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. AISHA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD SARW AR1987 PLD Lahore 34 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. AISHA BI vs Widow Of MUHAMMAD AHMED And Another1987 PLD Karachi 513 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. AISHA And 23 Others vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE And 61987 SCMR 1395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Muslim legal heirs of the original allottee Muhammad Ismail of agricultural land in a Co-operative Farming Society, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the succession of a nominated grandson over the general heirs. The original allottee and his subsequent nominee had made successive nominations under the Society's bye-laws. The Collector had earlier resumed the land for non-payment of dues, but the Board of Revenue set aside the resumption upon clearance of dues and directed mutation in favour of all legal heirs under section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The High Court, however, declared the Board's order without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine contentions that the High Court relied on an overruled precedent and that the Society's bye-laws could not override Muslim Personal Law relating to succession.
Questions settled- Whether the bye-laws of a Co-operative Farming Society can override the provisions of Muslim Personal Law relating to succession?
- Does a nominee of a member in a Co-operative Farming Society have an exclusive right to succeed to the allotted land to the exclusion of other legal heirs?
- Whether the Board of Revenue has the authority to set aside a land resumption order upon the clearance of government dues?
- Mst. AISHA alias ASIAN vs SHAMS-UD-DIN and another1987 MLD 329 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. ABIDA SADIQ RABBANI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND and another1987 P Cr. L J 1382 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. ABIDA HAMEED And Another vs NIZAM UD DIN And Other1987 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a Letters Patent Appeal concerning an urban settlement dispute involving the demarcation of two distinct properties, House No. H/7 and House No. H/8. The core legal question addressed whether the Settlement Commissioner's finding of fact regarding property demarcation was conclusive and immune from judicial review under Article 98 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Supreme Court examined whether the Settlement Commissioner erred by relying on irrelevant evidence, such as post-partition possession, while failing to consider relevant municipal or Patwari records. The Court held that while findings of fact by a tribunal of conclusive jurisdiction are generally binding, they lose their sacrosanct status if the tribunal misreads evidence, excludes relevant records, or relies on extraneous factors. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine the competency of the Letters Patent Appeal and the justification for the Division Bench's interference with the Single Judge's initial judgment, emphasizing the necessity of reviewing proper property records.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fact by a tribunal of conclusive jurisdiction be subjected to judicial review if the tribunal misreads or excludes relevant evidence?
- Is a Letters Patent Appeal competent against a judgment arising from an urban settlement matter?
- Does the reliance on irrelevant evidence by a settlement authority render its findings of fact open to interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Mst. A ZEEMAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND through Secretary to Government of Sind, Irrigation Department, and 2 others1987 MLD 627 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAFEEZA BAROHI vs GUARDIAN JUDGE/FAMILY JUDGE and another1987 CLC 1630 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a custody dispute where the petitioner (mother) sought temporary custody of her minor son, currently residing with the respondent (father) in Denmark, pending the final adjudication of a custody petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Family Judge rejected the petitioner's interim application for custody. The petitioner challenged this interlocutory order via a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine on two primary grounds. First, the Court held that the impugned order was appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which overrides the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, regarding the maintainability of appeals. Consequently, the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy before the District Judge. Second, the Court affirmed that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge interlocutory orders of a temporary nature while the main case remains pending. The judgment reinforces the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory appellate remedies and is generally unavailable for interim procedural orders.
Questions settled- Is an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 appealable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
- Does the non-obstante clause in Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 override the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 regarding the right of appeal?
- Can a writ petition be maintained against an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court when the main custody case is still pending?
- Msr. Syeda TALLAT ZOHRA vs Syed MAHFOOZ HUSSAIN SHAH and others1987 P Cr. L J 854 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mrs.SHEELA vs AZHAR ILYAS1987 MLD 3277 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-23Read full judgment →
- Mrs.NADIRA FAROOQUI vs DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI SOUTH and another1987 MLD 616 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mrs.GHAZALA YAMIN vs MUHAMMAD YAMIN and 2 others1987 MLD 2940 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
- Mrs. ZULEKHA vs Mirza FAZ AL KARIM1987 CLC 695 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
- Mrs. ZAHRA ALI MUHAMMAD vs PIRHAI SHIA ASNA ASHRI JAMAT (Regd.)1987 CLC 1938 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
- Mrs. YASMIN JAFFER ALI vs Messrs HANIRUBI IMPEX (Pvt.) Ltd. and others1987 MLD 459 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SHAMIM FIRDOUS NIAZ vs IFTIKHAR AHMED SYED And 5 Other1987 SCMR 1613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from an eviction petition filed by the deceased landlady, Chanda Begum, against the petitioner regarding residential premises, citing grounds of default, personal bona fide need, and nuisance. The Rent Controller granted the eviction order exclusively on the ground of personal requirement, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the personal bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondents warranted interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the decision rested on findings of fact established by evidence on the record. The Court determined that there was no room for further re-appraisal of evidence at the appellate stage and that no substantial question of law had been raised to merit consideration. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence are generally not subject to interference in further appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a rent matter where concurrent findings of fact have been reached by lower courts?
- Is a finding of personal bona fide requirement for residential premises considered a question of fact?
- Mrs. SHAHNOOR FAZAL vs GHULAM AKBAR MANGI1987 SCMR 2051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that reversed a Rent Controller's decision, thereby dismissing an ejectment application filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The core legal question was whether a landlord can succeed in an ejectment application based on personal need when the specific grounds for that need—specifically, the insufficiency of currently vacant premises—were not pleaded in the original application or affidavit, but only emerged during cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly identified a fatal deficiency in the petitioner's case. The Court affirmed that a party must plead and prove the specific grounds for personal need, including why existing vacant accommodation is insufficient. Because the petitioner failed to plead that the vacant flat was inadequate for her requirements, the Rent Controller erred by basing the ejectment order on evidence not supported by the pleadings. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, establishing the principle that evidence cannot substitute for necessary pleadings in rent control proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a landlord succeed in an ejectment application based on personal need if the specific grounds for that need were not pleaded?
- Is evidence adduced during cross-examination sufficient to support a claim for ejectment if the underlying facts were not pleaded in the application?
- Does a failure to plead the insufficiency of existing vacant premises preclude a landlord from seeking ejectment of a tenant on grounds of personal need?
- Mrs. SHAHIDA NASREEN vs ABDUR RAHIM SETH1987 CLC 1744 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-05Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SANTOSH LATA KAPUR through Legal Heirs vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST1987 CLC 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-06Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SABRA HASSAN vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD And 3 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 113 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
- Mrs. RAZIA MARIAM vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LIMITED, KARACHI1987 PLC 91 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-07-24Read full judgment →
- MRS. RAFIQA BEGUM THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIR vs MRS. MAHMOODA1987 PLD Karachi 287 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- Mrs. RAFFAT ARA SALLD vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 743 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- Mrs. NASEEMA KHATOON and others vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1987 CLC 2210 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mrs. M.S. BAROBA vs MANZOOR AHMAD1987 SCMR 1490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which upheld an ejectment order against a tenant under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question is whether a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant under Section 14 of the Ordinance (personal use) when the landlord's stated intent is to demolish the premises for new construction, rather than to occupy the premises personally. The High Court had previously allowed the landlord to select one tenement for eviction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the case raises a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 14. Specifically, the Court must determine if the ground of personal use is legally available when the landlord's objective is demolition and reconstruction, particularly where the approved building plan does not include the outhouses occupied by the tenants. The Court held that this issue is of first impression and requires authoritative interpretation, as it affects numerous similar cases.
Questions settled- Can a landlord seek eviction under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 on the ground of personal use when the actual intent is to demolish the premises?
- Does the ground of personal use under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 apply when the proposed building plan does not include the existing structures occupied by tenants?
- MRS. KHALIDA CHAUDHRY vs MUHAMMAD KHURSHID AND 6 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 223 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
- MRS. KANEEZ RAZA vs ANSAR ALI and another1987 MLD 191 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mrs. HUSSAN ARA BUGTI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN Through1987 SCMR 1834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a government employee, sought an inter-provincial transfer following her husband's transfer to Karachi. While awaiting the outcome of her transfer request, she applied for leave. Subsequently, the Department published a notice in a newspaper alleging she had failed to report for duty despite being informed of the rejection of her leave application. Relying on Rule 9(c) of the Baluchistan Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1983, the authorities dismissed her from service. After her review petition was rejected, the Baluchistan Service Tribunal altered the dismissal to compulsory retirement. The petitioner challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing she was condemned unheard, as she believed her leave was granted and never received notice of its rejection. The core legal question concerns whether the summary dismissal procedure under Rule 9(c) was validly applied without proper notice to the employee. The Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contentions regarding the lack of proper notice and the contradictory nature of the published notice required further judicial examination.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be dismissed for wilful absence under Rule 9(c) of the Baluchistan Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1983 without proof of proper service of notice?
- Does a newspaper notice containing contradictory information regarding the status of a leave application satisfy the requirements for disciplinary action under the Baluchistan Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1983?
- Is a dismissal order valid if the employee was under a bona fide impression that their leave application had been granted?
- Mrs. HALIMAN HANIF MOONNO O vs Mrs. ISMAT KAMAL And 2 Other1987 SCMR 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, arising from a dispute over the allotment and subsequent auction of a plot of land by the Murree Improvement Trust. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court erred in failing to dismiss an appeal as improperly constituted after the petitioner, an auction-purchaser and necessary party, was removed from the array of respondents, and whether provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Specific Relief Act 1877, and the Transfer of Property Act 1882 were misconstrued. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the improper constitution of the appeal and the potential misapplication of law warranted further examination. The Court ordered that the case be heard on the existing record, permitted the filing of additional documents, and issued an interim order maintaining the status quo of the property in dispute. The key principle established is that the improper removal of a necessary party from an appeal may constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction, necessitating judicial review.
Questions settled- Does the removal of a necessary party from the array of respondents render an appeal as not legally and properly constituted?
- Can the failure to implead an auction-purchaser in a suit concerning the property purchased at auction result in a failure to exercise jurisdiction?
- Mrs. GUNJ KHATOON And Another vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Karachi1987 SCMR 2084 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil appeals directed against a common judgment of the Sind High Court concerning the determination of adequate compensation for land and fruit trees acquired by the Government of West Pakistan under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the establishment of Korangi Township. The core legal questions relate to the proper assessment of market value, the consideration of the potential value of the acquired land, and the binding nature of the claims submitted by claimants under Section 9 of the Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred by relying solely on past sales and ignoring the potential value of the land, and further affirmed that a claimant is strictly bound by the particulars of their claim submitted under Section 9. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, enhancing the compensation rates for both the acquired lands and the fruit trees, along with statutory allowances and interest.
Questions settled- Whether the market value of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should be determined solely by reference to past sales or by also considering its potential value?
- Is a claimant bound by the particulars and amount of compensation claimed in response to a notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- How should the value of fruit trees standing on acquired land be assessed when direct evidence of net income is lacking?
- Mrs. FARIDA KHALID vs DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, HYDERABAD And 31987 PLC (C.S.) 221 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
- Mrs. EMERINCIA DEAN and 7 others vs ARCHIE DEAN and another1987 CLC 1757 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. B.S. KHAN vs PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD.1987 SCMR 577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed an eviction application filed by a lessee against a sub-lessee. The core legal question is whether premises owned by the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) but leased to a private party are exempt from the provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, by virtue of a government notification, thereby depriving the Rent Controller of jurisdiction over disputes between such lessees and their sub-lessees. The High Court had held that because the land belonged to the KPT, it was exempt from the Ordinance, rendering the lessee incompetent to initiate eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court, noting that the interpretation of the exemption notification and its applicability to properties perpetually leased by the KPT involves a substantial question of law affecting numerous cases, granted leave to appeal. The key principle identified is that the scope of statutory exemptions for government-owned properties must be strictly construed to determine whether they extend to sub-tenancies created by lessees of such properties.
Questions settled- Does the exemption of Karachi Port Trust premises from the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 apply to properties leased out by the Trust to private individuals?
- Is a lessee of Karachi Port Trust land competent to file an eviction application against a sub-lessee under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction over eviction disputes involving land owned by the Karachi Port Trust?
- Mrs. AZIZ SULTANA vs ABDUL JABBAR KHAN1987 CLC 539 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
- Mrs. ANJUM and 5 others vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN KARACHI and 81987 MLD 1264 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
- Moulvi MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD AMIN And Other1987 SCMR 1737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil dispute over the ownership of the roof situated above shops Nos. 379 and 380 in Loralai Town. The petitioner sought a declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents, challenging administrative orders that permitted the respondents to construct a parda wall on the roof of shop No. 379. The petitioner claimed the roof was part of his house, while the respondents asserted ownership based on the transfer of shop No. 379. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could establish title to the roof through oral evidence in the absence of documentary proof. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the petitioner failed to produce any transfer order or title deed to substantiate his claim. The Court affirmed the principle that oral evidence cannot substitute for a document of title in property disputes. Furthermore, the Court noted the significant delay of approximately twenty years in filing the suit, rendering the claim meritless. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, confirming the High Court’s findings as unexceptionable.
Questions settled- Can oral evidence serve as a substitute for a document of title in a property ownership dispute?
- Is a suit for declaration and injunction maintainable when the plaintiff fails to produce a title deed for the disputed property?
- Does a significant delay in filing a suit for property rights affect the merits of the claim?
- MOULA BUX vs THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND Through Secretary, Government1987 PLC (C.S.) 808 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- MOULA BUX vs The GENERAL MANAGER, PAK SAUDI FERTILIZER Ltd.1987 PLC 64 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
- MOT HERCARE P.I.C . vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another1987 MLD 2963 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
- MOOSABHAI and 11 others vs ZUBEDA BAI1987 MLD 710 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- MOOSA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1142 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-18Read full judgment →
- MOOSA vs Mst. ZOHRA BAI1987 CLC 2372 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
- MOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 PCr.LJ 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
- MONTRES ROLEX S. A., GENEVA, SWITZERLAND vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Karachi 199 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
- MONTRES ROLEX S. A., GENEVA, SWITZERLAND vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS AND ANOTHER (Copy)1987 PLD Karachi 199 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
- MOMIN SHAH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1500 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- MOLLA and another vs MOONDA1987 MLD 2906 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-02Read full judgment →
- MOLEDINO vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1222 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
- MOIZUDDIN vs CHANAN DIN1987 CLC 502 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- MOINUDDIN vs Master BASHIR AHMAD1987 CLC 472 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first rent appeal challenged an order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant from premises on the grounds of personal requirement. The core legal question was whether a landlord can seek the eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building (a shop) on the ground of personal residential requirement. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the premises were rented out as shops, not for residential purposes, and that the entire locality consisted of commercial ground-floor units. Relying on established case law, the Court held that a non-residential building cannot be recovered by a landlord for their own residential use or that of their family. Consequently, the Court found that the Rent Controller had misread the evidence regarding the nature of the tenancy and the bona fide requirement. The appeal was allowed, the eviction order was set aside, and the eviction application was dismissed, establishing the principle that a landlord cannot claim possession of a non-residential property for residential purposes.
Questions settled- Can a landlord seek the eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building for the purpose of personal residential use?
- Does a Rent Controller's finding on personal requirement stand if the evidence shows the premises were rented for commercial purposes?
- Is a non-residential building recoverable by a landlord for the residential use of their family?
- MOIN U DDIN vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION and another1987 CLC 1554 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
- MOHSIN ALI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1987 CLC 1419 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- MOHLI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1899 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
- MOHIUDDIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 932 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD RAFIQUE BHATTI vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR/ADDITIONAL1987 MLD 3212 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Qasim, Ghulam Dastagir, vs The State, AND The State,PTCL 1987 CL. 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD MUMTAZ And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2061 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD MASOOD vs ABDULLAH And Others1987 P Cr. L J 2192 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Anwar Monnoo and three others. In re: Kotri Textile MillsPTCL 1987 CL.292 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
- MOBEEN AHMAD vs EHTESHAM ALI KHAN1987 MLD 690 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mlts. KHALIDA CHAUDHRY vs MUHAMMAD KHURSHID AND 6 Other1987 PLD Lahore 223 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
- MITHU And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
- MITHO KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1869 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mistri MUHAMMAD HASSAN And Another vs Haji ABDUL HAMEED KASHANI1987 SCMR 1756(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question involves the continuation of appellate proceedings in light of a settlement reached between the contesting parties. The court's decision is to grant the request of the petitioners' counsel to dismiss the petition as withdrawn, based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the caveator that an out-of-court settlement has been successfully reached between the parties. The key principle laid down is that where parties have amicably resolved their dispute outside the court, the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn upon the request of the petitioner.
Questions settled- Can a petition be dismissed as withdrawn when the dispute has been settled outside the court?
- Whether the court will permit the withdrawal of a petition upon the request of the petitioners' counsel?
- Mistri Haji MUHAMMAD DIN vs ALI AHMED And Other1987 SCMR 1794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment that declared the petitioner's suit for possession of land infructuous following the expiry of the initial lease term. The core legal question is whether a suit for possession, based on a lease containing a renewal clause, becomes infructuous upon the expiry of the initial term when the lessee claims a right to renewal and the lessor subsequently grants a new lease to the occupant. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the arguments raised substantial questions of law requiring further consideration. The Court observed that the petitioner’s claim—that the lease was not ipso facto determined and that the lessee possessed a right of first refusal before the lessor could demise the property to a third party—merited examination. The holding emphasizes that a suit does not necessarily become infructuous if the underlying legal rights, specifically regarding renewal covenants and the status of the occupant, remain in dispute and require judicial determination on the merits.
Questions settled- Does a suit for possession of land become infructuous upon the expiry of the initial lease term if the lease contains a renewal clause?
- Does a lessee have a right of first refusal when a covenant for renewal of a lease is dependent on fresh terms to be agreed between the parties?
- Can a court in revisional jurisdiction declare a suit infructuous based on supervening events without determining the underlying rights of the parties?
- Miss YASMIN HANIF vs Messrs METRO GARMENTS INDUSTRIES1987 PLC 506 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
- Miss TOUQIR BIBI vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1987 PLD Quetta 216 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
- Miss TOUQIR BIBI vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN through SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT and 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Quetta 216 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
- Miss RIFAAT HAMID GHANI and another vs MUHAMMAD SHAMSUL ALIL and 21987 CLC 1902 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-23Read full judgment →
- Miss RAUNAQ AFROZE and another vs Mst. ZAINAB KHATOON1987 CLC 757 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- Miss KAVITA KUMARI vs HOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1987 PLD Karachi 688 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
- Miss KAVITA KUMARI vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1987 PLD Karachi 688 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
- Miss H.A. RAHIM vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, CO-1987 PLC (C.S.) 474 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
- Miss FARZANA AZIZ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION1987 PLC (C.S.) 8 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
- Miss FARHAT AKBAR vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1987 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the quashment of the petitioner's F.Sc. examination results. The petitioner, who had already passed the F.Sc. examination from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, subsequently appeared in examinations conducted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur, to improve her marks without disclosing her prior qualification, doing so in parts rather than all subjects at once. A Sub-committee recommended that the Chairman consider her case under Hardship Rules, but the Chairman declined and ordered the quashment of her subsequent results, which the Board ratified. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of Rule 17 regarding the improvement of marks and the scope of the Chairman's discretion under the Hardship Regulations. The Supreme Court held that appearing for improvement cannot be done by parts unless covered by hardship rules, and the Chairman's refusal to exercise discretion under the Hardship Regulations was not arbitrary or mala fide. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Can a candidate improve their examination marks in parts under Rule 17 of the Bahawalpur Board Rules?
- Whether the Chairman of the Board has absolute discretion under Regulation No.10 Chapter IV to grant relief in hardship cases?
- Is the exercise of discretion by the Chairman under the hardship rules open to judicial review when not shown to be arbitrary or mala fide?
- Miss ABIDA RIASAT vs S. SEQUEIRA1987 PLD Karachi 185 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
- MISRI And 8 Other vs DIRECTOR, RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE And 2 Others1987 PLC 485 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
- MISAL KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1616 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-25Read full judgment →
- Mirza SULTAN AKHTAR BEG vs PUNJAB PROVINCE and 2 others1987 MLD 408 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mirza RAFIQ BAIG vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2185 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
- Mirza PERVAIZ BEG vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 417 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mirza NAZIR BEG vs ASHIQ HUSSAIN and 5 others1987 CLC 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND SONS vs MUHAMMD YAHYA and another1987 MLD 2125 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD ISHAQ BEG vs THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF and 21987 MLD 538 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD AYUB JAN BEG vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD And Other1987 SCMR 1616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning his retirement. The core legal question revolves around whether a civil servant, after seeking premature retirement and enjoying a substantial part of the leave preparatory to retirement, can subsequently revoke his request for retirement. The Supreme Court held that once a civil servant gives intimation for premature retirement and acts upon it, he brings an end to his service tenure unilaterally and has no power to revoke it, particularly in view of the express bar in the applicable rules and established precedent. The key principle laid down is that a government servant cannot revoke a voluntary retirement request once it has been accepted and acted upon by both parties, nor can a new factual plea regarding notice periods be raised for the first time before the apex court when it was not agitated before the Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can revoke an application for premature retirement after enjoying a substantial part of the leave preparatory to retirement?
- Does a civil servant have the power to unilaterally revoke their retirement intimation after service tenure has been brought to an end?
- Can a new plea regarding the insufficiency of notice for retirement be raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Mirza MAQBOOL AHMAD vs SHABIR HUSSAIN SHAH And 3 Other1987 SCMR 1967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns contempt of court proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondents, who were legal heirs of a deceased party in a previously decided Supreme Court appeal. The core legal question was whether the respondents and their counsel committed contempt by filing a civil suit challenging the property transfer order (P.T.O.) and the inclusion of specific property in the amended permanent transfer deed (P.T.D.), despite the Supreme Court having already conclusively adjudicated the entitlement of the parties in the earlier appeal. The respondents had sought declaratory relief in a lower court, which led to an interim injunction against the petitioner, prompting the contempt application. Upon review, the Court examined the conduct of the respondents and their counsel, noting that the suit attempted to re-litigate issues already settled by the Supreme Court. However, as the respondents and their counsel expressed unconditional apology, contrition, and remorse for their actions, the Court accepted these as sufficient amends. Consequently, the Court discharged the contempt notices, emphasizing that while judicial orders must be respected, genuine remorse can mitigate contemptuous conduct.
Questions settled- Can a party file a civil suit to challenge a property transfer order that has already been conclusively adjudicated by the Supreme Court?
- Does filing a suit that attempts to re-litigate a settled matter constitute contempt of court?
- Can an unconditional apology and expression of remorse serve as sufficient grounds to discharge a contempt of court notice?
- Mirza FAROOQ BEG vs MUHAMMAD KASHIF KAMAL SIDDIQUI1987 CLC 516 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
- Mirza DAUD BEG vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and others1987 CLC 645 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mirza DAUD BAIG vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA And Other1987 SCMR 1161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from a proceeding under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 concerning the proper court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal filed before the District Court against a decree of a Family Court. The petitioner contended that the flat court-fee of fifteen rupees prescribed for a plaint under Section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 (as amended in Punjab) should also apply to a memorandum of appeal, whereas the respondents argued that court-fee was payable ad valorem under the Court Fees Act 1870. The Supreme Court held that Family Courts and District Courts are Civil Courts to which the Court Fees Act 1870 applies. Applying the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court held that the legislative concession under Section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 applies exclusively to plaints and not to memoranda of appeal. Consequently, court-fee on a memorandum of appeal filed under Section 14 must be paid ad valorem under Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act 1870. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the court-fee on a memorandum of appeal against a Family Court decree payable ad valorem under the Court Fees Act 1870 or at the fixed rate prescribed for plaints under Section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
- Does Section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 apply to extend the nominal court-fee concession to a memorandum of appeal?
- Whether a Family Court and the District Court hearing an appeal under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 are Courts of Justice subject to the Court Fees Act 1870?
- Mirza BASHIR AHMAD and another vs M.C., NAROWAL and 11 others1987 MLD 2492 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mirza ASHRAF ALI vs ABDUL HAMID And Another1987 SCMR 1654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan which set aside the eviction order passed against the respondent-tenant by the Rent Controller. The petitioner-landlord sought the eviction of the respondent on the grounds of subletting and default in the payment of rent. The Rent Controller dismissed the plea of subletting but found the respondent to be a defaulter, leading to an order of eviction. Upon appeal, the High Court re-appraised the evidence and concluded that the tenant was not a defaulter, noting that the landlord had admitted receiving rent up to a certain period and that the tenant had been depositing rent in court following the landlord's refusal to accept it, without denying the landlord-tenant relationship. Furthermore, the High Court maintained the concurrent finding that subletting was not proved. The Supreme Court held that where a tenant deposits rent in court due to the landlord's refusal to accept it and does not deny the landlord-tenant relationship, no default is established. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of rent in court after a landlord's refusal to accept it constitute a default in payment of rent?
- Can a tenant be held to be a wilful defaulter when the landlord-tenant relationship is not denied and rent was deposited due to refusal of acceptance?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the allegation of subletting?
- Mirza AKRAM BEG vs Messrs ABDUL GHANI And Other1987 SCMR 1284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examines the correctness of a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a finding of fact recorded by the Settlement Commissioner regarding whether a disputed residential property formed an integral part of an evacuee industrial concern, Krishna Ice Factory. The appellant, a P.T.D. holder, obtained transfer of the residential portion under Settlement Scheme No. 1, while the respondents subsequently purchased the ice factory at a public auction. The Additional Settlement Commissioner held that the appellant's transfer was erroneous because the property was part of the factory. However, the Settlement Commissioner reversed this decision upon examining pre-partition records, Khasra Amartis, and municipal assessment lists, which distinguished the factory's exact area on Khasra No. 8204 from the adjacent building site. The High Court interfered with this finding in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner's finding of fact, being based on a thorough examination of fundamental pre-partition revenue and municipal records rather than post-partition conflicting reports, was unexceptionable and immune from interference in constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Settlement Commissioner's order.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a Settlement Commissioner in constitutional jurisdiction when such finding is based on pre-partition revenue records?
- Does a subsequent auction-purchaser of an evacuee industrial concern acquire title to separate adjacent properties that were historically distinct in pre-partition records?
- Can post-partition survey reports override basic pre-partition revenue and municipal records in determining the boundaries of evacuee properties?
- MIRAJUL ABEDI vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION Ltd., KARACHI1987 PLC 196 · Labour Court · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
- MIRAJ DIN vs BASHIR AHMAD BAKHTIAR And Another1987 P Cr. L J 608 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
- MIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1297 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-06Read full judgment →
- Mir MUHAMMAD SHABBIR vs ASLAM KHAN1987 MLD 2622 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mir MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHOSO vs THE STATE through The Deputy1987 P Cr. L J 2350 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
- Mir MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs The STATE1987 SCMR 894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines the conviction of the appellant, a former Station Master, under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for the criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of railway freight charges. The appellant collected freight charges but deliberately failed to enter the arrival of the wagons and corresponding transactions in the relevant station registers until the fraud was detected during an official inspection months later. The appellant contended that the delay in remittance was a routine procedural occurrence awaiting source documents and lacked dishonest intention. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts establishing a calculated series of omissions and concealment sufficiently proved dishonest criminal intent amounting to criminal breach of trust. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the temporary detention of railway freight charges by a Station Master without entering them in official registers constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does failure to record wagon arrivals and maintain statutory station registers establish the requisite dishonest intention for criminal misappropriation?
- MIR MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STATE and others1987 MLD 1498 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
- MIR MUHAMMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 1497 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →