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. MUSARRAT FATIMA vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2436 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUSARRAT AFZA NAZ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUNAWAR KHATOON and 2 others vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 MLD 552 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUMTAZ MANZOOR vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARGARH And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2935 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM and another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1986 MLD 1001 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM And Another vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN1986 SCMR 455(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUKHTAR NAZ vs ABDUI, HAMID and others1986 MLD 2948 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM vs ISMAIL1986 MLD 328 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM vs GHULAM NABI1986 CLC 2247 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM And Others vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM And 16 OTHER1986 CLC 2113 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. MOMIN BAI vs Mst. AYESHABAI and 3 others1986 MLD 265 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. MEHRUNNISA BEGUM vs Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH And Other1986 SCMR 1400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenged on the ground of being time-barred by either 33 or 20 days. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, citing the death of her Mukhtar (agent) as the reason for the inability to pursue the case diligently. The core legal question was whether the death of the petitioner's Mukhtar constituted sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court held that the plea was factually unsustainable because the Mukhtar had died during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, yet the appeal was subsequently pursued and attended to by counsel without interruption. Consequently, the Court found no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that a claim for condonation of delay based on the death of an agent is invalid where the record demonstrates that legal proceedings continued to be actively pursued by counsel following the agent's death.
Questions settled- Does the death of a Mukhtar constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay if the legal proceedings were actively pursued by counsel after the death?
- Can a petition be dismissed as time-barred if the petitioner fails to provide sufficient cause for the delay?
- Mst. MEHRI vs PALHU and others1986 MLD 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. MEHR NISH AN vs Mst. GULZAR BEGUM And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a suit for partition of property originally owned by Muhammad Ibrahim, who died leaving multiple heirs including the appellant Mst. Mehr Nishan and co-defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the property vested in the deceased and devolved upon his heirs. The appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge but omitted to implead one of the necessary co-defendants, Manzoor Hussain, within the period of limitation. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal as imperfectly constituted due to the absence of a necessary party, declining to allow belated impleadment or condonation. The Lahore High Court affirmed this decision, holding that in a partition suit involving joint property, all co-sharers entitled to a share are necessary parties. The appellate court cannot adjudicate or issue orders adverse to the interests of an absent necessary party once limitation has expired against them, and provisions such as Order XLI Rules 4, 20, and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 do not cure the fatal defect of failing to implead a necessary respondent in time.
Questions settled- Whether a co-heir in a partition suit is a necessary party to an appeal arising therefrom?
- Does the omission to implead a necessary party within the period of limitation render an appeal liable to dismissal?
- Can an appellate court exercise its powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pass an adverse order against a non-appealing or unrepresented necessary party?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court permit the impleadment of a necessary party after the expiration of the limitation period?
- Mst. MEHER KHATOON vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE; MULTAN and others1986 MLD 2569 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. MASOODA ANWAR vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), DASKA and another1986 MLD 442 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. MARYAM ZOHRA vs YOUNUS JAMAL And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. MARIAM vs Maulana ISMAIL and another1986 MLD 2027 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAQSOODAN BIBI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2677 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAQSOODA BIBI vs SADIQ ALI1986 MLD 2578 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. MANDAN and others vs SHAH MUHAMMAD and others1986 MLD 629 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAJIDA BEGUM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1986C L C 2314 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAHRUKH JAHAN BEGUM vs YAWAR HUSSAIN1986 MLD 304 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAHMOODA BEGUM vs AMIRUDDIN And Another1986 P Cr. L J 1701 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAHJABEEN BEGUM vs R.M. KHAN1986 SCMR 1835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the maintainability of an appeal against an order of the Rent Controller refusing to strike down a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a tentative rent payment order. The High Court had previously dismissed the appeal, holding that an order refusing to strike off defence is incidental or collateral and does not dispose of the entire dispute. The core legal question was whether an appeal lies against such an order under the relevant rent restriction laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held, in light of its precedent in Mst. Zubaida Begum v. Mst. S.T. Naqvi, that the appeal is indeed maintainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the matter for a decision on merits in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does an appeal lie against an order of the Rent Controller refusing to strike down the defence for non-compliance with a rent payment order under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is an order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, refusing to strike off defence considered an incidental or collateral order that bars an appeal?
- Mst. LAL BEGUM vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And OTHER1986 CLC 2401 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. KULSOOM vs HABIB PUBLIC SCHOOL and 2 others1986 MLD 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. KUBRI BIBI vs Mst. HABIBA1986 MLD 332 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 1782 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-07-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHEED vs ABDUL AZIZ1986 MLD 933 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHANZADI vs THE SUPERINTENDENT, DAR-UL-AMAN, MULTAN and otherss1986 P Cr. L J 942 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHALIQ FATIMA vs BUNDOO And Other1986 SCMR 631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a shop in Bahawalpur, originally auctioned to respondent Bundoo in 1960. Following the resumption of the property and failed re-auction attempts, the petitioner, Mst. Khaliq Fatima, was granted the shop through negotiations in 1968. The respondent challenged this transfer through appellate and revisional forums unsuccessfully, but the High Court eventually set aside the transfer to the petitioner, remanding the case to determine the respondent's entitlement and ordering an open auction if he was ineligible. Upon remand, the Settlement Commissioner found the respondent ineligible for transfer, thereby upholding the cancellation of his original auction bid. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent did not challenge this adverse finding. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, reasoning that since the respondent was found ineligible for transfer, there was no valid justification to disturb the petitioner's transfer, which had been in place for over seventeen years. The Court maintained the status quo via an interim order pending final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a transfer of property through negotiation can be upheld if the original auction purchaser is found ineligible for transfer?
- Does the failure of an original auction purchaser to challenge a finding of ineligibility validate a subsequent transfer to another party?
- Can a long-standing transfer of property be set aside when the competing claimant is found to have no legal entitlement?
- Mst. KHADIJA BIBI vs AFLATOON and another1986 MLD 2470 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHADIJA BEGUM vs THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SAHIWAL and others1986 P Cr. L J 945 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. KAUSAR vs Mst. MASHKOOR FATIMA And Other1986 SCMR 596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Kausar against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 26-10-1981, which was barred by 1270 days. The core legal question concerned whether an inordinate delay in filing a properly constituted petition for leave to appeal could be condoned based on the history of previous litigation, particularly where an earlier leave petition was filed in the name of a deceased party and subsequently dismissed as incompetent. The Supreme Court held that the matter stood concluded by its earlier order recalling leave and dismissing the prior defective petition, leaving no scope to re-open the grounds for delay. The Court established the principle that a party cannot re-litigate or seek condonation of delay based on grounds that were or could have been raised in prior proceedings concerning the same defective and incompetent petition.
Questions settled- Whether an inordinate delay in filing a properly constituted petition for leave to appeal can be condoned on the basis of explanations regarding a prior defective petition?
- Can a party re-open grounds for condoning delay that have already been adjudicated and concluded by a previous order of the Court?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal filed in the name of a deceased person maintainable?
- Mst. KAURI MAI And Others vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION1986 P Cr. L J 353 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. KAREEM BIBI vs Mst. NAZIRAN And Other1986 CLC 2046(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. KARAM JAN vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Other1986 SCMR 939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the State appeal and the petitioner's revision petition against the acquittal of respondents in a murder case. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts erred in acquitting the respondents by relying on minor discrepancies, delay in lodging the first information report, and non-production of a witness, despite the presence of ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the trial court had the advantage of observing the witnesses and assessing all surrounding circumstances. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with an order of acquittal upheld by the High Court unless the appraisal of evidence by the courts below is perverse or suffers from a gross misreading resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Whether delay in lodging the First Information Report can be a ground for disbelieving ocular testimony when explained by circumstances?
- Does the non-production of an additional witness mentioned in the FIR necessarily discredit the testimony of the sole eye-witness?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent orders of acquittal passed by the lower courts?
- Mst. KANIZ FATIMA vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1703 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. KANIZ FATIMA vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT And Other1986 SCMR 83(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of an appeal. The core legal question concerns the consequence of the appellant's failure to deposit the required security and make an appearance before the court pursuant to a show-cause notice and subsequent telegraphic notice. The court held that where an appellant fails to appear and cannot be located by the police at the given address, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The holding of the court is that the appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution without any order as to costs. The key principle laid down is that appellate proceedings may be terminated for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to comply with court directions regarding security deposits and personal appearance.
Questions settled- What is the consequence of an appellant's failure to deposit security and appear before the court after receiving notice?
- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant's whereabouts are unknown and they fail to appear?
- Mst. KALSUM vs SHAHAMA and 2 others-- Respondents1986 P Cr. L J 2383 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. KALSOOM BEGUM vs ABDUL QATTAR And OTHER1986 CLC 1274 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. JAINA HAJIANI and 3 others vs Mst. AMINA BAI-1986 MLD 300 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. JABEEN BAHA AND 2 OTHERS vs SAID MIAN SHERZADA AND 3 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. ISMAT BIBI alias AZMAT BIBI vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR1986 MLD 2294 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. IRSHAD BIBI vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ1986 MLD 1176 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. IQBAL MAI. AND ANOTHER vs FALAK SHER AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment concerning an inheritance dispute involving land held by a deceased predecessor, Atta Muhammad. The petitioners, granddaughters of the deceased, challenged an alienation of land made by the widow of their predeceased father. The High Court had ruled against the petitioners, citing the application of customary law and the inapplicability of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to successions opened before its promulgation. Before the Supreme Court, the respondents offered a settlement allowing the petitioners to retain the majority of the land, while the respondents retained the specific portion they had purchased. The Supreme Court, noting the complexity of the legal issues regarding the interplay between Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the Punjab/Sind/N.-W. F. P./Baluchistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V) of 1962, declined to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that given the fair settlement offer and the potential risks to the petitioners if the legal points were litigated, the case was not a fit one for granting leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is a case involving a disputed inheritance a fit case for granting leave to appeal when the parties have reached a fair settlement?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the petitioner faces a significant risk of losing their entire claim if the underlying legal questions are decided against them?
- Can the Supreme Court decline to adjudicate complex questions regarding the interpretation of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 when the matter can be resolved through a settlement?
- Mst. INAYAT BIBI vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1986 PLD Rev. 124 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1970-10-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. IMTIAZ BIBI vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1014 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- Mst. IMAM BIBI vs ALLAH DITTA And Other1986 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan on a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22nd June, 1985, arising from a land and inheritance dispute. The High Court had allowed a Regular Second Appeal, holding that since the last owner of tenancy rights, Nizam Din, died prior to the promulgation of Shariat Law in the relevant locality of the Bahawalpur State, his inheritance was governed by previous customary law rather than Muslim law. The core legal questions for examination concern the exact date of death of the last owner, the date and effect of the extension of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 to the Bahawalpur State along with the applicability of Section 19-A, and the impact of the enforcement of Shariat Law via specific government notifications issued in 1951. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions in detail, requiring security in the sum of Rs. 2,500.
Questions settled- What is the date of death of the last owner of tenancy rights, Nizam Din?
- What is the date and effect of the extension of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 to Bahawalpur State, and when did Section 19-A apply to the disputed tenancy?
- What is the effect of the enforcement of Shariat Law by Notification No. 20-LD dated 4th March 1951 and the subsequent exemption notification?
- Mst. HUSSAN ARA BEGUM And Others vs Messrs Haji ALLAH DITTA BARKAT ALI1986 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a Constitutional Petition challenging an ejectment order passed by the District Judge, Gujrat, regarding a shop. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the District Judge's findings on the basis of alleged misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach was correct, affirming that the High Court, in its Constitutional jurisdiction, is not required to reappraise evidence or scrutinize the weight attached to different pieces of evidence by the lower appellate court, especially when the lower court has already discussed the evidence in full. The Court clarified that 'misreading' cannot be used as a misnomer for mere disagreement with the conclusions drawn from evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the Court granted the petitioners liberty to institute a fresh petition based on new grounds, such as default and personal requirement, arising from subsequent developments.
Questions settled- Can the High Court, in its Constitutional jurisdiction, reappraise evidence or scrutinize the weight attached to evidence by a lower appellate court?
- Does the allegation of 'misreading' of evidence allow for the reappraisal of evidence in a Constitutional petition?
- Is a party entitled to file a fresh petition if new grounds, such as default and personal requirement, arise after the dismissal of a previous petition?
- Mst. HUSNA Petitioner vs MUSHTAQ ALI1986 PLD Karachi 621 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. HURMAT vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. HASSAN PERVEEN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. HASHMAT BIBI And Others vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE1986 CLC 2324 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM And 6 Others vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT1986 CLC 1697 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAMEEDA BEGUM and others vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and another1986 MLD 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. HALEEMA SULTANA vs THE RENT CONTROLLER and another1986 MLD 2018 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAJRA BEGUM And ANOTHER vs Malik ABDUS RASHID (Deceased) And 181986 CLC 433 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajiani KHATIJA BAI and 11 others vs ESTATE OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI and 2 others1986 MLD 2960 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. HAIDRAN BIBI vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1986 MLD 2454 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. HABIBA KHANUM vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) and others1986 MLD 717 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN AND OTHERS vs Sahibzada IJAZ HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 194 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves cross-appeals arising out of a suit for joint possession filed by the legal heirs of Sahibzada Muhammad Yar regarding multiple urban and rural immovable properties. The plaintiffs contended that the alleged 'Tamleek' (gift) transactions made by the donor in favour of his brother and nephew were sham transactions, as the donor never divested himself of ownership or possession during his lifetime. The trial court decreed the suit in part. The High Court evaluated the three essential requirements of a valid gift under Islamic law—declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. It reaffirmed that revenue entries do not create title and carry only a rebuttable presumption of correctness, requiring the party relying on them to establish the underlying transaction. Where delivery of possession or donor's intention to divest was unproven, the gifts were declared invalid. Additionally, the Court held that possession by a co-heir is not hostile without proof of adverse possession. Consequently, the High Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal regarding Property No. 5 while dismissing the defendants' cross-appeal.
Questions settled- Do entries in revenue records create title or carry conclusive proof of a valid gift transaction under Islamic law?
- Who bears the burden of proving delivery of possession and the genuineness of a transaction when a gift made via revenue mutation is challenged?
- Can a co-heir establish title by adverse possession against other legal heirs without proving continuous and hostile possession?
- Mst. GHULAM SUGHRA vs AHMAD KHAN And Another1986 SCMR 1188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from cross criminal appeals regarding an incident where the accused stabbed his colleague to death inside an office following a trivial quarrel over handing over files. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the High Court on appeal converted the acquittal to a conviction under Section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, holding that the fatality occurred during a 'sudden fight' under Exception 4 to Section 300 PPC, and sentenced him to seven months' imprisonment. The complainant appealed seeking conviction under Section 302 PPC, while the accused appealed his conviction. The Supreme Court examined whether the offense attracted Exception 4 to Section 300 PPC or amounted to murder under Section 302 PPC. The Supreme Court held that Exception 4 was inapplicable because the accused took undue advantage by attacking an unarmed colleague with a knife and acted with cruelty by repeatedly stabbing him in vital regions over a minor dispute. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal under Section 302 PPC, convicted the accused of murder, and sentenced him to life imprisonment with benefit under Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
Questions settled- Whether an attack with a lethal weapon on an unarmed victim following a trivial quarrel qualifies for Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does inflicting multiple knife blows on vital organs negate the defence of sudden fight under Exception 4 to Section 300 PPC on grounds of cruelty and taking undue advantage?
- Whether a conviction altered to Section 304-II PPC by the High Court can be restored to Section 302 PPC where the accused acted with cruelty during a sudden quarrel?
- Mst. GHULAM MAI vs KHIZAR HAYAT AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 44 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA vs FAZAL And OTHER1986 CLC 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition, converted into a regular second appeal, arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge dismissing the petitioners' first appeal on the ground of deficient court-fee and expired limitation. The core legal question concerns the correct valuation for court-fee purposes in a suit challenging a collusive decree and gift, and whether the right to a second appeal is a vested substantive right governed by the law in force at the institution of the suit. The court held that the suit falls under section 7(iv-c) of the Court Fees Act 1870 rather than section 7(iv-a), that the right of appeal is a vested substantive right available from the date of the suit's institution unaffected by subsequent procedural amendments unless applied retrospectively, and that an appellate court must grant an opportunity to make good any court-fee deficiency rather than dismissing the appeal outright. The key principle established is that the right of appeal is a vested right surviving until the end of litigation from the date of the suit, and suits challenging a gift and decree are governed by section 7(iv-c) of the Court Fees Act 1870.
Questions settled- Is a right of appeal a substantive vested right available from the date of the institution of the suit?
- Whether a suit seeking to set aside a collusive decree and gift falls under section 7(iv-a) or section 7(iv-c) of the Court Fees Act 1870?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal for deficient court-fee without first affording the appellant an opportunity to make good the deficiency?
- Mst. GHULAM AISHA vs ZAHOOR AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the respondent's conviction under Section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned whether the incident constituted a sudden fight under Exception 4 of Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the High Court exercised its sentencing discretion appropriately. The Supreme Court held that the incident did not satisfy the criteria for Exception 4, as the act involved premeditation and the use of a weapon on a vital part of the deceased's body without justification. Instead, the Court found the circumstances aligned closer to Exception 2, involving an excess of the right of private defense. The Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, ruling that when an offense constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the trial judge possesses broad discretion to apportion punishment, ranging from life imprisonment to a short term or fine. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as no grounds existed to interfere with the High Court's discretion.
Questions settled- Does the use of a dagger on a vital part of the body without provocation qualify as a sudden fight under Exception 4 of Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What is the scope of judicial discretion in sentencing for culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Does an accused who exceeds the right of private defense fall under the purview of Exception 2 of Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Mst. GHAMMON vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), LAHORE and 31986 MLD 572 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. FIRDAUS BEGUM and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2411 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAZEELAT BIBI vs KARAM KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the widow of the deceased against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had granted post-arrest bail to the respondent, Karam Khan, in a murder case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exercised its discretion judicially in granting bail, given the circumstances of the offence. The prosecution alleged that the accused party, including the respondent, intercepted a police vehicle, disarmed police constables, and pursued the deceased into his father's house to commit the murder. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning for granting bail—specifically that the respondent arrived in a second batch and was not the one who fired the fatal shot—was untenable. The Court emphasized that the incident demonstrated extreme lawlessness and total disregard for law enforcement agencies. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and cancelled the bail granted to the respondent, ordering him to be taken into custody immediately.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's reasoning for granting bail based on the accused's arrival in a second batch and lack of attribution of the fatal shot is legally tenable?
- Does an incident involving the disarming of police guards and the pursuit of a victim into a private residence constitute grounds for refusing bail?
- Can the Supreme Court cancel bail granted by the High Court if the reasoning provided for the grant is found to be untenable?
- Mst. FATIMA BAI vs JAN MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 1078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from an eviction application filed by the petitioner against the respondent regarding a portion of a property. Following an ex parte eviction order, the respondent challenged the proceedings, eventually leading to a remand by the High Court for the Rent Controller to determine the preliminary issue of the landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Controller subsequently found no such relationship existed and dismissed the eviction application, a finding later affirmed by the High Court. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, challenging the Rent Controller's finding and arguing that the High Court failed to consider a civil court decree establishing her title. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner had conceded before the High Court that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Court held that once a Rent Controller determines that no such relationship exists, they are divested of jurisdiction, rendering subsequent proceedings coram non judice. The Court clarified that these rent proceedings do not prejudice the parties' rights regarding title established in separate civil litigation.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller retain jurisdiction to entertain an eviction application if the relationship of landlord and tenant is found not to exist?
- What is the legal effect of orders passed by a Rent Controller in proceedings where it is subsequently determined that no landlord-tenant relationship exists?
- Can a party challenge a finding of a Rent Controller in the Supreme Court after conceding the correctness of that finding before the High Court?
- Mst. FARNAZ MENDHRO vs SHAH MURAD SUGAR MILLS Ltd.1986 PLC 781 · Labour Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. FARIDUNNISA vs Mian ABDUL HAFEEZ1986 MLD 843 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. FARAH SHAHWAR vs NAYYAR KHAN1986 MLD 1283 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAIYAZI BEGUM And Others vs ZAKIUDDIN1986 C L C1280 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. ELAHI SAIN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 148 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. DOPI vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1986 CLC 1815 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. DILSHAD HUSSAIN vs P.I . C .I . C . And Other1986 SCMR 276(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals and a connected petition came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a claim for remuneration or compensation in respect of services rendered by the late S.M. Hussain in his capacity as Official Liquidator. During the proceedings, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 offered a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) to resolve the matter in full and final settlement of all claims regarding the deceased Liquidator's services. The appellant, who was the widow of the late Official Liquidator, appeared in person alongside her counsel and formally accepted the offer. In light of the mutual agreement reached between the parties, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals in terms of the compromise, making no order as to costs. Consequently, the related Civil Petition No. 717 of 1984 was rendered infructuous and was dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Can an appeal regarding claims for services rendered by an Official Liquidator be disposed of in terms of a mutually agreed compromise?
- Does the acceptance of a full and final settlement offer by an appellant render a connected civil petition infructuous?
- Whether the Supreme Court may dispose of an appeal without an order as to costs upon recorded compromise between the parties?
- Mst. Deeba Khanum vs The StatePTCL 1986 CL. 247 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. DEEBA KHANUM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 790 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. BILQEES FATIMA vs ABDUL RAZZAQ1986 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of Rs. 1,30,000 based on dishonoured cheques. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to supply the proper draft form, ordinary summons under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were issued to the defendant instead of the special summary procedure summons. The core legal question was whether a defendant can be required to file an application for leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 when ordinary summons were erroneously issued. The court held that since the summary procedure summons requirement is mandatory and penal in nature, its strict compliance is a prerequisite; therefore, where ordinary summons are issued, the defendant cannot be required to seek leave to defend, and the written statement filed by the defendant shall be accepted on record. The key principle laid down is that the mandatory provisions regarding the issuance of specific summary procedure summons must be strictly fulfilled before a defendant can be penalized or required to seek leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII.
Questions settled- Can a defendant be required to seek leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when ordinary summons were issued instead of the prescribed summary form?
- Is the requirement of issuing a special form of summons under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory?
- What are the legal consequences when a plaintiff fails to supply the proper draft form of summons for a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mst. BILQEES AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. BIBI SHAMIM FATIMA vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and 4 others1986 MLD 1609 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. BIBI KHUDIJA and 2 others vs THE STATE and others1986 MLD 2844 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-07-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. BHAGAN BIBI vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Other1986 SCMR 1180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which interfered with concurrent findings of fact previously established by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's examination is whether the High Court is legally justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of fact reached by lower rent forums. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, thereby indicating that the propriety of the High Court's interference with such concurrent findings requires a detailed judicial review. The principle at stake involves the scope and limitations of writ jurisdiction when confronted with concurrent factual determinations made by specialized tribunals and appellate authorities under rent control legislation. By granting leave, the Court has signaled that the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction in this specific context warrants further scrutiny to determine if it exceeded the permissible boundaries of judicial review regarding findings of fact.
Questions settled- Is the High Court justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by a Rent Controller and confirmed by an Appellate Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- Mst. BAVI vs BARKAT ALI1986 MLD 2787 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. BASRA vs ABDUL HAKIM AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 298 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. BASHIRAN And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And OTHER1986 CLC 2796 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. BARKAT BIBI vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Mst. Barkat Bibi, against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the State's criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused/respondents was dismissed. The primary contention raised was that the High Court dismissed the acquittal appeal without properly evaluating the prosecution evidence, addressing the merits, or applying judicial mind, relying instead on conjectures, surmises, and general observations regarding routine appeals against acquittal orders. It was additionally argued that the trial court had misread the evidence and acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the impugned High Court order, which had summarily dismissed the appeal on the premise that laid-down principles regarding acquittal challenges were disregarded. Finding that the questions raised regarding the proper evaluation of evidence and principles governing appeals against acquittal warranted deeper consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and issued bailable warrants against the accused/respondents.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can dismiss a criminal appeal against acquittal without properly evaluating the prosecution evidence or addressing the merits of the case?
- Whether general observations regarding the routine filing of acquittal appeals justify the dismissal of an appeal without judicial application of mind to the facts?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the trial court and appellate court allegedly misread prosecution evidence on flimsy grounds?
- Mst. BALQUES BARKAT And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)1986 CLC 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. BALQIS BEGUM vs ALI SHER1986 MLD 608 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. BAKHT BANO And Another vs ALLAH YAR And Other1986 SCMR 1483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, daughters of the deceased, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their revision petition by the Lahore High Court, claiming a share in their father's estate governed by custom. The core legal question was whether the widow of the deceased, who held land equally alongside her sons, was a limited owner under custom or merely a maintenance-holder. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that under the general custom of agricultural tribes in the Punjab, where male descendants exist, a widow is ordinarily entitled only to suitable maintenance rather than a life estate, and sharing property equally with sons does not displace this general custom. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the widow was a maintenance-holder, distinguishing between a widow's life estate in the absence of male descendants and a maintenance-holder's right in their presence. The key principle laid down is that land held by a widow in the presence of male descendants is held in lieu of maintenance, and upon its termination, the property reverts to those obliged to provide maintenance rather than tracing descent from the widow.
Questions settled- Whether a widow succeeding alongside male lineal descendants takes a limited life estate or holds property merely in lieu of maintenance under customary law?
- Does the mere sharing of property equally with sons by a widow suffice to prove a departure from the general custom regarding maintenance?
- How does the devolution of property differ upon the termination of a widow's life estate versus a maintenance estate?
- Mst. BAKHAN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Shariat Court 274 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. BAKHAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD ALI And 2 Other1986 SCMR 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which affirmed lower court decisions rejecting the petitioners' plea of limitation in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners purchased land in 1967, prompting respondents to file a pre-emption suit in 1968. Initially filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Chiniot, the plaint was returned under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, after an amendment increased the suit's valuation beyond the trial court's pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaint was subsequently re-presented in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jhang. The petitioners contended that the suit was time-barred, an issue decided against them by the trial court and the Additional District Judge, and subsequently upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the petitioners' contention regarding the incorrect legal determination of the limitation issue required further examination. The Court held that the legal validity of the limitation finding warranted a full hearing, thereby staying the proceedings in the interim.
Questions settled- Does the return of a plaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and its subsequent re-presentation affect the limitation period for a pre-emption suit?
- Can a suit be considered time-barred if the initial filing was within time but the plaint was returned for re-presentation in a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Mst. AURANG ZAIB BIBI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Collector, Multan1986 SCMR 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's revision application. The petitioner had challenged the concurrent orders of the lower courts, namely the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby her application for the issuance of a temporary injunction pending the disposal of her suit for declaration was rejected. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in exercising their discretion regarding the grant of a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court held that no question of law was involved and that the discretion exercised by the lower courts in refusing the temporary injunction was not open to any exception on grounds of law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that appellate and revisional courts will not interfere with the proper exercise of judicial discretion by lower courts in interlocutory matters unless a clear error of law is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent refusal of a temporary injunction by lower courts when no question of law is involved?
- Is the exercise of discretion by lower courts in declining a temporary injunction open to exception without a demonstrable error of law?
- Mst. ASHRAF BEGUM vs Sh. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And Another1986 SCMR 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition which challenged an appellate order remanding a rent ejectment case for disposal on merits. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant rendered by an appellate authority. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower appellate court's finding was based on a misreading of evidence and whether interference was warranted under constitutional jurisdiction given that the jurisdictional fact of the relationship of landlord and tenant was at issue. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction are generally immune from constitutional interference unless shown to be based on no evidence or a misreading thereof.
Questions settled- Whether a finding on a question of fact recorded by a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- Does a misreading of evidence by an appellate authority justify interference under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Is the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant a jurisdictional fact necessary for the exercise of power under rent laws?
- Mst. ARSHAD JABEEN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 598 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. ANWARI BEGUM vs Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM1986 MLD 1169 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. ANWARI BEGUM And Others vs ABDUR RASHID1986 CLC 2130 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. ANWAR MAI vs GHULAM QADIR SHAH And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →