Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- Mst. ZABEEN AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2683 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. YASMIN vs RASHID AHMAD1986 PLD Peshawar 172 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. UMAR BIBI AND ANOTHER vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, CENTRAL RECORD1986 PLD Lahore 109 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by the widow and daughter of a deceased claimant challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the Tehsildar and other revenue authorities to cancel an evacuee agricultural land allotment made in 1954 under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether revenue authorities or the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, possessed the jurisdiction to initiate cancellation proceedings and interfere with final allotments years after the repeal of evacuee laws. The Lahore High Court held that the initiation of proceedings based on a Robkar issued long after the repeal of evacuee laws was completely without jurisdiction, coram non judice, and void ab initio. The Court laid down that authorities cannot assume jurisdiction to reopen past settled allotments under the repealed evacuee laws, that an incompetent authority cannot confer jurisdiction on statutory functionaries, and that revenue authorities lack the power to intermeddle with settled land allotments or go behind settlement records.
Questions settled- Whether the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office has jurisdiction to entertain applications and issue instructions regarding land allotments years after the repeal of evacuee laws?
- Can revenue authorities or notified officers interfere with or cancel land allotments made by competent settlement authorities under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 after the repeal of evacuee legislation?
- Does an administrative Robkar issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction provide a valid legal basis for subordinate revenue officers to initiate proceedings against property holders?
- Mst. UBAIDA vs Makhdoom ABRAR AHMAD And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 539 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. TOORA And Others vs TAJ MUHAMMAD And Other1986 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute concerning the identity and area of property No. 25/C, where the petitioners challenged the evidentiary value of a Local Commissioner's report and the jurisdiction of the civil court to question a declaration made by the Assistant Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could rely on a Local Commissioner's report and spot evidence to determine the identity and ownership of the disputed site, and whether such a determination of fact could be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Additional District Judge was fully justified in appointing a Commissioner to ascertain the identity of the disputed site. After considering the report, the spot evidence, and the existing record, the appellate court properly concluded that the plaintiff was the valid transferee of the suit land on the basis of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD). The Court ruled that this determination of fact had attained finality and was unexceptionable in revisional jurisdiction, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court justified in appointing a Local Commissioner to ascertain the physical identity and boundaries of a disputed property?
- Can a finding of fact regarding property ownership based on a Local Commissioner's report and a Permanent Transfer Deed be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does a determination of fact by an appellate court regarding the identity of a transferred site attain finality if supported by spot evidence and the record?
- Mst. TASNEEM BANO USMANI vs Mst. AKHTAR SULTANA and 6 others1986 MLD 325 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. TAJ MALIK and others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2676 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. SWALEHA KHATOON vs THE TRUSTEES OF HUSSAINI TRUST1986 MLD 249 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. SURRIYA BEGUM vs FAZAL DURRANI1986 SCMR 1649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a rent dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant from a house in Quetta. The appellant-landlady sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, finding the landlady's requirement genuine and the respondent's defense of mala fide unproven. The High Court reversed this decision, questioning the landlady's bona fide requirement due to her visits to her husband in London and her failure to testify personally. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reversal was based on extraneous considerations and misappreciation of evidence. The Court affirmed that the landlady's personal requirement was established by the evidence on record, noting that her residence with her brother's large family was undisputed. The Court emphasized that findings of fact by the Rent Controller should not be interfered with unless based on misreading or contravention of legal principles. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the eviction order.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact recorded by a Rent Controller without demonstrating misreading of evidence?
- Does a landlady's occasional travel abroad to visit her husband negate her claim of personal bona fide requirement for a house in Pakistan?
- Is a landlady required to testify personally to establish her bona fide requirement for a rented premises?
- Mst. SURRAYIA vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2684 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. SULTAN ZARI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1723 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-06-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. SULTAN And Others vs Mst. WALLAN And Other1986 SCMR 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a suit instituted by Mst. Wallan challenging the validity of a gift of 200 Kanals of landed property made in favour of her late husband's father and her minor daughters, along with the corresponding mutations attested in 1968. The plaintiff sought cancellation of the gift on grounds of undue influence, intimidation, and coercion. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court set aside the decree. On second appeal, the High Court allowed the plaintiff to amend her plaint to include a prayer for possession and restored the trial court's decree. The petitioners, heirs of the deceased donee, contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in permitting amendment of the plaint at the second appeal stage when the suit's maintainability had been initially challenged, and that the finding on undue influence was a question of fact not subject to interference in second appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these legal contentions.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court in second appeal can allow an amendment of the plaint to add a relief for possession when maintainability was questioned at trial?
- Whether a finding by the first appellate court regarding undue influence constitutes a finding of fact that is immune from interference in second appeal?
- Mst. SUGHRAN BEGUM AND 11 OTHERS vs Haji Mir QADIR BAKHSH AND 2 orHERs1986 PLD Quetta 232 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for the recovery of money based on a promissory note. The primary legal questions concerned whether the production of an attesting witness is mandatory to prove the execution of a promissory note and the extent of the burden of proof regarding consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that Section 68 of the Evidence Act 1872 does not mandate the production of an attesting witness for a promissory note, as such documents are not required by law to be attested. Regarding consideration, the Court affirmed that Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 creates a rebuttable presumption of consideration. However, this burden shifts to the plaintiff once the defendant successfully rebuts the presumption, either by leading independent evidence or by highlighting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's own case. In this instance, the Court found that while the execution of the pronote was established, the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of consideration, and the plaintiff failed to discharge the shifted burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory under Section 68 of the Evidence Act 1872 to produce an attesting witness to prove the execution of a promissory note?
- Does the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shift the burden of proof to the defendant?
- Can a defendant rebut the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 by relying on the plaintiff's own evidence?
- Is a court empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872 to compare disputed signatures with admitted ones to determine the genuineness of a document?
- Mst. SIBIANI vs Mst. BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 104 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI And Another vs GHULAM HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 1466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute regarding the inheritance of landed property left by the deceased, Jewan. The petitioners, claiming as heirs, asserted the deceased was a Shia, while the respondents, claiming as collaterals, argued he was a Sunni. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court all concurrently found that the deceased was a Sunni by faith, leading to the dismissal of the petitioners' suit and subsequent appeals. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that certain documentary evidence, specifically a survey list and a register from an 'Anjuman Shian', had been wrongly rejected by the lower courts, citing Section 11 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court observed that this specific legal plea regarding the admissibility of evidence had not been raised in the lower courts. Furthermore, the Court held that the determination of the deceased's faith was a concurrent finding of fact by three lower courts. Consequently, the Court declined to re-appraise the evidence or interfere with the concurrent findings, ultimately dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new legal plea regarding the admissibility of evidence before the Supreme Court if it was not raised in the lower courts?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding of fact made by three lower courts regarding the religious faith of a deceased person?
- Is the determination of a person's religious faith for inheritance purposes considered a question of fact?
- Mst. SHARIFA KHATOON vs ANISUR REHMAN And Another1986 SCMR 1629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had set aside an ejectment order previously issued by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had originally ordered the respondent's ejectment based on findings that the premises were sublet and that the landlady bona fide required the property for her personal use. Upon appeal, the High Court reversed these findings of fact and dismissed the landlady's application. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record and hearing counsel, determined that the High Court's appreciation of the evidence was inconsistent with established legal principles. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record, while permitting the parties to file additional documents. The case establishes that appellate courts must adhere to settled principles when re-evaluating findings of fact made by a Rent Controller, particularly regarding evidence of subletting and personal requirement.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to reverse findings of fact made by a Rent Controller regarding subletting and personal requirement?
- Is the appreciation of evidence by the High Court in rent matters subject to review by the Supreme Court?
- Can a party file additional documents during an appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2153 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAHIDA KHATOON vs COLLECTOR AND D.C. EAST, KARACHI and another1986 MLD 186 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAHAR BANO vs QUADRIA And Another1986 SCMR 1727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the Sind High Court, which upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts granting possession of an evacuee plot to the respondents. The core legal question is whether the issuance of a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, creates a tenancy by estoppel preventing the transferee from treating the occupant as a trespasser when the property in dispute is an open plot. The Supreme Court held that Section 30 applies to houses and shops and does not afford statutory tenancy protection to occupants of open plots. Furthermore, the Court established that there can be no estoppel against a statute, and the service of notice under a misconception of law does not confer tenancy rights or estop the transferee from seeking ejectment of an unauthorized occupant.
Questions settled- Does Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 create a statutory tenancy in respect of an open plot?
- Can a transferee be estopped from denying tenancy rights and pleading that an occupant is a trespasser merely because a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was served?
- Is there any estoppel against a statute under Pakistani law?
- Mst. SHAHAB AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2179 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHABAB AKHTAR vs ZAHID HUSSAIN1986 P Cr. L J 2174 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAT BHARAI And Others vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (Rev.) And OTHER1986 CLC 1448 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. SARWAT JEHAN BEGUM vs Syed USMAN and another1986 MLD 243 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARWAR BANO vs HAKEEM LIAQUAT ALI1986 P Cr. L J 820 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDAR BIBI And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/ CHIEF1986 CLC 2452 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM vs Malik KHALID MAHMOOD And OTHER1986 CLC 2342. · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 challenged the concurrent orders of the lower courts refusing permission to amend a written statement in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a defendant could be permitted to amend their written statement to introduce pleas that allegedly contradicted prior admissions or descriptions of the property. The Lahore High Court held that courts should exercise a liberal approach towards amendments of a written statement compared to plaints, as adding or altering a defence does not raise the same issues as altering a cause of action, and rules of procedure are meant to advance justice rather than penalize parties. The Court laid down the principle that amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy should be allowed liberally, provided they are bona fide, and that the rule against withdrawing admissions is subject to exceptions where the original plea resulted from misapprehension or where the material on record warrants clarification.
Questions settled- Whether rules 3 and 4 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are applicable to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
- Can a defendant be permitted to amend a written statement to introduce a new defence or alter an existing plea?
- Are courts more liberal in allowing amendments to a written statement compared to a plaint?
- Does an admission in a written statement create an insurmountable barrier preventing a defendant from seeking an amendment to state correct facts?
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM vs FAZAL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Azad J & K 210 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM vs ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and other1986 MLD 2435 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. SANTOSH LATA And Others vs Sh. ABDUL HAMID And OTHER1986 CLC 2140 · Custodian Evacuee Property · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. SALMA BI and 11 others vs EPHRAHIM JOSEPH and another1986 MLD 1644 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. SALEEMA BIBI vs GHULAM RASOOL And OTHER1986 CLC 798(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. SALAMAT BIBI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 111 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. SALAMAN vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And OTHER1986 CLC 2420 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BIBI vs GHULAM FAREED and another1986 MLD 2597 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BIBI vs ADDISSIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE III, MUZAFFARGARH And 51986 CLC 2255 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. SAIRA BANO vs Diwan KEWALRAM And Another1986 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises out of an execution proceeding concerning a dispute over possession of immovable property initially decreed in Suit No. 518 of 1964. The core legal question was whether a decree for possession could be executed against a co-defendant who was found to be a trespasser by the High Court in second appeal, despite the suit initially having been dismissed against her, and how the executing court should identify the property subject to execution. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction to the executing court to execute the writ of possession in accordance with the site plans exhibiting the dimensions of the disputed shops was unexceptionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the executing court must deliver possession of the property as determined by the record and site plans established during trial.
Questions settled- Can an executing court direct the issuance of a writ of possession based on site plans exhibited during the trial?
- Whether execution proceedings can be maintained against a defendant in possession whose status as a trespasser was determined by the appellate court?
- Mst. SAHIB KHATOON vs ALLAH DITTA And Other1986 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed possession in favour of the plaintiff on payment of Rs. 12,000 by a specified date, with costs to follow the events. The decree-holder deposited a total amount that fell short of the decretal amount by Rs. 100, while costs were separately assessed. The executing court dismissed the execution application due to the deficiency, but the lower appellate court allowed the appeal, holding that costs could be adjusted towards the decretal amount. The High Court dismissed the subsequent second appeal. The petitioner contends that the decree-holder had sought attachment of the full costs without adjusting them towards the balance pre-emption money and that the compliance with the decree's terms was a prerequisite to obtaining costs. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the decree-holder was entitled to adjust costs and whether non-compliance with the exact deposit terms invalidated the decree.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emptor's failure to deposit the exact decretal amount by omitting a small sum renders the pre-emption decree unexecutable?
- Can a decree-holder adjust the awarded costs towards the shortfall in the pre-emption money required to be deposited under the decree?
- Does an application for attachment of the full costs preclude the decree-holder from claiming a set-off against the pre-emption purchase price?
- Mst. SADIQA BEGUM WAHEEDUDDIN vs CRESCENT PAK INDUSTRIES Ltd. and another1986 MLD 1788 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. SABRA KHATOON through her Legal Heirs vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY1986 MLD 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAADIA BIB vs IQBAL MASIH1986 CLC 2322 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. RUQIABEGUM vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ CONTROLLING AUTHORITY,1986 CLC 589 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. RUQAYYA BIBI and others vs ABDUL MAJID1986 MLD 534 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. ROBINA SHAMIM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1588 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. ROBINA SHAFIQ vs THE STATE And Another1986 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner, Mst. Robina Shafiq, through her Advocate-on-Record, stated that he had no instructions to proceed with the case. Consequently, the counsel did not press the petition. Accepting this submission, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed. The holding affirms that when a petitioner's counsel reports no instructions and declines to press the matter, the court will dismiss the petition accordingly. The key principle established is the dismissal of a legal proceeding for non-prosecution when the moving party chooses not to press its claim.
Questions settled- What is the consequence when a petitioner's counsel states they have no instructions and do not press the petition?
- Mst. ROBINA BIBI vs S.H.O., DERA NAWAB SAHIB and another1986 P Cr. L J 715 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZULAIKHAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Quetta 290 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMAT NOOR vs HAL1M SHAH AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMAT KHATOON vs KHAN MUHAMMAD And 4 Others1986 P Cr. L J 236 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMAT JAN vs TARIQ MAHMUD1986 CLC 2180 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMAT JAN vs ASGHAR and 8 others1986 MLD 2372 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMAT BIBI And Others vs PUNNU KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of an evacuee land allotment. The core legal question concerned whether an appeal against an allotment could be entertained after a delay of over three years, notwithstanding limitation rules, where the initial allotment was made without notice to a necessary party. The Supreme Court held that an order passed without hearing a necessary party is a nullity in the eyes of the law, meaning no question of limitation arises to bar a challenge. The key principle laid down is that limitation does not run against an aggrieved party who was condemned unheard in property allotment proceedings, justifying the reopening of the matter to ensure proper adjudication of the parties' respective entitlements.
Questions settled- Does limitation bar an appeal against a property allotment made without notice to a necessary party?
- Is an order passed by a settlement authority without hearing a necessary party a nullity in the eyes of law?
- Can settlement authorities direct a fresh adjudication after excluding property that was incorrectly allotted?
- Mst. REHMAT BIBI And 4 Others vs THE STATE and 2 others1986 P Cr. L J 1890 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHANA KAUSAR vs THE STATE and 3 others-1986 P Cr. L J 836 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAZWIA ALTAF vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION PASRUR and 5 others1986 P Cr. L J 1921 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAZIA SULTANA vs MUHAMMAD SALIM1986 CLC 864 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAZIA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD RAFI1986 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of ejectment proceedings initiated by the petitioner landlord against the respondent tenant regarding a commercial shop. The petitioner sought eviction on the grounds of default in rent and electricity charges, and bona fide personal requirement for her husband. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment on both grounds. Upon appeal, the Sind High Court set aside the finding regarding personal requirement, holding that the evidence failed to establish the husband's joblessness or visual disability, and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision on the issue of default due to vague pleadings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings of fact regarding personal requirement as sound and declined to interfere with the order of remand, noting that the remand provided a fresh opportunity to substantiate the default claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the finding of bona fide personal requirement based on appreciation of evidence?
- Is an order of remand sustainable when the pleadings regarding default in payment of rent are vague and lack particulars?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent or factual findings supported by sound reasons?
- Mst. RAZIA BEGUM And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 766 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHIDAN BIBI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 223 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHIDAH BEGIN and 6 others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE II, LAHORE and another1986 MLD 1941 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAQIA BIBI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE IV, BAHAWALNAGAR and 21986 MLD 1686 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. RANI vs ROSHAN MASIH and another-1986 P Cr. L J 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAJAN (Deceased) Through Her Legal Heirs And Others vs Mst. ANWAR1986 SCMR 1470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment dismissing a second appeal regarding a land ownership dispute. The core legal questions concerned the identity of the suit land relative to a 1936 decree, the execution status of that decree, and the validity of the petitioners' claims as bona fide purchasers. The Supreme Court held that the identity of the property had been conclusively settled by the 1936 decree, which had attained finality. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the decree had been duly executed, relying on a thirty-year-old Girdawar report that remained unrebutted. The Court established that a decree which has attained finality and been executed cannot be re-litigated. Additionally, the Court ruled that arguments regarding bona fide purchase, which were not pressed before the High Court, could not be raised for the first time during the petition for leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the lower courts' reasoning.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the identity of land covered by a decree that has already attained finality?
- Is a thirty-year-old Girdawar report regarding the execution of a decree admissible and sufficient proof of possession?
- Can a plea regarding bona fide purchase, not pressed in the High Court, be raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Mst. RAISA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 3 others1986 MLD 1418 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAHIMAN vs Mst. SHAHJAHAN through her Legal Heirs1986 MLD 296 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAHAT PARWIN vs Mir SHAUKAT FAIZI1986 MLD 238 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAFIQUNNISA And Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 1322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the successors of an auction purchaser against the dismissal of their constitutional petition by the Baluchistan High Court. The auction purchaser had purchased an evacuee cinema through public auction, subsequently faced partial cancellation of the lease of the underlying land, and sought a rebate on the sale price and compensation for renovation from the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Upon the rejection of his representation and subsequent recovery proceedings, the petitioners challenged the order via a constitutional petition, which the High Court dismissed on the ground that no statutory provision warranted such a representation and that the matter pertained to a breach of contract. The core legal question was whether contractual rights regarding the sale of evacuee property can be enforced through the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that since no provision in the relevant statute vests power in the Settlement Department to grant a rebate, the rights are governed by the general law of contract, which cannot be enforced via a constitutional petition. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether rights arising from a contract of sale of evacuee property are enforceable by means of a constitutional petition in the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the power under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, or the Schemes framed thereunder, to order a rebate in the sale price of a confirmed auction sale?
- Mst. RAFIQAN vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ And Another1986 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a criminal appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent, Muhammad Riaz, of charges under sections 366 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, overturning his conviction by the trial Magistrate. The appellant, the victim of the alleged offence, challenged this acquittal. Upon hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court addressed a preliminary objection regarding the limitation period for filing the petition for leave to appeal. The appellant sought condonation of a four-day delay, citing the counsel's lack of knowledge regarding the judgment announcement date and difficulties in obtaining the certified copy. The Court held that the explanation provided for the delay was insufficient and lacked merit. Emphasizing that an acquittal order should not be lightly jeopardized, the Court reaffirmed the principle that delay in filing petitions against acquittals is only condoned when the petitioner is actively prevented by the respondent from filing in time. Consequently, the Court rejected the application for condonation of delay, recalled the leave to appeal, and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- Is a lack of knowledge regarding the date of judgment announcement a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to recall a previously granted leave to appeal if the petition is found to be time-barred?
- Mst. RABIA vs Mr. J. SAMLIAL, A.S.I. And 10 others1986 MLD 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. RABIA Alias LALI And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. QAMAR SULTANA vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF QURESHI1986 MLD 909 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. PARVVEEN AKHTAR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT And 2 Others1986 PLC (C. S.) 914 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. PARVEEN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ And Other1986 SCMR 7 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 778 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1986 SCMR 1944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a mother challenging the custody of her minor children, which had been awarded to the father by the Guardian Judge and upheld by the High Court. The core legal question addressed was whether the custody of the minor children should be granted to the mother, who had remarried a stranger. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that one of the children had attained the age of majority, rendering the issue of his custody moot. Regarding the remaining minor children, the Court held that the mother's remarriage to a stranger constituted a significant factor in determining the best interests of the children. Finding no legal infirmity or error in the reasoning of the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the custody order in favor of the father. The judgment reinforces the principle that a mother's remarriage to a stranger is a relevant consideration in custody disputes, often weighing against her claim for custody when balanced against the welfare of the minors.
Questions settled- Does a mother's remarriage to a stranger affect her right to the custody of her minor children?
- Is the custody of a child who has attained the age of majority still a justiciable issue in custody proceedings?
- Mst. NOOR BIBI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. NOOR BAI' vs ABDUL GHAFFAR And Other1986 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing an Intra-Court appeal as not maintainable. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act VII of 1972 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not press the point regarding the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal, but instead sought to obtain special leave to appeal against the earlier order of the learned Single Judge, which had been impliedly refused when leave was originally granted on a limited point. The Supreme Court held that the request amounted to seeking a review of the earlier leave-granting order at a belated stage without sufficient grounds, and further noted that the Single Judge had kept the question of fraud open for future civil litigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and rejected the prayer for leave against the Single Judge's order.
Questions settled- Is a Letters Patent Appeal maintainable against the order of a Single Judge under Section 3 of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act VII of 1972?
- Can a request to challenge an order where leave was impliedly refused be entertained as a review at a belated stage?
- Mst. NEK BAKHAT MUHAMMAD RAFIQ ALI HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE. THE STATE HE STATE1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 174 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-06-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZIRBEGUM vs IQBAL HASSAN QURESHI1986 CLC 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZIRAN And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZIR KHATOON vs THE STATE1986 P C r. L J 1753 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZIR BEGUM vs IQBAL HUSSAIN QURESHI And Other1986 SCMR 1684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit regarding a residential house, wherein the respondents-plaintiffs sought to produce additional documents namely historical sale deeds through applications under section 151 and Order XIII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court ultimately rejected the applications upon remand from the High Court, but a subsequent revision petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the High Court, permitting the production of the documents. The petitioner-defendant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending inter alia that the revision petition before the High Court was incompetent as the rejection of an application under Order XIII, rule 2 did not constitute a 'case decided' under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court declined to examine this legal contention, holding that the petitioner, having herself previously invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in the earlier round of litigation to challenge an interlocutory order in the same proceedings, was estopped from turning around and raising an inconsistent plea of incompetency. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the rejection of an application under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure constitutes a 'case decided' within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Can a party who has previously invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against an interlocutory order subsequently challenge the competency of a revision petition filed by the opposing party on the same procedural grounds?
- Mst. NAZEER BEGUM and 8 otherss vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2152 · Land Commission, Punjab · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZ RAN BIBI vs THE STATE1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 112 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAWAZ FATIMA vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR And Another1986 SCMR 431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption dismissed by the trial court, District Judge, and the High Court. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor who lacked a right of pre-emption at the time of the sale and at the time of the suit's institution due to an applicable notification prohibiting pre-emption claims could benefit from the subsequent withdrawal of that notification during the pendency of a second appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and held that a pre-emptor must possess a subsisting right of pre-emption at three crucial stages: the time of the sale, the time of the suit's institution, and the time of the decree. The Court affirmed that where a pre-emptor lacked the right of pre-emption at the time of sale and suit, any subsequent revival or creation of such right during appellate proceedings does not confer an advantage or validate the claim. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Must a pre-emptor possess a valid right of pre-emption at both the time of sale and the time of filing the suit?
- Does the subsequent withdrawal of a prohibiting notification during appellate proceedings validate a pre-emption suit that was invalid when filed?
- Mst. NASREEN ZAHIDA vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASREEN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2586 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASIM Alias SHAMOO vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 229 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR vs Mst. MUKHTIAR BANO1986 SCMR 980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of a pre-emption matter concerning the sale of a house in Multan. The core legal question involves the challenge to concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the respondent's superior right of pre-emption and the existence of the custom of pre-emption in the relevant locality. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner pertained merely to the appreciation of evidence, which had already been fully and concurrently considered by the three courts below without raising any substantial question of law. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence where no question of law arises for consideration.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a superior right of pre-emption?
- Does a petition challenging merely the appreciation of evidence raise a question of law fit for interference by the Supreme Court?
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR vs ARIF1986 MLD 2103 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR And Another vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1986 SCMR 1352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASERA BEGUM vs VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI and 21986 MLD 1491 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASEEM SUGHRA vs GHULAM HUSSAIN And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 2515 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASEEM FARHAT vs MUHAMMAD HAMEED AHMAD KHAN1986 CLC 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASEEM Alias SHAMIM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1919 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR vs MURAD ALI And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1824 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR vs Mst. MUKHTIAR BANO1986 CLC 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASEEBAN BIBI vs MUHAMMAD YAHYA KHAN And Another1986 SCMR 1964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding a land settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether the 1976 cancellation of the respondent's land allotment in Chishtian was lawful, based on the allegation that he failed to comply with a 1963 consent order requiring him to surrender other urban land. The petitioner argued that the respondent's failure to surrender the land triggered the cancellation clause of the 1963 order. The Supreme Court held that the respondent had, in fact, complied with the 1963 order by offering to surrender the land within a reasonable time, and the failure to process that surrender lay with the Settlement Authorities, not the respondent. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner's claims were barred by the principle of res judicata, as the issues had been litigated and decided in previous proceedings up to the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the 1976 cancellation was without lawful authority and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a party be penalized for non-compliance with a consent order when the failure to implement the order lies with the administrative authority?
- Does a prior refusal of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court in a land settlement dispute create a bar of res judicata against subsequent litigation on the same subject matter?
- Can a cancellation of land allotment be sustained if the underlying condition for cancellation was satisfied by the allottee?
- Mst. MUSSARAT BIBI vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1986 MLD 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUSARRAT SULTANA vs BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Lahore 189 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →