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. ANWAR FATIMA AND 5 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ALI MUTLAQ1986 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMEER KHATUN vs FAIZ AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 1182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a criminal revision by the Lahore High Court concerning a murder trial. The core legal question is whether the amended subsection (2) of section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 44 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which relate to the examination and cross-examination of an accused person, possess retrospective effect and apply to trials commenced prior to their enactment, particularly where the accused were examined under section 342 before the amendment. The Supreme Court held that the case involves substantial questions of general public importance regarding retrospective application of procedural laws and potential changes to fundamental tenets of criminal jurisprudence, thereby granting leave to appeal. The Court declined to stay trial proceedings and recommended the constitution of a larger Bench by the Chief Justice to resolve the conflicting authorities and legal issues.
Questions settled- Whether amended section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 44 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, have retrospective effect?
- Whether the conflict of authority as appearing from the case law cited is reconcilable?
- Whether the laws relied upon have changed a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding the burden of proof?
- Mst. AMEER FATIMA vs KARACHI CANTONMENT BOARD and 5 others1986 MLD 1431 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. ALLAH RAKHI and others vs HABIB KHAN and others1986 MLD 2041 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. AISHA KHANUM . vs EHSANULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 539 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court concerning the transfer of a disputed property under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the notification dated 29th of June, 1963, satisfied the requirement of section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, such that the Settlement Commissioner was specially empowered to hear and decide the revision petition. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner was indeed duly and specially empowered to hear the revision by virtue of relevant government notifications investing him with the powers of a Settlement Commissioner, coupled with the Chief Settlement Commissioner's general notification under section 20(3) of the Act which remained in force until specifically withdrawn. The appeal was accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement Commissioner was specially empowered under section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to hear the revision?
- Whether a notification issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner continues to remain in force until specifically withdrawn?
- Mst. AISHA BAI through Legal Heirs vs Mst. MOBIN KHATOON1986 MLD 992 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. AISHA BAI Through Legal Heirs And Another vs Mst. MOBIN KHATOON1986 SCMR 1712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal arising from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlady against tenants. The landlady sought the eviction of the petitioners on the grounds that the premises were required in good faith for the reconstruction of a new building, supported by a building plan approved by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. The tenants contested the application, alleging mala fides and harassment, and argued that the proposed construction could proceed without removing their premises because the area was designated as compulsory open space. The Rent Controller and the High Court both ruled in favor of the landlady, finding the requirement for reconstruction to be bona fide. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, holding that the allowance for compulsory open spaces in an approved building plan is an integral part of the overall layout and sanction for the proposed construction. Consequently, the Court determined that compliance with such building rules and bye-laws necessitates the removal of existing structures, rendering the ejectment order legally sound and unexceptionable.
Questions settled- Is the requirement for reconstruction considered bona fide when supported by an approved building plan?
- Does the designation of an area as compulsory open space in an approved building plan justify the removal of existing premises for reconstruction purposes?
- Can a tenant challenge an ejectment order on the basis that construction can proceed without their removal if the approved plan mandates open space?
- Mst. A. FAROOQI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1986 MLD 729 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mrs. ZUBAIDA BEGUM vs Mrs. S.T. NAQVI1986 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the appealability of a Rent Controller's order refusing to strike off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent deposit order under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller had condoned the tenant's delay in depositing rent due to illness, refusing to strike off the defence. The Additional District Judge reversed this, but the High Court held the Rent Controller's order was interlocutory and thus not appealable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if an appeal against the refusal to strike off a defence is competent under Section 15 of the Ordinance. Relying on precedent, the Supreme Court held that an order refusing to strike off a tenant's defence is appealable, just as an order striking off a defence is. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on other pending points. The Court also upheld the High Court's discretionary exercise in condoning the delay in filing the second appeal.
Questions settled- Is an order of a Rent Controller refusing to strike off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent deposit order appealable under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a High Court's exercise of discretionary jurisdiction to condone a delay in filing an appeal be interfered with if based on valid grounds?
- Mrs. ULFAT RASHID vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB HEALTH1986 PLC (C.S.) 255 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-15Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SYEDA ZAHIDA ZAIDI vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD TAQI And Other1986 CLC 2066 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SURRYA EDWIN and others vs PROFESSOR JAVAID JIWAN MALL and others1986 MLD 2203 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SHER BANO and 6 others vs KELLI PATEL and 2 others1986 MLD 111 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SHAHNAZ SEHGAL vs Mrs. FATIMA ASHRAF And Other1986 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld an order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of a sub-tenant. The dispute arose when the landlord sought the ejectment of the original tenant (a company) and its sub-tenants, subsequently obtaining an order under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, requiring the deposit of rent. The Rent Controller struck off the original tenant's defence for failure to deposit rent and ordered eviction. The petitioner, a sub-tenant, challenged this, arguing that as she had paid rent to the original tenant (her landlord) and denied any direct landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent-landlord, the Rent Controller was legally obligated to determine the existence of such a relationship as a preliminary issue before ordering eviction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the petitioner's plea regarding the necessity of determining the landlord-tenant relationship as a preliminary issue raised a substantial question of law requiring further consideration. The Court also granted an interim stay against eviction, conditional upon the petitioner continuing to deposit rent.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller required to determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship as a preliminary issue when a sub-tenant denies such a relationship?
- Can a Rent Controller order the eviction of a sub-tenant without first resolving the dispute regarding the status of the tenancy?
- Mrs. SALMA TANVEER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION1986 PLC (C. S.) 912 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mrs. S.J. Usmani vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And 7 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 444 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mrs. RUKHA RAFIQ CHAUDHRY And ANOTHER vs Major Malik MUHAMMAD1986 CLC 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, which held that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside a decree on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, was not maintainable before the trial court. The petitioners argued that because their appeal to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, the trial court's decree had not merged into the appellate decisions, and thus, the trial court retained jurisdiction to hear the Section 12(2) application. The court held that the doctrine of merger applies regardless of whether the appellate court dismissed the appeal on merits or on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the final judgment in the case was that of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The court affirmed the principle that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be filed before the court that passed the final judgment, decree, or order, which, following the appellate process, is the highest forum that adjudicated the matter.
Questions settled- Does a trial court's decree merge into the appellate court's decision if the appeal is dismissed solely on the ground of limitation?
- Where must an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be filed when a decree has been affirmed by the Supreme Court?
- Does the doctrine of merger apply when an appellate court dismisses an appeal without examining the merits of the case?
- Mrs. REHANA HUSSAIN MULLICK vs SAHIBZADI MAHMOODA BEGUM and another1986 MLD 2707 · Election Tribunal · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mrs. RAZIA BHUTTA vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 933 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mrs. RAFIA AHMAD vs EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER 'H' DIVISION And Other1986 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging property tax assessment orders issued by Excise and Taxation authorities. The petitioner, owner of a residential property in Karachi, contested the substantial upward revision of the Fair Annual Rental Value (F.A.R.V.) of her property, which had been increased from Rs. 10,500 to Rs. 1,68,000, and subsequently reduced to Rs. 1,44,000 through administrative appeals and revisions. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned whether the High Court failed to properly interpret Section 9 of the Sind Urban Immovable Property Act, 1958, and whether a statutory bar existed against the enhancement of property assessment under proviso 2 to Section 5 of the same Act, as introduced on 1-7-1977. Finding that the petitioner's submissions regarding the statutory interpretation and the alleged bar on enhancement deserved detailed consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court further ordered a stay on the recovery of the impugned tax demand, subject to the petitioner depositing security in the form of 'Khas Deposit Certificates'.
Questions settled- Does proviso 2 to Section 5 of the Sind Urban Immovable Property Act, 1958, create a complete bar to the enhancement of property tax assessment?
- Did the High Court err in its interpretation of Section 9 of the Sind Urban Immovable Property Act, 1958, regarding property tax assessments?
- Mrs. NARGIS KHAN vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KARACHI EAST and 2 others1986 MLD 2553 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
- Mrs. LILAVATI HARCHANDANI vs MONICA KAMRAN DOST and others1986 MLD 1969 · Election Tribunal · 1986-01-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- Mrs. K.A. MARKER And Others vs Messrs MAHMOOD AHMAD & SONS1986 SCMR 1568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by landlords against tenants for default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had initially ordered the tenants to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Following allegations of non-compliance with this tentative rent order, the Rent Controller struck off the tenants' defence and ordered eviction. The High Court, however, set aside this order, reasoning that a subsequent agreement between the parties to increase the rent rendered the original rent order ineffective and the ejectment application infructuous. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court erred in dismissing the ejectment application entirely. The Supreme Court held that the creation of a fresh tenancy agreement with an enhanced rent rate did not extinguish the landlords' original cause of action regarding the initial default. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller to decide the original ejectment application on its merits concerning the alleged previous default.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent agreement to increase rent render an earlier ejectment application based on prior default infructuous?
- Can a Rent Controller's order for tentative rent deposit be rendered ineffective by the parties' conduct in paying enhanced rent directly?
- Is an ejectment application based on a specific period of default liable to be dismissed solely because the parties later agreed to a new tenancy at an enhanced rate?
- Mrs. J.C. RAHMAN vs Mrs. SALMA AHMAD1986 SCMR 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a landlord-tenant dispute where the petitioner challenged the eviction order upheld by the Sind High Court. The respondent-landlady sought eviction of the petitioner from the ground floor of her house, citing personal requirement for her children and default in utility payments. The core legal questions were whether the landlady's requirement for the premises was genuine and in good faith, and whether the availability of the first-floor premises rendered the eviction request invalid. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court. It held that the landlady’s requirement was genuine, noting that the children from her second marriage could not reasonably reside with the children from her first marriage due to familial friction and the former husband's presence. Furthermore, the Court accepted that the first-floor premises were unsuitable due to the landlady's medical condition preventing stair climbing. The principle laid down is that a landlord's personal requirement, if supported by evidence of genuine need and good faith, constitutes valid grounds for eviction, and appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding such necessity.
Questions settled- Is a landlord's requirement for premises considered genuine if the landlord has a medical condition preventing the use of alternative vacant floors?
- Can a tenant challenge the genuineness of a landlord's personal requirement for the first time in the Supreme Court if the issue was not raised in the lower courts?
- Does the presence of other vacant premises in the same building automatically invalidate a landlord's claim of personal requirement for a specific portion of that building?
- Mrs. HAMIDA HABIB PATEL vs Mrs. AYESHA ISLAM1986 MLD 2023 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mrs. AQILA RAFIQUE vs THE PAKISTAN SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI And 3 Others1986 PLC 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mrs. AMATUL KARIM vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 597 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-08-03Read full judgment →
- Moulvi SULTAN MUHAMMAD vs Syed IJAZ RUSSAIN SHAH And Other1986 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks to challenge an order of the Lahore High Court which partly dismissed a constitutional petition against the decision of the Election Tribunal setting aside the petitioner's election as a member of the Union Council. The core legal questions involve whether the Election Tribunal had the jurisdiction to examine the question of a candidate's disqualification independently in election petition proceedings despite the finality of nomination paper acceptance, and whether the finding regarding the petitioner's membership in a defunct political party was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the Election Tribunal possesses jurisdiction under the relevant rules to declare an election void if the nomination was invalid, and that concurrent findings of fact based on admissions made in judicial proceedings do not warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that an Election Tribunal is competent to examine the disqualification of a returned candidate during election petition proceedings, and findings of fact based on material evidence by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction will not be disturbed.
Questions settled- Whether an Election Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the question of a candidate's disqualification in an election petition independently of nomination appeal proceedings?
- Can a finding of fact by an Election Tribunal based on a candidate's admission in judicial proceedings be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the acceptance of a nomination paper by an appellate authority bar the Election Tribunal from declaring the election void on grounds of invalid nomination?
- MOULA BUX And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 634 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- MOOSA KHAN vs Mrs. KHAIRUNNISA YAQOOB and 2 others1986 MLD 290 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- MOOSA and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- MOINUDDIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
- MOHY-UD-DIN and another vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others1986 MLD 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- MOHSIN UR REHMAN vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 1687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner facing trial in a murder case. The petitioner sought to summon two given-up prosecution witnesses as court witnesses under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the argument stage, which the trial court and the High Court had declined due to delay and late stage. The core legal question was whether the trial court was bound under the second part of section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon given-up witnesses as court witnesses without a foundational showing that their evidence was essential for the just decision of the case. The Supreme Court held that in order to invoke the mandatory second part of section 540, there must be a factual basis and a finding that the evidence is essential for the just decision of the case, which was absent in this case. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the Court clarifying that the petitioner could still summon the witnesses in his defense.
Questions settled- Whether the trial court is bound to summon given-up prosecution witnesses as court witnesses under the second part of section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a showing that their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
- Can a plea that evidence is essential for the just decision of the case be entertained for the first time in the Supreme Court when it was not raised before the High Court?
- Whether an accused person examining a witness in their defense is precluded from seeking permission to cross-examine such witness if a genuine need arises?
- MOHS1N vs BHAMBHO1986 PLD Rev. 90 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1972-05-16Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD EHSAN vs THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION,, SARGODHA1986 PLC (C.S.) 231 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
- MOHABAT KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 5 others1986 MLD 1909 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
- MOH A MMAD IRSHA D vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
- MOGHAL TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS1986 MLD 790 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a cigarette manufacturer, imported a second-hand reconditioned cigarette machine and declared its import value as Rs. 3,73,136. The Customs Authorities rejected this valuation and arbitrarily assessed the import value at Rs. 10,00,000, an assessment upheld by the Collector of Customs on appeal without citing supporting evidence. The petitioner challenged this order through a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question was whether the customs valuation could be arbitrarily fixed at a higher amount without disclosing or relying upon tangible evidence, and without affording the aggrieved party an opportunity of rebuttal. The Court held that the impugned valuation order was passed without any proper basis or documentary material, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order, remanded the matter back to the Collector of Customs for a fresh decision after providing a fair hearing and access to any material relied upon, and laid down the principle that any enhancement of declared import value by customs authorities must be grounded in disclosed evidence and subject to the right of rebuttal by the importer.
Questions settled- Can customs authorities arbitrarily fix the import value of machinery without relying on tangible evidence?
- Does an order enhancing the declared import value violate natural justice if the material used against the importer is not disclosed?
- Whether an appellate customs order that fails to specify the basis for valuation is sustainable in law?
- MOBINUL HAQ SIDDIQUI and another vs Mrs. HAJRA FAROOQUI and 3 others1986 MLD 1920 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- MOBINUL HAQ SIDDIQI AND ANOTHER vs MRS. HAJRA FAROOQI AND 3 OTHERS1986 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
- MOAZAM ALI And Other vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD1986 PLC (C.S.) 840 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
- MLISHTAQ ARMED AND 2 OTHERS vs ALLAH DITTA1986 PLD Rev. 144 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-09-26Read full judgment →
- MIZAR And Another vs COMMISSIONER, SIBI And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2917 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
- MIYOON And Others vs SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE1986 P Cr. L J 277 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-05Read full judgment →
- MIUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN And Others vs Mst. TAYYABA KHANUM And OTHER1986 CLC 2836 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
- MITHAL vs STATE1986 PLD Rev. 98 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-06-25Read full judgment →
- Mistri MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs Haji SAID MUHAMMAD And ANOTHER1986 CLC 1241 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges an appellate order that dismissed an appeal against an ex parte decree passed by the trial court in a property declaration suit. The core legal questions concern the validity of an ex parte decree passed without recording evidence, the trial court's authority to ignore existing evidence on record, and the necessity of verifying amended plaints. The High Court held that the ex parte decree was a nullity, as the trial court acted arbitrarily by failing to provide reasons for its decision and ignoring material evidence already present on the record. The court emphasized that while a trial court may proceed ex parte, this discretion must be exercised judicially, ensuring the claim is scrutinized even without fresh evidence. Furthermore, the court established that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 may be invoked to rectify patent illegalities and procedural irregularities that result in a failure of justice, regardless of technical objections regarding limitation or the scope of interference.
Questions settled- Can a trial court pass an ex parte decree without recording any evidence?
- Is a trial court permitted to ignore evidence already on record when proceeding ex parte?
- Does the failure to verify a plaint on oath preclude a court from passing an ex parte decree without evidence?
- Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction to correct patent illegalities even if the appeal was dismissed on limitation grounds?
- Mistri AHMAD HASSAN vs ABDUR RAUF KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for Special Leave to Appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the ejectment of the petitioner from rented premises due to default in rent payment. The petitioner contested the ejectment on two primary grounds: first, that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction because the installation of a Saw Mill converted the premises into a factory, thereby excluding it from the purview of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; and second, that the landlord failed to provide a mandatory notice before initiating proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the premises remained a rented land or non-residential building subject to the Ordinance, distinguishing the case from precedents involving established factories. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the rent agreement contained no stipulation for prior notice, and independently, Section 13 of the Ordinance provides a landlord with a statutory right to seek ejectment upon proof of rent default. The Court concluded that the lower courts correctly exercised jurisdiction and that no legal error warranted interference.
Questions settled- Does the installation of machinery on rented land automatically convert the premises into a factory, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is a landlord required to provide a notice before initiating ejectment proceedings for default in rent payment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, absent a contractual stipulation?
- Does proof of default in payment of rent provide an independent statutory ground for ejectment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Miss UZMA ISHAQUE vs AZAD JAMMU AND, KASHMIR NOMINATION BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Azad J & K 112 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-02-20Read full judgment →
- MISS SHAKILA AKHTAR BAJWA vs SELECTION COMMITTEE, MEDICAL COLLEGES, BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 126 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
- Miss RAKHSHANDA ASLAM AND ANOTHER vs NOMINATION BOARD OF AZAD1986 PLD SC (A J & K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Miss MUSTABSHERA SUFI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1986 SCMR 1372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal from a judgment of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal, which had formally dismissed her appeal but practically granted her the relief of being appointed as a Headmistress of a school in Lahore. The petitioner contended that despite the Tribunal's directions, the relevant authorities failed to post her to the position. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered the matter and granted leave to appeal to examine whether, despite the formal dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner was allowed the relief of appointment and whether the respondents could deny her claim on the ground that the Tribunal's order lacked sound reasoning, especially since the respondents had not challenged the Tribunal's order. The Court thus admitted the petition for regular hearing to resolve these questions of administrative law and enforcement of tribunal directions.
Questions settled- Can administrative authorities deny a petitioner the relief granted by an Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal's order was not based on sound reasoning?
- Whether a respondent who has not challenged an Administrative Tribunal's order can refuse to implement the practical relief granted therein despite a formal dismissal of the appeal?
- Does the formal dismissal of an appeal by an Administrative Tribunal preclude the enforcement of specific relief practically granted to the appellant within the same order?
- Miss FARAH DEEDAR vs Ch. AIRMAN P.R.C. APPELLATE COMMITTEE and others1986 MLD 2429 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
- MISAL MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner, Misal Muhammad, who is charged along with his sons under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Farhad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's medical condition, namely Ischaemic Heart Disease and hypertension, warranted his release on bail on the ground that confinement in jail was hazardous to his life. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the petitioner was suffering from a serious ailment rendering his confinement hazardous and that the discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting bail was just and proper. The key principle laid down is that where an under-trial prisoner suffers from a serious ailment that cannot be properly managed to the extent of preventing hazard to life within jail custody, bail may be granted on medical grounds.
Questions settled- Whether an under-trial prisoner suffering from a serious heart disease is entitled to bail on medical grounds?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court's cancellation of bail be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does chronic hypertension and Ischaemic Heart Disease render jail confinement hazardous enough to justify bail?
- Mirza SHAH NAWAZ AGHA vs IQBAL AZIZ KHAN and 3 others1986 MLD 1914 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
- MIRZA SHABBIR BAIG vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB And 10 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 307 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mirza SALEEM BAIG vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 415 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-10Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD IQBAL BEG and others vs INTERNATIONAL ESTATE1986 MLD 2785 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-26Read full judgment →
- Mirza JAMEEL AHMED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT1986 PLC (C.S.) 990 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mirza AKBAR ALI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a judgment-debtor, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of his civil revision petition, which had upheld lower court orders allowing the execution of a money decree. The core legal question was whether the repeal of Article 182 of the Limitation Act by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 removed the requirement for subsequent execution applications to be filed within three years of the dismissal of a prior execution application, and whether a judgment-debtor has a vested right in such a limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the law of limitation is primarily procedural, the removal of the clog under Article 182 did not affect any vested right of the judgment-debtor, and the execution application filed within twelve years of the decree was valid under section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The key principle laid down is that procedural laws and limitations do not create vested rights in maintaining bars to execution once repealed, and subsequent execution applications are governed by the unhindered twelve-year period under section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where applicable.
Questions settled- Whether the repeal of Article 182 of the Limitation Act affects the vested rights of a judgment-debtor regarding the timeline for filing subsequent execution applications?
- Does a judgment-debtor acquire a vested right to insist that an execution application must be moved within three years of the dismissal of an earlier execution application?
- Is the law of limitation considered a procedural law that can remove clogs on the execution of a decree retrospectively?
- Mirza ABDUL HAMEED And Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE II1986 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter addresses the core legal question of whether a Chief Justice of a High Court, while acting as the Governor of the Province, can finalize a judgment of the High Court by signing it and having it announced in court. The Supreme Court held that when a Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed and takes over the functions of the Governor of the Province, he vacates the office of the Chief Justice and is unable to perform judicial functions during that period due to the incompatibility of the two offices. Consequently, the signing and pronouncement of a judgment by the Chief Justice while functioning as Acting Governor is without legal authority and void. The key principle laid down is that the offices of the Governor and of a High Court Judge or Chief Justice are fundamentally incompatible, and an incumbent holding the office of Governor cannot simultaneously discharge judicial functions or finalize judicial pronouncements.
Questions settled- Whether a Chief Justice of a High Court while acting as the Governor of the Province can finalize a judgment of the High Court by signing it and getting it announced?
- Does the appointment of a Chief Justice of a High Court as Acting Governor create a vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice?
- Can the principle underlying Order XX, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be applied to validate a judgment signed by a Chief Justice while acting as Governor?
- Mirza ABDUL AZIZ vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD SHEIKH1986 MLD 741 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
- MIRAN BUX And Another vs MUHAMMAD AMIR And Another1986 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two petitions for leave to appeal arose from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the convict's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder but reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment while granting benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The convict sought acquittal, alleging interested eye-witnesses and failure of motive, whereas the complainant sought restoration of the death sentence, challenging the High Court's observations regarding the victim's character. The Supreme Court observed that the eye-witnesses were close relatives, ruling out false implication. The Court rejected the High Court's conjecture regarding the victim's moral character, holding it was unsupported by evidence. However, applying settled precedent, the Supreme Court held that the failure of the motive asserted by the prosecution served as a valid mitigating circumstance to justify the reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment. Both petitions for leave to appeal were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove its asserted motive can serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Can a court reduce a murder sentence based on speculative observations regarding the moral character of the deceased without supporting evidence?
- MIRAJDIN and another vs SALEH-UD-DIN AHMAD KHAN and 2 others1986 MLD 461 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
- MIR ZAMAN vs MEMBER,BOARD OF REVENUE And OTHER1986 CLC 1713 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MIR SOBH AN and 3 others vs Syed ISHRAT HUSSAIN SHAH and another1986 MLD 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- Mir MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, MUZAFFARABAD AND ANOTHER1986 PLD SC (A J & K) 87 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, GHULAM DASTAGIR vs MUHAMMAD YAR AND 5 oTHERs1986 PLD Quetta 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
- MIR HASSAN vs LAKHADINO1986 PLD Rev. 93 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1976-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mir AJAB KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 780 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
- Mir AJAB KHAN And Another vs RAMZAN And Other1986 SCMR 1257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision petition regarding a land dispute. The petitioners claimed ownership of the suit land through a sale transaction dated 21st May, 1975, recorded prior to the respondents' purported purchase on 24th May, 1975. The petitioners secured a decree in a civil suit against the original owner, but the respondents subsequently obtained a decree in a separate suit, claiming the earlier decree was not binding on them as they were not impleaded as parties. The Peshawar High Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioners' revision. The core legal question involves the rights of rival purchasers through competing mutations and whether a prior decree against an original vendor binds subsequent purchasers not impleaded therein. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the questions raised regarding the misreading of evidence and the technical objections concerning the non-joinder of parties in the earlier suit. The key principle established is that leave to appeal is granted when substantial questions regarding the appreciation of evidence and conflicting proprietary claims require closer examination.
Questions settled- Whether a decree obtained against an original owner in a land suit is binding on subsequent purchasers who were not impleaded as parties to that suit?
- Can a civil revision be maintained when the lower courts' concurrent findings are allegedly based on a misreading of evidence?
- How are competing claims of rival purchasers resolved when mutations are sanctioned on the same day based on transactions of different dates?
- MIR AFZAL vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. And Other1986 SCMR 1533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to non-compliance with a procedural direction. The High Court had ordered the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the decretal amount as a condition for proceeding with the appeal, pursuant to the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner failed to comply with this order and instead requested permission to provide personal security, which was refused. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal for failure to satisfy the statutory condition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the impugned order and held that the High Court's decision was entirely in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court acted correctly in dismissing the appeal when the mandatory condition imposed under the relevant banking legislation was not met, thereby upholding the principle that statutory conditions for filing or proceeding with an appeal must be strictly adhered to by the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a High Court dismiss an appeal for failure to furnish a bank guarantee as ordered under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a court required to accept personal security in lieu of a bank guarantee when the statute mandates the latter for proceeding with an appeal?
- Mir ABDUL AZIZ vs MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS1986 PLD Azad J & K 56 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
- MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED vs MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL And Another1986 PLC 515 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mian ZAHUR AHMAD vs THE STATE and 3 others1986 P Cr. L J 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-05Read full judgment →
- Mian ZAHID SARFRAZ vs Raja NADIR PERVAIZ KHAN And OTHER1986 CLC 1464 · Election Tribunal · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mian SHAN AHMAD vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 168 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
- Mian NAZIR AHMAD vs ABDUR RASHID QURESHI1986 CLC 1309 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the Sub-Judge, Mirpur, which attached the appellant's property pursuant to a precept issued by a Civil Court in Jhelum, Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a civil court in Azad Kashmir possesses the jurisdiction to execute a precept or decree originating from a court in Pakistan. The High Court held that courts in Pakistan constitute foreign courts relative to Azad Kashmir, and their judgments are foreign judgments. Consequently, such decrees are not directly executable in Azad Kashmir, and the Sub-Judge, Mirpur, lacked the jurisdiction to execute the precept. The Court established that a foreign judgment does not permit direct execution; rather, the decree-holder must institute a fresh suit in a competent court in Azad Kashmir based on the foreign judgment. The Court further rejected the argument that historical notifications or standstill agreements rendered such decrees executable, emphasizing that the executing court must be competent to execute the underlying decree, which was absent here. The impugned attachment order was set aside as void ab initio.
Questions settled- Are decrees passed by civil courts in Pakistan executable in the courts of Azad Kashmir?
- Does a civil court in Azad Kashmir have the jurisdiction to execute a precept issued by a court in Pakistan?
- Is a judgment from a court in Pakistan considered a foreign judgment in Azad Kashmir?
- Can a decree-holder execute a foreign judgment in Azad Kashmir without instituting a fresh suit?
- Mian NAIB SHAH And 2 Other vs PAKISTANMINERAL DEVELOPMENT1986 PLC 691 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1986 MLD 2276 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD SHAFT JAVED vs WAPDA And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 101 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD SHAFT JAVAID vs WAPDA1986 PLC 83 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD SHAFI JAVED vs WAPDA1986 PLC 84 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1978-01-06Read full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD SHAFI JAVAID vs WAPDA1986 PLC 81 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs SETTLEMENTAND REHABILITATION1986 CLC 830 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 335 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
- Mian MANZOOR AHMAD and 4 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2898 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
- Mian KHADIM HUSSAIN vs Mst. FAUZIA HUSSAIN And Another1986 SCMR 1821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that set aside an acquittal granted by a Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, having married the respondent in the United Kingdom, subsequently contracted a second marriage in Pakistan without obtaining the respondent's permission. The respondent filed a complaint alleging a violation of Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. The Magistrate initially acquitted the petitioner, reasoning that the first marriage, being registered in the UK rather than under the Ordinance, did not trigger the statutory requirement for permission. The High Court reversed this, holding that a valid marriage between Muslims, regardless of the place of registration, necessitates compliance with the Ordinance's requirements for subsequent marriages. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that some legal points raised by the petitioner were arguable, determined that the circumstances did not warrant interference and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the High Court's decision to remand the case for trial.
Questions settled- Does a marriage between Muslims performed and registered abroad require the husband to obtain the first wife's permission before contracting a second marriage in Pakistan under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that a foreign-registered marriage does not trigger the requirements of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Mian IJAZ NABI vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE,1986 PLC (C .S.) 1023 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mian GHULAM RASOOL vs BASHIR AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a vendee, sought leave to appeal from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed his second appeal in a pre-emption suit. Initially, the trial court had dismissed the pre-emptor's suit on the ground that a sale executed through a decree for specific performance was not pre-emptiable. On first appeal, which proceeded ex parte due to the petitioner's absence, the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit. The High Court subsequently affirmed the first appellate court's judgment. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel abandoned the grounds decided by the High Court and sought to raise entirely new legal points, including a technical challenge to the ex parte proceedings. The Supreme Court declined to permit these new points to be raised for the first time, noting that substantial justice had been done and that the Court would be deprived of the lower courts' views on those issues. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a party raise entirely new legal points for the first time before the Supreme Court if those points were not urged before the High Court?
- Whether a first appellate court's decision to proceed ex parte is justified if it waited sufficiently for the respondent or his counsel to appear?
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to consider new technical points of law if substantial justice has already been done by the lower courts?
- Mian GHULAM DASTGIR BARI vs SALAH UD DIN1986 CLC 2676 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mian GHULAM DASTGIR BARI vs Rai SALAHUDDIN And OTHER1986 CLC 2499 · Election Tribunal · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- Mian FAZAL AHMAD vs ROHAIL ASGHAR-1986 P Cr. L J 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mian ABDUL REHMAN vs Syed IZHAR-UL-HASSAN RIZVI and others1986 MLD 1574 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
- Mian ABDUL GHANI And Another vs REHMATULLAH SHEIKH1986 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, who were plaintiffs in a pre-emption suit concerning urban property, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment. The High Court had set aside a trial court's order that allowed the petitioners to produce a registered deed as additional evidence to prove the contiguity of their property, citing a lack of sufficient cause for the document's initial non-production. The petitioners challenged the High Court's interference, arguing that a revision petition against an order allowing additional evidence was legally incompetent and that the trial court's discretion should not have been disturbed. The Supreme Court, noting that the matter involved a purely legal question regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction over interlocutory orders allowing additional evidence, converted the petition into an appeal. The Court granted leave to appeal, directing the parties to prepare for a hearing on the existing record while allowing for the submission of additional documents, thereby keeping the legal question of the competency of the revision petition open for final adjudication.
Questions settled- Is a revision petition competent against a trial court's order granting permission to produce additional evidence?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with a trial court's discretion to allow additional evidence under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Messrs. S. Khalid Ebrahim & Co. vs Collector Of Customs (Appraise-Ment)PTCL 1986 CL. 45 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs. ABDUL GHAFFAR KASAM vs Messrs ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY1986 MLD 1392 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Yousuf Re-Rolling Mills vs Collector Of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi And AnotherPTCL 1986 CL. 253 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →