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. SHAHEEN BEGUM vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD BUTT1985 P Cr. L J 403 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAH JEHAN BEGUM and 5 others vs Mst. IQBAL JEHAN BEGUM and 61985 CLC 2450 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAH BEGUM and 7 others vs RAJ MUHAMMAD and 2 others1985 CL C 1117 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAGUFTA MASIH vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1427 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. SATTAN BIBI vs RAEES AHMAD1985 P Cr. L J 1433 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARWAR vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE and others1985 P Cr. L J 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARWAR BIBI and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2430 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARWAR BEGUM And Another vs KHALIDA KISHWAR And Other1985 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises out of two petitions for leave to appeal directed against concurrent findings of lower courts in pre-emption suits concerning shares in a house situated within the city of Lahore. The core legal question was whether the custom of pre-emption existed in the vicinity of the suit property, involving the interpretation of Section 8 of the Punjab Pre-Emption Act and a notification dated 16-6-1941, alongside the sufficiency of oral evidence. The Supreme Court held that both the lower courts and the High Court correctly construed the notification—which established that the right of pre-emption existed within the city of Lahore lying within the Circular Road—and properly relied on oral and documentary evidence, including precedent. The petitions were accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of the custom of pre-emption, supported by statutory notifications and un-rebutted evidence, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the custom of pre-emption existed in the vicinity of the suit property situated within the Circular Road of Lahore?
- Whether the Notification No.149 I.R. dated 16-6-1941 issued under section 8 of the Punjab Pre-Emption Act was misconstrued by the courts below?
- Whether oral evidence coupled with a statutory notification is sufficient to establish the existence of the custom of pre-emption?
- Mst. SAROOBAI And Another vs Mst. RUBAB BAI1985 SCMR 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Sind High Court passed in Second Appeal No.188 of 1981, which allowed the appeal of the respondents against an ejectment order. The petitioner landladies had filed an ejectment application on the grounds of default in rent payment, subletting, and unauthorized construction. The respondents contested the default claim by asserting that an agreement of sale was entered into, wherein a cash sum of Rs.1,000 paid as earnest money was adjusted towards arrears of rent. The Rent Controller and District Judge ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered ejectment, but the High Court reversed this decision. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court erred in holding that the alleged cash payment of Rs.1,000 could be adjusted towards arrears of rent and in disturbing concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts without sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised by the petitioners require re-examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can disturb concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts regarding the payment of rent?
- Can an earnest money amount paid under an unmaterialized agreement of sale be adjusted towards arrears of rent without sufficient evidence?
- Mst. SARDARO AND OTHERS vs Mst. NAZRAN BEGUM AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose out of a dispute regarding inheritance and succession to a land holding of 1,706 kanals 9 marlas in District Mardan. Upon the original landholder's death in 1911, the property was mutated half to his son and half to his widow as a limited estate under custom. Following the subsequent deaths of the son, the widow, and the son's widow (who held the entire estate as a limited owner until 1967), the revenue authorities mutated the entire property to the Muslim Law heirs of the son as the last full owner, excluding the original landholder's daughters from his second wife. The daughters brought a declaratory suit. The appellate court and High Court held that succession regarding the widow's half share opened from the original landholder as the last full owner, dividing the estate among his Muslim Law heirs. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that custom must be specifically proved and cannot be extended by analogy. A widow succeeding to a limited estate under custom does so as a representative of her husband, and upon the termination of her life estate, succession is traced back to the original full owner.
Questions settled- Whether custom can be extended by logical process or analogy, or must be established inductively by specific evidence?
- Upon the termination of a limited life estate created under custom for a widow, is succession to the property traced back to her deceased husband as the last full owner?
- Does a widow succeeding to an estate under custom hold as a representative of her deceased husband?
- Mst. SARDARAN BIBI vs ZULFIQAR SHAH1985 MLD 68 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDARAN BIBI vs ZULFIQAR SHAH and another1985 MLD 762 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDARAN BIBI vs MUHAMMAD DIN1985 MLD 365 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM vs JERMALE and others1985 CLC 2945 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM and others vs .AZIZ BEGUM and others1985 CLC 2613 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM and 5 others vs Sardar HIDAYATULLAH and another.1985 CLC 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARA BAI vs Messrs ANIS CORPORATION AND FIRM1985 MLD 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. SALIHA AND ANOTHERs vs Mst. BADRI JAMALA AND .ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. SALEEMA BIBI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FA ISALABAB and 2 others1985 CLC 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BIBI AND 3 OTHERS vs IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN MINHASPLD 1985 Rev. 36[Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BI And Another vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And Other1985 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a challenge to an order passed by the Additional District Judge, which accepted a revision petition and allowed the amendment of a trial court judgment and decree dated 16-5-1952 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to incorporate an omitted mutation number. The petitioners challenged this amendment before the High Court via writ jurisdiction, contending that an amendment introduced via Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962 by Ordinance XIII of 1983 rendered the original declaratory decree ineffective, thereby depriving the Additional District Judge of jurisdiction to correct it. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the correction of a clerical or accidental omission in a decree through amendment does not alter its underlying legal efficacy; if the decree has indeed become inoperative by virtue of statutory amendments, a corrected decree stands on no higher footing than an uncorrected one. The Court affirmed that the question of the decree's efficacy remains distinct from the correction of the judgment, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a court amend a judgment and decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to include a mutation number omitted from the text?
- Does the correction of a clerical omission in a decree affect the substantive legal efficacy of that decree under subsequent statutory amendments?
- Mst. SAJIDA DURRANI vs THE STATE1985 MLD 764(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAJIDA DURRANI and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1366 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAIDAN BEGUM vs AASEEB KHAN1985 MLD 1528 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAHIB KHATOON vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT, SARGODHA and others1985 CLC 2917 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2850 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAFIA BIBI vs THE STATE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 120 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAFDARI BEGUM and 2 others vs AMIR ALI TABREZI1985 CLC 836 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an ejectment order granted on the ground of the landlord's bona fide personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether the landlord's requirement remained bona fide despite letting out another portion of the house during the pendency of the proceedings, and whether the appeal was time-barred due to delays in obtaining certified copies. The Court held that while a landlord has the prerogative to choose their residence, they must satisfactorily explain why they prefer the disputed premises if they acquire or let out other accommodation during litigation. The landlord successfully justified the preference based on specific amenities like a separate entrance and a quiet environment. Regarding limitation, the Court ruled that the appeal was within time because the copying agency failed to notify the appellant of the date the certified copy was ready, and a party cannot be penalized for the negligence of court officers. The principle established is that a landlord must justify the necessity of disputed premises if other accommodation is handled during litigation, and court-related delays in document delivery do not prejudice a party's limitation period.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's act of letting out other premises during the pendency of an ejectment suit automatically negate the bona fide nature of their requirement?
- Is a landlord required to explain why they prefer the disputed premises over other available accommodation during the pendency of an ejectment case?
- Can an appellant be penalized for the failure of the court's copying agency to notify them of the date a certified copy is ready for delivery?
- Does the mere passage of time between the onset of a medical condition and the filing of an ejectment application invalidate a claim of bona fide personal requirement?
- Mst. SAEEDA N1GHAT MADNI vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 21985 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAEEDA KHATOON vs MUHAMMAD AHMAD LATIFI1985 CLC 1392 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM and another vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND1985 MLD 519 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAEEDA AHSANULLAH RAHMANI And Others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL HUSSAIN1985 SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order issued by the Rent Controller. The original ejectment petition was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioners-tenants on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement, specifically for his son's marriage and his wife's health condition necessitating a ground-floor residence. The Rent Controller, after evaluating evidence, ordered the petitioners' ejectment, a decision subsequently affirmed by a Single Judge of the High Court. The petitioners' counsel argued that the lower courts erred in relying on a purported admission by a petitioner ignorant of English and in over-emphasizing certain depositions. The Supreme Court examined these points and held that the lower courts' findings regarding the landlord's bona fide personal requirement were questions of fact. The Court found no grounds for interference, concluding that the petition lacked merit, and consequently dismissed it.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a landlord's personal bona fide requirement for premises a question of fact?
- Are findings of fact by lower courts generally upheld by the Supreme Court in leave to appeal petitions?
- Mst. SAEED BANO vs NASRULLAH KHAN AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 145 [Punjb] · Board of Revenue · 1983-06-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. SADIQ JAN vs MUHAMMAD RASHID And Other1985 SCMR 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder trial under sections 452 and 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had convicted Muhammad Rashid and Muhammad Nazir, while acquitting Din Muhammad. On appeal and revision, the High Court maintained Muhammad Rashid's conviction, acquitted Muhammad Nazir, and dismissed the complainant's revision seeking capital punishment and setting aside Din Muhammad's acquittal. The Supreme Court examined whether the acquittal of Muhammad Nazir was in consonance with the principles governing the safe administration of criminal justice. The Court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses, including the wife and brother of the deceased, was natural, trustworthy, and sufficiently corroborated by motive, and that the High Court erred in discrediting the brother's testimony and acquitting Muhammad Nazir based on minor discrepancies, lack of recoveries, and the nature of injuries. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the complainant's appeal, restored Muhammad Nazir's conviction and sentence, and dismissed Muhammad Rashid's appeal. The key principle laid down is that the ocular testimony of natural witnesses, if found intrinsically reliable and consistent with medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even in the absence of recoveries, and that minor discrepancies or speculative inferences should not be used to discard otherwise credible eyewitness accounts.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an eyewitness can be discarded on the basis of speculative inferences regarding his presence at the scene of the crime?
- Can the acquittal of a co-accused be set aside by the Supreme Court when the ocular testimony implicating him is found to be reliable and consistent?
- Does the absence of weapon recoveries vitiate the prosecution case when direct and trustworthy ocular testimony is available?
- Whether the nature and location of multiple stab wounds exclusively point to the involvement of a single assailant?
- Mst. SABIRA BEGUM AND OTHERS vs Mst. FAHMIDA BEGUM AND OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 247 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. RUQIA PARVEEN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 571 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. RUQAYYA BEGUM vs ALTAF QUTAB And Other1985 SCMR 1223(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the demarcation of property boundaries between two bungalows transferred by Settlement authorities to the petitioner and the respondent, respectively. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their factual determination that the disputed garage and servant quarters were situated within the respondent's property, specifically regarding the alleged failure of the courts below to consider certain evidentiary documents (Exhibits P.5 to P.7). Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had properly considered the evidence and that the findings were factually sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petition was dismissed as having no force. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless a material misreading or non-reading of evidence is clearly demonstrated, which was not established in this instance.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding property boundaries?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the lower courts have properly considered the evidence on record?
- Mst. RUKIYA BAI And Others vs Mst. AQILA BEGUM And Other1985 SCMR 977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a rent dispute wherein the landlords (appellants) obtained an ejectment order against tenants (respondents) due to unauthorized sub-letting. Following the dismissal of their first appeal, the tenants filed a Second Appeal in the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s ex parte disposal of the Second Appeal was legally sustainable, given that the case was abruptly transferred between judges for administrative reasons without notice to the appellants or their counsel. The Supreme Court held that the disposal of the appeal in the absence of the appellants, who were unaware of the transfer, resulted in a denial of the opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision on its merits. The key principle laid down is that the principles of natural justice and fair play require that parties must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to represent their case, particularly when administrative transfers of proceedings occur, ensuring that no party is prejudiced by a lack of notice regarding the scheduling or forum of their litigation.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte judgment passed by a High Court is sustainable when the case was transferred between judges without notice to the parties?
- Is a party entitled to a rehearing when they were unable to represent their case due to an administrative transfer of the appeal file?
- Mst. RUKHSANA BIBI AND OTHERS vs FATIMA BIBI AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 273 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing an appeal relating to a property dispute over 100 kanals of land. The core legal questions involved whether a compromise or agreement to resolve a dispute through a special oath on the Holy Qur'an is binding when entered into by a co-appellant without proper authorization as a special attorney, and whether such an agreement affecting minor appellants requires the prior leave or consideration of the court under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or general principles of equity. The Lahore High Court held that an offer of special oath made by only one appellant who lacked lawful authority to act as a special attorney for the other co-appellants could not form a valid basis for dismissing the appeal as a whole. Furthermore, the Court held that where minors are involved, courts are under a strict duty to safeguard their interests and ensure compliance with procedural protections and equitable principles. The revision petition was accepted, setting aside the lower appellate court's order and remanding the case for fresh disposal.
Questions settled- Can an agreement to resolve an appeal on a special oath made by a co-appellant bind other appellants without proof of valid special attorney authorization?
- Does an agreement to decide a case or appeal on special oath amount to a compromise requiring court sanction under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when minor parties are involved?
- What are the duties of a court regarding the protection of minor interests in pending litigation where no formal next friend has obtained express leave?
- Mst. ROZI AND ANOTHERs vs MUHAMMAD JAFFAR KHAN ACHAKZAI1985 PLD Quetta 263 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. RESHAM BIBI vs BARKAT ALI And Other1985 SCMR 2104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mst. Resham Bibi filed a petition against the High Court judgment dated 8-4-1979 which dismissed her Regular Second Appeal No. 399 of 1970. The core legal question involves the application and interpretation of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act in light of conflicting views taken in prior judgments. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the matter, ordered security in the sum of Rs. 2,000, directed that the status quo granted to the petitioner shall continue, and permitted the case to be heard on the same record with liberty to file additional documents. The court established that leave is granted to resolve the legal divergence regarding the application of the relevant statute.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when conflicting views exist regarding the application of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act?
- Does a status quo order continue upon the grant of leave to appeal?
- Mst. REHMAT BIBI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1050 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail of the petitioner, Mst. Rehmat Bibi, who is facing trial for the murder of her husband by poisoning. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court and courts below were justified in cancelling the petitioner's bail while refusing to cancel the bail of a co-accused facing similar allegations. The Supreme Court held that since the allegations against the petitioner and the co-accused proceeded on similar evidence without any justifiable distinction, and given that the petitioner was a woman whose case fell under the statutory proviso for further inquiry, there was no sound basis to cancel her bail. The Court laid down the principle that parity in treatment regarding bail must be maintained among co-accused facing identical allegations unless distinguishing features exist, and that the statutory concession of bail for female accused should not be arbitrarily interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted to a female accused can be cancelled without distinguishing her case from co-accused facing similar allegations?
- Does the case of a female accused charged with a non-bailable offence fall under the protective proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requiring further inquiry?
- Is parity in the treatment of co-accused a relevant consideration when deciding on the cancellation of bail?
- Mst. RAZIA SULTAN And Another vs Lt. Col. (Rtd.) M. M. QURESHI And Another1985 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had earlier dismissed a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The underlying matter arose from ejectment proceedings initiated under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, where the Rent Controller's dismissal of the landlord's application was reversed on appeal by an Additional District Judge. The petitioners challenged this appellate decision through a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed, and subsequent leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was also refused on the ground that the petitioners had participated in the appellate proceedings without objecting to jurisdiction and were therefore barred by acquiescence from seeking discretionary relief. In the review petition, the petitioners contended that they were unaware of the lack of jurisdiction at the relevant time and that the Supreme Court's prior observation regarding the absence of such an averment in the writ petition was factually incorrect. The Supreme Court held, upon verifying the record, that no such ground regarding lack of awareness had been pleaded in the writ petition, and further found that no ground for review under the Supreme Court Rules, 1956 had been made out. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a party who participates in appellate proceedings without objecting to the forum's jurisdiction can subsequently challenge the resulting judgment in writ jurisdiction?
- Can a review petition be entertained when no ground for review as mentioned in the Supreme Court Rules has been made out?
- Whether lack of awareness of a tribunal's lack of jurisdiction constitutes a valid ground for review if it was never pleaded in the original writ petition?
- Mst. RAZIA BIBI vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAZIA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1985 CLC 1913 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAZ KHANUM BIBI vs NAZIR AHMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land sold by the appellant's father. The appellant, the vendor's daughter, challenged the sale to the respondents, who claimed to be the vendor's reversioners. The core legal question was whether the respondents' right of pre-emption under Section 15(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, should be determined by their actual inheritance status upon the vendor's death or by a legal fiction regarding who would have been entitled to inherit had the vendor died on the date of the sale. The lower courts held that the right of pre-emption is to be adjudged based on the legal fiction of succession order at the time of the sale, rather than actual subsequent inheritance. The Supreme Court upheld this view, affirming that the phrase 'would be entitled, on the death of the vendor to inherit' refers to the order of succession under personal law, not the actual outcome of inheritance. The Court held that the right of pre-emption vests in persons based on their place in the order of succession, regardless of whether they were later excluded from actual inheritance.
Questions settled- Does the right of pre-emption under Section 15(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, depend on the actual inheritance of the vendee upon the vendor's death?
- How is the 'order of succession' determined for the purpose of establishing a right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Can a person who is ultimately excluded from inheritance still possess a superior right of pre-emption based on their potential status at the time of sale?
- Mst. RASUL BIBI and another vs MANZOOR AHMAD and 12 others1985 CLC 2268 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASOOLAN BIBEE vs MUHAMMAD RASHID1985 MLD 1133 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASOOL BIBI And 3 Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another1985 SCMR 1261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' Intra-Court Appeal in an urban settlement dispute. The core legal question concerns the legality of a fresh transfer order issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in 1975 regarding Unit No. 9-A, which had already been transferred to the respondent Asghar Ali in 1962, with related appellate and revisional proceedings concluding in 1965. The Supreme Court held that the matter of the property's transfer was a closed transaction, that the property was not available for re-transfer, and that the subsequent transfer order by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was void. The Court also noted that an Intra-Court Appeal was incompetent given the available remedies of appeal and revision. The key principle laid down is that properties conclusively transferred through final settlement proceedings cannot be reopened and re-transferred as available property by settlement authorities years later.
Questions settled- Whether a property conclusively transferred through settlement proceedings can be re-transferred as available property by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner years later?
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal competent when statutory remedies of appeal and revision were available but not availed against the original transfer?
- Does a settlement authority have the jurisdiction to reopen a closed matter regarding the transfer of an urban property without challenging the original transfer through proper appellate or revisional forums?
- Mst. RASHEEDA BUKHARI vs ABDE ALI LOTIA1985 CLC 2134 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAHMAT KHATOON and 7 others vs Seth BHAGWANDAS and another1985 CLC 1026 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- MST. RAHEELA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 861 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAEESA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2823 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. QUDSIA KISHWAR and 7 others vs HAKIM & CO. TRAVEL BUS SERVICE and 10 others1985 CLC 2119 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. QAMMAR SULTANA vs MUHAMMAD NASIR1985 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. QAMAR SULTAN vs Syed MURTAZA alias DHAKEE SHAH1985 CLC 2984 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. QAISAR JAHAN and 3 others vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and 2 others1985 MLD 255 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. PURAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1985 CLC 2502 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. PHILOMINA ZARAINA NAWAB vs JAVAID PIARAY LAL1985 CLC 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. PATHANI AND ANOTHERs vs MURTAZA AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR vs JAVED AKHTAR and another1985 MLD 454 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. NUSRAT PARVEEN and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 156 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. NUSRAT BIBI vs ABDUL GHAFAR1985 CLC 2693 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. NUSRAT AGHA vs Mst. ZUBAIDA FIKREE1985 CLC 1861 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. NEMAT BIBI vs PATHANA And Another1985 SCMR 1581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over land allotted under the Horse Breeding Scheme pursuant to the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Following the original allottee's death, the Board of Revenue granted tenancy to the respondent on condition that he maintain the appellant, his step-mother. Upon the respondent's failure to pay maintenance, the land was resumed and allotted to the appellant. After protracted revenue and civil litigation, including the rejection of a second suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Lahore High Court remanded the matter to the trial court. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court erred in remanding the case instead of deciding the pure question of law itself. Holding that the High Court ought to have finally decided the matter to save time, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's remand order and directed the High Court to decide the second appeal itself on merits.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court should remand a case involving a pure question of law instead of deciding it finally?
- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction in matters falling to be decided under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- Can a condition of maintenance be lawfully incorporated into a tenancy allotment order by mutual consent before the Board of Revenue?
- Mst. NAZIRAN BIBI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2467(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZIR BEGUM and others vs A/C A.S.C. LANDS, OKARA and others1985 CLC 2377 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZIMA BEGUM and 2 others vs RENT CONTROLLER, Lahore and 8 others1985 CLC 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nawabzadi SITARA BEGUM And Others vs PROVINCE OF N. W.F.P. And Other1985 SCMR 1713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, successors-in-interest of claimants for urban and rural agricultural land, sought leave to appeal against Peshawar High Court judgments. The core dispute involved the allotment of urban agricultural land to a respondent (Noor Muhammad) who held a verified claim for rural agricultural land, which the petitioners argued was legally impermissible. The High Court had previously upheld the respondent's allotment, ruling that the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not re-exercise powers to cancel an allotment already finalized by a delegate. The Supreme Court examined whether repeated inquiries into the same allotment were permissible. The Court held that the controversy had been settled by earlier administrative orders and a previous constitutional petition, which had attained finality. Applying the principle of res judicata, the Court affirmed that repeated inquiries under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act are not permissible. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the petitioners lacked locus standi to claim land that remained validly allotted to the respondent.
Questions settled- Are repeated inquiries into the same allotment permissible under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to the exercise of powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Can a Chief Settlement Commissioner re-exercise powers to cancel an allotment after a delegate has already finalized the matter?
- Mst. NAWAB BIBI And Others vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT And Other1985 SCMR 1815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the lease of evacuee agricultural land vesting in the Evacuee Trust Property Board under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. The original lessee having died during the subsistence of the lease, competing claims were made by the sub-lessee and the brother/legal heir of the deceased lessee. The Deputy Administrator initially granted a fresh lease to the legal heir, but the Administrator reversed this order in favor of the sub-lessee, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court in a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the legal heir of a deceased lessee was entitled to a fresh lease of evacuee trust land or only to the devolution of leasehold rights for the unexpired period under the relevant scheme. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that paragraph 18 of the Scheme for the Lease of Evacuee Trust Agricultural Land, 1975, only allows devolution of leasehold rights for the unexpired period and does not confer a right to a fresh lease, and further noting that the lease period had expired by efflux of time.
Questions settled- Whether the legal heirs of a deceased lessee are entitled to a fresh lease of evacuee trust agricultural land upon the lessee's death?
- Do leasehold rights under paragraph 18 of the Scheme for the Lease of Evacuee Trust Agricultural Land, 1975 devolve for a fresh term or only for the unexpired period of the lease?
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent factual findings regarding cultivating possession in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR vs THE STATE and 3 others1985 MLD 1062 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASERA BEGUM vs VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI AND 21985 PLD Karachi 645 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASEEM HAKIM vs JAMIL AHMAD and another1985 MLD 294 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAIMA BEGUM vs Mst. MAQBOOLAN BEGUM and another1985 CLC 2458 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAHEED BIBI vs MEHARBAN And Other1985 SCMR 1802 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1985-06-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUNTI vs MUHAMMAD AYUB And Other1985 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition arising out of the disposal of a rural property consisting of a shop and a Chobara. The core legal question involved the challenge to concurrent findings of fact regarding the occupation and transfer application of the disputed property. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact regarding the respondent's occupation and the lack of proof concerning the petitioner's occupation and pursuit of the transfer application suffered from no legal infirmity. The court established the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding property occupation and non-prosecution of transfer claims by competent authorities will not be interfered with under writ jurisdiction unless shown to be against a principle of law.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the occupation of property be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact affirmed by the High Court when no principle of law has been violated?
- Mst. MUKHTARAN BIBI (Deceased) And Others vs ATA MUHAMMAD And Another1985 SCMR 1506 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the dismissal of a civil suit filed against the orders of the Settlement Department. A non-claimant displaced person had entered into an agreement of association with a claimant for the transfer of a house in his possession because he could not pay the transfer price and rent arrears. Later, he sought to withdraw the agreement, but the Settlement authorities refused and issued a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) and Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to the associate. The civil courts dismissed the petitioner's suit, holding that section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 barred civil court jurisdiction. The core legal question is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed by Settlement authorities when issuing transfer documents based on a premature agreement of association, and whether such agreement of association is permissible before the actual transfer of property. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that parties can enter into an agreement of association before the actual transfer of property. The principle laid down is that entering into an agreement of association prior to the actual transfer of property is not objectionable under settlement laws.
Questions settled- Does section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to interfere with orders passed by Settlement authorities?
- Is an agreement of association entered into before the actual transfer of the property permissible under settlement laws?
- Mst. MEHAR KHATOON vs MUHAMMAD HASSAN and others1985 P Cr. L J 2598 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAZHAR KHANUM vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, LAHORE And 71985 SCMR 1354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave arose from a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against the Custodian of Evacuee Property's order. The dispute concerned whether a piece of land recorded in the revenue records in the name of a non-evacuee owner constituted evacuee property under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957. The appellant argued that the land was automatically treated as evacuee property by virtue of a general notification issued in 1947, bringing it under the exception provided in Section 3(2)(b) of the Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 3(1) of the Act, property not treated as evacuee property prior to January 1, 1957, could not be so treated thereafter. The Court reaffirmed that mere statutory vesting or a general notification does not amount to 'treatment' of property as evacuee; competent authorities must have taken specific overt action regarding the particular property. Finding no evidence of prior overt action or concealment, the Court upheld the High Court's refusal to disturb the Custodian's factual findings.
Questions settled- Does a general notification vesting evacuee property in the Custodian satisfy the requirement of treating a specific property as evacuee property under Section 3 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957?
- Can property recorded in revenue records under non-evacuee ownership prior to 1947 be declared evacuee property after January 1, 1957, without prior overt action by the relevant authorities?
- Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction can re-evaluate disputed questions of fact determined by the Custodian of Evacuee Property based on revenue records?
- Mst. MARIUM AND 5 OTHERSs vs Haji ALI AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 705 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application arises from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge dismissing an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for setting aside a previous decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud. The core legal question is whether a stranger to a suit who was not a party to the proceedings can maintain an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or be bound by a declaratory decree passed therein. The court held that a declaratory decree is binding only on the parties to the suit and persons claiming through them, and that strangers to the suit cannot invoke section 12(2) because the term 'parties' refers strictly to parties to the suit or their legal representatives. The key principle laid down is that a person who was not a party to a suit and is not bound by its decree cannot challenge it via an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether a stranger to a suit can maintain an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a decree?
- Is a declaratory decree binding on persons who were not parties to the suit in which it was passed?
- Does the term 'parties' in the definition of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include strangers to the suit?
- Mst. MARIAM ROZINA vs ROBERT ASHRAF1985 P Cr. L J 1469 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the recovery and production of the petitioner's minor daughter, aged about four years, from the custody of the respondent. The petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband, and the minor child is the offspring of their marriage. The core legal question before the High Court was whether a minor child residing with her biological father can be considered to be in illegal or improper custody so as to attract the provisions of Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that custody of a minor child with her biological father cannot be deemed illegal or improper detention. The Court laid down the principle that custody disputes between parents should be resolved through appropriate civil remedies under family laws rather than invoking the extraordinary criminal jurisdiction of habeas corpus under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether the custody of a minor child with their biological father can be deemed illegal or improper custody under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a writ of habeas corpus under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as a substitute for civil proceedings to resolve child custody disputes between spouses?
- Mst. MARIAM BAI vs Mst. MEHRUNNISSA BEGUM1985 CLC 1941 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. MARIAM BAI And Another vs Mst. MEHRUNNISA BEGUM1985 SCMR 2064 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against orders of the Sind High Court, which dismissed applications under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the re-admission of appeals previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to restore the appeals, given that the petitioners provided affidavits citing illness as the cause for non-appearance. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its decision. The Court determined that the absence of the petitioners was neither intentional nor negligent, particularly because they had engaged counsel to argue the case, and their personal presence was not strictly required for the hearing. The Court established that the expression 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance under Order XLI, Rule 19 must be interpreted based on the facts and circumstances of each case, emphasizing that discretion should be exercised on judicial principles to avoid a strict view when non-appearance is neither intentional nor negligent. Consequently, the appeals were restored.
Questions settled- What constitutes 'sufficient cause' for the re-admission of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Should a court take a strict view of a party's absence when that absence is neither intentional nor negligent?
- Is the personal presence of a party necessary on a date fixed for final arguments when they have engaged counsel?
- Mst. MANZOOR ELAHI AND ANOTHERs vs Mst. AZIZ MAI AND ANOTHERsPLD 1985 Rev. 156 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAMINA PATHAN vs ALI BUX AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 197 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1979-05-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAMIN And Others vs The SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) MULTAN1985 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a land dispute concerning the allotment of approximately 36 Kanals of land in village Dunyapur, District Multan. The matter originated from a previous High Court order dated 6-6-1977, which remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner to determine if respondent No. 2 held pending entitlement units. If such units existed, the land was to be allotted to the respondent; otherwise, the petitioners' existing allotment was to remain intact. Following a report from the Central Record Room, the Settlement Commissioner confirmed the respondent's entitlement to 423 units and allotted the disputed land accordingly. The petitioners challenged this decision, questioning the mode of re-verification used by the authorities. The High Court dismissed the challenge, finding that the factual determination of the respondent's entitlement to 423 units was established and not effectively rebutted. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, holding that where a factual finding regarding entitlement is supported by record and remains unchallenged by contrary evidence, the specific mode of verification does not invalidate the allotment. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can a land allotment be challenged solely on the basis of the mode of verification when the underlying entitlement is factually established?
- Does a Settlement Commissioner have the authority to allot land based on a re-verification of pending units following a remand order?
- Mst. MAHMOODA SULTANA vs Mst. JAMILA BEGUM1985 SCMR 1926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a contest between the paternal grandmother and the mother of a minor girl, Mst. Faraz Wajid, regarding the appointment of the guardian of her property and the custody of her person. The lower courts concurrently found the mother to be the proper person to be entrusted with the custody and guardianship. The grandmother challenged these findings through a petition before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts erred in their evaluation of the welfare of the minor in preferring the mother over the grandmother. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal defect or infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The key principle laid down is that concurrent factual determinations regarding minor custody and guardianship by lower courts will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of any established legal defect or infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether the mother or the grandmother is a more suitable person for the custody of a minor girl and guardianship of her property?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding minor custody in the absence of a legal defect?
- Mst. MAHMOODA BEGUM And Others vs TAJ DIN1985 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an appellate authority's decision refusing the ejectment of tenants. The landlord had sought eviction based on default and the need for reconstruction, while the tenants contested these grounds and raised the issue of non-service of notices under statutory provisions. The appellate authority had initially ruled in favor of the tenants, finding no default or necessity for reconstruction. The High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, remanded the case, criticizing the appellate authority for failing to discuss relevant superior court precedents in its judgment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court could interfere with the finality of an appellate authority's decision solely on the ground that it did not explicitly discuss superior court precedents, absent a specific jurisdictional or legal error. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing merit in the contention that tribunals of limited jurisdiction are not required to incorporate all superior court decisions in their orders to maintain lawful authority.
Questions settled- Is an appellate authority in a rent restriction case legally required to incorporate and discuss all relevant superior court decisions in its judgment?
- Can a High Court set aside an appellate authority's decision solely on the ground that it failed to discuss superior court precedents?
- Does the failure of a tribunal to discuss superior court precedents render its judgment as lacking lawful authority?
- Mst. MAHMOODA BEGUM And Others vs Major Malik MUHAMMAD ISHAQ And Other1985 SCMR 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the High Court, which refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal and dismissed it as time-barred. The core legal question is whether the time spent pursuing an appeal before a forum lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, allegedly due to erroneous legal advice given to a Parda Nasheen lady, constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay under the law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding the petitioner being a Parda Nasheen lady misled by wrong legal advice requires detailed consideration. The key principle laid down is that a litigant, particularly a Parda Nasheen lady, should not be made to suffer solely on account of the bona fide wrong advice of her counsel when assessing sufficient cause for the condonation of delay.
Questions settled- Whether the time spent pursuing an appeal before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can be excluded for the purpose of limitation?
- Does wrong legal advice given to a Parda Nasheen lady constitute sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Should a litigant suffer for the mistaken advice of their counsel regarding the forum of appeal?
- Mst. MAHJABEEN BEGUM vs R.M. KHAN1985 MLD 949 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAHAR BANO vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND SETTLEMENT1985 MLD 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. KULSOOM BAI vs Mst. NARGIS BANO1985 SCMR 1275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order and subsequent execution proceedings where the petitioner intervened claiming to be the lawful tenant and alleging that the ejectment order was obtained by fraud. The petitioner's objections under Order XXI, rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure were dismissed in default, and a subsequent separate civil suit filed by the petitioner challenging the ejectment order was rejected by the trial court under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as barred by Order XXI, rule 103. The lower appellate court and the High Court affirmed this view. The core legal question was whether a separate civil suit is maintainable to challenge an order in execution proceedings regarding possession when such matters are barred by Order XXI, rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that all questions regarding title, right, interest, or possession arising under Order XXI must be adjudicated within the execution proceedings and no separate suit lies. The Court laid down that where a Rent Controller's order is executed by a Civil Court as a decree, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure fully apply to the execution stage.
Questions settled- Whether a separate civil suit is barred under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure for determining questions relating to title, right, interest, or possession arising in execution proceedings?
- Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to execution proceedings initiated in a Civil Court for the execution of an order passed under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does an order passed on objections under Order XXI, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure have the effect of a decree allowing an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Mst. KOORI and another vs ALLAH WASAYA and others1985 CLC 2852 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHIDA BEGUM And Others vs AYUB BAIG And Other1985 SCMR 1497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID BIBI vs S.H.O./REHMAT ALI, A.S.I.1985 P Cr. L J 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others1985 MLD 240 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM AND OTHERS vs AHMAD BAKHSH AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns whether land, previously governed by the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and exempted from the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, via a government notification, retains that exemption after the land is acquired under Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws and ceases to be governed by the 1912 Act. The Supreme Court addressed whether the exemption notification, which applied to areas where the 1912 Act 'has been or may hereafter be made applicable,' persists once the land vests in private transferees. The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the notification's language does not require the 1912 Act to be currently applicable for the exemption to persist; rather, the exemption attaches once the Act has been made applicable to that area. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that respondents were estopped from challenging a preliminary issue finding in a subsequent appeal, clarifying that an appeal against a final decree reopens all preceding interim orders and issues. The appeals and petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a notification exempting land from the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 based on the applicability of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 continue to apply after the land is acquired under Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws?
- Does an appeal against a final decree reopen all interim orders and preliminary issues decided during the course of the suit?
- Can a party be estopped from challenging a preliminary issue finding in an appeal against the final judgment if they did not challenge the preliminary finding separately at the time it was made?
- Mst. KHURSHID AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHAH1985 MLD 308 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHUDIJA BEGUM vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1985 SCMR 2061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed her constitutional petition challenging the seizure and outright confiscation of 46 Tolas of gold ornaments. Upon arriving at Lahore Airport from Dubai, the petitioner's baggage was cleared, but a subsequent personal search revealed heavy gold bangles and rings on her person, which she had failed to declare when asked. The Assistant Collector confiscated the gold, rejecting her request to re-export the items under Section 142 of the Customs Act 1969, on the grounds that she had concealed the gold and failed to make a clear declaration. The petitioner's departmental appeal and revision were dismissed, as was her constitutional petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that because the petitioner failed to declare the gold and it was only recovered upon a personal search, her bona fides were compromised. Consequently, the High Court's refusal to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction was justified, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a passenger claim the benefit of re-exporting restricted goods under Section 142 of the Customs Act 1969 if they failed to make a clear declaration of those goods upon arrival?
- Does the failure to declare restricted gold ornaments found during a personal search justify outright confiscation under the Customs Act 1969?
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to overturn a confiscation order where the passenger's bona fides are compromised by non-declaration of contraband.
- Mst. Khadija Begum vs Government Of Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed her constitutional petition challenging the confiscation of 46 tolas of gold ornaments seized from her person at Lahore Airport. Upon arrival from Dubai, the petitioner failed to declare the gold, which was subsequently discovered during a personal search following suspicious behavior. The customs authorities confiscated the gold, citing violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and the Import & Export Control Act, 1950, as punishable under the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner argued that the ornaments were visible and not concealed, requesting permission to re-export them under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1969. The departmental authorities rejected this, finding the goods were concealed and not voluntarily declared. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, noting that the petitioner's failure to declare the gold and the circumstances of its discovery undermined her plea of bona fides. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the departmental findings in its constitutional jurisdiction, as the confiscation was justified by the petitioner's conduct.
Questions settled- Does the failure to declare gold ornaments upon arrival at an airport justify their confiscation under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Can a passenger claim the right to re-export goods under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1969, if those goods were concealed and not voluntarily declared?
- Is the High Court's refusal to interfere with departmental findings of fact in a constitutional petition legally sound when the petitioner's bona fides are in question?