Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- Mst. LALAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. LALAN BIBI vs Mst. GHULAM ZOHRAN AND Other1983 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of her Regular Second Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court. The core legal question was whether interference was warranted against concurrent findings of fact in second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were unexceptionable and rightly maintained by the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being without merit. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below in the absence of any legal flaw or misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts in second appeal?
- Can a second appeal be maintained against concurrent findings of fact without showing a substantial question of law?
- Mst. KULSOOM vs REHMAT ALI AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. KUBRA BIBI AND Another vs ABDUL HAQ AND 7 Other1983 SCMR 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the inheritance of Butey Khan and the subsequent allotment of land. The petitioners, who were not parties to a previous Supreme Court order directing the Rehabilitation Authorities to determine the legitimate heirs, challenged the Chief Settlement Commissioner's jurisdiction to reopen and cancel their allotment. The core legal question was whether a party who actively participates in proceedings before an administrative authority without objecting to its jurisdiction can subsequently challenge the authority's decision on jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that because the petitioners had fully participated and acquiesced in the proceedings before the Settlement authorities, they were precluded from raising jurisdictional objections after an adverse decision. The Court reiterated the established principle of acquiescence and waiver in jurisdictional matters, ruling that a party cannot challenge the jurisdiction of a forum after taking a chance on a favorable outcome.
Questions settled- Can a party who fully participates in proceedings before an administrative authority without objection later challenge the authority's jurisdiction after an adverse decision is rendered?
- Does the principle of acquiescence prevent a party from disputing the binding nature of a court order to which they were not originally a party if they subsequently litigated the merits of the issue before the relevant authority?
- Mst. KUBRA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 56 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. KOONCH AMNA AND 7 OTHERS vs Mst. ZUBAIDA AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 584 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. KISHWAR SULTAN JEHAN BEGUM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1983 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing an intra-court appeal in a long-standing settlement dispute concerning the auction of an evacuee cinema house. The petitioner, having purchased the cinema in 1962, defaulted on the balance of the auction price and engaged in extensive, protracted litigation across multiple writ petitions and prior Supreme Court proceedings. The core legal questions involve whether the property could be resumed and re-auctioned following defaults on a prior consent order, the applicability of amendments to Settlement Scheme No. VIII regarding the requisite payment percentage to bar resumption of industrial concerns and cinema houses, and the application of the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata to repeated constitutional petitions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to comply with the binding consent order and subsequent extensions, that the special 75% threshold under the amended Settlement Scheme No. VIII applied to cinema houses to bar resumption (which the petitioner had not met), and that re-agitation of settled issues was barred by res judicata. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a transferee of an evacuee cinema house can challenge resumption proceedings after failing to comply with the terms of a binding consent order?
- What is the applicable percentage of the transfer price that must be paid under paragraph 2 of Reconstituted Settlement Scheme No. VIII to bar the resumption of industrial concerns and cinema houses?
- Does the principle of res judicata bar a litigant from re-agitating questions directly and substantially in issue in earlier disposed of writ petitions?
- Can a litigant be permitted to raise grounds in a fresh petition that were available during previous rounds of litigation arising from the same cause of action?
- Mst. KHURSHID KHANUM SHUJAT ALI vs Mst. MALIKA1983 CLC 2700 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID BIBI vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID BIBI vs DILDAR AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 3309 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM vs MALKU AND Other1983 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mst. Khurshid Begum sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a trial court order impleading her as a party in a civil suit for possession of agricultural land filed by the respondents against a third party. The core legal questions examined were whether the trial court's order impleading a party amounted to 'a case decided' to attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the appellant was a proper or necessary party to the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was indeed a proper and necessary party to the litigation as her inclusion would eliminate multiplicity of litigation and enable full and proper adjudication of the controversy, and that the trial court's order was a procedural step that did not amount to a 'case decided' so as to warrant High Court interference. The key principle laid down is that an order directing the impleading of a party in a pending suit does not ordinarily amount to a case decided under section 115 unless it directly prejudices the rights or obligations of the parties.
Questions settled- Whether an order of the trial Court impleading a person as a party in a civil suit amounts to a 'case decided' under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a person claiming a share in joint property through the common ancestor a necessary or proper party in a co-sharer's suit for possession against an alleged trespasser?
- When does an interlocutory order regarding the addition of a party attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Mst. KHURSHEED BEGUM vs Met. SITARA PARWEEN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 618 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHALIDA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD ALTAF1983 CLC 678 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHADIJA MERCHANT vs THE K. M. C. THROUGH MAYOR1983 CLC 535 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an order dismissing an ejectment application filed by the appellant against the respondent in respect of a rented building used as a school, which was nationalised under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972. The core legal questions were whether the original owner was barred from selling the rented premises under M.L.R. 118 and whether a subsequent notification under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 operated retrospectively to bar pending proceedings. The court held that M.L.R. 118 applies only to nationalised educational institutions and their own properties, not to privately owned rented buildings housing them, meaning the sale-deed in favour of the appellant was valid. However, the notification excluding nationalised educational institutions from the operation of the Ordinance related to procedure and remedy, thereby applying retrospectively to bar pending ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller, leaving the appellant to seek remedies under the general law. The key principles established are that rented premises do not vest in the government merely because the tenant institution is nationalised, and jurisdictional notifications affecting remedies operate retrospectively on pending proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a privately owned building rented out to an educational institution vest in the Government upon the nationalisation of that institution under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972?
- Is a notification issued under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 excluding certain institutions from its operation retrospective so as to affect pending proceedings?
- Does a change of forum or jurisdiction through a statutory notification constitute a matter of procedure?
- Does the nationalisation of a school under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972 preclude the private landlord from selling the rented property?
- Mst. KHADIJA BAI AND 26 OIHRESs vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 2604 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. KAPURI vs BORDER AREA COMMITTEE1983 CLC 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA vs MUMTAZ KHAN AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner-wife obtained ex parte decrees for dissolution of marriage, dower, and maintenance against her soldier-husband. The petitioner had provided an incorrect village address in her plaints, and despite process server reports indicating the respondent was on active border defence duty, the trial court ordered substituted service and proceeded ex parte. The respondent's subsequent applications to set aside the decrees were dismissed as time-barred by the trial and appellate courts. The Lahore High Court, however, set aside these orders and directed a fresh trial due to non-compliance with the Soldiers (Litigation) Act 1925. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court's failure to serve the respondent through his Commanding Officer under Order V Rule 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (applicable via the Family Courts Act 1964) rendered the ex parte decrees unlawful. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Sections 10 and 11 of the Soldiers (Litigation) Act 1925, the application was within the 90-day limitation period, and the period of active service under special conditions must be excluded.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can order substituted service on a serving soldier without attempting service through his Commanding Officer as required by Order V Rule 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the applicable limitation period for a serving soldier to apply for setting aside an ex parte decree under the Soldiers (Litigation) Act 1925?
- Whether the period during which a soldier is serving under special conditions must be excluded when computing the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree?
- Does the subsequent remarriage of a wife bar the High Court from exercising its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte divorce decree obtained in violation of mandatory service procedures?
- Mst. KALSOOMUN NISA vs ABDUL SHAKOOR AND Other1983 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a property dispute involving the estate of the deceased Abdul Karim. The petitioner, the widow of the deceased, claimed ownership of a house in lieu of dower, while the respondent, Muhammad Ismail, claimed a share as a collateral heir. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the first appellate court reversed this, finding the respondent was a collateral heir entitled to a share and that the dower amount had been interpolated from Rs. 500 to Rs. 5,000. The petitioner challenged the appellate court's decision, specifically contesting the impleading of the respondent's legal representatives after the respondent's death during the appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the substitution of legal representatives was procedurally valid and whether the finding on the dower amount was sustainable. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the dower interpolation were justified and that the substitution of legal representatives was procedurally sound, as the application was timely and properly addressed. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'legal representative' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include a person who intermeddles with the estate of a deceased person?
- Can a party who claims possession of a deceased's estate based on a will be considered an intermeddler for the purpose of being impleaded as a legal representative?
- Are concurrent findings of fact regarding the interpolation of a dower deed subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Mst. KALSOOM vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2056 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. KALSOOM KHANUM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1983 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a settlement matter in which leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole contesting respondent passed away, and his legal representatives issued a notice to the appellant to implead his heirs. The appellant's Advocate-on-Record failed to file the requisite application within the statutory period of 90 days, subsequently filing it along with an application for condonation of delay. The core legal question before the court was whether the delay in bringing the legal heirs on record should be condoned. The court held that the grounds put forward for condonation of delay were unconvincing, and accordingly dismissed the application for condonation. The key principle laid down is that where an application to implead legal heirs of a deceased party is not filed within the statutory period and no sufficient or convincing grounds for condonation are shown, the application will be rejected and the appeal will stand abated.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing an application to implead legal heirs of a deceased respondent can be condoned without convincing grounds?
- What is the consequence of failing to implead legal heirs within the statutory period of 90 days?
- Mst. JEHAN MINA vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 183 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANNA T vs SHARU AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 302 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANAT AND 4 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2295 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. ISHRAT-UN-NISA vs Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2689 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. IQBAL BEGUM vs EIDOO SON OP JAFFAR AND ANOTHER1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 65 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. IQBAL BEGUM vs Dr. MUKHTAR AHMED KHAN1983 CLC 2617 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. INAYAT BEGUM vs Mst. HAYAT BIBI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) AND Other1983 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the withdrawal of a civil suit by respondent No. 1, Mst. Hayat Bibi, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Administrative Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, on 31-10-1973. The core legal question involves the validity of the withdrawal of the suit and whether such a withdrawal could subsequently be retracted or challenged, alongside issues regarding compensation and the lower appellate courts' treatment of the factual assumptions surrounding the withdrawal application. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions further, while directing that the status quo order continue during the pendency of the appeal, with a clarification that pending possession proceedings before the Additional District Judge shall not be stayed. The key principle highlighted is that questions regarding the legal efficacy of withdrawing a suit coupled with an averment of compensation require detailed examination when lower forums fail to properly address material facts.
Questions settled- Whether a suit once dismissed as withdrawn can subsequently be revived or challenged on the ground that the withdrawal was unauthorized?
- Does an appellate court err in law by failing to consider material averments regarding compensation in a withdrawal application?
- Can proceedings regarding possession continue independently while an appeal concerning the underlying suit is pending before the Supreme Court?
- Mst. IMTIAZ BIBI AND ANOTHER vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2542 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. IFFAT BEGUM AND Others vs MRS. A. MAJID AND Other1983 SCMR 1002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over property rights and easements between the occupants of two adjacent evacuee houses, 'Parkash Villa' and 'Kalash Villa', both formerly part of the 'Springfield Estate' in Murree. The respondent (plaintiff) filed a civil suit seeking a declaration and injunction against the petitioners (defendants), alleging unauthorized construction of doors and windows by the petitioners and interference with the respondent's compound and easement rights. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision partially upheld by the District Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court in second appeal. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that because the common passage and surrounding open land are jointly owned by the parties, the respondent could not establish a claim of easement in the absence of a formal demarcation of the joint property. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the legal contentions raised regarding the nature of easement rights over joint property require further judicial consideration.
Questions settled- Can a claim of easement be maintained over property that is jointly owned by the parties?
- Does the absence of formal demarcation of joint property preclude a party from asserting easement rights against a co-owner?
- Mst. HUSSAIN BIBIs vs Ch. ANWARUL HAQ1983 CLC 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. HASINA BANO vs MRS. MUMTAZ YUNUS1983 CLC 2272 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. HASINA BANO AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 132 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a private criminal complaint, filed by the wife of a tenant against a landlord, constituted an abuse of the court's process when the underlying dispute was essentially civil in nature and already subject to pending civil litigation. The Court held that the criminal complaint was mala fide, having been instigated by the tenant to coerce the petitioners into withdrawing ejectment proceedings. The Court observed that the allegations of criminal misappropriation and intimidation were unsubstantiated and served as a pressure tactic. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings, establishing the principle that criminal law cannot be weaponized to settle civil disputes or exert pressure on opposing parties in pending civil litigation. Such actions amount to an abuse of the process of the court, warranting intervention under the inherent powers of the High Court.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they are initiated to coerce a party in a pending civil dispute?
- Does the failure to file an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a petition for quashment under Section 561-A?
- Is a criminal complaint filed by a third party at the instigation of a litigant to pressure an opponent in a civil suit considered an abuse of the process of the court?
- Mst. HASEENA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1742 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. HANIFA BEGUM vs HASSAN SHAIKH AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 163 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAMEEDA vs Mst. HAJIANI SAKINA AND 8 OTHERS1983 CLC 2065 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. HALIMA vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1290 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAFTZAN BEGUM vs DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK And 2 Other19837 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from an ejectment application filed by the appellant under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which resulted in an ex parte eviction order against the respondent. The respondent's subsequent application to set aside the ex parte order was rejected by the Rent Controller. On appeal, the District Judge upheld the refusal to set aside the ex parte order but nonetheless proceeded to set aside the original ex parte ejectment order itself. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could interfere with and set aside the original time-barred order of ejectment when the appeal was solely directed against the subsequent refusal to set aside the ex parte order. The Supreme Court held that the District Judge erred in law by setting aside the original order when no appeal had been validly filed against it and the time for appeal had expired. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court cannot set aside an original order which was not challenged within time and where no appeal against it was competent or pending.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court set aside an original ejectment order when the appeal is only directed against a subsequent order refusing to set aside an ex parte order?
- Whether an appellate court can interfere with a time-barred order without an application for condonation of delay?
- Mst. HAFIZAN MOHSAN ATTA AND 4 OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY1983 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns the disposal of enemy property formerly owned by the Punjab Co-operative Bank, which vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property. The core legal question was the interpretation of the term 'existing allottees' used in the Central Government’s 1972 policy directive regarding the disposal of such properties. The petitioners, holding Provisional Transfer Orders (PTOs) from the Settlement Department, contested the rights of respondents who claimed status as original allottees from the Rehabilitation Authorities. The Court held that the term 'existing allottees' in the government policy must be interpreted as 'transferees' (PTO holders) to give effect to the manifest intention of the government, as the policy explicitly referenced evaluations made by the Settlement Department. The Court emphasized that when the literal meaning of a statutory instrument leads to absurdity or contradicts its apparent purpose, courts are empowered to modify the language to reflect the true intent. Consequently, the Court declared the petitioners entitled to the transfer of the disputed property, setting aside the sale deeds executed in favor of the respondents.
Questions settled- Does the term 'existing allottees' in the Central Government's 1972 policy regarding enemy property refer to original allottees from the Rehabilitation Authorities or transferees from the Settlement Department?
- Can a court modify the language of a statutory instrument to give effect to the manifest intention of the legislature?
- Are Provisional Transfer Orders (PTOs) issued by the Settlement Department valid for the purpose of transferring enemy property under the 1972 policy?
- Mst. HAFEEZ BEGUM vs ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY1983 PLD Karachi 374 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash orders passed by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board and the Government of Pakistan, which declared the disputed property in Hyderabad to be evacuee trust property and cancelled the petitioner's Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD). The petitioner contended that because the PTD was issued in her favour on June 19, 1974, prior to the commencement of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975, the Evacuee Trust authorities lacked jurisdiction to cancel it. The High Court analyzed Sections 8 and 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975, holding that statutory validation of transfers of urban evacuee trust properties is only available if the PTD was issued prior to June 1968 and the transaction was bona fide. Since the petitioner's PTD was issued in 1974, it could not be validated. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the term 'religious trust' encompasses both public and private religious trusts, and the concurrent findings of the authorities below were based on sufficient evidence. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a Permanent Transfer Deed issued after June 1968 in respect of evacuee trust property be validated under Section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
- Does the term 'religious trust' under the evacuee laws encompass both public and private religious trusts?
- Can a party successfully claim a violation of natural justice in a constitutional petition if they were granted a full hearing during revision proceedings and failed to raise the ground in their petition?
- Mst. HAFEEZ BEGUM AND Others, vs ABDUS SATTAR1983 SCMR 885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition where the petitioner failed to pay rent for three consecutive months, thereby committing a breach of the Rent Controller's order dated 10th May 1980 which had granted protection against ejectment for eight years. The core legal question was whether the Executing Court could go behind the terms of the original rent order based on the petitioner's plea that the respondent agreed to collect the rent personally. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Executing Court could not go behind the clear stipulations of the order and that the petitioner, having breached the order, was not entitled to any relief. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot excuse non-compliance with a judicial order by relying on oral understandings contrary to the express terms of that order, and an executing court cannot look behind the decree or order being executed.
Questions settled- Can an executing court go behind the terms of an order passed by a Rent Controller?
- Does failure to pay rent in accordance with a conditional protection order disentitle a tenant to relief against ejectment?
- Is a tenant's plea that the landlord promised to collect rent personally a valid defense against a breach of a specific rent payment order?
- Mst. GULZAR BEGUM vs S. A. MIRZA AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. GULMARJANA vs THE STATE1983 PLD Peshawar 228 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. GUL ADAM vs M. TALIB JAN1983 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. GOHAR SULTANA AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 347 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA vs THE STATE- Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 2338 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA vs JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AND MINORITY AFFAIRS AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA AND 10 OTHERS vs Mst. INAYAT KHATOON AND 6 OTHERS1983 CLC 1938 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. FOORAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3134 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. FEROZE BEGUM vs LT. Col. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1983SCMR606 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed the Family Court's decision delivering custody of two minors to their father (the respondent) under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The father, a Lt. Colonel, claimed custody on the grounds of his superior financial status and educational capacity, whereas the mother was illiterate and lacked independent income. The Supreme Court observed that both courts below failed to analyze the evidence, including the minors' academic success under their mother's care and their preference to remain with her. The Court held that under Islamic law, while the father is the natural guardian, the paramount and overriding consideration in custody matters is always the welfare of the minor, which encompasses material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being. The mother's poverty is not a disqualification for custody, as the father remains legally bound to maintain them. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the custody orders.
Questions settled- Whether the financial superiority of a father can override the welfare of the minors in determining custody under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
- Does the poverty or illiteracy of a mother automatically disentitle her to the custody (hizanat) of her minor children?
- What constitutes the 'welfare of a minor' when deciding custody disputes between divorced parents?
- Mst. FAZAL BIBI vs Mst. MARYAM BIBI1983 CLC 805 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAZAL BIBI AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave examined the legality of a deed of association executed on 28-12-1962 between a claimant and a non-claimant under settlement laws, and the validity of a subsequent Settlement Commissioner's order setting aside transfers after the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The Supreme Court held that while the association of a non-claimant at the relevant time initially contravened existing instructions, the subsequent removal of such restrictions and the application of equitable principles under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act validated the transaction. Furthermore, the Court held that the Settlement Commissioner acted without jurisdiction by summarily setting aside orders passed by an officer of co-ordinate jurisdiction and by interfering with a P.T.D. without a proper inquiry establishing fraud or forgery. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment declaring the Settlement Commissioner's order to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether a deed of association between a claimant and a non-claimant executed at a time when such association was restricted becomes valid upon the subsequent removal of such restrictions?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner interfere with a Provisional Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) without holding a proper inquiry and recording a finding of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Whether a Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdictional competence to set aside an order passed by another officer of equal and co-ordinate jurisdiction?
- Does Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act apply to cure a defect where a transferor erroneously represented authority to transfer immovable property to a non-claimant?
- Mst. FAZAL BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD DIN1983 CLC 993 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAZAL BEGUM vs BAH ADUR KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed against an order of the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, which had set aside a trial court's order allowing the petitioner to produce additional evidence. The petitioner, in a pre-emption suit, sought to produce certified copies of public records (a mutation of inheritance and a Fard Badar) that were already on the record but not formally exhibited due to inadvertence. The trial court allowed the application, but the revisional court reversed it on technical grounds. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. It held that an interlocutory order permitting the admission of documents does not amount to a 'case decided' under Section 115 and is therefore not revisable. Furthermore, discretionary orders of subordinate courts should not be interfered with in revision unless they are fanciful or arbitrary. The High Court accepted the petition, declaring the revisional order to be without lawful authority and quashing it.
Questions settled- Whether an order permitting the admission of additional documents amounts to a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a revisional court interfere with a discretionary order of a subordinate court regarding the production of additional evidence where no jurisdictional defect is shown?
- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable against a revisional order that illegally shuts out evidence by exceeding its jurisdiction?
- Mst. FAZAL BEGUM AND ANOTHER vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS1983 CLC 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a suit for declaration challenging a 1917-18 record-of-rights entry designating the appellants' property as 'Waqf'. The core legal questions were whether the property was validly dedicated as Waqf and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court held that the respondents failed to prove any dedication or intent by the original owner to create a Waqf. The court emphasized that under Muhammadan Law, while a Waqf can be established by immemorial user, such user must be preceded by an owner's clear intention to dedicate, which was absent here. Furthermore, the court held that admissions by third parties regarding the property's status were not conclusive and could be explained away. Regarding limitation, the court ruled that because the appellants remained in possession of the property, they were not compelled to sue upon every denial of title, rendering the suit within time. Consequently, the appellate court's findings were set aside, and the appellants' suit was decreed, affirming their ownership and possession of the disputed property.
Questions settled- Can a Waqf be created solely by user without proof of the owner's intention to dedicate?
- Is a suit for declaration regarding title barred by limitation if the plaintiff remains in possession of the property?
- Are admissions made by a stranger to a suit conclusive regarding the status of property?
- Does the diversion of income by a non-owner for religious purposes constitute a valid dedication of property as Waqf?
- Mst. FATIMA vs ABDUL HAMID AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave examines whether the High Court rightly interfered with the transfer of a property by settlement authorities in favour of the appellant, Mst. Fatima. The core legal questions involve the effect of filing an 'E' form and participating in an earmarking scheme upon a previously filed settlement form (C.H. Form), the finality of property divisibility findings, and the limits of constitutional jurisdiction over settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that by participating in the earmarking scheme through an 'E' form, the appellant had irrevocably abandoned her earlier C.H. Form, and substitution of a house was legally impermissible outside specified government instructions. Furthermore, the High Court correctly set aside extraneous grounds relied upon by lower settlement authorities and upheld the prior transfer to the contesting respondent, Abdul Hameed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing principles regarding the irrevocability of election between settlement schemes and the binding nature of prior divisibility determinations.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an 'E' form and participation in an earmarking scheme amount to the abandonment of a previously filed C.H. Form under settlement laws?
- Can settlement authorities transfer a property to a claimant in lieu of a house drawn in a lottery outside the exceptions specified in government instructions?
- Whether the High Court can interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with settlement orders that rely on grounds totally extraneous to the settlement scheme?
- Does a belated C.H. Form entitle a claimant to reopen the transfer of a property that has already been disposed of?
- Mst. FATIMA BIBI AND ANOTHER vs ALLAH DITTA AND 19 OTHERS1983 CLC 557 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA AND OTHERS vs Mst. HANIFA ANJUM AND OTHERS1983 CLC 300 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA AND 4 OTHERS vs FAZALUR RAHMAN1983 CLC 792 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. FARRAH NAZ vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2195 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAROSHA vs FAZAL GUL AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave examines the legal question of whether the High Court, in exercise of its powers under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is competent to amend a decree based on a compromise in a previous suit during the hearing of a second appeal arising from a separate, subsequent proceeding. The dispute originated from a 1939 civil suit disposed of by a compromise, wherein the appellant relinquished full ownership of agricultural land in exchange for a limited life interest subject to defeasance upon remarriage, but the trial court omitted this limitation from the formal decree. Decades later, the respondents filed a new suit alleging the appellant had remarried and lost her rights. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by invoking section 152 suo motu in a collateral proceeding to amend the 1939 decree after a lapse of 34 years, thereby depriving the appellant of her right of hearing. The Court ruled that an appellate court hearing a second appeal from a subsequent suit is not seized of the earlier decree for the purposes of amendment, and that correction of a decree must be sought before the court that passed it. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in exercise of its power under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is competent to amend a decree based on a compromise between parties to a suit?
- Can a court correct or amend a previous decree collaterally while hearing proceedings arising from a separate, subsequent suit?
- Does the power of the court under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to amend judgments, decrees, or orders apply without any time limit?
- Whether an appellate court hearing a second appeal can suo motu order the rectification of a decree passed in an entirely different set of proceedings?
- Mst. FARKHUNDA SULTANA vs ABDUR RAZAQ1983 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a landlord's petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had set aside an order of ejectment passed against the tenant by the Rent Controller. The landlord had sought ejectment on the grounds of default in rent payment, bona fide personal requirement for her son, and unauthorized alterations. The Rent Controller had ordered ejectment after finding the tenant in default and guilty of unauthorized alterations, but the High Court reversed this, holding that there was no default given the uncertain rate of rent, no unauthorized alteration due to acquiescence and increased property value, and no proved bona fide personal requirement since the son was not examined as a witness. The Supreme Court considered the arguments regarding the misreading of evidence and the necessity of examining the son, but found that the High Court's view was based on a fair consideration of the evidence and suffered from no illegality or perversity. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether non-examination of the beneficiary son is fatal to a claim of bona fide personal requirement in ejectment proceedings?
- Can a landlord claim a higher rate of rent based on an oral agreement when a written agreement setting out enhancement terms is repudiated by both parties?
- Does acquiescence and an increase in property value preclude a landlord from seeking ejectment on the ground of unauthorized alterations?
- Mst. EHSAN BEGUM vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 204 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. BIRJIS KHATOON vs JABBAR AHMAD1983 CLC 3066 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. BIBI vs ISMAIL AND Other1983 SCMR 904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court in a civil revision petition. The underlying dispute relates to inheritance and ownership of agricultural land. The appellant had filed a suit for a declaration that she was entitled to a 3/4th share in the estate of the deceased Noor Muhammad, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the District Judge. During the pendency of the respondents' revision petition in the High Court, the High Court issued an interim stay order clarifying the status quo regarding the possession of the disputed land based on documents and statements of tenants in possession. The Supreme Court examined the rival contentions regarding the alleged misreading of documents by the High Court. Finding that the High Court's discretion was exercised based on statements and concessions made by counsel regarding the cultivating possession and attornment of tenants, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim clarification. The appeal was disposed of with an observation expressing hope that the High Court would give priority to the pending revision petition and decide the core limitation issue expeditiously.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an interim stay order passed by the High Court based on an examination of cultivating possession and tenant attornment?
- Can an appellate or revisional court's exercise of discretion regarding interim relief be challenged on the ground of alleged misreading of documents?
- Mst. BIBI vs HUSSAIN BAKHSH Alias HUSSAIN A1983 P Cr. L J 141 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. BIBI QAMARUNNISA vs KASHIF MUHAMMAD ALI & CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1285 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. BHAG BHARI vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 2551 · Lahore High Court · 1968-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. BEGAN vs Mst. BAI1983 SCMR 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the inheritance of an estate. The respondent, a Muslim widow who succeeded to tenancy rights upon her husband's death in 1946 under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, acquired proprietary rights in 1959. Following the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, her estate was treated as terminated under Section 3, and mutation was sanctioned distributing 1/4th share to her and 3/4th to her deceased husband's sister. The widow challenged the mutation, claiming absolute ownership unaffected by the 1962 Act, succeeding up to the High Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower courts' decrees, holding that under Section 30-A(1) of the Colonization Act, a female acquiring proprietary rights holds a limited estate analogous to a customary life estate. Consequently, Section 3 of the 1962 Act applied to terminate her limited estate, restricting her entitlement to her 1/4th Shariat share.
Questions settled- Whether the acquisition of proprietary rights under Section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 confers full ownership or creates a limited estate akin to customary law?
- Whether a limited estate held by a Muslim female under Section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 stands terminated by virtue of Section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
- Does a female tenant who acquires proprietary rights under Section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 become a fresh stock of descent upon her death?
- Mst. BARKAT BIBI AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL QADUS1983 CLC 1895 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. BAKHTAN BIBI vs MESSRS PAKISTAN GENERAL INSURANCE Co. LTD.1983 CLC 1117 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASMAT BIBI AND Others vs INAYATULLAH1983 P Cr. LJ 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASHRAFUNNISA vs THE STATE AND 8 OTHERS---1983 P Cr. L J 1428 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASHRAF ALIA vs DR. ASIF MAJID1983 CLC 1607 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMRO AND Others vs SAWAB GUL AND Other1983 SCMR 855 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a long-standing property dispute concerning a house originally given as dower to a widow who held it as a limited owner under custom, and subsequently mortgaged. Reversioners instituted a suit for possession by redemption upon payment of the mortgage charge. The lower courts dismissed the suit on various grounds including res judicata, but the Peshawar High Court accepted the plaintiffs' second appeal and granted possession upon payment of Rs. 310. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider whether a decree for possession could be passed without compensating the mortgagees for costs incurred in reconstructing the house. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to press the relevant issue regarding improvements before the first appellate court and did not raise it before the High Court, and further found no material on record to support the contention. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether a decree for possession by redemption can be passed without allowing mortgagees the costs incurred for the reconstruction of the property?
- Can an issue regarding compensation for improvements not pressed before the first appellate court be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court?
- Whether limited owners under custom possess the right to alienate property left by the last full owner without legal necessity?
- Mst. AMNA vs IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HYDERABAD AND Other1983 SC MR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging lower court decisions in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act. The petitioner had originally sought custody of two minor children. However, the High Court held that the petition had been rendered infructuous because both children had attained majority during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner argued that the children had not reached majority and that the High Court should have decided the jurisdictional question involved in the lower appellate court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not challenge the finding on age since it was based on her own admissions made in the petition. Furthermore, the Supreme Court affirmed that where a petition becomes infructuous due to minors reaching majority, deciding pure legal questions would be an exercise in futility. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does a custody petition under the Guardians and Wards Act become infructuous once the minors attain majority?
- Can a party challenge a finding of fact regarding a minor's age that was based on their own admissions in the pleadings?
- Should a court adjudicate legal issues raised in a constitutional petition if the underlying relief sought has become infructuous?
- Mst. AMEENA vs Mst. KULSUM BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 200 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. ALLAH RAKHI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 444 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. AKHTARI KHANUM vs ABDUL AZIZ KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mst. Akhtari Khanum sought possession of land measuring 31 Kanals and 2 Marlas in village Lund Khowar, Mardan, which was allotted to her against her verified evacuee claim. Her suit for possession and mesne profits was decreed by the trial court, and the decree for possession was upheld through the appellate hierarchy up to the Peshawar High Court. However, in the concluding portion of its judgment, the High Court suo motu reduced the allotted area to 21 Kanals and 2 Marlas by treating the recorded area as a clerical mistake. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine the justification of the High Court in rectifying the alleged clerical mistake despite consistent revenue records. The Supreme Court held that since the revenue records and settlement authorities consistently verified the area as 31 Kanals and 2 Marlas, the High Court was not justified in reducing the area. The appeal was accepted and the High Court's order was amended to restore the appellant's entitlement to the full 31 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land.
Questions settled- Was the High Court justified in assuming jurisdiction to rectify a so-called clerical mistake in the revenue record regarding the area of land allotted?
- Can the High Court reduce the area of land allotted to a claimant against a verified evacuee claim when the revenue papers consistently record the larger area?
- Mst. AKHTAR JEHAN BEGUM AND 4 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN1983 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave arising from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had set aside an order of ejectment and remanded the case. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is bound to finally determine the quantum or rate of arrears of rent before issuing a tentative rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether non-compliance with such a tentative order warrants striking off the tenant's defence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that for the purpose of a tentative rent order under Section 13(6), the Rent Controller is required to determine the amount of arrears or rate of rent only approximately, not through a final adjudication or regular trial prior to the deposit. The key principle laid down is that compliance with a tentative rent order is a mandatory condition precedent, and failure to comply with it results in the automatic striking off of the tenant's defence and summary ejectment without requiring a prior final inquiry into the actual payment status.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller is required to finally determine the quantum of arrears of rent before passing a tentative rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the failure of a tenant to comply with a tentative rent deposit order legally justify the striking off of the tenant's defence and summary ejectment?
- Can a tenant withhold compliance with a tentative rent order on the ground that a regular trial or evidence is necessary to establish the actual amount of rent due?
- Mst. AISHA BIBI vs Haji YAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 2336 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- Mst, BASHIRAN AND ANOTHER vs Mst. SHAHZADI BEGUM AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- Mst SHEHR BANO AND OTHERS vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2005 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
- Mst AZIZAN BIBI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 1970 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst . AMATUL RASHID BHATTI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2322 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- MRS. ZEENAT PARVEEN JAFFERY vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, EDUCATION1983 PLC (C.S.) 1260 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
- MRS. TALAT MUSHARAF AND 17 Other vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, SOCIAL WELFARE, PUNJAB AND 73 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1214 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mrs. SURRAYA NASEEM vs DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, SHEIKHUPURA AND 21983 PLC (C.S.) 277 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-16Read full judgment →
- MRS. SADIQ vs Syed INTEKHAB HYDER ABEDI1983 CLC 1623 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a First Rent Appeal filed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, challenging an eviction order granted on the grounds of the landlord's personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions were whether the landlord’s requirement for the premises was bona fide and whether the tenant's failure to specifically traverse the landlord's pleading regarding the need to vacate employer-provided housing constituted an admission of that fact. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order. The court established that where a landlord pleads a specific fact, such as being required to vacate employer-provided housing, and the tenant fails to specifically traverse this in the written statement, the fact is deemed admitted under the principles of pleading, rendering further proof unnecessary. Furthermore, a landlord residing in employer-provided premises who is asked to vacate demonstrates a bona fide need to occupy their own property. The court clarified that while the Code of Civil Procedure does not strictly apply to rent proceedings, its broad principles regarding pleadings remain relevant.
Questions settled- Does a failure to specifically traverse a factual allegation in a written statement constitute an admission of that fact in rent proceedings?
- Is a landlord's requirement for personal use considered bona fide when they are being evicted from employer-provided housing?
- Are the broad principles of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- MRS. REHANA MASUD AND 2 OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER KARACHI1983 CLC 369 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- MRS. QUDSIA BANO vs GENERAL SECERTARY OF OFFICERS CLUB OF CENTRAL1983 PLD Karachi 486 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
- MRS. MUSARRAT BURKIE vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,1983 PLC (C. S.) 129 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
- MRS. HAZRATBAI MERCHANT AND ANOTHER s vs MUHAMMAD ISMA1L1983 PLD Karachi 277 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- MRS. BETTY ALICE GIRZA vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- Mrs. ASIA MAHMOOD vs Miss AZIZ BEGUM1983 SCMR 175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mrs. Asia Mahmood against a decision of the Service Tribunal. The petitioner had previously obtained a remand order from the Supreme Court by representing that she had been condemned unheard due to improper service of notice. Upon remand, the Service Tribunal found that this representation was a misstatement of facts, noting that the petitioner had actually appeared, filed written arguments, and had been given full opportunity to defend her interest. The Tribunal re-decided the matter against the petitioner. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner failed to justify the previous misrepresentation. The Court found that the petitioner had obtained the earlier remand order by abusing the process of the Court through the suppression of material facts regarding her prior participation in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had disentitled herself to any relief and dismissed the petition without hearing the merits of the case, emphasizing that parties who obtain relief through misrepresentation of facts before the Court forfeit their right to be heard.
Questions settled- Does a party who obtains a remand order through the misrepresentation of facts forfeit the right to be heard on the merits of the case?
- Can a party be denied a hearing if they have abused the process of the Court in previous proceedings?
- Is a Service Tribunal competent to review its own previous order?
- MRS. AMEENA LODHI AND 2 others vs MAQBOOL HUSSAIN1983 CLC 178 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- MRS. ALIMA AHMAD vs AMIR ALI1983 SCMR 721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had set aside an eviction order against a tenant. The petitioner, a landlady, sought the tenant's ejectment on grounds of default in rent payment for the period between April 1970 and February 1971. While the Rent Controller initially refused eviction due to the landlady's history of accepting accumulated rent, the first appellate authority reversed this, finding no change in the tenancy terms. However, the High Court subsequently held that because the original tenancy agreement had expired, the specific stipulations regarding the time and manner of rent payment were no longer binding, allowing the tenant to pay within sixty days. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the High Court's reasoning regarding the expiration of tenancy terms required a more authoritative pronouncement. The core issue concerns whether the terms of a tenancy agreement, specifically regarding the time and manner of rent payment, persist when a tenant continues to hold over after the expiry of the original agreement.
Questions settled- Does a tenancy agreement's stipulation regarding the time and manner of rent payment continue to apply when a tenant holds over after the agreement expires?
- Can a landlord's practice of accepting accumulated rent be used to excuse a tenant's default in payment?
- Is judicial discretion in rent matters exercised arbitrarily if it ignores the express terms of a tenancy agreement?
- MRS. AKHTAR MANSOOR AND OTHERS vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2765 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
- MRS. ABDUL REHMAN ARAIN vs MEHMOODUL HASAN1983 SCMR 1148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from an ejectment application filed against the widow of a deceased tenant. The core legal question raised is whether an ejectment application against the widow alone is competent without impleading the other heirs of the deceased tenant who are also in possession of the demised premises. The Court granted leave and allowed the petition, holding that the appeal would be heard on the present record with liberty for parties to file additional documents. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises pending the decision of the appeal, subject to the condition that she continues to deposit rent in court in accordance with earlier orders.
Questions settled- Is an ejectment application competent against only the widow of a deceased tenant when other heirs are in possession of the demised premises?
- Under what conditions can a tenant be protected from eviction pending the hearing of an appeal?
- MR. YAHYA BAKHTIAR, ADVOCATE vs THE STATE THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1983 PLD Supreme Court 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment of a Special Court convicting the appellant, a former Attorney-General and holder of a representative office, of misconduct under Article 3 of the Holders of Representative Offices (Punishment for Misconduct) Order, 1977, for alleged electoral rigging during the March 1977 National Assembly elections. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant was afforded a fair trial—specifically regarding the appointment of defense counsel in his absence without proper authorization—and whether the prosecution had established the charges of electoral rigging through direct or indirect evidence. The Supreme Court held that the trial court committed serious legal errors by appointing unauthorized counsel, denying the appellant the right to cross-examine key prosecution witnesses, and refusing to recall those witnesses. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove through positive evidence that the appellant was personally responsible for, or had instigated, the electoral malpractices. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether a special court can appoint a defense counsel for an accused in his absence without a written and signed power-of-attorney or proper statutory authorization?
- Can a candidate be held criminally liable for electoral misconduct or rigging committed by an agent without positive evidence that the acts were done at the candidate's instigation or instructions?
- Does the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses render their oral testimony inadmissible in evidence?
- Whether the sanction for prosecution required under the Holders of Representative Offices (Punishment for Misconduct) Order, 1977, was validly issued by the competent authority?
- MOZAL AND 11 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 64 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-19Read full judgment →