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. 232594 judgments in total.
- Mst. MARYAM And Others vs NIAZI And Other1987 SCMR 1497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' revision petition arising from a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns whether the lower appellate court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to admit additional evidence, specifically a pedigree table, after the suit had remained pending for decades without the document being produced, and whether a ground of co-ownership expressly given up in the lower appellate court could be resurrected. The Supreme Court held that the refusal to receive the pedigree table into evidence without any acceptable explanation for the delay was unexceptionable, and that a plea expressly abandoned before the appellate court cannot be re-agitated. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that parties cannot introduce belated evidence without sufficient cause and are bound by concessions made during appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is justified in refusing to admit additional evidence when a party fails to provide any acceptable explanation for not producing it during the trial?
- Can a party resurrect a ground of co-ownership in a pre-emption suit after it was expressly given up before the first appellate court?
- Does the refusal of the lower appellate and high courts to accept belated evidence in a pre-emption suit warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Mst. MALIK BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD NASIM1987 CLC 356 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAJIDA BEGUM vs Sh. ZULFIQAR ALI and another1987 CLC 309 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAJIDA BEGUM vs Sh. ZALFIQAR ALI AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 45 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAHTAB ELAHI vs GHULAM RASOOL1987 CLC 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAHMOODA KHATOON vs MUHAMMAD MANZOOR and others1987 MLD 534 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. LALI vs MUHAMMAD RAHIM and another1987 MLD 2563 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. LALAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. KULSUM BAI vs ZARI BA11987 CLC 1738 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. KISHWAR vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE And Other1987 SCMR 878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a property dispute originating in settlement operations, where property was initially transferred as an indivisible unit. Following protracted litigation, a Division Bench of the High Court determined the property was divisible and awarded a specific portion to the original non-claimant occupant. The petitioner, who purchased the property from a respondent during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal, challenged the High Court's order, arguing she was denied an opportunity to be heard and that the property was not the subject matter of the dispute. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner, having acquired the property lis pendens without seeking to be impleaded, could not claim a violation of natural justice. The Court reasoned that her predecessor-in-interest had been duly represented and heard during the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the property in question was indeed the subject matter of the appeal. The judgment establishes that a purchaser of property during pending litigation who fails to join the proceedings cannot subsequently challenge the outcome on grounds of being unheard.
Questions settled- Can a purchaser of property during pending litigation claim a denial of natural justice for not being heard if they failed to apply to be impleaded?
- Is a purchaser of property bound by the proceedings conducted against their predecessor-in-interest when the purchase occurred during the pendency of the litigation?
- Does the failure to implead oneself in pending litigation preclude a subsequent purchaser from challenging the judgment on the basis of lack of notice?
- Mst. KISHWAR vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And 4 Other1987 SCMR 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of a composite property originally in the possession of two displaced persons, Muhammad Ismail and Kalu Khan. The settlement authorities transferred the entire property to Muhammad Ismail, holding it indivisible, and subsequently transferred a portion to Rao Muzaffar A.I Khan pursuant to an association agreement. Kalu Khan challenged the rejection of his claim before the High Court. A Division Bench held the property divisible and directed a redistribution of both portions. The petitioner, who subsequently purchased the portion originally transferred to Muhammad Ismail, contended that the High Court erred by adjudicating upon a portion of the property that was not the subject-matter of the dispute before it. The Supreme Court found merit in the contention, noting that the petitioner's portion was never challenged by Kalu Khan, and consequently reviewed its earlier order, granted leave to appeal, and ordered status quo to be maintained.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can make an order with regard to a portion of property that was not the subject-matter of the dispute before it?
- Can the Supreme Court review its earlier order upon discovering an erroneous assumption regarding a party's succession-in-interest?
- Mst. KISHWAR BIBI vs MUKHTAR AHMAD1987 CLC 744 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 174 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID BIBI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another1987 CLC 242 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID BIBI vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1987 SCMR 1545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed against the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts and the refusal of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the same. The core legal question for consideration was whether the area of the portion of the house sold by the petitioner to the respondent through a sale deed dated 8-8-1970 was less than the area actually recited in the said sale deed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's counsel failed to demonstrate any legal or factual infirmity in the concurrent findings reached by the trial Court and the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of any established infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether the area of the portion sold under a sale deed was less than what was recited in the deed?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact that show no infirmity?
- Will revisional jurisdiction be exercised to overturn concurrent factual findings without proof of error?
- Mst. KHURSHID BIBI vs MUHAMMAD BIBI And Other1987 SCMR 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision against a decree in favour of the respondents. The respondent had challenged a sale of her land executed by her mother in favour of the petitioner based on a general power of attorney. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed it, holding that the power of attorney was executed solely to pursue litigation and did not authorize the sale of land, finding that the entry regarding sale was fraudulently inserted. The High Court affirmed these concurrent findings. The core legal question concerns the validity of the concurrent findings of fact regarding the scope and fraudulent alteration of the power of attorney. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings suffered from no legal infirmity or violation of principle, and thus declined to interfere. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they suffer from a legal infirmity or violate established principles.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the scope of a power of attorney?
- Can a power of attorney executed for a specific purpose like pursuing litigation be used to sell property when the authorization entry was fraudulently inserted?
- Mst. KHURSHID BIBI vs Mst. KALSOOM BIBI and another1987 MLD 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHATOON vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 2042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, the mother of the deceased, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of murder charges under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had initially convicted the respondents, but the High Court overturned this, citing deep-rooted enmity between the complainant's family and the accused, and the lack of independent corroboration for the prosecution's evidence. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in requiring independent corroboration when the prosecution witnesses were found to be highly inimical and interested. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, holding that when prosecution evidence is tainted by deep-rooted enmity and interest, the court is justified in seeking independent corroboration. The Court found that the High Court correctly applied established principles of criminal justice by rejecting evidence tainted by the same infirmities as the ocular testimony and by finding that prompt FIR and medical evidence alone did not provide sufficient corroboration. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Is a court justified in requiring independent corroboration when prosecution witnesses are found to be highly inimical and interested?
- Can prompt FIR and medical evidence alone serve as sufficient corroboration in a murder case involving deep-rooted enmity?
- Does the recovery of weapons from an accused constitute sufficient corroboration if the recovery witnesses themselves are inimical to the accused?
- Mst. KHATOON BEGUM vs Mst. BARKATUNNISA BEGUM AND 6 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHATOON BEGUM vs Mst. BARKATUNNISA BEGUM AND 6 Other1987 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHATIJA BEGUM and 4 others vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1987 PLD Karachi 567 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHATIJA BEGUM And 4 Other vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1987 PLD Karachi 567 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHAIRUNNISSA vs Kazi MUHAMMAD LATIF (deceased)1987 CLC 1808(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHAIRUNNISA And Others vs ABDULLAH1987 SCMR 1634 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which upheld an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller against the petitioners on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could be held liable for default in the absence of a formal demand for rent by the respondent, particularly given the change in ownership of the property. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not absolved of their obligation to pay rent. The Court observed that the petitioners had admitted the rate of rent in their written statement and had expressed willingness to pay in response to a notice, yet failed to tender any rent to the respondent or deposit it in court until the ejectment proceedings commenced. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that a tenant cannot evade the obligation to pay rent solely on the basis of a lack of formal demand when the tenant is aware of the change in ownership and the rent liability.
Questions settled- Can a tenant claim immunity from default in rent payment on the ground that no formal demand was made by the new landlord?
- Does the failure to tender rent or deposit it in court after receiving notice of a change in ownership constitute default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1954?
- Is a tenant liable for default if they admit the rate of rent in their written statement but fail to pay the landlord?
- Mst. KHAIRUNNISA and 8 others vs ABDULLAH1987 MLD 451 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHAIRAN vs FAMILY JUDGE and others1987 CLC 958 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. KARAM Bibiand Another vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 166 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. KANIZ MAI vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Another1987 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition arising from a matrimonial dispute. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of a civil court to set aside an ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage passed by a Family Court, particularly in light of prior precedents. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the civil court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to declare the family court's ex parte decree a nullity on the grounds of fraud, instead of the aggrieved party seeking relief directly from the Family Court under the applicable rules. The Court held that the case raises substantial questions regarding the jurisdictional bounds between civil courts and Family Courts, and accordingly granted leave to appeal to review the matter further based on established case law.
Questions settled- Can a civil court set aside an ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage passed by a Family Court?
- Whether an aggrieved party must seek the reversal of an ex parte decree directly from the Family Court instead of filing a separate suit in a civil court?
- Mst. KANIZ FATIMA And Another vs MUHAMMAD ALI And Another1987 PLC 834 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. JH A N DI vs Syed BAQIR ALI RIZVI and another1987 CLC 459 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a dispute over property ownership where the petitioner purchased a house from the respondent during the pendency of a suit for specific performance filed by another respondent. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies to a suit for specific performance, rendering the subsequent sale void against the decree-holder, and whether this principle requires the purchaser to have had notice of the pending litigation. The Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to suits for specific performance, and a transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree passed in the suit, regardless of whether they had notice of the proceedings. The Court affirmed that the principle is based on equity and the necessity of preventing the defeat of judicial outcomes through alienations during litigation. Consequently, the petitioner’s claim as a bona fide purchaser was rejected, and the decree obtained by the respondent was held binding, as the petitioner’s interest was acquired subject to the outcome of the pending suit.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell?
- Is a purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit bound by the decree passed in that suit even if they had no notice of the litigation?
- Can a transferee pendente lite claim protection as a bona fide purchaser without notice?
- Does the principle of lis pendens apply in the Punjab province despite the Transfer of Property Act not being specifically extended to it?
- Mst. JANNA T BIBI vs FEROZE DIN and others1987 MLD 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANNA T BIBI and others vs BARKAT ALI and others1987 MLD 15 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANNA T and others vs ARAB and others1987 MLD 2266 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. JAN BIBI vs Mst. ZARMINA and 3 others1987 CLC 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. IRSHAD BIBI vs THE STATE-1987 PCrLJ 1927 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM, ANWARUL HAQ vs ANWARUL HAQ And Other THE STATE1987 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-petitions for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioner, Anwarul Haq, for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing his death sentence to life imprisonment and acquitting his co-accused. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction, while the complainant, Mst. Irshad Begum, sought enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved whether the ocular testimony of related and allegedly chance witnesses required independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and whether the circumstances warranted an enhancement of the sentence. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment did not warrant interference. The Court determined that no valid grounds existed for a re-appraisal of the evidence presented during the trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions, thereby upholding the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment as determined by the High Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a compelling case for re-appraisal is established.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of related and chance witnesses in a murder case necessarily require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in a criminal appeal?
- Is a sentence of life imprisonment appropriate where the motive for murder involves a historical grievance?
- Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Other1987 SCMR 816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, owner of land acquired by the Lahore Development Authority for the Gulshan-e-Ravi Scheme, challenged the acquisition proceedings and the adequacy of compensation for her land and structure. Having accepted an exemption plot and paid the requisite development charges, the petitioner sought to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was precluded from challenging the legality of the acquisition proceedings because she had already accepted the benefit of an exemption plot and paid development charges, thereby acquiescing to the acquisition. Furthermore, regarding the compensation for the structure, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the awarded amount did not reflect the proper value. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that accepting benefits from an acquisition scheme estops a party from later challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of an exemption plot and payment of development charges estop a landowner from challenging the legality of acquisition proceedings?
- Can a petitioner challenge the adequacy of compensation for a structure without demonstrating that the awarded amount failed to represent its proper value?
- Mst. HUSSAIN BIBI And Another vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1987 SCMR 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the disposal of a property dispute involving evacuee property. The core legal question concerns whether an Additional Settlement Commissioner, who was not a designated officer under the relevant repeal legislation, possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a remanded revision petition and subsequently delegate that case to a Deputy Settlement Commissioner for de novo disposal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s previous remand order explicitly directed the Settlement Commissioner exercising powers under the Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975 to decide the matter. Consequently, the Additional Settlement Commissioner lacked the authority to further entrust or remit the case to another officer. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, directing that the revision application be disposed of strictly by the authorized officer designated under the law to handle such remanded proceedings. The key principle established is that delegated judicial or quasi-judicial authority under a remand order must be exercised strictly by the designated officer, without further unauthorized sub-delegation.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner, upon receiving a case on remand, further delegate the matter to a Deputy Settlement Commissioner?
- Does an officer not designated under the Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act 1975 have the jurisdiction to decide a remanded revision petition?
- Must a remanded case be decided strictly by the officer specified in the High Court's remand order?
- Mst. HUSNI alias HUSNA BEGUM and 2 others vs NAYYAR QAYYUM1987 CLC 2485 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a suit for possession through partition of property, wherein the plaintiff sought to prove his claim by taking an oath on the Holy Quran under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and requiring the defendants to deny the claim on a similar oath. The trial court dismissed the suit after the defendants took the counter-oath. The District Judge set aside this dismissal, holding that the statute does not provide for the dismissal of a suit as a consequence of a counter-oath, and remanded the case for trial on evidence. The defendants filed this revision. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that Article 163 does not prescribe penal consequences for a plaintiff if a defendant takes a counter-oath. The court established that an oath taken under this provision serves as evidence but does not preclude the parties from leading further evidence. Consequently, when oaths are pitched against each other, the matter remains at large, and the suit must proceed to trial on merits, as the court lacks authority to dismiss the suit based solely on the exchange of oaths.
Questions settled- Does Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, authorize the dismissal of a suit if a defendant takes a counter-oath to deny the plaintiff's claim?
- What is the legal effect of a plaintiff's oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, when countered by a defendant's oath?
- Can a court dismiss a suit solely because the parties have exchanged oaths under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
- Mst. HAWA BAI vs HAJI AHMAD and another1987 CLC 558 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order resolves an application for a temporary injunction in a suit filed by a residential plot owner against her neighbour. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from constructing a first floor on an annexe adjacent to her boundary wall, alleging infringement of her right to light, air, and privacy, and noting that the construction lacked an approved plan from the Building Control Authority. The defendant offered an undertaking to leave a 10-foot space and demolish any construction if it was ultimately found to violate easement rights. The High Court rejected the undertaking, holding that permitting unauthorized construction without an approved plan would bypass mandatory statutory requirements under Section 6 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, and create dangerous precedents. Finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience, the court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from raising the disputed first-floor construction pending final disposal of the suit.
Questions settled- Can a court permit unauthorized construction to proceed on the basis of a party's undertaking when no plan has been approved by the relevant Building Control Authority?
- Does Section 6 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance 1979 permit construction prior to obtaining an approved plan from the competent authority?
- Whether raising an unapproved construction adjacent to a neighbour's boundary wall constitutes a ground for granting a temporary injunction based on prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience?
- Mst. HASHMAT BIBI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 781 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. HASHMAT BIBI vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Alias CHOTTA And Other1987 SCMR 562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are petitions for special leave to appeal arising from protracted litigation regarding the transfer and ejectment of occupants of an evacuee building in Gujranwala. The core legal question was whether a specific disputed room occupied by Mst. Hashmat Bibi formed part of an adjacent unit previously transferred to another party or constituted an independent, undisposed-of property available for transfer under settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings of the settlement authorities—based on spot inspections and sketch maps—establishing that the disputed room was not part of the previously transferred unit, were final and should not have been interfered with lightly by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The Court established the principle that findings of fact by specialized settlement tribunals regarding the physical demarcation of property units ought to be respected by superior courts unless shown to be perverse or without lawful authority, thereby restoring the transfer of the unallocated room and setting aside the ejectment order against the occupant.
Questions settled- Whether findings of fact regarding the physical demarcation of property units by settlement authorities can be interfered with by the High Court in writ jurisdiction?
- Does a room that is not part of an earlier transfer order and lacks allocation in the property sketch constitute an available evacuee property for subsequent transfer?
- Whether an ejectment order obtained under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance can be sustained when the underlying transfer of the property is upheld in favor of the occupant?
- Mst. HAMIDA BIBI vs Mst. RASHIDA BIBI and 5 others1987 CLC 2042 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAMEEDA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the acquittal of the respondents by the Lahore High Court, which reversed their conviction and sentence for murder and murderous assault awarded by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony of an injured and interested witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a case involving longstanding enmity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court properly applied the rule of prudence requiring abundant caution and corroboration when evaluating the testimony of an interested witness amidst extreme enmity, where the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. The key principle laid down is that while an injured witness is naturally present, courts must apply caution and seek corroboration in the face of deep-seated enmity to avoid wrongful convictions.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of an injured yet interested witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction in cases of deep-seated enmity?
- Does the presence of longstanding enmity between parties require the application of the rule of prudence and abundant caution by appellate courts?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal order passed by the High Court when the appraisal of evidence is based on sound legal principles?
- Mst. HALEEMA BAI and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1987 MLD 3215 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAKUMAT BIBI vs IMAM DIN AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave raised the question of whether a court can decree a suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording any evidence when a defendant fails to file a written statement as directed. The appellant claimed she had never appointed counsel and that the suit could not be decreed solely on the basis of the verified plaint without taking evidence. The Supreme Court rejected the contention regarding unauthorized representation, holding that she had failed to seek an expert comparison of her thumb impression or take action against the counsel. On the legal question, the Court affirmed the view in Sh. Abdus Saboor & Brothers v. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., holding that under Order VIII Rule 10, the court possesses discretionary power to pronounce judgment against a defaulting party without recording evidence, provided the discretion is exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a court pronounce judgment against a defendant under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failing to file a written statement without recording any evidence?
- Does the failure of a defendant to file a written statement automatically require the recording of evidence before decreeing the suit?
- Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a judgment passed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mst. HAJRAN RHATOON And Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1987 SCMR 1153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal that was filed with a significant delay of 1419 days. The petitioners sought condonation of this delay, arguing that the time was spent pursuing an Intra-Court Appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 6-11-1982. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent Intra-Court Appeal could be excluded for the purpose of condoning delay. The Supreme Court rejected this plea, holding that the Intra-Court Appeal was incompetent because the "original order" under the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Act 1972 refers to the order initiating the proceedings, which in this case was the order of 2-1-1960. Since an appeal was competent against that original order under the relevant statute, the subsequent Intra-Court Appeal was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court held that the time spent in such incompetent proceedings could not be excused. The petition was dismissed as time-barred, affirming that mistaken legal advice or pursuing an incompetent remedy does not constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
Questions settled- What is the meaning of the expression 'original order' in the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Act 1972?
- Can time spent pursuing an incompetent Intra-Court Appeal be excluded for the purpose of condoning delay?
- Does an Intra-Court Appeal lie against an order where an appeal was already competent against the original order initiating proceedings?
- Mst. HAJIRA BI vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and another1987 MLD 2407 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAFEEZAN BIBI And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. HABIBA KASSIM and another vs Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED1987 CLC 1898 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. GULSHAN vs SYED AHMED and another1987 MLD 2087 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. GUL BAHAR alias BAHARO vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2003 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. GITI ARA and anothers vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1987 CLC 1088 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA vs Mst. INAYAT BIBI and 4 others1987 MLD 172 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA And Others vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM1987 SCMR 1339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the High Court and the Additional District Judge, which had affirmed the dismissal of their application for the restoration of a civil appeal. The appeal had been dismissed in default on 9-9-1985. The petitioners filed a restoration application on 30-9-1985, with petitioner No. 1 claiming she misheard the adjourned date as 30-9-1985 due to her age and hearing impairment. The lower courts rejected this explanation for lack of sufficient cause. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in refusing to restore the appeal dismissed in default. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the absence of sufficient cause suffered from no legal infirmity and dismissed the petition. The key principle established is that findings of fact regarding sufficient cause for non-appearance by lower courts will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless shown to be infirm.
Questions settled- Whether an elderly litigant's mistaken impression of an adjourned date due to hearing impairment constitutes sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal dismissed in default?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the lack of sufficient cause for non-appearance?
- Mst. FEROZE BANO And Another vs Mst. BILQIS JEHAN And Other1987 SCMR 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit for declaration, perpetual injunction, partition, and recovery filed by the first appellant, who had executed a registered general power of attorney in favor of the second appellant and others, which was claimed to be irrevocable and executed for consideration. During the pendency of the suit, a sixth respondent moved an application to withdraw the suit, claiming to hold a subsequent power of attorney executed in India. The trial Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn in haste on the same day without issuing notice to the plaintiff or the attorneys under the first power of attorney. The High Court dismissed the appellants' civil revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the trial Court acted with material irregularity. Applying the principles of Sections 214 and 215 of the Contract Act 1872, the Court ruled that where an agent acts in a situation of difficulty or deals on his own account (such as where the agent's mother was interested in the suit property), there is a duty to consult the principal. The Court remanded the case to the trial Court, directing it to issue notice to the principal and the first attorneys.
Questions settled- Can a trial court dismiss a suit as withdrawn on the application of a subsequent attorney without issuing notice to the plaintiff or the prior attorneys?
- What is the duty of an agent under Section 214 of the Contract Act 1872 when faced with a situation of difficulty in the business of agency?
- Does an agent's attempt to withdraw a principal's suit, which directly benefits the agent's close relative, constitute dealing on his own account under Section 215 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Another1987 P Cr. L J 838 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATTE vs HAQ NAWAZ1987 CLC 662 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA vs AHMAD KHAN ANSARI And Another1987 SCMR 1589 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a property dispute where the appellant sought a declaration of ownership based on a gift. A compromise decree was subsequently challenged by the respondent, an alleged heir, through an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging fraud. The trial court granted an interim status quo order, which was upheld by the High Court despite acknowledging that the requirements of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were not strictly met. The core legal question was whether the status quo order was sustainable when the formal requirements for a temporary injunction were not satisfied. The Supreme Court held that while the formal requirements of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 were not met, the court's exercise of discretion was justifiable under the inherent powers provided by Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The principle laid down is that courts should prioritize the substance of an application over rigid adherence to set phrases, and inherent powers may be invoked to prevent injustice where formal statutory requirements for interim relief are technically deficient.
Questions settled- Can a court grant an interim status quo order under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the requirements of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 are not strictly met?
- Should a court prioritize the substance of an application over the absence of specific set phrases when determining the grant of interim relief?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to direct a trial court to ignore specific remarks made in a prior judgment to prevent prejudice?
- Mst. FATIMA BI vs ANWAR AHMAD1987 MLD 2128 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA BAI vs MUHAMMAD ANISUDDIN KHAN GHAZNAVI1987 CLC 1771 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA and 3 others vs ABDUL JABBAR1987 MLD 321 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. FARK BANDA BEGUM vs COLLECTOR, SIALKOT DISTRICT and another1987 MLD 23 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAHMIDA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD KHALID and another1987 MLD 231 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. DAULAN vs RAB NAWAZ And Another1987 SCMR 497 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent, Rab Nawaz, by the Lahore High Court regarding a murder charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, the mother of the deceased, contended that the High Court erred in disregarding the ocular testimony of herself and a cousin. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly applied the rule of prudence in requiring independent corroboration for the sole surviving ocular witness's testimony, given the rejection of other prosecution evidence, including the recovery of the weapon and an alleged extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s appraisal of the evidence was sound. It affirmed that the testimony of the mother, while natural, required corroboration in the absence of reliable supporting evidence, particularly when the other witness was a chance witness with strained relations. The Court established that it would not interfere with an appellate court's judgment where the evidence had been properly appraised and the conclusion reached was based on a sound application of legal principles regarding the sufficiency of proof for a capital charge.
Questions settled- Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness when other prosecution evidence is discarded?
- Is the testimony of a chance witness who is also inimical to the accused reliable without independent corroboration?
- Does an appellate court's proper appraisal of evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Mst. DAULAN And Another vs NOORA And Another1987 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the alienation of agricultural land inherited under custom. The core legal questions concerned whether the suit filed by the deceased’s sisters for a declaration of ownership was barred by limitation or the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, and whether the alienation of the property by a female limited owner was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which held that the limited estate held by the petitioner terminated upon the enforcement of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, thereby invalidating the subsequent sale. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs, as co-sharers in possession, were entitled to seek a declaration, and that the suit was neither time-barred nor hit by the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' judgments, upholding the principle that limited customary estates were extinguished by the 1962 Act, precluding such alienations.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for declaration is maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act when the plaintiffs are in joint possession as co-sharers?
- Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, terminate a limited estate held under custom?
- Can a female limited owner validly alienate property after the enforcement of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
- Mst. BUSHRA FAYAZ vs ISMAIL1987 CLC 390 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. BISMILLAH JAN vs RIAZ MAHMOOD1987 MLD 438 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. BISMILLAH BEGUM vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD1987 CLC 1113 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. BHAG BHARI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3134 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. BEGUM BIBI vs ADALAT KHAN and others1987 CLC 1180 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. BEGUM BIBI And Others vs ABDUL SATTAR1987 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell Colony agricultural land. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the agreement lacked legal effect because permission from the Collector under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 had not been obtained. The High Court reversed these findings and decreed the suit. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decree and dismissed the appeal. The Court examined whether an agreement to sell Government colony land entered into prior to obtaining full proprietary rights or formal sanction violates Section 19 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that where proprietary rights have matured or where the agreement stipulates the transfer of property after proprietary rights are acquired or sanction is obtained, the agreement does not violate Section 19. Since the proprietary rights had already vested upon full payment, the statutory bar did not render the agreement void or unenforceable.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell Colony land violate Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 if proprietary rights have already matured in favour of the vendor?
- Is an agreement to sell Government land void under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 when the execution of the sale deed is postponed until proprietary rights are acquired?
- Mst. BASO and others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE III, SAHIWAL and others1987 CLC 1675 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. BASHIRAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. BASHIRAN BEGUM and 7 others vs KHURSHID ALAM and 3 others1987 CLC 2384 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. BALOB EGUM vs ABDUL SALAM1987 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by the petitioner, Mst. Balo Begum, against the respondent, Abdul Salam, under the Displaced Persons Act, alleging non-payment of rent. The respondent contested the application, claiming the petitioner had entered into a sale agreement renouncing her right to rent, and further alleged that the petitioner was not the true transferee of the property. The Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant but declined to decide it, citing the pendency of a civil suit for specific performance filed by the respondent. The Sind High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal in limine, affirming that the ownership dispute required civil court adjudication. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a Rent Controller can refuse to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant simply because a separate civil suit regarding title is pending. The Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the Rent Controller's failure to decide the preliminary issue and the potential frivolousness of the respondent's plea raised substantial questions of law requiring further consideration.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller refuse to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant solely because a civil suit regarding title is pending?
- Is a Rent Controller obligated to decide a preliminary issue framed in an ejectment application?
- Does the pendency of a suit for specific performance automatically oust the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Mst. BABRA SHAMIM vs NASA RULLAH1987 MLD 774 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. AZRA PARVEEN vs UNITED BANK Ltd.1987 MLD 474 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. AZRA BIBI vs NISAR AHMAD1987 CLC 939 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. AZIZ FATIMA vs DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 11 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an order of the District Judge, which had set aside an ex parte decree for the dissolution of marriage granted by the Family Court. The core legal question was whether an appeal lies against an order of a Family Court regarding an application to set aside an ex parte decree for the dissolution of marriage. The Court held that the District Judge acted without lawful authority in entertaining the appeal. The Court reasoned that under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, a decree for the dissolution of marriage is not appealable, regardless of whether it is ex parte or contested. The legislative intent is to exclude such matters from appellate interference. The proper remedy for an aggrieved party against an ex parte decree is to file an application for setting it aside under Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, before the trial court itself. Consequently, the District Judge’s order was declared void, and the original decree for dissolution of marriage was restored.
Questions settled- Is an appeal competent against a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by a Family Court?
- Does an appeal lie against an order of a Family Court refusing or accepting an application to set aside an ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a party seeking to set aside an ex parte decree passed by a Family Court?
- Mst. AYESHA alias AISHAN vs SHAMAS-UD-DIN and another1987 MLD 2712 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASHO And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 538 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-11-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. AQILA KHATOON vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, THAT TA and another1987 MLD 188 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. AQILA KHATOON vs ABU BAKAR KHAN1987 PLD Karachi 541 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 challenges the Rent Controller's order determining the fair rent of a shop and directing the payment of the difference along with a percentage of KMC taxes. The core legal questions concern whether Section 9(2) restricts the initial determination of fair rent under Section 8 to a ten percent increase of the existing rent, whether all four factors under Section 8(1) must co-exist, and the propriety of taxing the tenant without proof of new taxes. The Sindh High Court held that Sections 8 and 9 operate in separate spheres, meaning the ten percent cap in Section 9(2) applies only to subsequent increases of already fixed fair rent, not to the initial determination under Section 8. Furthermore, the four factors in Section 8(1) are disjunctive rather than cumulative. The Court upheld the fair rent determination of Rs. 175 per month based on uncontroverted evidence of similar premises, but set aside the order regarding the KMC taxes due to a lack of pleading and proof. The appeal was thus partially allowed.
Questions settled- Whether the ten percent per annum restriction on rent increases under Section 9(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 applies to the initial determination of fair rent under Section 8?
- Do all four factors enumerated in Section 8(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 need to co-exist for a Rent Controller to determine fair rent?
- Can a Rent Controller award additional taxes without proof of new taxes imposed after the commencement of tenancy under Section 8(1)(c) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Mst. ANWAR JEHAN and 7 others vs ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1987 CLC 976 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. ANIS BANO and 3 others vs Mst. R A BI ARespon dent1987 CLC 775 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMTUL KABIR vs Mst. SAFIA KHATOON through Legal Heirs1987 CLC 1225 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMRO vs Mst. ATLAS AND 22 OTHERS1987 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMINA KHATOON And Others vs ABDULLAH JAN And Other1987 SCMR 1817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 23-7-1986, which had allowed appeals and remanded the suit to the Additional District Judge II, Quetta, for a fresh judgment and decree on merits after deciding certain legal issues. The core legal questions involved whether the civil suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and whether it was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the plea of res judicata was not pressed by the petitioner's counsel, and the plea of limitation was untenable because the plaintiff had actively pursued the correction of revenue mutation entries, succeeding ultimately on 29-5-1979, rendering the suit filed thereafter well within time. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the remand order for a decision in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit is barred by limitation when filed after the final correction of revenue mutation entries relating to the dispute?
- Can an appellate court remand a suit for a fresh judgment and decree after deciding preliminary legal issues?
- Mst. AMINA BEGUM vs CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD and others1987 MLD 312 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. AMINA BEGUM and 13 others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and 11 others1987 MLD 1395(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMEERAN BIBI And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1315 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. ALLAH RAKHI And Others vs IMDAD KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 1428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation and re-verification of a claimant's property entitlement under evacuee laws. The core legal questions involve whether a property proposal made in favour of a claimant was lawfully cancelled without notice, and whether the failure of settlement functionaries to properly record and transmit verified claims can prejudice a genuine claimant's rights. The Supreme Court held that an administrative cancellation of a land proposal passed in violation of natural justice (without notice to the affected party) and based on a misreading of official records cannot be sustained, and that administrative omissions or delinquencies by settlement authorities cannot defeat a claimant's valid entitlement. The Court laid down the principle that the failure of statutory functionaries to perform their legal obligations regarding claim verification cannot be construed to the detriment of a claimant right holder, and that orders affecting property rights must strictly adhere to procedural fairness and notice.
Questions settled- Whether an order cancelling a land proposal without issuing notice to the affected party violates the rules of natural justice?
- Can the failure of settlement functionaries to correctly process and transmit a verified claim form prejudice the valuable rights of a claimant right holder?
- Whether a High Court judge exercising writ jurisdiction can act as an appellate authority over the factual findings of a Notified Officer?
- Mst. ALLAH JAWAI And Others vs AMIR KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed against the petitioners-vendees regarding the purchase of land via Mutation No. 1724. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the pre-emptors, and the first appellate court and Lahore High Court dismissed the subsequent appeal and civil revision respectively. The petitioners sought leave to appeal on the grounds that possession was transferred earlier making the suit time-barred, and that the right of pre-emption based on collateral status was declared un-Islamic. The Supreme Court held that the sale concerned an undivided fractional share of joint land incapable of physical possession, that the plea of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact not raised in the original pleadings, and that no grounds existed to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming that limitation pleas not raised in pleadings cannot be entertained at appellate stages when involving mixed questions of fact and law.
Questions settled- Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before the first appellate court when it involves a mixed question of law and fact?
- Is physical possession capable of being taken of an undivided fractional share of joint land in a pre-emption matter?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts on pre-emption suits warrant interference by the Supreme Court without compelling legal grounds?
- Mst. AKHTAR BIBI And Others vs MANSOOR AHMAD MALIK And Other1987 SCMR 1425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of a house located in Krishan Nagar, Lahore, by settlement authorities. The dispute involved competing claims between the respondents and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Habibullah. The settlement authorities had determined that the property was indivisible and that the respondents held possession prior to the petitioners' predecessor. The High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, found no legal infirmity in these factual findings and declined to interfere with the transfer order. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to interfere was proper, as the findings of the settlement authorities regarding the indivisibility of the property and the priority of possession were supported by the record. The Court affirmed that in the absence of any jurisdictional error or illegality in the findings of the settlement authorities, the High Court correctly exercised its discretion to uphold the transfer. Consequently, the petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with the factual findings of settlement authorities regarding property transfer in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the priority of possession constitute a valid ground for the transfer of an indivisible property by settlement authorities?
- Mst. AKBARI alias AKKO vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and another1987 CLC 1129 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. AKBAR JAN vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 58 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. AISHA vs DISTRICT JUDGE, DADU and 2 others1987 MLD 2070 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. AISHA BIBI vs Widow of MUHAMMAD AHMED and another1987 PLD Karachi 513 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. AISHA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR1987 PLD Lahore 34 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-20Read full judgment →