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.

• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs MUHAMMAD RAFI And Other1985 SCMR 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-25
  constitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionauctionlocal bodycontractual rightsadministrative lawleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which declared the auction of rights to organize a cattle fair by the Zilla Council, Sialkot, to be without lawful authority. The core legal question involves the scope of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, specifically whether a local body's decision to grant contract rights via negotiation, rather than strict adherence to an advertised auction, is subject to judicial interference in the absence of a specific statutory violation. The petitioner contends that in the absence of explicit rules or laws governing such contracts, the local body possessed the authority to dispose of rights through negotiation or auction, and that a third party lacked the standing to challenge this process via writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the determination of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 in reviewing the administrative actions of local bodies regarding contract disposal constitutes a significant legal question requiring further examination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with a local body's decision to award a contract through negotiation rather than auction?
  • Can a third party challenge the validity of a contract awarded by a local body in the absence of a specific statutory violation?
  • Is a local body authorized to enter into contracts for the disposal of rights through negotiation if no specific law or rule prohibits such a procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT1985 MLD 328 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR SHAH vs CHIEF ENGINEER/BRIDGES, PAKISTAN RAIL WAYS,1985 PLC 1040 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR MIRZA vs CHIEF ENGINEER, NORTH ZONE BUILDINGS1985 PLC (C.S.) 1025 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARGODHA AND 21985 PLC (C.S.) 783 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN And Another1985 SCMR 1978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-09
  probationary perioddeemed confirmationcivil servanttermination of serviceretrospective legislationjudicial branch rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the termination of a probationary civil servant, Muhammad Akbar Khan, who was appointed to the P.C.S. (Judicial Branch) in 1979. The core legal question was whether the appellant had attained the status of a confirmed employee by operation of law upon the expiry of his maximum probationary period, thereby rendering his subsequent termination unlawful, despite retrospective legislative amendments. The Supreme Court held that the appeal must fail. The Court analyzed the relevant statutory framework, including the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act 1974 and the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 1962. It determined that under the applicable rules, the appellant’s probationary period was deemed extended due to the absence of confirmation orders. Crucially, the Court found that the appellant’s services were dispensed with prior to the expiry of the maximum permissible extended probationary period. Consequently, the termination was lawful. The principle laid down is that where a probationary period is deemed extended by operation of law, a probationer does not acquire the status of a confirmed employee until the maximum extended period has fully expired without intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Does a probationer automatically acquire the status of a confirmed employee if no orders are passed by the expiry of the initial probationary period?
  • Can a civil servant's services be dispensed with during the deemed extended period of probation?
  • What is the legal effect of the absence of confirmation orders upon the expiry of the initial probationary period under the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AJMAL vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 663 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-12-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 789(2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AHSAN KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTINGAND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 951 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-04-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AHMED vs Mst. AZIZ BEGUM1985 SCMR 1962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-24
  rent evictiondefault in rentleave to appealwaiverappellate practiceconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the Sind High Court, which ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment. The respondent-landlady had sought eviction, alleging the petitioner failed to pay rent from June 1965 onwards, alongside outstanding arrears. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the lower courts erred in their factual findings regarding the default and whether the petitioner could introduce a new plea of 'waiver' regarding the payment of rent at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts provided cogent reasons for their findings on the default. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the plea of waiver, not having been raised before the High Court or the courts below, could not be entertained for the first time before the Supreme Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not permit the introduction of new factual pleas that were not agitated in the lower forums.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of waiver regarding rent payment be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not agitated in the lower courts?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding rent default subject to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AHMED KHAN vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1766 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2912 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE ST A TE1985 P Cr. L J 870 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 799 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs Mst. RABIA BIBI1985 SCMR 1905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-22
  habeas corpusillegal custodyNikahnamarestitution of conjugal rightsfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which had allowed a habeas corpus application filed by the respondent mother for the custody of her daughter, directing the girl to go with her mother based on a concession regarding section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, despite a disputed age and a produced Nikahnama showing marriage to the petitioner, her first cousin. The core legal question concerned the propriety of handing over custody in habeas proceedings where illegal detention was not established and a valid marriage deed was presented. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition because the alleged detenue was not produced before the court and could not be traced. The court held that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner husband is to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, which is better equipped to record evidence and ascertain the true facts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy when the fact of illegal detention is disputed and a marriage is claimed?
  • What is the proper remedy for a husband seeking custody of his wife when her whereabouts are untraceable in habeas proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs ASSISTANT POLITICAL OFFICER and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL MALIK vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,FAISALABAD and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 263 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2911 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2474 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2116 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL alias ACHHA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 922 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ADREES vs MUHAMMAD ZAHID YAMEEN and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1770 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ACHAR vs Haji KAMILPLD 1985 Rev. 129 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-10-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASUR AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 1028 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CENTREI, LAHORE1985 PLD Supreme Court 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-16
  Intra-Court AppealLaw Reforms Ordinanceoriginal orderconstitutional petitionevacuee propertyremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's Letters Patent Appeal as incompetent under the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The core legal question was whether an Intra-Court Appeal against an order passed under Article 199 of the Constitution is barred when the original order in the proceedings was subject to appeal, revision, or review, notwithstanding the subsequent repeal of the governing statute and remand of the case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the expression 'original order' refers to the order with which the proceedings under the relevant statute commenced, rather than an order passed after remand following the repeal of the statute. The key principle laid down is that the competency of an Intra-Court Appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is determined by whether the original commencement order in the administrative hierarchy was subject to an appellate or revisional remedy under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is competent under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 when the original order in the proceedings was subject to revision under the repealed statute?
  • What is the precise meaning of the expression 'original order' under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  • Does the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and the subsequent passing of a fresh order on remand alter the character of the 'original order' for the purpose of determining the competency of a Letters Patent Appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH DAR vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 CLC 2947 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and anothers vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE1985 P Cr. L J 325 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUL WAHEED through Legal Heirs vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LAND), HYDERABAD and 4 others1985 MLD 581 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUL RAUF vs Mst. MAHMOODA BEGUM1985 SCMR 1960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-26
  rented premisespersonal usebona fide requirementlandlord and tenantevictionsummary evictionproperty rights of wife
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that ordered the eviction of a tenant under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller, when adjudicating an application under Section 14 of the Ordinance, may inquire into the bona fides of a landlord's personal need for the premises, specifically when the landlord is a wife living in her husband's house. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's inference—that a wife's claim to her own property is mala fide simply because she resides in her husband's house—is legally unsustainable. The Court affirmed that a wife has an independent right to hold and occupy her own property, and the mere fact of living with a husband does not negate her right to seek eviction for personal use under Section 14. The Court concluded that the Rent Controller's reasoning was conjectural and dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a wife have an independent legal right to seek eviction of a tenant from her own property despite residing with her husband?
  • Can a Rent Controller infer that a landlord's claim for personal use is mala fide solely because the landlord resides in a spouse's house?
  • What is the scope of the restriction in Section 14(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 regarding a landlord's existing occupation of property?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHANI vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM JALIL1985 MLD 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1962-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUL BART vs SECRETARY, INCHOLI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING1985 CLC 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD A BDULLA H vs Mst.ZUBAIDA BEGUM and another1985 CLC 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMA D AQ00B vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR and another1985 CLC 774 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
• MUHABBAT ALI And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-12
  criminal appealmurderreasonable doubtocular testimonydelayed FIRbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the murder of Khushi Muhammad under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), the improbability of the eye-witness accounts, and the suspicious nature of the recoveries. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court found the eye-witness testimony unreliable due to the impossibility of hearing noise from a distance of over a furlong in January, the lack of explanation for the delay in reporting the crime, and the failure to secure blood-stained evidence from the scene. Furthermore, the Court deemed the recoveries of weapons days after the arrest highly improbable. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and extended the benefit of this acquittal to a non-appealing co-accused, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case is riddled with improbabilities and lacks credible evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of an acquittal in a criminal appeal be extended to a non-appealing co-accused?
  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the recovery of incriminating weapons several days after the arrest of the accused considered reliable evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHA MM AD SA LEEM vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and another1985 CLC 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-01
  constitutional petitiongrace marksdiscretionary powerPunjab Public Service Commissioncivil judge examinationpolicy decisionstatutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions filed by candidates who appeared in the P.C.S. (Judicial Branch) Competitive Examination held by the Punjab Public Service Commission, having failed to obtain the mandatory 33% marks in the compulsory subject of General Knowledge by a margin of two marks. The core legal question was whether the Punjab Public Service Commission could lawfully adopt a blanket policy decision refusing to grant grace marks, contrary to the statutory rules providing for such discretion. The Lahore High Court held that the Commission's policy decision to altogether deny grace marks was illegal, without lawful authority, and violative of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1962, as the Commission must exercise its discretion in each individual case rather than bypassing statutory provisions through a blanket policy. The court laid down the principle that discretionary powers conferred by statutory rules cannot be extinguished or fettered by an administrative policy decision unless the underlying statutory rules are formally amended by the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Punjab Public Service Commission adopt a blanket policy decision to deny grace marks provided under statutory rules?
  • Whether discretion regarding the grant of grace marks under the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1962 is to be exercised in individual cases?
  • Can an administrative policy decision override or nullify a statutory rule making provision for grace marks?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHA MM A D NAJEEB vs Mst.TALAT SHAHNAZ and 2 others1985 CLC 649 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mughal Tobacco Company Ltd., Karachi. vs Collector Of Customs And An OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 100 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mufti ZIAUL HASAN Through His Legal Heir And 7 Others vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB And Other1985 SCMR 1452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-24
  Lambardar appointmentAdditional Commissioner powersdistribution of workadministrative competencyPunjab Land Revenue Actwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The core legal question was whether the Additional Commissioner possessed the legal competency to create a second post of Lambardar in an estate, given the prevailing distribution of work between the Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner. The Commissioner and the Board of Revenue had previously held that such matters were reserved for the Commissioner, thereby invalidating the Additional Commissioner's order. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the relevant distribution of work lists and Notification No. LR-31/15-60. The Court held that the creation of a Lambardar post falls under the functions delegated to the Additional Commissioner under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and that Lambardari appeals were distinct from administrative matters like creating a post. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower orders, restoring the original order of the Additional Commissioner. The principle laid down is that administrative functions delegated to an Additional Commissioner under the Land Revenue Act, 1887, include the creation of Lambardar posts unless specifically excluded by the distribution of work.

  Questions settled

  • Does the creation of an additional post of Lambardar fall within the administrative functions of an Additional Commissioner under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887?
  • Are Lambardari appeals distinct from the administrative act of creating a Lambardar post for the purpose of work distribution between a Commissioner and an Additional Commissioner?
  • Is an order passed by an Additional Commissioner within his delegated powers liable to be set aside on the ground that it should have been handled by the Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• MUBASHIR HUSSAIN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 579 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• MUBARIK SHAH and another vs UMAR KHAN1985 CLC 447 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
• MUBARIK SARFRAZ vs The STATE1985 SCMR 609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-27
  murderculpable homicideocular testimonycriminal appealsentence reductionincised injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a murder conviction where the petitioner challenged the legal classification of his offence. The petitioner was convicted for the murder of his 13/14-year-old cousin, Mst. Saleem Bibi, who suffered 18 incised injuries from a dagger. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, recovery of the weapon, and medical evidence. The petitioner contended that his actions constituted an offence under Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (murder), seeking a reduction in sentence. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the established facts supported a conviction under Section 304-I. Given the brutality of the attack, evidenced by the numerous incised wounds, the Court held that the conviction under Section 302 was appropriate. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the nature and number of injuries inflicted upon the victim warranted the higher sentence, thereby upholding the lower court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the infliction of multiple incised injuries on a victim justify a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 304-I?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to a lesser sentence under Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if they cannot demonstrate that the facts of the case meet the legal requirements for culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  Read full judgment →
• MUBARIK ALI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-09
  criminal breach of trustembezzlementhandwriting proofexpert opinionpostal employee liabilityappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal by the Lahore High Court of the petitioner's appeal against his convictions and sentences for criminal breach of trust. The petitioner, a Sub-Postmaster, was convicted in two separate cases for embezzling funds received from customers for deposit into their accounts, having made entries in the passbooks but failing to record them in the official ledger and savings bank journal. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's signatures on the passbooks could be legally proven without the testimony of a handwriting expert, and whether the petitioner, as a supervisor, could be held liable for the failure to make ledger entries despite the specific duties assigned to the Savings Bank clerk under the Pakistan Post Office Manual. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were sound, finding that the testimony of postal employees familiar with the petitioner's handwriting was sufficient proof, and that the direct evidence of the petitioner receiving the money established his liability. The petition was dismissed, affirming that expert opinion is not the sole method for proving handwriting when other competent evidence exists.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of a handwriting expert strictly required to prove a signature in a criminal case?
  • Can a supervisor be held liable for embezzlement when direct evidence proves they personally received the funds, despite departmental rules assigning entry duties to subordinates?
  • Is the testimony of employees familiar with a person's handwriting sufficient to prove a signature?
  Read full judgment →
• MUBARAK HUSSAIN and other vs Hafiz MUKHTAR AHMAD1985 MLD 998 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
• MUBARAK ALI vs TULA KHAN Alias SADULLAH KHAN1985 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  specific performancebreach of contractagreement of saleregistration of sale deedreadiness and willingness
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a direct appeal arising from a civil suit for the specific performance of an agreement of sale regarding agricultural land. The core legal question centered on whether the plaintiff/appellant was guilty of committing a breach of contract by failing to appear before the Sub-Registrar on the stipulated date for the execution and registration of the sale-deed, thereby forfeiting his right to specific performance. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court, which had reversed the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court concurred that the plaintiff failed to establish his presence before the Sub-Registrar, relied on interested testimony, and withheld himself from the witness box, thereby violating the essential terms of the agreement. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking specific performance must strictly prove compliance with their own obligations under the contract, and where a plaintiff commits a breach of an essential term—such as failing to attend for registration—specific performance will be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff who fails to appear before the Sub-Registrar to execute a sale-deed is guilty of a breach of contract disentitling him to specific performance?
  • Does the failure of a plaintiff to enter the witness box to support his case adversely affect his claim for specific performance?
  • Whether a finding of fact regarding a party's presence before the Sub-Registrar recorded by the High Court can be interfered with by the Supreme Court when it is based on proper appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUBA and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 741 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• MU H A MM A D A SIF vs NOOR AHMAD and 7 others1985 CLC 2498 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst.SHAKILA BEGUM and 4 others vs Haji MUHAMMAD DIN1985 CLC 709 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• Mst.SHAHRO BEGUM vs ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN and another1985 CLC 695 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-11-09Read full judgment →
• Mst.SEEMA ASHFAQ vs VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 CLC 878 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• Mst.NARGIS vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT and 2 others1985 MLD 782 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
• Mst.AMINA BAI and 2 others vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and 61985 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-14Read full judgment →
• Mst.ALLAH BACHAI and 4 others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BADIN and 41985 CLC 1985 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mst.ABEDA BEGUM vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others1985 CLC 2859 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-11
  evacuee trust propertysuo motu revisionnatural justicecondemned unheardlimitation periodconstitutional petitionP.T.D.
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Federal Government in suo motu revisional jurisdiction directing the disposal of an evacuee trust property by open public auction. The property in question had been originally allotted and transferred to the petitioner's deceased husband, and a P.T.D. was ultimately issued in the petitioner's favour. Subsequently, the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Board recommended the sale of the premises to the petitioner at the settlement price as an uneconomic unit. Private respondents filed a revision application which was dismissed as time-barred, but the authority simultaneously invoked suo motu powers to set aside the transfer. The core legal questions involved whether an order could be revised suo motu after a time-barred revision application was dismissed, and whether the petitioner was condemned unheard without proper notice. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority as no valid notice was served, violating the fundamental principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned unheard. Furthermore, the court held that suo motu revisional powers cannot be used to indirectly benefit a time-barred revision application filed by a private party after the expiry of the limitation period. The petition was allowed and the impugned order was declared void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an adverse order can be passed against a party without serving notice and providing an opportunity of being heard?
  • Can the Federal Government exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties Act 1975 after a time-barred revision application filed by a private party has been dismissed?
  • Does the dismissal of a revision application on the ground of limitation bar the subsequent indirect exercise of suo motu powers based on the application of a disgruntled party?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZULEKHA BIB1 vs HAKIM NASIRUDDIN1985 CLC 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZUHRAN KHATOON And 8 Others vs The MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND1985 SCMR 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-16
  Land Reforms Regulationalienation of landaggrieved personwrit jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals through leave of the Court are directed against the Lahore High Court judgments dismissing several writ petitions concerning the validity of alienations under paragraph 7 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), which were declared void by a Member of the Federal Land Commission due to inadequate consideration and lack of proof of payment. The core legal question involves whether the alienations were valid and whether vendees qualify as aggrieved persons to challenge orders in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that appeals filed by certain vendees (alienees) fail as they are not 'persons aggrieved' when proceedings merely ascertain declarant holdings to resume excess land, but remanded four connected appeals to the High Court for fresh hearing and decision due to conflicting treatment of similar alienations, lack of opportunity on Transfer of Property and Registration Act issues, misreading of evidence, and the requirement to avoid technicalities in land reform cases. The key principle laid down is that vendees challenging land reform resumptions where transaction facts are undisputed generally lack aggrieved person status, and cases involving conflicting statutory treatment or procedural unfairness warrant a remand for fresh adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether vendees of land from declarants under the Land Reforms Regulation qualify as 'persons aggrieved' to challenge resumption proceedings in writ jurisdiction?
  • Can a case be remanded to the High Court for fresh hearing when there is a conflict in judgments regarding the statutory validity of alienations in favor of female family members?
  • Whether the High Court's treatment of land reforms cases in writ jurisdiction should avoid being controlled by mere technicalities?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZUBAIDA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 120 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZUBAIDA BIBI vs NAZIR AHMAD1985 MLD 203(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZOHRAN BIBI vs JAMAL DIN and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1518 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZEENAT ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2592 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-03
  post-arrest bailbail for womennon-bailable offencesforgerymisappropriation of public fundspresumption of innocenceBanks (Special Courts) Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three bail-after-arrest petitions filed by Mst. Zeenat Ali, who was charged with multiple offences including forgery, fraud, and misappropriation of public funds in connection with the opening of fictitious bank accounts and subsequent withdrawal of substantial sums. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a woman accused of serious non-bailable offences, was entitled to the concession of bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the serious nature of the allegations and the opposition by the State. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio establishes that the proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants the Court discretion to release a woman on bail even in cases involving serious offences punishable by death or life imprisonment. The Court emphasized that bail should not be used as a punitive measure, and that the presumption of innocence entitles an accused to freedom to prepare their defence, particularly given the legislative intent to favor women, minors, and the sick or infirm.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the grant of bail to a woman accused of serious non-bailable offences?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused as a measure of punishment?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to grant bail in cases triable by a Special Court under the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZEBUNNISA vs Hajiani RABIA BIBI and another1985 MLD 476 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAKIA NAZAR vs TALLAT MA HMOOD1985 MLD 253 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAINAB B1BI AND ANOTHERs vs MUSHTAQ AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-04
  murderocular testimonycorroborationrecovery of blood-stained clothesenhancement of sentencemitigating circumstancestender agecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court concerning a murder case. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony requiring independent corroboration in case of improvements, the evidentiary value of delayed recoveries of weapons, and the propriety of reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life on the grounds of tender age and a sudden, unpremeditated occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in acquitting certain co-accused and maintaining the conviction of the petitioner while reducing his death sentence, but found the sentence of fine inadequate. The key principle laid down is that where eyewitnesses make improvements, their testimony requires independent corroboration as to each accused, and the recovery of blood-stained clothes soon after the arrest can provide such corroboration, whereas delayed recoveries of weapons may be discarded. Furthermore, tender age and lack of premeditation are valid mitigating circumstances for commuting a death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who make improvements requires independent corroboration before a conviction can be sustained?
  • Does the recovery of blood-stained clothes soon after the arrest constitute sufficient corroboration against an accused?
  • Whether tender age and a sudden, unpremeditated occurrence serve as valid mitigating circumstances for reducing a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAHIDA SAEED vs MAZHAR ALI SIDDIQUI and another1985 MLD 1512 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. YAQOOT BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HASHAM AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. WILLAYAT JAN And Another vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Another1985 SCMR 1131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10
  giftHiba-bil-Ewazsubsistence holdingpresumptive heirsHanafi LawMartial Law Regulation No. 64retrospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the validity of a gift of agricultural land and a house made in 1960 by a maternal grandfather to the appellants. The local Tehsildar refused to sanction the mutation of the land as the donor's holding was less than the subsistence holding, which was barred under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The respondents, nephews of the deceased donor, forcibly evicted the appellants. The trial court decreed the suit only for the house, holding that the land gift was void. The District Judge reversed this, treating the transaction as a 'Hiba-bil-Ewaz' (which amounts to a sale and was permitted under the proviso). The High Court restored the trial court's decision, holding that the gift was not a Hiba-bil-Ewaz and that a subsequent 1962 Land Commission Notification allowing gifts to presumptive heirs did not apply retrospectively. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that a Hiba-bil-Ewaz requires actual payment of consideration and a bona fide intention to divest property in praesenti. Furthermore, the appellants, being daughters of a predeceased daughter, did not qualify as 'presumptive heirs' under Hanafi Law, rendering the 1962 Notification inapplicable.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential conditions required to constitute a valid Hiba-bil-Ewaz under Islamic law as distinguished from a simple gift?
  • Can services rendered by a donee to a donor (such as care or service) be treated as valid consideration to convert a simple gift into a Hiba-bil-Ewaz?
  • Do the daughters of a predeceased daughter qualify as presumptive heirs under the Hanafi Law of Inheritance?
  • Does a notification issued by the Land Commission under paragraph 4(5) of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 have retrospective effect in the absence of express words to that effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. WILLAYAT BEGUM vs Mst. QULSUM Bi1985 CLC 2881 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. UROOJ BEGUM and 2 others vs JAVED SALEEM and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 585 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. UMRI vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ And Other1985 SCMR 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-21
  settlement caselocus standiconstitutional petitionproperty transferpossessionPermanent Transfer Deedfindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition concerning a property settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who held a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) for a larger area of an Ihata, had the locus standi to challenge the transfer of a portion of that Ihata to the respondent, given that the petitioner was not in possession of that specific portion. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of fact made by the lower authorities, specifically that the petitioner’s successor-in-interest had previously admitted to the existence of other occupants in the Ihata, including one Mst. Fatima, whose portion was subsequently transferred to the respondent. The Court held that the petitioner could only claim the area actually in her possession and lacked the locus standi to challenge the transfer of other units within the Ihata not in her possession. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the mere issuance of a P.T.D. does not grant standing to challenge the transfer of property units outside the holder's actual possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the holder of a Permanent Transfer Deed have locus standi to challenge the transfer of property units within an Ihata that were not in their possession?
  • Can a petitioner challenge a finding of fact regarding possession affirmed by the High Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Is a party entitled to claim the transfer of property units within an Ihata that were not in their actual possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. UMMATUL WAHEED And Others vs Mst. NASIRA KAUSAR And Other1985 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-17
  specific performancecomparison of signatureshandwriting expertsecond appealagreement to sellappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed their regular second appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a government-allotted plot. The trial court had decreed the suit based on oral and documentary evidence, but the first appellate court reversed the decision after comparing the disputed signatures of the deceased vendor and finding them not genuine, a view affirmed by the High Court upon its own comparison of the signatures. The core legal question centered on whether a court is legally competent to compare handwriting and signatures itself without the assistance of a handwriting expert. The Supreme Court held that a court is fully entitled to compare handwriting and signatures by itself and is not bound to rely solely upon or require an expert opinion in every case. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the concurrent factual findings regarding the invalidity of the agreement were unassailable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court legally competent to compare disputed signatures and handwriting itself without the opinion of a handwriting expert?
  • Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court regarding the genuineness of an agreement to sell can be interfered with in second appeal?
  • Does the testimony of an attesting witness who did not actually see the executant sign the document suffice to prove its execution?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. TIJARAT BIBI And Others vs GHULAM RABBANI And Other1985 SCMR 1004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-08
  inheritance disputepaternitydeclaratory suitconcurrent findings of factmutationlimited ownerposthumous child
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a declaratory suit concerning the inheritance of property originally owned by one Dulla, who died in 1915. The dispute centered on the paternity of Ashram Khan, who claimed to be the son of Dulla born posthumously to his widow, Mst. Mirza Noor. While the property had historically devolved through limited owners without recognizing Ashram Khan's rights, the respondents, as heirs of Ashram Khan, challenged a mutation that excluded them from inheritance. The core legal question was whether the evidence presented, including birth and death certificates and oral testimony, sufficiently established Ashram Khan's paternity despite the absence of a specific issue framed on the matter and the long delay in asserting his rights. The courts below concurrently found that the documentary and oral evidence sufficiently proved Ashram Khan was the son of Dulla. The Supreme Court held that since the controversy was concluded by concurrent findings of fact based on evidence that the petitioners failed to effectively rebut, there was no scope for interference. The petition was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding paternity when the parties have led evidence on the issue despite the lack of a specific framed issue?
  • Does the failure of a party to challenge the genuineness of birth and death certificates by summoning original records preclude them from later challenging the evidentiary value of those documents?
  • Is the long-term failure of an heir to assert inheritance rights sufficient to displace positive documentary evidence of paternity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. TALAT NASIRA vs Mst. MUNAWAR SULTANA And 2 Other1985 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-28
  guardianshipminor custodywelfare of minorremarriage of motherwishes of minorleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a guardianship dispute concerning a minor whose father died in the 1971 war. The paternal grandmother applied to be appointed as guardian of the person and property of the minor, contesting the mother's right to custody due to her remarriage to a stranger. The Guardian Judge appointed the paternal grandmother, and the lower appellate court and High Court dismissed the mother's subsequent appeal and revision. Upon the matter reaching the Supreme Court, the minor expressed a clear desire to remain with his mother. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the welfare of the minor coupled with his own intelligent preference, given his age of thirteen years, is a primary consideration, and that the effect of the mother's remarriage on the custody of a male child requires re-examination. The key principle laid down is that the wishes of a minor capable of making an intelligent preference, alongside their overall welfare, must be given due regard in guardianship matters, superseding rigid disqualifications based solely on a mother's remarriage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the welfare and wishes of a minor are primary considerations in determining guardianship matters?
  • Does the remarriage of a mother to a stranger automatically disqualify her from the custody of her male child?
  • Can a minor's expressed preference be disregarded by the court in custody proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. TAHIRA BIBI And Others vs KHAIR MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-12
  execution of decreelimitation periodstay of executionFrontier Crimes Regulationexclusion of timecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the execution of a decree originally passed on 8-12-1960 under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901. Following the repeal of the Regulation, the parties consented to execute the decree through the civil court. The core legal question was whether the execution application filed on 19-8-1979 was barred by limitation under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given the various stay orders obtained by the respondents throughout the preceding years. The Supreme Court held that the execution application was not time-barred. The Court reasoned that the period during which the execution was stayed by various court orders must be excluded from the computation of the limitation period pursuant to Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court emphasized that the decree-holder was effectively prevented from filing the application due to these judicial interventions. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the orders of the lower courts, and allowed the appeal, affirming that the application was filed within the permissible statutory period when accounting for the excluded time.

  Questions settled

  • Does the period during which an execution is stayed by court orders count towards the limitation period for filing an execution application?
  • Can the time spent in litigation regarding the stay of execution be excluded under Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is an execution application filed after the repeal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 subject to the limitation period prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SURRAYA BIBI vs YASIN and 3 others1985 MLD 302 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. SURRAYA BEGUM vs Sh. ZAFAR MUHAMMAD1985 SCMR 1606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-11
  review petitionerror apparent on the recordlimitationforma pauperiscourt-feespecific performancerestitution of possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order disposes of two review petitions seeking review of the Supreme Court's consolidated judgment dated 10-4-1978. The litigation arose from an agreement of sale under which the petitioner was put in possession but later dispossessed. The petitioner's suit for specific performance was dismissed, and her subsequent second appeal before the High Court was dismissed as barred by limitation. Consequently, the High Court held that she had no right to remain in possession as against the owner. The primary ground urged for review was an error apparent on the face of the record, claiming the second appeal was filed within time on 10-2-1969 along with a pauper application, but erroneously taken as filed on 12-2-1969. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that a party cannot raise a factual point for the first time in review when it was available at the main hearing. Additionally, since the pauper application was found not made in good faith, filing without court-fee was not a proper presentation of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a factual argument for the first time in a review petition if it was available during the main appeal hearing?
  • Does the presentation of an appeal without paying court-fees constitute a proper presentation if the accompanying pauperism application was not made in good faith?
  • Whether an error in calculating limitation constitutes a ground for review when alternative findings independently sustain the dismissal of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SULTANA BEGUM vs Mst. KAZMI BEGUM1985 MLD 1199 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. SULTANA BEGUM And Another vs The ADDITIONAL DEPUTY1985 SCMR 915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-04
  allotment of landwrit jurisdictionlocus standidiscretionary reliefstatus quomesne profitsconstructive possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the confirmation of land allotment and the subsequent exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction by the High Court. The core legal questions involve the effect of a previous Supreme Court judgment on the parties' respective claims, the validity of an allotment confirmation in the absence of proper notice, and whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in granting relief to the writ petitioners. Specifically, the Court examines whether an allotment, even if procedurally questionable, could be deemed void or illegal, and whether the writ petitioners possessed the necessary locus standi to seek relief. Furthermore, the Court addresses whether the petitioner, Mst. Sultana Begum, was entitled to similar relief based on constructive possession and the application of the prior Supreme Court precedent. The Court grants leave to appeal, imposing restrictions on the alienation or alteration of the property in dispute and requiring security for mesne profits, thereby preserving the status quo pending final adjudication of these complex questions of allotment validity and discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect of a previous Supreme Court judgment on the respective pleas of contesting parties regarding land allotment?
  • Can an allotment confirmation be treated as void or illegal solely on the ground of lack of notice to an opposing party whose claim is based on a bogus allotment?
  • Does a party have the locus standi to file a Constitutional petition if their own claim is based on a bogus allotment?
  • Whether a party is entitled to relief based on constructive possession in light of a prior Supreme Court judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SUKHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI vs THE STATE and 2 others1985 MLD 1068 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. SITARAN BIBI vs SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1052 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  inheritance mutationdocumentary evidence vs oral evidencepre-deceased soncustomary successioncivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from concurrent findings of lower courts dismissing the appellant's suit for declaration of ownership and possession of a share in agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in relying on documentary evidence, specifically inheritance mutations and execution warrants, over oral evidence to determine the pre-deceased status of the appellant's father relative to the original grantee. The Supreme Court held that documentary evidence such as mutation records and execution warrants establishing the exact dates of death and execution reliably proved that the appellant's father died prior to the original grantee, rendering oral evidence insignificant. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal, laying down the principle that clear documentary evidence regarding dates of death and inheritance mutations prevails over contrary oral testimony unless shown to be incorrect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inheritance mutations and official documentary evidence can be preferred over oral testimony regarding the date of death of a predecessor?
  • Does a son who predeceased the original grantee inherit under custom?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SIKANDAR JAN and 13 others through his Legal Heirs vs ABDUL GHANI1985 CLC 2582 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. SIDDIQA BEGUM AND OTHERS vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY1985 PLD Karachi 312 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHIRINBAI and another vs Messrs HABIB BANK Ltd.1985 CLC 2455 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-15
  rent appealpersonal usegood faitheviction applicationmaterial impairmentburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellants' application for the eviction of the respondents from the premises in dispute. The eviction was sought under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the grounds of material impairment of the value and utility of the premises, user for a purpose other than that for which it was let, and personal good faith requirement for business. The core legal question was whether the landlord established good faith for personal use and material impairment of the property. The court held that the appellants failed to prove good faith for personal use, as mere desire to expand an existing business from already occupied rented premises without establishing compelling circumstances or particulars of expansion is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. The court established that a landlord seeking eviction for personal use must demonstrate good faith through positive circumstances and evidence, particularly when shifting from another premises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proof to establish good faith for personal use of rented premises lies upon the landlord?
  • Is the mere desire to expand an existing business sufficient to prove good faith for eviction under rent laws?
  • Does a landlord shifting from a rented premises need to show positive evidence and circumstances for requiring his own building?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHEREEN MASOOD vs Malik NASEEM HASSAN, JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, LAHORE and another1985 CLC 2758 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-11
  family courtsevidence by affidavitcross-examinationdiscretionary powerswrit jurisdictionerror apparent on the face of the recordinterlocutory orderswitnesses residing abroad
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of apostasy, claiming her husband had converted to Islam and later reverted to Parsi faith. To prove his conversion and their marriage, she applied under Section 11(4) of the Family Courts Act 1964 to submit affidavits of two witnesses residing abroad, as procuring their personal attendance would cause undue delay, expense, and inconvenience. The Family Court dismissed the application, solely prioritizing the respondent's right to cross-examination. The Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition, holding that the Family Court committed an error apparent on the face of the record by failing to consider relevant factors such as the availability, location, and health of witnesses, and conflating the admissibility of evidence with its evidential value. The Court held that discretionary orders of lower tribunals can be reviewed under writ jurisdiction if they are arbitrary, unreasonable, or suffer from self-evident errors of law, and that the interlocutory nature of an order does not bar interference where it causes injustice or determines substantial rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the discretionary power of a Family Court to permit evidence by affidavit under Section 11(4) of the Family Courts Act 1964 is controlled exclusively by the right of cross-examination under subsection (3)?
  • Can an interlocutory order passed by a lower tribunal be challenged under the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does an order based on a clear misreading of law or failing to consider essential circumstances constitute an error apparent on the face of the record correctable through judicial review?
  • Is the admissibility of a document under Section 11(4) of the Family Courts Act 1964 distinct from its ultimate evidential value?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHEHNAZ BEGUM vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA1985 MLD 254(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAUKATA vs THE STATE1985 PLD Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHARIFAN vs Mst. NASIM AKHTAR and others1985 P Cr. L J 3010 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHARIFAN vs DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 CLC 2481 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHARIFAN BEGUM And Others vs ABDUL HAMID1985 SCMR 1060 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-31
  rent evictionpersonal needbona fide requirementconcurrent findingsleave to appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court, all of which ordered the eviction of the tenant from the back portion of a house on the grounds of the landlord's personal need and requirement. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that the landlord's wife resided in Karachi and the landlord was abroad, thereby negating the necessity for eviction. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the landlord's wife had testified that her residence in Karachi was temporary and that she lacked suitable accommodation in Lahore for herself and her sons. The Court observed that the wife had even been forced to rent a room in the same locality, further substantiating the genuineness of the landlord's requirement. Finding that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence without any misreading or omission, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were well-supported. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as it failed to demonstrate any violation of legal principles warranting interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge a concurrent finding of fact regarding a landlord's personal need for eviction in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Does the temporary residence of a landlord's family member in another city negate the landlord's claim for personal need of a property?
  • Is the necessity of renting alternative accommodation by a landlord's family relevant in determining the bona fide nature of a personal need claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHARAF KHATOON vs ABDUL MAJEED1985 PLD Quetta 54 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHANBIBI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 1977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-22
  settlement lawrepeal of statutefinality of ordersproperty transferauction proceedingscompetence of application
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed a Constitution Petition seeking to set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner had requested the cancellation of the transfer of a disputed property (C.H. No. 1368/1) to the respondents, claiming she had purchased a property (C.H. No. 1368/5) in a separate auction. The Settlement Commissioner had rejected this application on the grounds that the petitioner's previous transfer had been cancelled in 1972, her appeal against that cancellation was dismissed in 1973, and the order had attained finality. Crucially, the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court held that the petitioner's application filed in 1976 was incompetent because the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 had been repealed effective 1 July 1974, and no proceedings were pending at that time. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that once the relevant statute was repealed and the previous orders had become final, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a settlement authority reopen a case after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if no proceedings were pending at the time of repeal?
  • Does an order of an Additional Settlement Commissioner attain finality if it is not challenged by the aggrieved party?
  • Is an application for cancellation of a property transfer competent if filed after the repeal of the governing statute and the finality of previous adverse orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMUNISSA and 7 others vs Syed MEHMOOD RIZVI1985 CLC 2105 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1985 SCMR 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-19
  temporary injunctionperpetual injunctioninterlocutory matterjudicial discretioncivil revisionleave to appealconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Shamshad Begum against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed her civil revision regarding a dispute with the Lahore Development Authority. The petitioner had originally filed a suit for a perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the respondent from demolishing her house, and concurrently filed an application for a temporary injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court dismissed the application for a temporary injunction, and subsequent appeals to the District Judge and the High Court were also unsuccessful. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the refusal of interlocutory relief warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by the lower courts in an interlocutory matter. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court generally declines to disturb concurrent findings of lower courts in discretionary interlocutory proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by lower courts in interlocutory matters?
  • Can a petitioner obtain a temporary injunction to restrain the demolition of a property during the pendency of a suit for perpetual injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 MLD 449 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMIM KAUSAR vs GHULAM SARWAR1985 CLC 2920 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM vs MRS, S.B. HUSSAIN1985 MLD 478 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAHNAZ AKHTAR and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 669 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAHER BANO vs ASGHAR BAIG1985 MLD 432 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →