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 ABBAS vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABBAS AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed by two petitioners against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which confirmed their convictions and sentences under Sections 449 and 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as well as under Section 18 read with the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners trespassed into a house to commit rape and murder, inflicting fatal knife injuries on the victim upon resistance. The Supreme Court addressed whether a Court of Session can frame charges under the Offence of Zina Ordinance 1979 based on facts in a police report even if the investigating officer omitted the provision, whether the Federal Shariat Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction and authority to confirm death sentences in such joint trials, and whether a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can serve as a valid dying declaration. Dismissing the petitions, the Court held that courts are not bound by police conclusions in a police report, joint trials of offenses under the Penal Code and Hudood laws are valid, appellate and confirmation jurisdiction lies with the Federal Shariat Court, and a police statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. constitutes a valid dying declaration if the maker subsequently dies.
Questions settled- Is a trial court bound by the conclusions or statutory provisions mentioned by an investigating officer in a report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the Federal Shariat Court have exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals and confirm death sentences in cases involving offenses under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 tried jointly with offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a statement recorded by an investigating officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as a valid dying declaration if the declarant subsequently dies?
- MUHAMMAD ABBAS AND 5 OTHERS vs ESSA E. H. JAFAR AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 1811 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD A Y U B vs MEH BOOB ELAHI1984 SCMR 1550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a revision application regarding the condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The core legal question was whether an appellate court acts properly by summarily condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 based on a finding that service of summons was "doubtful," when that finding effectively pre-determines the central issue of the main appeal. The Supreme Court held that the lower appellate court erred by disposing of the limitation application in a cursory manner without a positive finding on the legality of service. The Court ruled that where the grounds for condonation of delay are identical to the merits of the appeal, the appellate court must not decide the limitation application in isolation. Instead, the proper procedure is to defer the decision on the application for condonation of delay and dispose of it concurrently with the main appeal to ensure a fair hearing. The impugned order was set aside and the case remanded for fresh adjudication.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court decide an application for condonation of delay by making a finding on a core issue that is also the subject of the main appeal?
- Is it proper for an appellate court to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 based solely on a vague conclusion that service of summons was doubtful?
- Should an appellate court defer the decision on a limitation application if the grounds for condonation are identical to the grounds of the main appeal?
- MUHAMMA D MANSHA AND OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2231 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition sought to restrain the notification of a returned candidate in a local council election on the ground that he was a government servant and therefore disqualified from contesting. The core legal question was whether a candidate who tendered his resignation from government service prior to the filing of nomination papers, but whose resignation was formally accepted after the filing date with retrospective effect, remained subject to the disqualification under the relevant local government law. The Lahore High Court held that since the resignation was duly tendered within the permissible notice period and subsequently accepted to take effect from the date of tendering in accordance with the terms of service, the respondent had effectively shed his disqualification before the crucial date. The court established that a resignation tendered in time and accepted to be effective from the date of submission removes a candidate's disqualification under the local government laws, rendering them eligible to contest the election.
Questions settled- Whether a government servant who tenders his resignation before filing nomination papers is disqualified from contesting local council elections if the resignation is accepted after the filing date?
- Can a resignation from government service be accepted with effect from the date of its submission in accordance with the terms of appointment?
- At what point in time must a candidate be free from disqualifications to contest a local council election?
- MUHAMM AD RAMZAN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1484 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMM AD ASHRAF vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 253 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAM MAD RAFIQUE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1003 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAM MAD ALI alias MAHANDA AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAM MAD ALI alias MAHANDA AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE Opponent1984 P Cr. L J 2867 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAM MA D RASHID vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3062 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAM MA D RA FIQ vs REGIONAL MANAGER P. A. D. & S. CORPORATION ,1984 PLC 1172 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAM MA D ASLAM vs NAZIR alias NAJI AND 4 OTHERS1984 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case where the respondents were initially convicted for the murder of Faiz Ahmad but subsequently acquitted by the Lahore High Court. The prosecution alleged that the respondents ambushed the deceased while he was traveling to court. The petitioner contended that the High Court misread the medical evidence regarding the deceased's ability to fire in self-defence and the nature of the weapon injuries. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the deceased sustained multiple severe gunshot wounds, making it improbable he could have fired back as claimed. Furthermore, the Court observed that one of the accused, Muhammad Sharif, died during the encounter, and the circumstances suggested a chance encounter rather than a premeditated ambush. The Court held that the High Court's appraisal of the evidence was sound, particularly regarding the physical impossibility of the deceased's actions as described by the prosecution. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Does the presence of severe gunshot wounds on a deceased person render the prosecution's claim of the deceased firing in self-defence implausible?
- Can a finding of a chance encounter be sustained when the prosecution alleges a premeditated ambush?
- Is a High Court's acquittal based on a proper appraisal of medical and ocular evidence liable to be set aside in a petition for leave to appeal?
- MUHAHMAD NAQI KHAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 215 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
- MUHABBAT ALI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION, BAHAWALPUR and others1984 SCMR 1388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the legality of a land allotment made in favour of the respondent, initially pursuing remedies through appeal and revision before the Settlement authorities, where he claimed a preferential right. After failing in those proceedings, the petitioner filed a Mukhbari application under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, raising a different ground of challenge, which was also dismissed. A subsequent writ petition filed before the High Court met the same fate. The core legal question addressed was whether a party, having failed to challenge an allotment through normal remedies of appeal and revision, can subsequently re-agitate the same matter by invoking a different provision of law and altering the ground of attack. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a litigant cannot be permitted to repeatedly challenge an adverse order through alternative legal avenues by changing grounds after failing in the primary hierarchy of remedies. The principle laid down is that the doctrine of finality and the bar against repetitive, collateral challenges prevent a party from re-agitating settled matters by shifting legal stands.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a land allotment through a Mukhbari application after failing to set it aside in appeal and revision?
- Whether a litigant is permitted to re-agitate an adverse allotment by changing the ground of attack under a different provision of law?
- MUHABAT HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the abduction and rape of the complainant's daughter. The core legal questions were whether the victim was a consenting party and whether the prosecution successfully established that she was under the age of sixteen at the time of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age through conclusive evidence, such as birth records or ossification tests, relying instead on mere estimates. Furthermore, the Court observed that the victim's conduct—specifically her failure to seek assistance during her travel and her subsequent stay at the appellants' residence—was inconsistent with the claim of forcible abduction and supported the defense's plea of consent. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution's case doubtful, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that where age is a critical factor for determining the criminality of an act, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to provide unshakable and conclusive evidence.
Questions settled- Is the conduct of an alleged abductee relevant in determining whether the act was consensual?
- Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving the age of the victim when age is a crucial factor for determining criminality?
- Is a conviction for abduction and rape sustainable where the prosecution fails to provide conclusive evidence of the victim's age?
- MUHA MMAD SADIQ AND 16 OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN ORDNANCE1984 PLC (C. S.) 585 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-03-08Read full judgment →
- MUHA MMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3041 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUHA MM AD HAROON vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1470 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
- MUHA MM A D WA RIS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1902 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-30Read full judgment →
- MUHA MM A D NAEEM AND 2 oTHERS vs TUE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 283 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUHA M MAD YOUSIF vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 223 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- MUHA M MAD RA M ZAN AND OTHERS vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 CLC 474 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUH AMMAD IDRIS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 738 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
- MUH A MM A D SH AFI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mufti ZAHEERUDDIN AHMED represented by Legal Heirs and 3 others vs Seth1984 MLD 739 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- MUBARAK ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 PLD Federal Shariat Court 55 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
- MUAHMMAD HANEEF vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND 21984 PLC 1120 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MU N IR H USSA I N vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2439 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
- MU HA MMAD SHA RIF vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 754 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
- MU H AMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2592 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- MU H AM MAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mst.ZARINA vs AHMED RAZA AND 2 others1984 CLC 2690 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mst.SHAHIDA KHAN vs ABDUL REHIM KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 365 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging the dismissal of a wife's suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula and the granting of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the husband. The core legal question is whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the plea of khula by failing to adequately consider evidence of the wife's intense aversion and the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. The Court held that the lower courts treated the issue of khula in a perfunctory manner, ignoring material evidence regarding the wife's mental state and the persistent nature of the marital rift. The Court established that if a wife has firmly decided not to live with her husband, and the court is satisfied that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, forcing the woman to remain in a hateful union is contrary to the principles of khula. It is not necessary for the wife to prove specific, rational causes for her hatred; the court's primary duty is to determine if the parties can perform their marital obligations.
Questions settled- Is it necessary for a wife seeking khula to prove specific, rational causes for her aversion to her husband?
- Does the existence of children from a marriage preclude the granting of a decree for khula?
- What is the primary duty of a court when considering a plea for khula based on the wife's hatred for her husband?
- Can a court interfere with findings of fact regarding cruelty and non-maintenance in a writ petition?
- Mst.SHAHAR BANO vs CHAND KHAN1984 MLD 280 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-09Read full judgment →
- Mst.SHAFQAT NAZ vs SAMUEL JAVAID IQBAL1984 MLD 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mst.SALMA KHATOON vs Mst.SURRIYA BEGUM1984 CLC 2619 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- Mst.NAFISA vs NORTHERN TRADERS LIMITED1984 CLC 2711 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mst.BILQUIS BEGUM, vs TAJ MUHAMMAD and others1984 SCMR 1242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' second appeal as time-barred by 129 days. The underlying dispute involved the status of the respondents' predecessor-in-interest as an occupancy tenant and their subsequent entitlement to ownership rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act (Act VII of 1952). Following a remand by the High Court for separate judgments, the District Judge dismissed the petitioners' appeal. When the petitioners filed a second appeal, the High Court sustained an objection regarding limitation, finding the appeal filed 129 days late without explanation or a condonation application. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued they were taken by surprise by the limitation objection and were not afforded an opportunity to explain the delay. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the critical date of copy preparation or delivery, which determines the start of the limitation period. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, affirming that in the absence of material justifying the delay, the dismissal on limitation grounds was proper. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for filing an appeal start from the date of the preparation of the copy of the judgment?
- Is a party required to provide evidence or explanation for delay when an appeal is filed beyond the statutory limitation period?
- Can a court dismiss an appeal as time-barred if the appellant fails to justify the delay in filing?
- Mst.ANWAR JEHAN vs ISMAIL KHAN1984 CLC 2849 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant on grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether unpaid Sui Gas charges constitute rent default and whether a landlord's personal requirement extends to a married daughter and her family. Regarding default, the Court held that under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, 'rent' includes charges payable by the tenant, such as Sui Gas charges; since the appellant failed to pay these charges and did not rebut the landlord's evidence, the default was established. Regarding personal requirement, the Court held that a landlord's personal requirement does not automatically include a married daughter and her family who were previously living separately, especially when the landlord fails to provide a cogent reason for their inclusion and the existing premises are sufficient for the landlord's immediate family. Consequently, while the Court reversed the finding on personal requirement, it maintained the ejectment order based on the proven default in payment.
Questions settled- Do unpaid Sui Gas charges constitute rent default under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the definition of 'rent' under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 include utility charges like Sui Gas?
- Can a landlord claim personal requirement for a married daughter and her family who were previously living separately?
- Mst.AMTULLBAI MUHAMMAD ALI vs Messrs IBRAHIM GHANI1984 CLC 2793 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZULEKHA BAI and others vs The MASJIDEMIRAJUN NABI TRUST and others1984 SCMR 1295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order passed against the petitioners regarding a rented plot of land used for manufacturing bus bodies. The application for ejectment was filed by trustees of a trust on the ground that the rented land was reasonably and in good faith required for the construction of a mosque, backed by an approved building plan. The core legal questions were whether the requirement to construct a mosque on rented land fell within the scope of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and whether the petitioners would be deprived of statutory protections upon such construction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings that the subject matter was 'rented land' under Section 2(g) of the Ordinance and the eviction ground was fully covered under Section 13(2)(vi). Relying on established precedent, the Court found no merit in the contentions and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement to construct a mosque on rented land is covered under Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does a plot of land let out for commercial purposes constitute 'rented land' under Section 2(g) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 for the purpose of eviction?
- Whether the construction of a public or religious facility like a mosque affects the applicability of statutory eviction provisions under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Mst. ZULEKHA AND 7 OTHERS vs MASJIDE MERAJUN NABI TRUST AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 3057 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller directing the appellants to vacate rented land leased for commercial purposes, on the ground that the respondent-Trust reasonably and in good faith required the land to erect a mosque pursuant to a settlement deed. The core legal question was whether a landlord can seek ejectment of rented land under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the purpose of constructing a mosque, and whether doing so improperly deprives the tenant of the benefit of section 13(5-B). The Sindh High Court held that section 13(2)(vi) entitles a landlord to seek ejectment of rented land for reconstruction or erection upon obtaining necessary sanctions, which the respondents duly did, and that section 13(5-B) does not apply to rented land. The court established that the statutory provision allows ejectment for erecting a structure like a mosque on rented land, provided good faith and proper sanction are shown, dismissing the appeal with an incorporated undertaking regarding future shop leasing.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can seek ejectment of rented land under section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the purpose of constructing a mosque?
- Does section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 apply to rented land as opposed to a rented building?
- Whether the construction of a religious structure is covered within the grounds for ejectment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM vs The CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY and 8 others1984 CLC 2756 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM vs Messrs S.S. MIRANDA (Pak.) Ltd. and another1984 MLD 1181 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZOHRA KHATOON vs MUHAMMAD AHMAD1984 CLC 1976 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZOHRA BEGUM vs MESSRS ABDUL RAZAK & Co. AND 10 OTHERS1984 CLC 1643 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts, and appointment of a receiver. The defendants filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit based on an arbitration clause contained in the partnership deed. The plaintiff resisted the stay application on grounds including allegations of fraud, concealment of a portion of the arbitration clause, unworkability and vagueness of the arbitration clause, and that the suit was for dissolution of partnership. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud or concealment and found the arbitration clause to be workable and certain. However, the court established that an applicant seeking a stay of a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must explicitly state the specific dispute between the parties constituted by a proposition of fact or law, rather than merely asserting the existence of an arbitration clause. Since the defendants failed to state any dispute in their stay application, the application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an application for stay of a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must specify the dispute between the parties?
- Does a mere allegation of fraud without prima facie proof suffice to refuse the stay of a suit under an arbitration agreement?
- Does a partnership at will stand dissolved immediately upon the filing of a suit for dissolution or the service of summons?
- Whether an arbitration clause providing a tiered procedure for appointing arbitrators within a few months is unworkable or vague?
- Mst. ZOHRA and 9 others vs MUKHTAR AHMAD through Legal Heirs and 31984 MLD 126 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZILLOO BAI vs M. A. RAHIM AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2331 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZARINA BEGUM vs MUNSIF KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption dispute concerning the sale of equity of redemption in land. The core legal questions were whether a suit for pre-emption could be decreed when the plaintiff's counsel conceded that the specific transaction was not intended to be pre-empted, and whether the appellant improved her status as a co-sharer upon the dismissal of a competing pre-emptor's appeal. The trial court had dismissed the suits, finding the initial transfer was in lieu of dower-debt and thus not pre-emptible. However, the appellate courts granted a decree to the pre-emptor, Munsif Khan. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in granting a decree when the pre-emptor himself pleaded that the transaction was a sham and his counsel expressly conceded that the second transaction was not intended to be pre-empted. The Court established the principle that a court cannot grant a decree for pre-emption on a transaction that the plaintiff explicitly disavows as a genuine sale, particularly when counsel makes a binding concession on the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Can a court grant a decree for pre-emption when the plaintiff's pleadings and counsel's concession indicate the transaction was not intended to be pre-empted?
- Does a suit for pre-emption fail when the plaintiff characterizes the transaction as a sham and the court finds the underlying transfer was not a sale?
- Mst. ZAKIA vs SALIM AHMED1984 MLD 786 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 1812 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN vs BABU and others1984 MLD 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAHIDA KHATOON vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court, which modified a condition of bail granted to the petitioner in a case involving offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner was accused of committing Zina, with conflicting claims of a lawful marriage and an elopement presented by the parties. The Sessions Judge had granted bail subject to the condition that the petitioner furnish a bail-bond through her father, who was also the complainant. The High Court modified this condition, requiring a surety bond from a person related within the prohibited degree. The Supreme Court examined the legal contentions regarding the imposition of onerous bail conditions and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. However, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, holding that the discretionary relief was unwarranted due to the conduct of the petitioner in refusing acceptable sureties and failing to institute a suit for jactitation of marriage to establish the validity of the alleged union. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the imposition of restrictive conditions on the grant of bail amounts to a refusal of bail?
- Can leave to appeal be refused on the basis of the conduct of the accused and failure to file a suit for jactitation of marriage?
- Whether a surety bond executed by a person related within the prohibited degree can be validly required as a condition for bail?
- Mst. WAZ1RAN. vs RANJHA1984 SCMR 1579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding a land dispute. The dispute originated from a suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction filed by the respondent, claiming inheritance rights over land previously mutated in the name of the petitioner, Mst. Waziran. The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, and the District Judge upheld this dismissal, additionally finding that the petitioner had perfected her title through adverse possession. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the findings on limitation and custom but failed to address the District Judge's finding regarding adverse possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court's failure to adjudicate upon the issue of adverse possession—a finding that remained undisturbed by the High Court—rendered the acceptance of the respondent's appeal legally flawed. The key principle established is that an appellate court must address all material findings of the lower appellate court, particularly those that independently support the judgment, before reversing the decision.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court allow an appeal without addressing all material findings of the lower appellate court?
- Does a finding of adverse possession by a lower appellate court require specific adjudication by the High Court in second appeal?
- Mst. VERRIAN BIBI vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, TANDLIANWALA1984 PLC 210 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. TOOBA TALIBY and another vs SULTAN LAKHDIR and another1984 MLD 74 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. TALAWATUN NSA AND 2 mastss vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, LAND1984 CLC 1712 · Sindh High Court · 1963-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. SURRAYA BIBI vs SHER MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2200 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. SURRAIYA MIRZA AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SAEED AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2304 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM AND OTHERS vs Mst. SHAH SULTAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1011 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arose from an ejectment dispute where the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, which had dismissed the landlady's eviction petition. The core legal question was whether the landlady was entitled to evict the tenants on the ground of reconstruction when she had produced an approved site plan from the Cantonment Board. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the lower authorities erred in law by denying eviction. The Court established that where a landlord produces an approved site plan for reconstruction and there is no evidence indicating that the application is a mere contrivance to dislodge the tenants, the ground for eviction on the basis of reconstruction is legally established.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord is entitled to evict tenants on the ground of reconstruction upon producing an approved site plan from the competent authority?
- Can an eviction petition for reconstruction be dismissed in the absence of evidence showing the claim is a mere contrivance to dislodge the tenants?
- Mst. SIANI vs THE STATE1984 PLD Federal Shariat Court 121 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHIRN MAJID Decree Holder vs SUBAKTAGIN MAJID AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1531 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHERAN BIBI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHATABI AND OTHERS vs A. C./COLLECTOR KASUR AND OTHER1984 CLC 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHARMAN vs SUPERINTENDENT, DARUL AMAN AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 343 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAMSHAD MAI and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1578 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAMSA KHATOON vs Syed ANWAR ALI1984 CLC 2291 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAMIM BEGUM vs GHULAM WARIS AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1895 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAKILA KHATOON vs Mst. AKHTAR GHAZALA1984 MLD 567 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAHNAZ BIBI and others vs THE STATE and others1984 P Cr. L J 2522 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAHIDA BEGUM AND OTHERS vs GHULAM RASUL1984SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which remanded a case to the Additional District Judge, Attock, for a decision on merits. The petitioner argued that the High Court erred by not dismissing the Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A.) due to an alleged deficiency in court-fee, asserting that the fee paid was based on an undervaluation of the subject matter. The Supreme Court observed that the Additional District Judge had previously dismissed numerous appeals, including the one in question, based on a specific interpretation regarding the applicability of a Punjab Government Notification dated 4-2-1980, without addressing other issues like court-fee. The High Court had already set aside the Additional District Judge's consolidated judgment in a related matter (Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Rafagat). Consequently, the High Court remanded the present appeal to be decided on merits, including the determination of the appropriate court-fee. The Supreme Court found the High Court's order of remand to be legally sound and unexceptionable, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Can a High Court remand an appeal for a decision on merits when the lower appellate court dismissed it solely on a preliminary legal point without addressing other issues like court-fee?
- Is a consolidated judgment by an appellate court that fails to address individual intrinsic objections, such as court-fee, liable to be set aside and remanded?
- Mst. SHAHEEN KHAKWANI vs Mst. TASKEEN KHAKWANI AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAH SULTAN vs CONTROLLER OF RENTS, PESHAWAR CANTONMENT AND 21984 PLD Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAFIQ BANO vs BOARD OF REVENUE,SIND, HYDERABAD and others1984 MLD 229 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. SEEMA vs ABDUL MAJEED AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARFRAZI BEGUM AND ANOTHER vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal in limine of a writ petition by the High Court concerning the transfer of urban property during settlement operations. The petitioners challenged the finding of fact that they had voluntarily withdrawn from the contest regarding the property transfer, noting that the beneficiaries of the transfer were their close first-degree relatives. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of a 27-day delay in filing the petition, finding sufficient cause to condone the delay. Regarding the merits, the Court examined the concurrent findings of fact made by the lower authorities and affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with findings of fact where the petitioners had effectively abandoned their claim to the property. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact in the absence of a compelling justification or legal error.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a party's withdrawal from a property contest?
- Is a 27-day delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal sufficient to warrant dismissal if valid grounds for condonation are provided?
- Mst. SARDARAN BIBI vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, TANDLIANWALA1984 PLC 760 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDAR BIB! AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM alias SEEMA AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court order remanding an execution proceeding in an urban tenancy matter to the District Judge for a fresh decision. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, should have adjudicated the outstanding legal controversies itself rather than remanding the case, particularly given the necessity for summary disposal in rent restriction litigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by remanding the matter. The Court emphasized that rent restriction cases require expeditious resolution to prevent protracted litigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the remand order and directed the High Court to finally decide the specific legal questions raised, including the impact of the landlord's death on the execution of an eviction order, the classification of the disputed property, and the effect of ownership changes. The key principle laid down is that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under rent laws, should resolve legal disputes finally to ensure summary disposal, avoiding unnecessary remands that delay the finality of proceedings for litigants.
Questions settled- Should the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, decide legal questions in rent restriction cases itself rather than remanding the matter to the lower appellate court?
- Is the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to execution proceedings of an order of ejectment passed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does the principle of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872 apply to a tenant challenging the title of the landlord in execution proceedings?
- Mst. SALIMA KHATOON vs Syed BASHIRUL HASAN RIZVI AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2018 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BIBI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BIBI vs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 81 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965, specifically whether it bars a workman from claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 if they are also eligible for benefits under the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the two parts of Section 81 operate independently, effectively barring all claims under the 1923 Act, or whether they must be read together, meaning the bar only applies if the benefits are inconsistent or incompatible. The Supreme Court held that the two parts of Section 81 must be read together. The Court ruled that the 1923 Act is only superseded where the benefits are inconsistent or incompatible with those provided under the Ordinance. Mere duplication or overlapping of benefits does not constitute inconsistency. Consequently, the Court restored the Tribunal's finding that the appellant was entitled to compensation under the 1923 Act, as the benefits were not incompatible with those under the Ordinance. The principle established is that Section 81 requires a case-by-case determination of incompatibility before displacing existing statutory compensation rights.
Questions settled- Does Section 81 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 completely repeal the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923?
- Is a workman entitled to receive benefits under both the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 and the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 simultaneously?
- What is the test for determining whether a benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 is inconsistent with the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
- Does Section 73 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 operate independently of Section 81?
- Mst. SAKINA AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YAMIN KHAN AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that set aside orders of Settlement Authorities, which had corrected the description of property in a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued to the appellants' predecessor, Genda. The core legal question was whether Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to rectify clerical errors or misdescriptions in a P.T.D. after its issuance, particularly when the property involved was either non-evacuee or had been misidentified in the original transfer documents. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities possess the power to correct such errors, especially where the property in question was never legally part of the compensation pool or was not in the possession of the party claiming it. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents barring corrections after P.T.D. issuance, noting that the respondent had not been transferred the disputed shop and that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to perpetuate injustice. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the orders of the Settlement Authorities, and affirmed that misdescription of property does not confer ownership rights over categories of property (house vs. shop) not actually transferred.
Questions settled- Do Settlement Authorities have the jurisdiction to correct clerical errors in a Permanent Transfer Deed after its issuance?
- Can a transferee claim a category of property (such as a shop) not actually transferred to them based solely on an error in the property description?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed for a specific property preclude the correction of transfer documents if the property was not part of the compensation pool?
- Mst. SAKINA AND ANOTHER vs ABID HUSSAIN1984 CLC 2041 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAFIA AIYAZ vs SHARIFUL HASAN1984 CLC 2589 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAFDAR BANO and 4 others vs INAMUL HAQ and 2 others1984 CLC 2888 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAEERA BIB1 vs GHULAM MUHAM MAD1984 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the landlord against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the tenant's ejectment order by reversing findings on the issues of default and personal bona fide use. The core legal questions involve the determination of default in rent payment through money orders remitted for specific periods and the consistency between the landlord's pleadings and the testimony of her attorney husband regarding personal use. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the alleged default for specific months and the interpretation of the personal use requirement require deeper consideration. The key principle laid down is that arguable questions concerning the appreciation of evidence on default and personal use in rent matters warrant the grant of leave to appeal for a comprehensive examination of the case.
Questions settled- Whether the remittance of rent through money orders constitutes a valid payment to avoid default?
- Whether a variance between the pleadings in an ejectment application and the deposition of an attorney regarding personal use vitiates the claim?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when arguable points of fact and law are raised against the reversal of an ejectment order?
- Mst. SAEEDAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 2 others1984 MLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAEED BANO vs NASRULLAH KHAN, and othersK.L.R. 1984 Revenue Cases 60 · Board of Revenue · 1983-06-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. SABRA KHATOON vs M. D. KAUSER1984 CLC 1035 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAADIA BIBI vs IQBAL MASIH and 2 others1984 MLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. S. M. HUSSAIN vs Mst. NASRA1984 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed her first rent appeal and upheld her eviction from the disputed premises ordered by the Rent Controller. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent landlady established a bona fide personal requirement for ejectment under the relevant rent restriction law, and whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide requirement of the premises were unexceptionable and did not raise any question of law, noting that the respondent's evidence stood unchallenged on material aspects while the petitioner's mala fide claims lacked support. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, granting the petitioner four months to vacate the premises on condition of regular rent payment. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on the issue of personal bona fide requirement in rent matters will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless a substantial question of law arises.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement can be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does an ejectment application under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 require proof of bona fide requirement when challenged on grounds of mala fides for rent enhancement?
- Mst. RUBAB BAI AND 10 OTHERS vs Mst. SAROOBAI AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 65 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. RIZWANA BOKHARI vs ABDUL MAJEED SHAH and another1984 P Cr. L J 2582 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was filed by a mother seeking the recovery of her six-year-old son from the custody of the paternal grandfather and uncle. The respondents contended that the minor was in their custody pursuant to a family settlement and that a guardianship petition was already pending before the Guardian Judge, thereby ousting the High Court’s jurisdiction. The Court held that under Islamic law, the mother is entitled to the Hizanat (custody) of a male child until he reaches the age of seven. The Court affirmed that it possesses two-fold jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898: to deal with a person according to law and to set them at liberty if illegally detained. Even where a guardianship petition is pending, the High Court may exercise its powers to restore custody to the lawful guardian to prevent delay. The minor’s stated preference to remain with the grandfather was disregarded due to his tender age. The Court ordered the restoration of custody to the mother, without prejudice to the pending guardianship proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine the custody of a minor when a guardianship petition is pending before a Guardian Judge?
- Is a mother entitled to the Hizanat of a male child under the age of seven years under Islamic law?
- Can a minor's expressed preference to live with a relative override the mother's right to custody when the minor is under seven years of age?
- Mst. RIVI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA and 2 others1984 MLD 464 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. RIAZ BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1984 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. The core legal question is whether the time spent in erroneously prosecuting an incompetent application for setting aside a decree can be excluded by applying section 14 of the Limitation Act. The High Court had held, relying on precedent, that the time spent bona fide could be excluded, whereas the Supreme Court noted that its own previous judgment in Shah Muhammad v. Ghulam appeared to have expressed a contrary view. Recognizing the question as one of law and of general public importance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, directed security, dispensed with the preparation of a new paper book, and ordered a stay of proceedings before the lower appellate court.
Questions settled- Can the time spent in erroneously prosecuting an incompetent application for setting aside a decree be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act?
- Whether time spent bona fide in proceedings that were legally incompetent qualifies for exclusion of limitation period?
- Mst. REHMAT BIBI vs Mst. ZUBAIDA KHANUM and 3 others1984 MLD 269 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMAT BIBI vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions arising from an urban settlement dispute regarding property rights. The petitioner, Mst. Rehmat Bibi, challenged an order of the High Court that remanded her case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, as well as the dismissal of her subsequent review petition as time-barred. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's review application was maintainable despite being filed late, whether the original writ petition was time-barred, and whether the petitioner could defend her interests in a related pending appeal. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the review petition as time-barred was unexceptionable, and the original writ petition was also significantly time-barred, even after accounting for time spent in review proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions. However, the Court established the principle that a party, even if unsuccessful in their own petition, is entitled to defend a High Court judgment in a related pending appeal on all available legal grounds, including those not explicitly mentioned in the impugned judgment, as supported by the principles underlying the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.
Questions settled- Can a party defend a High Court judgment in a pending appeal on grounds not explicitly mentioned in that judgment?
- Does the exclusion of time spent in a review petition under the Limitation Act 1908 cure a petition that remains otherwise time-barred?
- Is a review petition filed against a remand order maintainable if it is filed significantly after the limitation period has expired?