Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs THE STATE1983 PCr. L J 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs Mst. FAZIHA BEGUM1983 CLC 1912 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 211 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 1355 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AJMAL vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY DIVISION, LAHORE1983 PLC (C. S.) 3 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZIA vs THE SUPERINTENDENT, LIVESTOCK EXPERIMENT1983 PLC (C. S.) 331 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs The STATE1983 SCMR I · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder and attempted murder. The trial court and the High Court had relied on ocular testimony corroborated by the alleged recovery of a firearm to sustain the conviction. The core legal question was whether the recovery of the weapon, conducted in the presence of interested witnesses and from a place of joint possession, constituted valid corroboration of the ocular evidence. The Supreme Court held that the recovery procedure was legally flawed, as it failed to involve independent, disinterested witnesses despite their availability, and the location of the recovery was not in the exclusive possession of the accused. Consequently, the Court ruled that the recovery evidence was unreliable and could not serve as corroboration. Having discarded this piece of evidence, the Court found the prosecution case against the appellant indistinguishable from that of the co-accused who had been acquitted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant's acquittal. The principle established is that recoveries made without independent witnesses from places of joint possession are insufficient for corroboration.
Questions settled- Can a recovery of an incriminating article from a place of joint possession serve as valid corroboration of ocular testimony?
- Is the recovery of a weapon admissible as evidence when the procedure fails to involve independent and disinterested witnesses from the locality?
- Does the failure to corroborate ocular testimony through reliable evidence entitle an accused to an acquittal when co-accused have been acquitted on similar grounds?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND 2 OTHERS s1983 CLC 387 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs JAM ABDUL HAMID AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 107 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT1983 PLC 1131 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 111983 PLC (C. S.) 1284 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-06-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOHAIL AND 11 Others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Other1983 SCMR 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals, brought by special leave, challenge a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellants' seniority appeals. The core legal question concerns whether civil judges initially appointed on an ad hoc, temporary basis to clear a backlog of judicial work could claim seniority from their initial date of appointment rather than from their subsequent regular absorption into the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The Supreme Court held that the appellants were appointed purely on an ad hoc and temporary basis for a specific purpose outside the regular service cadre, with no guarantee of absorption or adherence to the recruitment rules at the inception. Consequently, they did not become members of the service until their formal absorption and regularization by the Governor, and therefore could not claim seniority over regularly appointed civil judges from the date of their initial ad hoc entry. The key principle laid down is that ad hoc appointments made outside the applicable service rules for a specific, temporary objective do not confer membership or seniority rights under those rules until the incumbents are formally absorbed into the regular cadre.
Questions settled- Can civil judges appointed on an ad hoc basis for clearing a backlog of cases claim seniority from their initial date of appointment rather than the date of regularization?
- Does an ad hoc appointment made outside the applicable service rules confer membership in the service cadre for the purpose of determining seniority?
- Whether Rule 9 of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules 1962 applies to persons who are not yet members of the service?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN NIAZI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, CO-OPERATIVE1983 PLC (C. S.) 371 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PCr. L J 2215 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZ AL vs SURKHROO KHAN MALIK AND OTHERS1983 CLC 232 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFSAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2242 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFSAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN TAREEN AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 234 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFAQ PARACHA vs SEVENTH SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND RENT1983 CLC 769 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs THE S. D. M./A, C., TOBA TEK SINGH1983 P Cr. L J 266 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 731 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the competency of an Intra-Court Appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, against an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition. The petitioner challenged a Division Bench order that had dismissed his Letters Patent Appeal as incompetent, citing the proviso to Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, which bars appeals where the underlying law provides for at least one appeal, revision, or review. The petitioner contended that because the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, had repealed the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the order in question was passed by a notified officer under the Repeal Act against whom no further appeal or revision lay, the bar under the Law Reforms Ordinance did not apply. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the question of whether the Intra-Court Appeal was competent given the statutory repeal and the absence of further appellate remedies requires further consideration.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, bar an Intra-Court Appeal when the underlying order was passed by a notified officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal competent against an order passed by a Single Judge under Article 199 of the Constitution if the law applicable to the original proceedings provided no further appeal, revision, or review?
- MUHAMMAD ABDUL MAJID vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB COMMUNICATION1983 PLC (C. S.) 459 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD .RAMZAN vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC 1073 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD (THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) vs Mst. ZAINAB AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2853 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMA HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
- MUHABBATI vs NOOR BARKHA AND Other1983 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted of charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents for the murder of Saeed Muhammad based on ocular testimony, recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes, and an established motive arising from a past abduction and family enmity. The High Court reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecution witnesses were closely related and their testimony lacked independent corroboration. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court committed a grave error and potential miscarriage of justice by entirely omitting to consider crucial circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of incriminating blood-stained articles and weapons. The Supreme Court held that the failure of the High Court to evaluate material circumstantial evidence warrants a fresh examination of the evidence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the respondents, laying down that the wholesale disregard of corroborative circumstantial evidence by an appellate court vitiates an acquittal and justifies interference by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of an appellate court to consider material circumstantial evidence, such as the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes, constitutes a ground for granting leave to appeal against acquittal?
- Can the testimony of related eyewitnesses be discarded entirely without evaluating supporting circumstantial evidence?
- Whether the non-consideration of incriminating evidence by the High Court leads to a miscarriage of justice?
- MUHA M MA D ASIF AND ANOTHBR vs THE STATE1983 PLD Azad J& K Shariat Court 8 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mufti AMANULLAH AND 65 ORTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), PESHAWAR DIVISION, PESHAWAR AND 2 calms1983 CLC 1801 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- MU. DINO MANEKJI CHINOY AND 8 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD MATIN1983 PLD Supreme Court 693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of a judgment by the Division Bench of the High Court of Sind, which set aside a Single Judge's order refusing a temporary injunction in a specific performance suit and granted an injunction restraining the registration of a sale in favor of third-party purchasers, subject to the plaintiff depositing Rs. 15 lacs. The core legal questions involved the mandatory nature of notice requirements under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 upon filing an appeal during a pending suit, and whether a concluded contract of sale existed under the terms of a lease deed. The Supreme Court held that while the issuance of notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 is obligatory and a condition precedent to the entertainability of an appeal, procedural laws must be interpreted as tools to facilitate rather than thwart justice. If the substance of the rule is met and no prejudice is caused, non-compliance does not inevitably warrant dismissal. The Court declined to interfere with the discretionary grant of interim relief given the impending conclusion of the main suit. The key principle laid down is that procedural requirements, such as pre-presentation notice in interlocutory appeals, must be applied substantially rather than technically to prevent defeating the ends of justice.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding pre-presentation notice of appeal are mandatory and condition precedent to the entertainability of an appeal?
- Does non-compliance with the notice requirement under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 inevitably result in the dismissal of an interlocutory appeal?
- Do the provisions of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to appeals filed under section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 1980 against interlocutory orders of a Single Judge in original civil jurisdiction?
- Whether procedural provisions should be treated as rules of convenience and expediency to serve justice rather than strict stumbling blocks?
- Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD AMIN1983 CLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZOHRA BIBI AND 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 2 Other1983SCMR610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over agricultural land in District Sheikhupura, originally allotted to respondent No. 1 in 1955. Following a re-verification process, the land was cancelled from the respondent's name in 1960 and allotted to the petitioners in 1961. The respondent successfully challenged this in a constitutional petition, where the High Court remanded the matter to Settlement Authorities to re-examine the respondent's claim and entitlement. The petitioners sought leave to appeal, arguing that the re-verification document relied upon by the High Court was not genuine and that, as long-term possessors, they should be entitled to the land. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's remand order was appropriate because the case involved a factual controversy regarding the genuineness of documents that could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that directing the disposal of land 'in accordance with law' is legally sound, as neither the parties nor the courts can dictate a specific outcome contrary to statutory procedure. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Is a remand order by the High Court appropriate when a case involves a factual controversy regarding the genuineness of documents?
- Can a court direct the disposal of disputed land in a manner other than 'in accordance with law'?
- Should the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a remand order that requires further factual inquiry by the original forum?
- Mst. ZOHRA Alias MUNAWAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1284 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZARINA BIBI vs THE STATE1983 PLD Peshawar 218 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAINAB vs CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS s1983 CLC 3314 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAINAB BIBI AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SAEED AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAINAB BIBI AND Another vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Other1983 SCMR 1242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land inherited by Rahim Bakhsh, which was subsequently gifted to his daughter and grandson. The respondents, claiming to be reversioners, challenged the gift, asserting that the property was ancestral and that the family was governed by custom rather than Shariat law, thereby restricting the donor's power of alienation. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the property was ancestral and the parties were governed by custom. The High Court upheld this reversal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the family followed Shariat law, citing the equal inheritance of the predecessor's property as evidence. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the petitioners failed to prove the application of Shariat law and that the evidence supported the respondents' claim that the family was governed by custom. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the property was ancestral and the alienation was subject to customary restrictions.
Questions settled- Whether the burden of proof lies on the party asserting that a family is governed by Shariat law instead of custom in matters of ancestral property?
- Does the equal division of inherited property among sons necessarily prove that a family is governed by Shariat law rather than custom?
- Can a gift of ancestral property be challenged by reversioners if the donor was governed by custom?
- Mst. ZAHIDA BEGUM vs WING COMMANDER ZIAUDDIN AHMED AND 5 OTHERS1983 CLC 187 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected constitutional petitions challenging an arbitration award and subsequent appellate order concerning the transfer and alleged gift of a residential plot in Karachi. The core legal questions revolved around whether a revision remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act barred writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, and whether the two-month statutory time limit for rendering an arbitration award under Rule 32 of the Co-operative Societies Rules was mandatory or directory. The Sindh High Court held that a discretionary revision remedy does not constitute an adequate alternate remedy barring a constitutional petition against orders passed without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held, following Supreme Court precedent, that an arbitration award rendered after the expiry of the statutory two-month period without an extension is illegal, regardless of whether the delay is of a few days or months. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and the impugned award and appellate orders were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Does the availability of a revision remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act bar the exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Is the two-month statutory time limit for rendering an arbitration award under Rule 32 of the Co-operative Societies Rules mandatory or directory?
- Does an arbitration award rendered after the expiry of the statutory period without an extension become illegal irrespective of the duration of delay?
- Mst. ZAHIDA BEGUM vs MESSRS NADRI BAKERY & STORESPL D 1983 Karachi 618 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. WALIAN vs THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE I, FAREEDKOT1983 SCMR 1281 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the division and transfer of a residential property in Lahore. The core legal questions involved whether 'locals' could claim property under Settlement Scheme VIII when the property was not deemed 'available'; whether the court could order the redivision of property to create independent units for the benefit of such occupants; whether a party is bound by a compromise finalized in court; and whether a mistaken belief regarding the limitation period constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that property not treated as 'available' under Settlement Scheme VIII could not be redivided for the benefit of locals who failed to apply under Settlement Scheme I. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a party cannot repudiate a compromise they subscribed to in court, and that a bona fide misunderstanding of the limitation period is insufficient for condonation of delay. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that claimants cannot demand portions beyond what was in their possession.
Questions settled- Can property not deemed available under Settlement Scheme VIII be redivided for the benefit of local occupants?
- Is a party permitted to repudiate a compromise arrangement that they finalized in court?
- Does a bona fide mistaken belief regarding the limitation period constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Can a claimant demand additional portions of property beyond what was in their possession at the time of transfer?
- Mst. UME HANIF vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2142 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. UMARI AND ANOTHER vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arose from a civil revision challenging an appellate court's judgment, which dismissed an appeal without adjudicating upon a pending application filed by the petitioners under Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the production of additional evidence. The core legal question was whether the power to admit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 is strictly suo motu, or whether a party has a right to file an application that the court is bound to decide. The High Court held that the application was competent and that the appellate court was under a mandatory legal obligation to decide it before disposing of the main appeal. Failure to address the application constituted a failure to exercise jurisdiction and a material irregularity. The key principle laid down is that while an appellate court may exercise its power to admit additional evidence suo motu, the provision does not exclude the right of a party to move the court for such relief, and the court must judicially determine such applications.
Questions settled- Is the power of an appellate court to admit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 limited to suo motu exercise?
- Does a party to an appeal have the legal right to file an application for the production of additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure of an appellate court to decide a pending application for additional evidence constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction?
- Mst. TUFAILAN BIBI vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND OTHERS1983 PLD Rev. 53 · Board of Revenue · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. TAHIRA BEGUM vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD AND 51983 CLC 663 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Federal Land Commission declaring a dower-based land transfer void. The petitioner received 200 Jaribs of land as dower during her marriage on November 29, 1970, which was registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Although the mutation was attested on January 4, 1972, it was entered on December 16, 1971, prior to the crucial date of December 20, 1971, set by Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The core legal question was whether the transfer of title occurred upon the completion of the dower transaction or upon the subsequent attestation of the mutation. The Court held that title passes when the transaction is completed, not when the mutation is sanctioned. Consequently, the transfer predated the crucial date, rendering the Land Commission's order invalid. Furthermore, the Court found the revisional order was void ab initio because it was passed without notice to the petitioner. The key principle established is that a mutation is merely a record-keeping entry and does not confer title; therefore, the date of the underlying transaction governs its validity under land reform regulations.
Questions settled- Does the title to property pass upon the completion of a transaction or upon the attestation of the mutation in revenue records?
- Does a mutation attested after a crucial date render a land transfer void if the underlying transaction occurred before that date?
- Can a revisional authority pass an order affecting a party's rights without providing notice to that party?
- MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ Alias BADDISON vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 702 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. SYEDA BANOO vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 2349 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. SURRIYA BEGUM vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), FAMILY1983 PLC (C. S.) 992 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. SURAYA BIBI vs Haji INAYAT ULLAH1983 PLC 1106 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. SUGHRA KALSOOM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN AND 21983 CLC 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. SONA AND 2 OTHERS vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 575 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHEDAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHARIFAN vs ABDUL KHALIQ AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the validity of a failure certificate issued by the Chairman of the Arbitration Council, Mirpurkhas, regarding a divorce (Talaq) proceeding. The core legal question is whether a notice of Talaq under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the subsequent failure certificate, are valid when submitted to a Chairman outside the jurisdiction where the wife resided at the time of the pronouncement. The petitioner argued that under Rule 3(b) of the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, the notice must be given to the Chairman of the Union Council where the wife was residing at the relevant time. The Court held that the failure certificate issued by the Mirpurkhas Arbitration Council was without jurisdiction and of no legal effect, as the petitioner was residing in Karachi when the Talaq was pronounced. The Court established the principle that strict compliance with the territorial jurisdiction requirements for serving Talaq notices is mandatory, and such notices must be submitted to the Chairman of the Union Council where the wife resides at the time of the pronouncement.
Questions settled- To which Chairman must a notice of Talaq be sent under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Is a failure certificate issued by a Chairman lacking territorial jurisdiction legally valid?
- Does the residence of the wife at the time of the pronouncement of Talaq determine the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Council?
- Mst. SHAMIM AKBAR vs UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1485 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAH RUKH ZAMANI BEGUM vs Syed MANZOOR HUSSAIN NAQVI1983 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which set aside an ex parte order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the ejectment order on the finding that no proper service of summons or notice was effected on the tenant. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether notice of the ejectment application was duly served is essentially a question of fact. Since the High Court based its finding on the absence of bailiff reports and service records, and the petitioner failed to properly urge for an inquiry into the missing record before the High Court, no interference was warranted. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact regarding the service of process, when rendered by the High Court based on the available judicial record, will not be lightly interfered with by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether the question of service of notice in ejectment proceedings is a question of fact?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact regarding service of summons recorded by the High Court?
- What is the effect of the absence of bailiff reports and service records on an ex parte ejectment order?
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM vs Mst. HASINA JAN1983 CLC 3258 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the appellant from the disputed premises. The original owner had filed a rent application before his death, subsequent to which his widow, the respondent, served a notice under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking ejectment on the ground of personal need after becoming a widow. The Rent Controller ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to the present appeal. The core legal questions involved whether a rent application under Section 14 is maintainable during the pendency of a prior rent application, whether a widow who inherits a share is an owner/landlord competent to maintain such an application, and whether proof of good faith is required under Section 14. The court held that a new cause of action arises upon becoming a widow, rendering the Section 14 application maintainable despite pending proceedings, that a co-owner widow qualifies as a landlord, and that proof of good faith is not a prerequisite under Section 14. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is maintainable during the pendency of a previous rent application concerning the same premises?
- Whether a widow who inherits a share in a property is considered an owner and landlord competent to file a rent application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Whether a landlord seeking ejectment under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is required to prove personal requirement in good faith?
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM SUB MAJ. (RTD.) AZIZ AHMAD vs SUB MAJ. (RTD.) AZIZ1983 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These cross-appeals by special leave arise from a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning the transfer and partition of an evacuee house in Peshawar. The core legal questions involve the interpretation of an agreement of association under settlement laws, whether such an agreement can be unilaterally cancelled upon a subsequent reduction in the transfer price, and whether Settlement Authorities possess the jurisdiction to partition property jointly transferred to co-sharers. The Supreme Court held that an agreement of association once filed is final and cannot be unilaterally altered or withdrawn by a party, and that subsequent reductions in the transfer price do not affect the agreed percentage shares of the transferee and the associating claimant. Furthermore, the Court held that the Settlement Authorities become functus officio after transferring the property and lack the statutory jurisdiction to partition joint properties, such power vesting exclusively in civil courts. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement of association once filed before the Settlement Authorities can be unilaterally cancelled or modified by one party?
- Does a subsequent reduction in the transfer price of an evacuee property affect the percentage shares agreed upon between a transferee and an associating claimant?
- Do Settlement Authorities possess the jurisdiction to partition a property jointly transferred to a transferee and an associate in specified shares?
- At what point do Settlement Authorities become functus officio with respect to the transfer of evacuee property?
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal challenges the dismissal of a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether land transferred to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee is pre-emptible; whether agricultural land within municipal limits requires proof of custom for pre-emption; whether a vendee’s purchase of non-agricultural land confers the status of 'owner in the estate' to defeat a pre-emptor's superior right; and whether the appeal was competent given valuation changes. The Court held that land permanently transferred to Jammu & Kashmir refugees is pre-emptible. It further held that agricultural land assessed to land revenue remains pre-emptible under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, even within municipal limits, without requiring proof of custom. Regarding the vendee's status, the Court ruled that ownership of non-agricultural land does not constitute being an 'owner in the estate' for pre-emption purposes. The Court established that the right of appeal is a substantive vested right determined by the law at the time of the suit's institution. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the pre-emption suit was decreed.
Questions settled- Is the sale of agricultural land by a Jammu & Kashmir refugee, who received a permanent transfer, subject to the right of pre-emption?
- Does agricultural land located within municipal limits require proof of custom to be subject to pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Can a person who purchases non-agricultural land be considered an 'owner in the estate' for the purpose of defeating a pre-emption claim?
- Is the right of appeal governed by the law in force at the time of the institution of the suit or at the time of the appeal?
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS vs AHMAD KHAN AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 621 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. SALMA JAWAID AND 3 OTHERSs vs S. M. ARSHAD AND 7 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 303 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses two civil miscellaneous applications concerning the grant of a temporary injunction and the appointment of a receiver in a suit for the recovery of money and accounts. The core legal questions involved whether interim relief could be granted under Order XXXIX or Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, or alternatively under the inherent powers of the court via sections 94 and 151, and the effect of the plaintiffs' failure to disclose pending related litigation. The court held that the properties in question were not the subject matter of the suit and the case did not strictly fall within the specific rules of Order XXXIX or Order XL, but affirmed that the court possesses inherent jurisdiction to grant interim relief in exceptional circumstances where the ends of justice so require. However, declining to exercise inherent powers due to the lack of compelling reasons, the unexcused non-disclosure of the earlier administration suit, and the absence of proof of irreparable loss, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' application, granted the defendant's application, and recalled the ad interim injunction. The key principles laid down are that while courts can exercise inherent powers under section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant temporary injunctions or appoint receivers outside the strict confines of Order XXXIX and Order XL when the interests of justice demand, full disclosure of prior related proceedings is essential, and interim relief will generally be withheld in the absence of compelling reasons, irreparable loss, or material concealment.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary injunction or receiver can be granted under the inherent powers of the court when the conditions of Order XXXIX and Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not strictly met?
- Does the failure of a litigant to disclose the pendency of a prior related suit disentitle them to the equitable relief of a temporary injunction?
- Can properties belonging individually to defendants that are not the direct subject-matter of the suit be subjected to a temporary injunction or receivership?
- Whether the inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are restricted by the specific provisions for injunctions and receivers contained in the Code?
- Mst. SAKINA BIBI vs WALAYAT KHAN AND Another1983 SCMR 1151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, converted into an appeal, arose from a maintenance suit where the petitioner was awarded Rs. 300 per month. The respondent husband appealed this decree but failed to affix the requisite court-fee on the memorandum of appeal. Despite an objection regarding the deficiency of court-fee, the respondent failed to rectify the error or seek an extension of time. The appellate court dismissed the appeal due to this deficiency. The respondent subsequently challenged this dismissal via a writ petition in the High Court, which interfered with the appellate court's order. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an order dismissing an appeal for deficient court-fee. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court acted correctly in dismissing the appeal, as the respondent was negligent and failed to make up the deficiency or request time to do so. The Court emphasized that when a party is contumacious or negligent in paying court-fees, dismissal is justified. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the appellate court's dismissal order.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal for failure to make up a deficiency in court-fees when no request for extension of time was made?
- Is the High Court justified in interfering with an appellate court's order dismissing an appeal for deficient court-fees where no illegality was committed?
- Does a party's failure to rectify a court-fee deficiency after an objection is raised justify the dismissal of their appeal?
- Mst. SAHERA BEGUM vs THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.1983 CLC 1222 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAHADI AND OTHERS vs DEWAN ALI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 697 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAFIA BAI vs ABDUL SATTAR1983 PLD Karachi 419 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of a Rent Controller dismissing an ejectment application filed by a widow under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions were whether a widow, as a co-owner, is entitled to maintain an eviction application under the Ordinance, and whether a Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed ownership of the property or the structures thereon. The Court held that the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction is strictly confined to determining the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and does not extend to resolving complex title disputes. The Court further held that a widow is not required to be the sole owner of the property to invoke the summary eviction provisions of the Ordinance. Additionally, the Court established that vague, unsubstantiated allegations of mala fides regarding other vacant premises do not warrant a departure from the summary nature of the proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the ejectment order was granted, emphasizing that the Rent Controller must avoid assuming the powers of a civil court.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the ownership of property or structures in an eviction proceeding?
- Is a widow required to be the sole owner of a property to maintain an ejectment application under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a co-owner maintain an ejectment application against a tenant under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Do vague allegations of mala fides regarding other vacant premises require a Rent Controller to conduct a full evidentiary trial in summary proceedings?
- Mst. SAFIA Alias JIA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1269 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMAT BIBI AND Another vs Mir RASHID AHMAD AND Another1983 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the transfer of a house in favour of the respondent Mir Rashid Ahmad. The house was initially transferred to the respondent in 1963, and the petitioners challenged this transfer in 1968 based on an earlier un-decided form allegedly filed by their predecessor-in-interest in 1959. After protracted proceedings and a remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 8-10-1976 validated the transfer to the respondent. The core legal question concerned the effect of unexplained delay and laches in pursuing a settlement claim, as well as the lack of active pursuit by the claimants after the death of their predecessor. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine due to the prolonged unexplained delay of the petitioners in pressing their case until 1968 despite their predecessor having passed away in 1961. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether unexplained delay in pressing a transfer claim under settlement laws justifies the dismissal of a writ petition?
- Can successors-in-interest successfully challenge a property transfer after a prolonged period of inaction following the death of their predecessor?
- Mst. RASHIDA KHATOON AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD NISA AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2209 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHIDA HUSSAIN vs Qazi ASLAM HUSSAIN AND 8 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 687 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the appellate court's dismissal of a suit for declaration of title based on an alleged Will. The petitioner claimed ownership of property through a Will executed by her deceased father-in-law, which she purportedly discovered twelve years after his death, during which time a partition suit had already proceeded against her husband. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently found the Will to be fabricated, noting the suspicious silence of the alleged marginal witness, the lack of disclosure by the deceased, and inconsistencies in the handwriting expert's report and the physical condition of the document. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence regarding the Will's validity. The High Court held that the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence and that there was no misreading or misappreciation of facts. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings, ruling that no grounds existed for interference under revisional jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition in limine, reinforcing the principle that civil revision does not permit the re-appraisal of evidence where concurrent findings of fact are sound.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere in civil revision where there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?
- Does the failure of a defendant to produce evidence relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving the validity of a Will?
- Is a document's physical condition and the circumstances of its discovery relevant to determining the genuineness of a Will?
- Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD MOBIN1983 CLC 1458 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD JAVED1983 CLC 3225 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM vs MAZHAR IQBAL1983 CLC 380 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the appellant, claiming to be the landlord of the premises. The respondent contested the application, denying the landlord-tenant relationship and asserting that the appellant was a minor at the time of the alleged tenancy. The Rent Controller initially struck off the respondent's defence for non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The First Appellate Court set aside this order, remanding the case to the Rent Controller to frame and decide a preliminary issue regarding the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. The High Court upheld the appellate decision, holding that where the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship is specifically denied by the tenant, the Rent Controller is legally obligated to frame and determine this as a preliminary issue before passing a tentative rent order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Court emphasized that a tentative rent order cannot be validly passed without first establishing the jurisdictional prerequisite of the landlord-tenant relationship.
Questions settled- Must a Rent Controller frame and decide a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant before passing a tentative rent order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when that relationship is denied?
- Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a tentative rent order if the landlord-tenant relationship is in dispute?
- Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM AND 4 OTHERS vs SHAHBUDDIN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Quetta 110 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASH1DAN vs BASHIR AHMAD AND 2OTHER1983 PLD Lahore 549 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner wife challenging the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing her suit and appeal for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'. The core legal question was whether a wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula' must prove specific external facts and circumstances to establish hatred, or whether her firm and categorical statement that she would rather be shot dead than live with her husband is sufficient for the court to conclude that the parties cannot live within the limits prescribed by God. The High Court held that where a wife makes a firm and categorical statement of extreme aversion and willingness to forego her financial claims, it satisfies the conscience of the court that forcing her to live with the husband would result in a hateful union, obviating the need for elaborate proof of specific facts. The writ petition was accepted, the lower court orders were set aside as illegal, and the matter was remanded to the District Judge for disposal in light of these observations.
Questions settled- Is a wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula' required to prove specific facts and circumstances beyond a firm and categorical statement of aversion to establish extreme hatred?
- Does forcing a woman to cohabit with a husband she vehemently rejects amount to a hateful union contrary to Islamic law?
- Are the judgments of lower courts dismissing a suit for Khula' open to constitutional interference when they fail to consider the entire circumstances and the wife's categorical statement?
- Mst. RAQIYYAH BEGUM vs ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Azad J & K 3 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAM PIARI alias IQBAL BEGUM vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY1983 PLD Azad J & K 30 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAJJAN vs S. H. O., SADDAR POLICE STATION, VEHARI AND OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 1884 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAJAN AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. GHULAM SAKINA AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2261 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAHILA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1880 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAFIQAN AND 2 OTHERS vs JALAL DIN1983 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a custody dispute over a minor girl, Mst. Surayya, born to Mst. Habiban and Jalal Din, whose marriage was dissolved in 1973. Following the mother's remarriage in 1979, the minor remained with her maternal relatives. The father's application for custody was granted by the trial court, and subsequent appeals and revisions were dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the custody order properly prioritized the welfare and expressed wishes of the minor. Upon interviewing the minor, who was over ten years old and intelligent, the Court observed her strong preference to live with her mother, noting her unhappiness with the father. The Court held that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody matters. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, restored the minor's custody to the mother, and established specific visitation rights for the father, while prohibiting the removal of the minor from Faisalabad without consent. The principle laid down is that the welfare and expressed preference of a minor are decisive factors in determining custody arrangements.
Questions settled- Does the welfare of a minor take precedence over the father's right to custody in a dispute between parents?
- Can the court consider the expressed wishes of a minor child when determining custody?
- Is it permissible for an appellate court to grant visitation rights to a parent while awarding custody to the other?
- Mst. RABIA BEGUM vs Mst. SAEEDA KHATOON AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Karachi 507 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. PARVEEN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1464 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. PARVEEN vs Mst. JAMSHEDA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning urban immovable property in Kohat. The appellant challenged a High Court judgment that reversed a trial court decision, which had initially dismissed the respondents' suit on the grounds that the property was exempt from pre-emption under Section 5(d) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act. The core legal questions were whether the suit was time-barred due to initial undervaluation and subsequent payment of court fees, and whether the appellant qualified as a "resident" of Kohat under the Act. The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to allow the payment of court fees, and that such compliance cured the initial defect without rendering the suit time-barred. Regarding the residence issue, the Court affirmed the High Court’s finding of fact, noting that residence is a context-dependent concept involving intention and evidence. The Court established that no universal rule defines "residence," and appellate courts should not interfere with factual findings on residence unless they contravene established principles of evidence.
Questions settled- Can a suit be dismissed as time-barred solely because the plaint was initially undervalued and court-fees were paid after the limitation period?
- Does the payment of court-fees under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 relate back to the date of the original institution of the suit?
- Under what circumstances can a plaint be rejected for undervaluation under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the determination of 'residence' for the purpose of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act a question of fact that precludes appellate interference if based on evidence?
- Mst. NAZIRAN BEGUM AND Others vs GHULAM NABI AND Other1983 SCMR 1289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a dispute over the transfer of a residential house in Lahore under settlement laws, previously occupied by two brothers, Ghulam Hussain (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) and Ghulam Nabi (respondent No. 1), where the property was originally allotted solely to Ghulam Nabi. The core legal questions involved whether the Settlement authorities consciously examined the divisibility of the house and whether the appellants' predecessor possessed a better entitlement based on earlier possession. The Supreme Court held that the question of divisibility and the plea of better entitlement based on earlier possession had never been raised or pleaded before the Settlement authorities throughout the prolonged litigation, and the house had consistently been held to be an indivisible compact unit transferred rightly to the sole allottee in occupation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Questions settled- Whether the question of divisibility of a property can be raised for the first time before the superior courts when it was not pleaded before the settlement authorities?
- Does possession dating back earlier confer a better entitlement if it was never pleaded during the settlement proceedings?
- Mst. NAZIR BEGUM AND 5 OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND 21983 CLC 2045 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZ PARWARA AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1408 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAWABZADI AISHA SULTAN AND ANOTHER vs ATTAULLAH QURESHI1983 CLC 15 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAWAB BEGUM vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2150 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASREEN AND Others vs S. H. O., PATTOKI AND OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 1936 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1990 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR vs GHULAM NABI AND 5 Others1983 P Cr. L J 967 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. NARGIS BIBI AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 370 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-07-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAJJAN AND 9 OTHERS vs Smt. ASUDI BAI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1983 PLD Karachi 211 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAILA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1300 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM vs SAFIA BEGUM AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. LJ 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM vs Qazi JAMILUDDIN AND 4 Other1983 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment of the High Court delivered on 17th January, 1974. The core legal question was whether the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the writ petition could be excluded for the purpose of limitation, in addition to the time spent obtaining a copy of the impugned judgment, to condone a significant delay of 96 days in filing the petition. The Supreme Court held that there is no legal basis to tag on the time taken in the preparation of a copy of the writ petition with the time spent on the impugned judgment for limitation purposes. Consequently, no sufficient ground for condonation of delay was made out, and the petition was dismissed as barred by time.
Questions settled- Whether the time spent in obtaining a certified copy of the writ petition can be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Can the time taken in preparing a copy of a writ petition be tagged onto the time spent in preparing a copy of the impugned judgment?
- Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM vs Mst. MUKHTIAR BEGUM AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's revision petition upholding the concurrent dismissal of her pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land. The core legal question concerns the alleged collusiveness of a transaction where the original vendees transferred the suit land to a subsequent vendee in recognition of his superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the transaction between the first and second vendees occurred prior to the institution of the petitioner's suit, meaning it could not be deemed collusive or intended to defeat the petitioner's legitimate rights. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a transfer in recognition of a superior pre-emptive right made before the filing of a pre-emption suit is valid and unassailable on grounds of defeat of rights.
Questions settled- Whether a transfer of land by initial vendees in recognition of a superior right of pre-emption prior to the institution of a pre-emption suit is legally valid?
- Can a transaction between a first vendee and a subsequent vendee made before the filing of a pre-emption suit be challenged as collusive to defeat the plaintiff's rights?
- Mst. MUBARIK BIBI vs COMMISSIONER LAHORE DIVISION AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. MINHAJ-UN-NISA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER_DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2228 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two consolidated constitutional petitions arose from disputes surrounding a commercial building in Karachi owned by the petitioner, the first floor of which was rented and later taken over by the Provincial Education Department under Martial Law Regulation 118 in 1972. After the tenants defaulted on rent, the Rent Controller passed a tentative rent order and subsequently struck off their defence, ordering ejectment. While execution proceedings were pending, the Deputy Commissioner issued a requisition order under the Sind Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956. Later, the Provincial Government issued a notification exempting schools taken over under MLR 118 from the operation of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, prompting the Rent Controller to dismiss the execution application. The Sindh High Court held that property already in possession of the Government cannot be requisitioned under the Act of 1956, that the requisition order was mala fide to bypass execution, that prior notice to the landlord is mandatory, and that executive notifications cannot operate retrospectively to nullify vested rights or existing judicial decrees. Both petitions were consequently allowed with costs.
Questions settled- Can a property already in possession of the Provincial Government or its educational institutions be requisitioned under section 3 of the Sind Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956?
- Whether a landlord who is not in physical possession of the property is entitled to a prior notice under section 3 of the Sind Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956?
- Can an executive notification issued under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 be given retrospective effect so as to nullify an existing ejectment order passed by a competent court?
- Does a requisition order passed to avoid the execution of a lawful order of a Rent Controller constitute a mala fide exercise of power?
- Mst. MEMOONA BEGUM vs Syed MAHMOOD ALI (REPRESENTED BY HEIR)1983 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute over the transfer of a divisible evacuee property, House No. C/288 Moti Bazar, Rawalpindi, between the appellant transferee and the respondent. Initially, the entire house was transferred to the appellant, but subsequent administrative proceedings by settlement authorities resulted in the house being divided into eastern and western portions. Following a remand order by the High Court directing the Settlement Commissioner to determine whether the appellant was an allottee of any portion of the western side of the house, the Settlement Commissioner concluded that her allotment was confined to the north-eastern portion and ground floor, and accordingly assigned the western portion to the respondent and the eastern portion to the appellant. The appellant challenged this decision through a constitutional petition, which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the finding was one of fact and free from legal infirmity. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the allotment orders and held that the interpretation adopted by the Settlement Commissioner of the ambiguous allotment documents was reasonable and based on relevant evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, ruling that concurrent findings of fact on the scope of an allotment order do not warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction unless tainted by manifest perversity or illegality.
Questions settled- Whether a finding of fact recorded by a Settlement Commissioner regarding the scope of an allotment order can be interfered with in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does an ambiguous description in an allotment order regarding the ground floor justify the interpretation adopted by the Settlement Commissioner based on the property's previous history and documentary evidence?
- Mst. MEHFOOZAN AND OTHERS vs NASIM BEG1983 CLC 2328 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAQBOOL BEGUM AND Others vs GULLAN AND Other1983 SCMR 903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition seeking review of an order passed by the Supreme Court in a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question addressed is whether the mandatory requirement under Rule 6, Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980—which stipulates that a review petition must be drawn by the same Senior Advocate who appeared and argued the original petition—can be waived or exempted. The Court examined an application filed by the Advocate-on-Record requesting exemption from this rule and the dispensation of the presence of the original Senior Advocate at the hearing. The Court held that no sufficient grounds were established to justify granting such an exemption or dispensing with the mandatory procedural requirements. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed for non-compliance with the established rules of the Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural rules regarding the filing and representation of review petitions are mandatory and strictly enforceable, and cannot be bypassed without valid and sufficient justification.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for a review petition to be drawn by the same Senior Advocate who argued the original petition under the Supreme Court Rules 1980?
- Can the Court grant an exemption from the requirement that a review petition be drawn by the original counsel?
- What is the consequence of failing to comply with Rule 6, Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the drafting of a review petition?
- Mst. MAHIRA PARVEEN vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2537 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. LATIFA KHANUM AND Others vs Mian ABDUL WAHID AND Other1983 SCMR 1249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court which accepted the respondents' writ petition and declared that the Deed of Association accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner correctly incorporated the intention of the parties, while setting aside the Settlement Commissioner's order. The core legal question concerns whether the legal heirs (widow and children) of a deceased property holder could challenge a Deed of Association after attaining majority, where the deceased had admitted before the settlement authorities that he held the property on behalf of his brothers and sisters. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the arrangement in view of the clear admission made by their predecessor-in-interest during the settlement proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that successors-in-interest cannot resile from or challenge binding admissions and valid settlements entered into by their predecessor.
Questions settled- Whether the legal heirs of a deceased person have the locus standi to challenge a Deed of Association after attaining majority when the deceased had admitted before settlement authorities that he held the property on behalf of his siblings?
- Does a successor-in-interest inherit the limitations and binding admissions made by their predecessor in settlement proceedings?