Latest 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. 232594 judgments in total.

• Mst. TAJ MAI vs THE S.H.O. and another-1987 P Cr. L J 939 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. TAJ BIBI And Another vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR And 6 Other1987 SCMR 1851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14
  revisional jurisdictionfindings of factsuit for possessionoathconcurrent findingscivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court passed in its revisional jurisdiction, concerning a suit for possession of disputed houses. The respondent No. 1 filed the suit against the appellants, which was initially decreed by the Qazi, Turbat, based on an oath taken by the plaintiffs' attorney at the appellants' request. The appellants unsuccessfully appealed to the Majlis-e-Shoora, which maintained the decree. Subsequently, the respondents filed a revision application in the High Court, which affirmed the lower courts' findings. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction by refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership of the land underneath the disputed houses. The Supreme Court held that the suit was decreed based on the preponderance of evidence and that the appellants failed to frame or request issues regarding their ownership of the land. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that findings of fact recorded by lower courts are not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction where no legal error is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Is a decree based on an oath taken at the request of the parties valid?
  • Does the failure to frame an issue regarding ownership preclude a party from challenging a decree on that ground?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SULTAN JEHAN vs ISLAMIC ESTATE AND BUILDERS LIMITED1987 MLD 2329 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1987 CLC 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD ALI1987 MLD 925 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM and 10 others vs AFTAB AHMED1987 PLD Karachi 524 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM And 10 Other vs AFTAB AHMED1987 PLD Karachi 524 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. SIDDIQA And Others vs THESETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), MULTAN And Another1987 SCMR 431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-28
  clarification of ordermistake in judgmentproperty in disputesupreme court orderscope of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application seeking clarification of a previous order of the Supreme Court dated 12-10-1983, specifically addressing whether Khasra No. 408 was part of the land in dispute alongside Khasra Nos. 409 and 410. The core legal question concerns the accurate reflection of the property in dispute and the scope of the Supreme Court's order upholding the High Court's judgment. The Court held that since its earlier order merely maintained the High Court's order dated 31-3-1980 without intending to add or subtract anything, the High Court's order and the factual recital therein—which referenced only Khasra Nos. 409 and 410—rule the field. The key principle laid down is that an order of the Supreme Court upholding a High Court decision carries no intention to alter the underlying factual matrix or property descriptions established by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of the Supreme Court upholding a High Court judgment alters the factual recital of properties in dispute established by the High Court?
  • Can a party seek clarification of an appellate court order to rectify a perceived mistaken inclusion of a property number?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHER BANO DAD and another vs KASIM1987 MLD 2352 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHER BANO and 4 others vs UMER and 2 others1987 CLC 1720 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHEEMA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 509 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAUKAT PARVEEN vs EIZAZ MAHBOOB And Others1987 P Cr. L J 698 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMSHADI BEGUM vs Mst. HABIB JAHAN ZUBERI1987 MLD 473 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMROZ BEGUM and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ and OTHERS1987 PLD Peshawar 100 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMROZ BEGUM And 2 Other vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ And Other1987 PLD Peshawar 100 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMMO MAI vs The STATE1987 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08
  post-arrest bailabsconding co-accusedZina Ordinancebail adjudicationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's rejection of a bail application filed by Mst. Shammo Mai, who was accused alongside an absconding co-accused, Shana, of committing offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner's release would merely facilitate the absconding co-accused's attempt to secure bail. The Supreme Court rejected the State's apprehension, holding that any future bail application by the absconding co-accused would be adjudicated on its own merits, specifically accounting for the factor of his abscondence. Finding the case appropriate for relief, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Multan. The judgment affirms that the bail of one accused does not automatically entitle an absconding co-accused to similar relief, as the latter's conduct remains a relevant consideration for the court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail to one accused automatically entitle an absconding co-accused to bail?
  • Should a court consider the abscondence of a co-accused when deciding a bail application for another accused?
  • Is the potential for a co-accused to seek bail a valid ground for denying bail to an arrested accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMIM BEGUM vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others1987 CLC 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMIM AKIITAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1947 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2484 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMI BAI vs AJMIRI KHAN1987 CLC 868 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAKILA BEGUM vs ABDUL GHANI And Other1987 SCMR 1337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10
  land allotmentMukhbari applicationnecessary partywrit jurisdictiondiscretionary jurisdictionremandevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a dispute over the allotment of land in village Durgahpur, Gujranwala, which was initially cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner following a Mukhbari application alleging that the original allottee, Muhammad Siddique, had obtained the land through bogus units. The original allottee's successor-in-interest, Abdul Ghani, challenged this cancellation via a writ petition, which the Lahore High Court accepted, granting him possession of half the land. Mst. Shakila Begum, who had purchased the land from the Mukhbari applicant, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that she was a necessary party who had been intentionally excluded from the writ proceedings and that the writ petition suffered from laches and res judicata. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was indeed a necessary party with a vital interest in the subject matter. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction because the merits of the case had not been properly raised before the Settlement authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case to the notified officer for a fresh hearing after ensuring the petitioner is heard.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person who has purchased land from a Mukhbari applicant a necessary party in writ proceedings challenging the cancellation of the original allotment?
  • Can a High Court exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction when the merits of the case were not previously raised before the relevant Settlement authority?
  • Does the failure to implead a necessary party in a writ petition warrant setting aside the impugned judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAHNAZ BIBI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2500 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAHER BANO and another vs Syed ZULFIQAR ALI and another1987 MLD 2363 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAH SULTANA And Others vs ABDUL KHALIQ And Another1987 SCMR 1791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12
  suit for possessionlimitationadverse possessiondispossessionrevenue recordmutationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the Baluchistan High Court, which affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for possession as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs' suit for possession based on title and alleged dispossession was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1908, and whether the courts below erred in relying on revenue records regarding the respondents' long-standing possession since 1953. The Supreme Court held that where a plaintiff brings a suit for possession on the ground of dispossession or discontinuance of possession, the limitation is governed by Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908, requiring the plaintiff to prove dispossession within twelve years preceding the suit, failing which the suit must be dismissed as time-barred without requiring the defendant to establish adverse possession. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a suit for possession based on dispossession or discontinuance of possession?
  • Does a plaintiff in a suit for possession based on dispossession need to prove dispossession within 12 years preceding the suit?
  • Is it necessary for a defendant to establish adverse possession when the plaintiff fails to prove dispossession within the statutory limitation period?
  • Can revenue records and mutation entries be relied upon as collateral evidence to establish the duration of a party's possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAH JEHAN BEGUM vs RENT CONTROLLER, KARACHI, WEST and another1987 CLC 971 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAFIQ FATIMA vs RAIS HASSAN SIDDIQUI1987 CLC 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHABAB AKHTAR vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT, FAISALABAD and another1987 MLD 367 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. SARA BAI vs Messrs ANIS CORPORATION1987 MLD 49(2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAMEENA NAZ vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. SALMA JAVAID and 3 others vs S.M. ARSHAD and 7 others1987 CLC 697 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. SALMA BIBI- vs Mst. JAN and another1987 PLD Lahore 553 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. SALMA BIBI vs Mst. JAN And Another1987 PLD Lahore 553 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. SALIMA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD KHAN and OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 383 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. SALIMA BIB I vs MUHAMMAD KHAN And Other1987 PLD Lahore 383 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAKINA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and 2 others1987 CLC 2356 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1987 CLC 1999 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAKINA BIBI Alias LAL Bibiand Others vs SARDAR ALI And Other1987 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-09
  displaced personsland settlementP.I. Unitsrehabilitation schemeconstitutional petitionmortgagee units
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court setting aside a Settlement Commissioner's order and restoring that of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question involves the proper construction and scope of a previous High Court order concerning the land entitlement of displaced persons under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, specifically regarding whether the exclusion of certain mortgagee units precluded the subsequent adjustment of land for inferior soil quality under the applicable rehabilitation scheme. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's earlier order did not bar the application of provisions allowing adjustments for inferior soil quality. The key principle laid down is that the withdrawal of specific units in earlier proceedings does not inherently restrict the application of separate statutory or schematic provisions meant to address soil quality adjustments during final land settlements.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous High Court order excluding certain mortgagee units under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 preclude subsequent adjustments for inferior soil quality under the Rehabilitation Scheme?
  • Whether the Settlement Commissioner properly construed the scope of the earlier High Court decision regarding land entitlements?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAKINA BAI vs BALUCHISTAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.1987 SCMR 1858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-21
  rent restrictionejectmentdefault in payment of rentappellate procedureright of rebuttalnatural justiceremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had set aside an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent bank. The appellant landlord had sought eviction on grounds of personal bona fide requirement, material damage to the property, and default in rent payment. While the Rent Controller ordered eviction based solely on the default issue, the High Court reversed this decision on appeal, relying on fresh evidence regarding ledger entries in the bank's account books to prove payment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in relying on new evidence at the appellate stage without providing the appellant an opportunity to rebut it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on evidence without allowing the appellant to challenge it violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case, directing that the appellant be afforded a fair opportunity to rebut the evidence considered at the appellate stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court rely on fresh evidence without affording the opposing party an opportunity to rebut it?
  • Is a landlord entitled to an opportunity to rebut evidence introduced for the first time during an appeal in rent restriction proceedings?
  • Does the failure to provide an opportunity for rebuttal of new evidence at the appellate stage warrant a remand of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAKINA and others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others1987 CLC 1015 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAIRA BIBI vs ALLAH BAKHSH And 5 Others1987 P Cr. L J 1943 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAHIB BIBI vs GUARDIAN JUDGE, JHANG and 2 others1987 CLC 807 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAEEDAH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 676 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAEEDA BEG UM And Others vs NAZIR AHMAD1987 SCMR 806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-15
  displaced personsland allotmentrevisional jurisdictioncondonation of delaywrit jurisdictionlimitationrehabilitation settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal concerns a dispute over the allotment of land to displaced persons. The petitioners, displaced persons from India, were initially allotted land in District Sahiwal, which was later withdrawn and re-allotted to the respondent. Following a revision petition, the Additional Rehabilitation/Settlement Commissioner restored the land to the petitioners, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's allotment. The respondent subsequently appealed this cancellation to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who condoned the delay and allowed the appeal. The Settlement Commissioner later set aside this order, citing limitation issues, but the High Court restored the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's decision, favoring the respondent on grounds of equity and procedural fairness. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the contentions raised by the petitioners—specifically regarding the Settlement Commissioner's competence to reverse the condonation of delay and the propriety of the High Court's interference in writ jurisdiction—warranted further consideration. The Court held that the legal questions concerning the limitation period and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction required a detailed examination on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Settlement Commissioner competent to reverse a decision of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the condonation of delay?
  • Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction interfere with an order of a Settlement Commissioner regarding the condonation of delay?
  • Does an allotment of land made subject to the outcome of a pending revision petition become final if not specifically challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SADRUN NISA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 162 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. SADIQAN And Others vs Messrs MULTAN SILK RAYON MILLS And Other1987 SCMR 1689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee propertycompensation poolindustrial area schemeallotmentlocus standiland acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants against the concurrent orders of the settlement authorities. The core legal questions involve whether the disputed land formed part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, given the prior approval of the Central Government for its acquisition under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, and whether the appellants possessed the necessary locus standi to challenge the respondent's allotment without establishing a valid competing title. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Central Government's prior sanction under section 12(3)(b) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, validly excepted the land from the compensation pool under the notification issued pursuant to section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, regardless of whether acquisition proceedings were fully completed. The key legal principle laid down is that a party challenging an existing allotment and possession must first establish their own valid title and locus standi through an allotment that legally forms part of the compensation pool, failing which they cannot question the legality of the rival claimant's title or possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evacuee land sanctioned for acquisition by the Central Government prior to the notification under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 forms part of the compensation pool?
  • Can a party challenge the title and possession of an allottee without first establishing their own valid locus standi and subsisting title to the disputed land?
  • Does the completion of acquisition proceedings condition the validity of an approval for acquisition accorded under section 12(3)(b) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SADIA JABEEN vs MUHAMMAD KHALID SIDDIQUI1987 PLD Karachi 652 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. S H A RIF A N vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others1987 CLC 918 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. RUKHSANA BEGUM vs DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI (EAST) and others1987 MLD 2425 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. ROSHAN HABIB vs HAJI USMAN through its 11 Legal Representatives1987 CLC 1484 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. ROSHAN ARA vs SAEED AHMED1987 MLD 2978 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. RESHAM BIBI and others vs Mst. ILLAHI SAIN and others1987 MLD 67 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. REHMI and others vs S.H.O., BASIRPUR and others1987 MLD 1682 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. REHMATE and 7 others vs Mst.SAKINA BIBI1987 MLD 2882 · Board of Revenue · 1982-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. REHMAT BIBI vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-03
  second appealquestion of factmutationappellate interferencereappraisal of evidencecustomary law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the findings of the Additional District Judge regarding a disputed question of fact: whether the petitioner was married in 1936. The trial court had initially affirmed the marriage, but the Additional District Judge reversed this finding. Upon second appeal, the High Court reappraised the evidence, overturned the appellate court's decision, and restored the trial court's original finding. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the authority to reverse a finding of fact during a second appeal. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court generally cannot interfere with factual findings in second appeals, it is competent to do so when the lower appellate court has failed to give due weight to critical evidence, such as a mutation record, or has ignored significant circumstances bearing on the issue. In this case, the petitioner's failure to challenge a 1936 mutation for twenty-five years justified the High Court's intervention. The petition was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact in a second appeal?
  • Under what circumstances is a High Court justified in reversing a finding of fact made by an appellate court in a second appeal?
  • Does the failure to challenge a mutation for a significant period of time constitute a relevant circumstance for determining a disputed fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. REHMAT BAI (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Messrs ABID and others1987 MLD 2818 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. RAZIA KHATOON vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF1987 MLD 2486 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. RAZIA KHATOON vs Mst. AMNA KHATOON and others1987 CLC 798 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. RAZIA GHAFOOR vs Messrs EASTERN GENERAL and others1987 CLC 777 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. RASUL BIB I vs Mst. REHMAT BIBI1987 SCMR 2036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-21
  limitationsecond appealcause of actiontime-barred suitpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court, which allowed a second appeal filed by the respondent on the ground of limitation. The core legal question addressed is whether the petitioner's suit was barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, having been filed approximately 19 years after the cause of action accrued. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court was unexceptionable and squarely covered by precedent, affirming that the suit was indeed time-barred. The key principle laid down is that a suit governed by a six-year limitation period cannot be maintained nearly two decades after the accrual of the cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit filed nineteen years after the accrual of the cause of action is barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a second appeal be validly decided on the sole ground of limitation when the suit is filed beyond the prescribed statutory period?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. RASHEEDA BEGUM vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 279 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. RAHEELA KAUSAR and anothers vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/1987 CLC 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. RAEESA vs JUMA1987 MLD 660 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. RABIA BIB I vs GHULAM QADIR And Another1987 SCMR 1550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-16
  second appealfictitious salefraudulent saleconcurrent findingscivil suitpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking to set aside a sale transaction on the allegations of it being fictitious and fraudulent. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, but the first appellate court, the Additional District Judge, reversed this decision and dismissed the suit. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal after re-examining the evidence and affirming the findings of the lower appellate court. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the concurrent findings of fact. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent factual findings of the courts below regarding the validity of the sale warranted interference in second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal or factual infirmity in the judgments of the High Court and the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact affirmed in second appeal will not be disturbed by the apex court unless shown to suffer from material defect or legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate court and the High Court can be interfered with when no legal infirmity is shown?
  • Can a sale transaction be avoided on the ground of being fictitious and tainted with fraud without establishing the same through sufficient evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. RABIA BEGUM and 7 others vs ABDUL LATIF and 2 others1987 CLC 412 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. RABIA BAI FATMA BAI vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD DONAL1987 CLC 404 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. QAISER JEHAN BEGUM vs ALLAH RAKKAH1987 CLC 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. PHOOL BANO vs Mrs KHALIDA YASIN and another1987 MLD 659 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. PARVEEN JAN vs ABDUL WAHEED And Another1987 P Cr. L J 273 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. NUZHAT FAHMIDA vs TARIQ IJAZ MIRZA1987 PLD Lahore 461 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. NUSRAT BEVI vs YAR MUHAMMAD1987 CLC 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. NOOR JEHAN BEGUM vs Dr. ABDUS SAMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10
  locus standiaggrieved personevacuee trust propertyPermanent Transfer Deedwrit petitionpublic auctionsettlement scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal arose from the judgment of the High Court of Sind allowing a writ petition that set aside the Central Government and Evacuee Trust Property Board's sale sanction in favour of the appellant. The property had been transferred to the appellant via a Permanent Transfer Deed after the first respondent's (a local occupant) claim was rejected. When the property was subsequently treated as evacuee trust property, the Central Government sanctioned its sale to the appellant, following which the first respondent filed a constitutional petition to challenge the transfer. The Supreme Court held that the first respondent lacked locus standi to invoke constitutional writ jurisdiction. Being merely an occupant or tenant who had exhausted his entitlement claims and possessed no right of acquisition, he was not an 'aggrieved person'. The court laid down that a mere expectation to bid at a hypothetical public auction does not confer a vested right or legal injury sufficient to maintain a writ petition against an allotment or transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Does an occupant or tenant of an evacuee trust property possess locus standi as an 'aggrieved person' to challenge its transfer to another party under constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Can a potential bidder's mere expectation to participate in a hypothetical future public auction confer locus standi to maintain a writ petition?
  • Whether the exhaustion and rejection of an occupant's claim to evacuee property deprives them of any legally enforceable right or standing to dispute a subsequent transfer to a valid transferee?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. NOOR BIBI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. NOOR BIBI vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS1987 MLD 193 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. NOOR BANOO and others vs ASGHAR SHAH and others1987 MLD 257 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. NOOK SAFIA vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, F.I.A. COMMERCIAL BANK CIRCLE, LAHORE1987 P C r. L J 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. NIAZAN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIRUZ ZAMAN and another1987 CLC 922 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAZIRAN BIBI vs PIRAN DITTA1987 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-09
  venue of trialdissolution of marriagefamily courttransfer of suitsurety bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon leave granted to consider whether the venue of a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the appellant-wife against the respondent-husband should be transferred from Khanpur, District Rahimyar Khan to Lahore. The core legal question concerns the appropriate venue for trial taking into account the convenience and safety of the parties. The Supreme Court held that the suit should be heard at Rahimyar Khan, where the appellant's parents reside, rather than Lahore where she was temporarily residing without sufficient justification. The Court laid down the principle that while addressing concerns regarding the safety and apprehension of physical harm raised by a female litigant, appropriate security arrangements such as furnishing surety bonds may be ordered to allay fears, while ensuring the venue of trial is determined in the overall interest of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for dissolution of marriage can be transferred from one city to another on the ground of the wife's temporary residence?
  • Can the Supreme Court direct a party to furnish a surety bond to assure the safety of the opposing spouse in family proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAZIR BEGUM And Others vs KHAN MUQARRAB KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-28
  evacuee propertypermanent transfer documentfunctus officiolimitation periodresumption of propertysettlement authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over the ownership of evacuee property, specifically a shop in Eminabad, which was originally auctioned to respondent Abdul Hamid Khan. Following his failure to pay the balance of the sale price, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner resumed the property and subsequently transferred it to Feroz Din, issuing a Permanent Transfer Document (P.T.D.). Years later, the respondent filed a time-barred appeal against the resumption order, which the Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed, claiming the respondent had deposited a Compensation Book. The appellants challenged this in the High Court, which dismissed their petition, holding the initial resumption order void. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its assessment. The Court reaffirmed the principle that once a P.T.D. is issued, Settlement authorities become functus officio and lack jurisdiction to interfere. Furthermore, the Court found the Additional Settlement Commissioner’s order allowing a time-barred appeal without proper examination of limitation was legally flawed. The case was remanded to the notified officer to determine the validity of the limitation period and the existence of the Compensation Book.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Document render the Settlement authorities functus officio?
  • Can a Settlement authority interfere with a property transfer after a Permanent Transfer Document has been issued?
  • Is an order allowing a time-barred appeal without examining the question of limitation legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAZ BIBI vs Mst. ROZ KHATOON1987 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAYYAR BANO vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF SETTLEMENT1987 MLD 481 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAWAB BIBI And Another vs Major (Rtd.) IRSHAD MUHAMMAD KHAN1987 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17
  specific performanceagreement to sellequitable reliefconcurrent findingsforged receiptleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the successors-in-interest of a deceased purchaser against concurrent judgments of the lower courts and the High Court, which dismissed their suit for the specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The core legal question concerned whether the courts were justified in refusing specific performance where the plaintiffs failed to prove a substantial part-payment of the consideration, relied on a forged receipt, and persistently refused to pay the full price of the land throughout the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly refused the equitable relief of specific performance because the plaintiffs did not come to court with clean hands, failed to offer the full consideration during the protracted litigation, and fabricated a receipt. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking the equitable relief of specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to pay the full consideration and approach the court with clean hands, and appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent factual findings regarding forged receipts and non-payment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff who relies on a forged receipt for part-payment is entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance?
  • Can a court grant specific performance of an agreement to sell when the plaintiffs consistently refuse to pay the full agreed consideration?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the non-payment of a disputed sum?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAUSHABAH TABASSAM vs GHULAM MADNI SHAH1987 P Cr. L J 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-15
  custody of minorsillegal detentionhabeas corpusfamily court jurisdictionminor's welfare
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the recovery and custody of two minor daughters, Kiran Hashmi and Nida Hashmi, allegedly detained illegally by their father, Ghulam Madni Shah. The petitioner, the mother, contended that the respondent had forcibly removed the minors from her custody while she was incapacitated following childbirth, after having previously expelled her from the marital home. The core legal question was whether the summary procedure under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, could be invoked to restore the custody of minors to the mother when the father had removed them without lawful authority. The Court held that, prima facie, the respondent had not obtained custody of the children in a lawful manner. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate restoration of the minors' custody to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that while the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Section 491 to recover minors from illegal detention, such an order is interim and does not preclude parties from seeking a final determination of custody rights before a competent Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of minors to a parent?
  • Does an order for the recovery of minors under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude parties from seeking custody through a Family Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAUSHABA vs Dr. NASIM And Other1987 SCMR 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-13
  guardianshipcustody of minorvisitation rightsinterim custodyconstitutional petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed her Constitutional Petition arising from a guardianship matter. The core legal question concerned the interim custody and visitation rights of a minor suckling child, specifically the father's right to temporary custody under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Supreme Court heard the parties and found no ground to interfere with the lower appellate court's order regarding temporary custody. However, by consent of the parties, the Supreme Court modified the arrangement by imposing a condition that the paternal grandfather furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the High Court to ensure the safe return of the minor. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed subject to this condition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim custody of a minor suckling child can be granted to the father under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • Can the Supreme Court modify visitation arrangements by consent of the parties subject to the furnishing of a personal bond for the safe return of the minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAUSHABA KHANUM and 2 others vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 5 others1987 MLD 268 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. NASREEN AKHTER vs MUHAMMAD AZIM And Others1987 P Cr. L J 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. NASIM AKHTAR and 2 others vs THE STATE and 2 others1987 MLD 1187 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. NASEEM BEGUM vs THE DIRECTORGENERAL EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB LAHORE and others1987 CLC 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. NASEEM BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another1987 MLD 3310 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. NASEEBAN and others vs MAQBOOL AHMAD1987 PLD Lahore 654 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. NASEEBAN And Other vs MAQBOOL AHMAD1987 PLD Lahore 654 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. NARGIS and another vs ABDUR RAZ AK and another1987 CLC 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAILA KAUKAB vs Dr. MUHAMMAD IRTAZA1987 CLC 2408 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAGHMA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1987 CLC 827 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. MUSHARAF JAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. and 17 others1987 CLC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. MUNAWAR ZATOON vs NISAR AHMAD1987 CLC 658 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. MUMTAZ BIBI vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS and others1987 CLC 2323 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. MUKHTIARAN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3083 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. MUKHTARAN BIBI vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 586 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. MEHR BHARI and 6 others vs Mst. BRAG BHARI and 2 others1987 CLC 1588 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. MEHMOODA BEGUM vs NAZIR KHAN and 11 others1987 CLC 1688 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →