate's domicile eligibility after a High Court consent order has already settled it?
- Does a High Court consent order directing consideration of candidates on merits preclude authorities from reopening their eligibility status?
- Is the refusal of admission based on settled eligibility grounds valid when the underlying domicile certificate remains uncancelled?
- Misri Khan and 4 others vs Muhammad Ilyas and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 307 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Miskeen Ali And 5 Others vs Sultan Ahmad And Other1989 CLC 1207 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →