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 ALI AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1982 CLC 2434 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 619 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL HAMID1982 CLC 647 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL HAM ID1982 CLC 1528 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs THE, STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs The STATE1982 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a murderous assault. The petitioner raised two primary arguments: first, that the evidence regarding the grievous nature of the injury was flawed because the doctor who performed the X-ray examination was not examined; and second, that the sentence should be reduced due to the five-year duration of the trial. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim regarding the medical evidence, noting that the High Court had correctly relied on the testimony of the examining doctor who confirmed the injury was grievous upon X-ray examination. Furthermore, the Court observed that this specific plea regarding the medical evidence was not raised before the High Court. Regarding the sentence, the Court found no merit in the request for reduction, noting the petitioner remained on bail throughout the proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the trial duration did not warrant sentence mitigation under these circumstances.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a new plea regarding the sufficiency of medical evidence in a leave to appeal petition if it was not raised before the High Court?
- Does the duration of a trial justify a reduction in sentence if the accused remained on bail throughout the proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPE LINES LTD.1982 PLC 348 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND Others vs SHAH MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1855 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND Others vs SHAH MUHAMMAD AND OTHER1982 CLC 1855 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND 3 Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction for murder. The petitioners were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of Zafar, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution's ocular evidence, which relied heavily on interested witnesses and contained inherent improbabilities, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, particularly when the defence version appeared plausible. The Court observed significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, including the unnatural conduct of the accused in dragging the victim to his own village before attacking him, and the suspicious presence of eye-witnesses at the scene. Furthermore, the Court noted a discrepancy between the alleged use of hatchets and the absence of incised injuries on the deceased. Finding substantial weight in the petitioners' contentions regarding the reliability of the evidence and the plausibility of the defence version, the Supreme Court held that this was a fit case for a comprehensive reappraisal of the entire evidence and granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is a case fit for leave to appeal when the prosecution's narrative contains inherent improbabilities regarding the conduct of the accused?
- Does the absence of specific injury types (e.g., incised wounds) corresponding to alleged weapons (e.g., hatchets) justify a reappraisal of evidence?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal based on the plausibility of a defence version when the prosecution's ocular evidence is challenged as unreliable?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Alias DR. IKRAM AHD AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 592 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKMAL vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1982 CLC 279 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR JAVED AND Others vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, SETTLEMENT CIRCLE II, LAHORE AND Other1982 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the transfer of a composite property comprising a residential portion and multiple shops under settlement laws. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner initially transferred the entire building as a residential unit to the petitioners. Upon appeal by certain shop occupants, the Additional Settlement Commissioner remanded the matter for a fresh spot inspection to determine if the property constituted a single unit under the second proviso to section 2(12) of the Displaced Persons Act. Following prolonged delays, a subsequent inspection in 1971 led to the property being treated as separate units, transferring the residential portion and one shop to the petitioners while disposing of the remaining shops. The Settlement Commissioner and subsequently the High Court dismissed the petitioners' challenges. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the remand order lawfully directed the determination of the property's nature under section 2(12) of the Act and that the petitioners had no entitlement to portions properly classified as separate independent shops.
Questions settled- Whether a composite property consisting of a residential portion and shops can be treated as a single residential unit under the Displaced Persons Act?
- Does a remand order directing spot inspection properly invoke the second proviso to section 2(12) of the Displaced Persons Act?
- Do occupants of a residential portion have locus standi to challenge the independent transfer of separately classified shops in a composite building?
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR CHISHTI vs IJAZ AHMED AND 5 OTHERS1982 CLC 1700 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR CHISHTI vs IJAZ AHMED AND 5 OTHER1982 CLC 1700 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs S. MAHMOOD HUSSAIN1982 CLC 2023 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD Alias SHIN AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 841 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD alias SAIN AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 841 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 982 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND Another1982 SCMR 1014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against the petitioner by the Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent, who managed property owned by his wife, qualified as a 'landlord' under the relevant rent legislation, and whether the petitioner’s denial of the landlord-tenant relationship was contumacious, thereby justifying eviction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the respondent's status as a landlord were not subject to reappraisal in the current proceedings. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, noting that the petition was also time-barred, and the application for condonation of delay was unconvincing. The key principle laid down is that under the definition of 'landlord,' the term is not restricted to the 'owner' of the property; rather, any person entitled to receive rent is clothed with the status of a landlord, regardless of legal ownership.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'landlord' under rent restriction laws require the person to be the legal owner of the property?
- Can a person who manages property for another and collects rent be considered a 'landlord'?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship subject to reappraisal by the Supreme Court?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the application for condonation of delay fails to provide convincing grounds?
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND 8 Another vs Mst. SAID BANO AND 8 Other1982 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a partition suit concerning a property (Haveli) claimed by the plaintiffs through inheritance. Following an ex parte decree against one defendant, Fordil, the proceedings were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision. The trial court subsequently decided in favor of the plaintiffs, a decision upheld by the District Court and the High Court. The appellants challenged the reliance on pre-remand evidence, arguing that such evidence was legally non-existent post-remand and that a counsel's statement dated 11-4-1977, which purportedly accepted the pre-remand evidence, was misread. The Supreme Court held that the interpretation of the counsel's statement by the High Court, which encompassed both pre-remand and post-remand stages, was reasonable and not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court established that parties cannot adopt divergent positions at different stages of the same litigation to challenge the admissibility of evidence they previously acquiesced to. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the admissibility of pre-remand evidence in a fresh trial if they previously acquiesced to its use?
- Does a counsel's statement made during post-remand proceedings, which is ambiguous, allow for a reasonable interpretation by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction?
- Are parties permitted to take divergent positions regarding the admissibility of evidence at different stages of the same litigation?
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR Alias BACHHI vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 120 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs WAZIR DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 400(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two civil petitions for leave to appeal arising from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer of portions of a residential property (Property No. 680/38, Lahore Cantt) under settlement laws. The petitioner, Muhammad Ahmad, challenged the High Court's decision which had remanded the case regarding one respondent (Rahim Bakhsh) to the Officer notified under the Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975, for a comparative merit assessment, while simultaneously rejecting the petitioner's appeal against another respondent (Wazir Din). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether, upon remand, the merits of all three occupants should be evaluated collectively by the same authority to prevent conflicting decisions and to determine if all occupants could be accommodated, given their long-standing possession of the property for over 30 years. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding possession, conditional upon the petitioner depositing monthly rent with the Rent Controller where ejectment proceedings were pending.
Questions settled- Should the merits of all occupants of a property be considered by the same authority upon remand to avoid conflicting decisions?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to determine if multiple occupants can be accommodated in a single property based on long-term possession?
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs JAMEEL AHMAD KHAN1982 CLC 1661 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs The STATE1982 SCMR 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the testimony of eye-witnesses, who were related to the deceased, required independent corroboration in the absence of proven enmity, and whether the recovery of the weapon could be relied upon when the recovery witnesses were also eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound. It ruled that the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased does not render them 'interested witnesses' requiring corroboration if no enmity exists between them and the accused. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the testimony of an independent eye-witness, supported by medical evidence (showing close-range firing) and the appellant's abscondence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The principle laid down is that in the absence of enmity, the testimony of related eye-witnesses is credible, and substitution of the real culprit is a rare occurrence, especially when the accused is known to the witnesses.
Questions settled- Does the relationship of eye-witnesses to a deceased person automatically render them interested witnesses requiring independent corroboration?
- Can the recovery of a weapon be used to corroborate the testimony of an independent eye-witness if the recovery witnesses were also eye-witnesses to the crime?
- Is the abscondence of an accused after an occurrence a valid factor to support the prosecution's version of events?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND 4 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 539 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-06-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs AMINUL HAQ AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 340 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND Other1982 SCMR 1000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide personal requirement for the property justified interference by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the case was concluded by factual findings and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law in the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. However, the Court granted the petitioner one month to vacate the premises, subject to the undertaking that the petitioner would voluntarily surrender possession and continue to pay rent during this period. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent matters unless a clear violation of law or misappreciation of evidence is established.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default and bona fide personal requirement in a rent case?
- Can a tenant be granted additional time to vacate premises after the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs ABDUR RAUF AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the petitioner for non-payment of rent in respect of a shop situated in Sialkot. The respondents landlords filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, which was allowed by the Rent Controller and subsequently upheld by the District Judge in appeal and a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in second appeal. The core legal question concerns the liability of the tenant to pay rent when claiming co-ownership, and whether eviction was lawfully ordered. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents proved regular transfer of the property from the Settlement Department along with a Permanent Transfer Deed and service of notice, and the petitioner failed to substantiate any claim of co-ownership or payment of rent, the concurrent eviction orders by the lower forums were fully justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a tenant who fails to prove any proprietary interest or pay rent despite being a proven tenant of regular transferees is lawfully liable to eviction.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant denying the landlord's title and claiming co-ownership without evidence is liable to eviction for non-payment of rent?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower rent forums regarding default in rent payment open to interference without record support?
- Whether regular transferees holding a Permanent Transfer Deed from the Settlement Department are entitled to seek ejectment of a defaulting tenant?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL MIR vs Mst. FAKHAR JEHAN BEGUNI ETC.S1982 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision petition in limine. The petitioner, a Jammu and Kashmir refugee, had engaged in protracted litigation regarding the transfer of a property in Rawalpindi. Following unsuccessful challenges to the Settlement Authorities' decisions through constitutional petitions and appeals, the petitioner filed a civil suit in 1976 seeking a declaration that the settlement orders were null and void and requesting an injunction against eviction. The petitioner argued that his status as a refugee protected his possession and that the cause of action was recurring. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities had conclusively determined the issues of possession and property divisibility, matters within their exclusive jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that the petitioner had already exhausted his remedies and that the civil suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and limitation. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, reinforcing that finality in settlement proceedings cannot be circumvented by subsequent civil litigation.
Questions settled- Can a civil suit be maintained to challenge the final orders of Settlement Authorities regarding property possession and divisibility?
- Does the principle of res judicata bar a civil suit that attempts to re-litigate issues already decided by Settlement Authorities and upheld in constitutional petitions?
- Is a claim of recurring cause of action valid when the underlying dispute regarding property transfer has been conclusively determined by a competent tribunal?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL MALIK vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1982 SCMR 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal for non-prosecution following his compulsory retirement under Martial Law Regulation 114. The petitioner sought restoration of the appeal, claiming he had not been served with notice. The Service Tribunal rejected this application, finding that notice had been duly served via registered post to the petitioner's counsel's office, as evidenced by a signed acknowledgment receipt. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the individual who signed the receipt was no longer employed by the counsel's firm at the time of service, thereby invalidating the notice. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the question of whether the individual was an employee at the time of service was a question of fact. The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's finding of fact, noting that the petitioner's argument regarding the individual's employment status was implausible given the circumstances of the delivery and receipt of the notice.
Questions settled- Is the question of whether a notice was properly served on a counsel's office a question of fact?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact made by the Service Tribunal regarding the service of notice?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI AND 21982 SCMR 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, challenged his dismissal from service by the Superintendent of Police (S.P.), Mianwali, arguing that under previous judicial precedent, only the Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G.) possessed the authority to dismiss him. The Punjab Administrative Tribunal had previously dismissed his appeal, citing his failure to raise this jurisdictional issue before the departmental appellate authority as required by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether the S.P. was competent to dismiss the appellant given the constitutional and statutory framework in force at the time. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was lawful. It reasoned that the 1962 Constitution, specifically Article 177(1)(a), permitted removal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority if expressly empowered. Such delegation existed under the Police Department Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958. Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim of procedural violation regarding the consideration of the appellant's explanation, ruling that the appellant failed to submit his explanation within the specified timeframe, thereby waiving his right to have it considered prior to the dismissal order.
Questions settled- Can a government servant be dismissed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority if expressly empowered by delegation rules?
- Does the failure to submit an explanation within the specified time limit preclude a claim that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the explanation?
- Do Police Department Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958, supersede other service rules regarding the authority to dismiss police personnel?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND Others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Other1982 SCMR 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' constitutional petition on the ground of suppression of material facts and failure to approach the court with clean hands. The core legal question is whether the High Court rightly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to dismiss a writ petition where the petitioners deliberately concealed the initiation and subsequent dismissal of parallel proceedings before the Settlement Authorities concerning the same subject matter. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the non-disclosure of such relevant ongoing and concluded proceedings intended to secure a favourable order constitutes suppression of material facts. The key principle laid down is that a party invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court must make a full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including parallel proceedings, and failure to do so justifies the dismissal of the petition on the ground of unclean hands without interference by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed for concealing parallel proceedings initiated before Settlement Authorities?
- Does the failure to disclose the dismissal of an application before Settlement Authorities amount to coming to court with unclean hands?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary dismissal of a writ petition suffering from suppression of material facts?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND Another vs The STATE1982 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court convicting the appellants for the murder of Muhammad Arif, resulting in sentences of death and life imprisonment. Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether the courts below could lawfully rely on the identification of the appellants by the sole eyewitness, P.W. Rahim Khan, given allegations that the suspects were shown to the witness in police custody prior to the formal identification parade. The Supreme Court observed that although the subsequent formal identification parade before a Magistrate lost evidentiary value due to earlier exposure at the police station, identification parades are merely corroborative and not substantive evidence. The Court held that the direct dock identification by the eyewitness was fully reliable, as the witness had spent considerable time in close contact with the assailants in sufficient light, promptly described them in the First Information Report, and had no motive for false implication. The identification was further corroborated by recoveries of incriminating items, including the deceased's snatched bag with purchase receipts and a knife. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an identification parade constitutes substantive evidence or merely serves as corroborative material to substantive dock evidence?
- Whether the substantive dock identification by an eyewitness can be relied upon to sustain a conviction when the formal identification parade is defective or rendered valueless due to prior exposure of the accused in police custody?
- Whether the failure to hold a statutory identification parade is fatal to the prosecution when the accused's identity is otherwise established through direct and corroborative evidence?
- Whether Judges who originally heard an appeal are required to participate in its rehearing after the initial judgment is recalled due to an administrative omission to circulate it to the fourth member of the Bench?
- MUHAMMAD AEED AND OTHERS vs THE CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1982 PLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ADALAT KHAN AND Other vs ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 616 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH ETC. vs The STATE1982 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court rejecting their application for bail in a criminal case registered under Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of attempting to take forcible possession of a plot of land, inflicting dang blows, and removing valuables. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the grounds of a supplementary statement by the complainant favoring a co-accused and alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the evidence collected prima facie supported the prosecution case and declined to interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the High Court, as no question of violation of a principle of law relevant to a bail matter arose. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail when no principle of law has been violated?
- Does a supplementary statement favoring a co-accused automatically entitle other co-accused petitioners to bail?
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AND ANOthers vs Syed MUHAMMAD RAZA ZAIDI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER vs Syed MUHAMMAD RAZA ZAIDI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAM MAD ALI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2154 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
- MUHA M MAD ASLAM vs ABDUL JABBAR1982 CLC 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
- Mufti SANAULLAH AND Another vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA AHD 81982 PLD Supreme Court 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arose from two writ petitions dismissed by the Lahore High Court regarding the interpretation of Section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (as amended by Ordinance IV of 1981). The appellants, former Chairmen of local councils, challenged no-confidence motions passed or initiated against them after the expiry of six months from their assumption of office. They argued under Section 31(3) that a no-confidence motion is barred if not moved within thirty days following the initial six-month period after assuming office. The core legal question was whether the thirty-day limitation window in Section 31(3) applies to the initial motion of no-confidence or only to second and subsequent motions. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the word 'interval' in Section 31(3) applies solely to second and subsequent motions of no-confidence to protect officeholders from continuous uncertainty. The court established that no such thirty-day restriction applies to the first motion, which may be moved anytime after the initial six months elapsed.
Questions settled- Does the thirty-day time limit under Section 31(3) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 apply to a first motion of no-confidence against a Chairman?
- Whether the term 'interval' in Section 31(3) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 refers to the initial six-month period following the assumption of office?
- Can a first motion of no-confidence be moved at any time after the expiry of the initial six months from the date of assumption of office under Section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
- Mufti HASAN UD DIN AND Others vs Sheikh AFTAB AHMED AND Other1982 SCMR 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition against an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The Commissioner had cancelled the petitioners' land allotment on the grounds that they failed to establish their entitlement or a verified claim, despite having been granted adjournments to substantiate their case. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that they were denied a reasonable opportunity to establish occupancy rights and that the Commissioner failed to examine the record. Furthermore, they argued they were entitled to a first offer of sale under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 3 of Ordinance XV of 1974. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioners were responsible for their own failure to appear and substantiate their claims. The Court affirmed that the petitioners' failure to attend hearings and provide evidence justified the cancellation of the allotment, and the request for a first offer of sale was not a valid ground to declare the impugned order without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a party to appear and substantiate their claim before a Settlement Commissioner justify the cancellation of a land allotment?
- Can a party claim a right to the first offer of sale under Ordinance XV of 1974 if they failed to establish their underlying entitlement to the property?
- Is an order passed by an Additional Settlement Commissioner without lawful authority if the party failed to attend the hearing to prove their case?
- MUBARIK AHMAD AND 2 Other vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS AND 2 Others1982 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
- MUBARAK vs The STATE1982 SCMR 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions were whether the conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of a single witness, Mauj Ali, and whether the recovery of the weapon and crime-empty, despite a three-month delay in forensic submission, constituted reliable corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound. The Court affirmed that the testimony of a natural witness, who was present at the scene and lacked personal enmity, was sufficient to establish guilt, even if other witnesses were partially discredited regarding the involvement of a co-accused. Furthermore, the Court held that a delay in sending forensic evidence to a Ballistic Expert does not automatically invalidate the recovery unless specific suspicious circumstances suggest tampering or substitution. The key principle laid down is that the reliability of forensic evidence is determined by the presence or absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery, rather than solely by the duration of the delay in forensic analysis.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the solitary testimony of a natural witness?
- Does a delay in sending a crime weapon and empty cartridge to a Ballistic Expert automatically render the forensic report unreliable?
- Does the failure to record a witness's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 undermine their credibility?
- MUBARAK ALI KHAN AND 4 Other vs ANJUMAN ISLAMIA PUNJAB, LAHORE1982 PLD Supreme Court 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the creation of a Waqf Fi-Sabil-Illah. The initial Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, heard the Regular First Appeal but recorded differing opinions. Instead of formulating the points of difference for reference to a third Judge to resolve the impasse, a third Judge declined to hear the case on procedural grounds, leading the Chief Justice to constitute a fresh Division Bench to hear the appeal de novo as a first appeal in the ordinary course. The core legal question was whether the second Division Bench had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the entire appeal afresh, ignoring the opinions of the first Bench. The Supreme Court held that under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court, when a Division Bench is equally divided, only the specific points of difference must be referred to a referee Judge. The final decision must be based on the majority opinion of all Judges who heard the case, including those who first heard it. Consequently, bypassing the original opinions and ordering a de novo hearing before a new Bench was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a Chief Justice has the jurisdiction to constitute a fresh Division Bench to hear an appeal de novo when the original Division Bench is equally divided in opinion?
- What is the correct procedure to be followed under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court when the Judges of a Division Bench differ in opinion?
- Does a referee Judge have the jurisdiction to decide the entire case or is their jurisdiction confined strictly to the points of difference referred to them?
- Can the opinions of the Judges who first heard a case be ignored or bypassed in the final determination of an appeal where a difference of opinion has occurred?
- MUBARAK AHMAD BEDAR AND 2 OTHER vs SECRETARY. COMMUNICATIONS &1982 PLC (C. S.) 426 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mst. ZUBEDA BANG vs S. M. ANWAR SETHI AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZEBUNNISA AND Others vs SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZEBUNNISA AND OTHERS vs SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZARINA RAUF BUTT AND OTHER vs MALIK AZIZ AHMAD AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the cancellation and subsequent re-auction of property transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner could extend the time for payment of the transfer price under paragraph 3-A of Settlement Scheme No. VIII, despite the property having been re-auctioned. The High Court had quashed the order, finding the re-auction barred the extension. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the original transferee had filed an application for extension within the prescribed thirty-day period. Because this application was pending, the property was not legally available for re-auction, analogous to the principle of lis pendens. Consequently, the re-auction was premature, and the Settlement Commissioner retained the authority to grant the extension. The key principle laid down is that where a timely application for extension of payment is filed by a defaulter, the property cannot be validly re-auctioned until that application is adjudicated, as the pending application creates a legal bar similar to lis pendens against the disposal of the property.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an application for extension of time to pay transfer price create a bar against the re-auction of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner exercise the power to extend the time for payment of transfer price under Settlement Scheme No. VIII if the property has been re-auctioned?
- Is a re-auction of property valid if it occurs while an application for extension of time for payment of the transfer price is pending?
- Mst. ZAREEN AKHTAR KHAN vs DR. MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ RANA AND 7 Other1982 PLD Lahore 241 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAHIDA YOUSAF vs Mst. IFTIKHAR AKHTAR1982 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which upheld an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller. The respondent landlady had sought the petitioner's ejectment from a shop on grounds of default and bona fide personal requirement. While the Rent Controller ordered eviction based on bona fide requirement, the District Judge remanded the case, erroneously believing the tenant's cross-examination was not recorded. Upon the landlady's appeal, the High Court correctly identified that the cross-examination had been recorded and, rather than remanding the case again, proceeded to decide the merits of the eviction order itself. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the authority to decide the merits of a case directly rather than remanding it to the lower appellate court upon correcting a factual error. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its legal authority. The principle established is that the High Court has the power to decide a matter on its merits directly, rather than remanding it to the court below, particularly when the record is sufficient for such a determination.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to decide a case on its merits instead of remanding it to the lower appellate court upon correcting a factual error?
- Is the High Court empowered to determine the merits of an eviction case directly when the record is sufficient for such a decision?
- Mst. ZAHIDA KHATOON vs S. H. O., POLICE STATION, MOZANG LAHORE AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 601 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. TAYYIBA KHANUM AND Others vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1982 CLC 1425 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. TAMKEEN KHATOON vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION1982 SCMR 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner, who occupied servant quarters of a transferred bungalow and claimed excess land attached thereto. The core legal questions involve whether an occupant of servant quarters is entitled to claim excess land, and whether the formula prescribed for calculating the transferable area of a house and its appurtenant land was correctly applied by the settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to examine whether the calculations of the settlement authorities suffered from an error patent on the face of the record, how the prescribed formula under the settlement scheme applies to excess land, and whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P. T. D.) bars such claims. The key principle laid down is that where an arguable question regarding the erroneous calculation of excess land transferable under settlement laws arises, leave to appeal is warranted for a comprehensive final hearing.
Questions settled- Whether an occupant of servant quarters attached to a bungalow is entitled to claim the transfer of excess land appurtenant to the property?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed preclude an aggrieved party from challenging the incorrect calculation of excess land transferred?
- How should the plinth area and appurtenant open space be calculated under the prescribed formula for properties transferred under settlement laws?
- Mst. SURRAYA MAMDOT AND Others vs JAMSHED IFTIKHAR AND OTHER.Respondents1982 CLC 25 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. SURRAYA BIBI vs ABDUR RASHID1982 SCMR 892 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, former wife of the respondent, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of her appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed the Guardian Judge's order directing the custody of their minor son Ghulam Farid to be restored to the respondent father upon attaining the age of seven years, pursuant to a prior compromise decree. The core legal question concerned whether the welfare of the minor was properly considered, given the father's alleged lack of livelihood and the child's established bonding with the mother. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that both lower courts duly considered the welfare of the minor alongside personal law and the compromise, finding no material on record to disentitle the father from custody. The Court laid down the principle that while the welfare of the minor remains paramount, a father is entitled to custody of a male child after a particular age under personal law unless compelling adverse circumstances are established on record. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the welfare of a minor is adequately considered when custody is restored to the father in accordance with a compromise and personal law?
- Does a father lose his right to the custody of his minor son merely due to allegations regarding his source of livelihood and the whereabouts of his relatives?
- Is a mother bound by a pre-existing compromise regarding the transfer of a minor child's custody upon attaining a specific age?
- Mst. SUNDRI BAI vs GHULAM HUSSAIN1982 CLC 2441 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. SUGHRAN BEGUM AND OTHERS vs ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2357 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. SUGHRAN BEGUM AND Others vs ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE JHANG AND OTHER1982 CLC 2357 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. SUGHRAN AND Others vs EHSANUL HAQ BHALLI, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT1982 SCMR 1164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition regarding an ejectment order. The core legal dispute arose from an ejectment petition where the Rent Controller initially found no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The appellate court reversed this, allowing the landlord to produce additional documents. Following a High Court remand order to allow the petitioners to produce evidence in rebuttal, the landlord withdrew the documents. Consequently, the appellate court proceeded to decide the appeal based on existing evidence, again finding the relationship of landlord and tenant existed and ordering ejectment. The petitioners challenged this in the High Court, arguing they were denied the opportunity to produce rebuttal evidence and that notice under the Transfer of Property Act was required. The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of the documents rendered the rebuttal issue moot and that the plea regarding notice was not raised in the initial pleadings. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, finding the petition meritless as the denial of tenancy was incompatible with claims of rent payment.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a plea regarding the necessity of notice under the Transfer of Property Act if such a plea was not taken in the initial reply to the ejectment application?
- Does the withdrawal of additional documents by a landlord during a remand hearing negate the requirement to provide the opposing party an opportunity to produce rebuttal evidence?
- Is a tenant's denial of the landlord-tenant relationship compatible with a claim of having paid rent?
- Mst. Sughra Bibi vs Hakam Aleem And 5 Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal examines whether a daughter succeeding to the non-ancestral self-acquired property of her father under customary law takes an absolute estate or merely a limited life interest. The appellant, a daughter, claimed absolute ownership of agricultural land left by her father in Gujranwala District, which was contested by collaterals. The trial court and District Judge decreed the suit in favor of the daughter, holding her to be the full owner, but the High Court reversed this, holding that she took only a limited estate terminable on marriage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and restored the judgments of the lower courts. The Court held that under Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law and the specific entries in the Riwaj-i-Aam of Gujranwala District (particularly Question and Answer No. 49), daughters succeeding to self-acquired property acquire full proprietary rights with powers of absolute alienation, rather than a restricted life interest.
Questions settled- Whether a daughter succeeding to the self-acquired property of her father under customary law takes an absolute estate or a limited life interest?
- Do entries in the Riwaj-i-Aam and Customary Law regarding female succession apply to non-ancestral property unless expressly specified?
- Does a daughter holding non-ancestral property under customary law lose her estate upon marriage?
- Mst. SUGHRA BAI vs Mst. RABIA1982 CLC 344 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi, which set aside the trial court's grant of a temporary injunction in favor of the tenant applicant. The dispute concerned the installation of a water pipe and electric motor by the tenant to overcome a water shortage allegedly caused by the landlady's unauthorized construction, following which the landlady locked the machine-room. The core legal question was whether a temporary mandatory injunction could be issued at the interlocutory stage to alter the status quo existing on the date of the suit. The Sindh High Court held that a mandatory injunction cannot be granted to create a new situation or to alter the status quo prevailing at the time of instituting the suit, but is limited to restoring the status quo ante. The court further held that where a party's alleged loss is assessable in monetary terms and alternative arrangements exist, irreparable loss is not established, and dismissed the revision application in limine.
Questions settled- Can a temporary mandatory injunction be issued to create a new situation not prevailing on the date of the suit?
- Whether a temporary injunction can be granted when the alleged loss is assessable in terms of money?
- What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction against an appellate order concerning interlocutory injunctions?
- Mst. SHAUKAT SULTANA vs Mst. ZOHRA BIBI1982 CLC 1761 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAUKAT SULTANA vs Mst. ZOHRA BI1982 CLC 1761 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAUKAT JAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. THROUGH GENERAL1982 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHARMAN BIBI vs ABDUL GHAFOOR1982 CLC 849 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHARIFAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1552 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHARIFAN vs KHUDA BUX (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1982 CLC 1434 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI vs ABDUL GHAFOOR1982 CLC 849 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHARIF BIBI AND 3 Others vs MEHMOOD AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAMS HASSAN vs MRS. ABIDA BANO1982 CLC 839 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAMS HASSAN vs Mrs. ABIDA BANG1982 CLC 839 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM1982 CLC 2417 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAH BEGUM AND Others vs Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM AND OTHER1982 CLC 679 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SATTAN vs Malik GHULAM MUHAMMAD STATION HOUSE OFFICER AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. SATTAN vs ISLAMUDDIN AND 6 OTHER1982C L C 289 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. SATAN AND Others vs SAGHIR SHAH AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARWAR SULTANA vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND Other1982 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application for a certificate of fitness under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court, following the in limine dismissal of her regular appeal by a learned Judge of the High Court who subsequently retired. The core legal question was whether a judge other than the one who passed the judgment can issue a certificate of fitness for a Letters Patent Appeal when the original judge has retired. The Supreme Court held that on the plain language of clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the certificate of fitness could only be granted by the specific Judge who passed the judgment, and upon that Judge's retirement, the right to obtain such a certificate lapsed. The Court laid down the principle that the clear and unambiguous wording of a statutory provision or jurisdictional clause cannot be judicially rewritten or expanded on grounds of hardship.
Questions settled- Can a judge other than the one who passed the judgment grant a certificate of fitness under clause 10 of the Letters Patent after the retirement of the original judge?
- Whether the clear and unambiguous language of clause 10 of the Letters Patent can be construed flexibly to prevent hardship?
- Does the right to seek a certificate of fitness under clause 10 of the Letters Patent survive the retirement of the judge who delivered the judgment?
- Mst. SARDARAN vs Mst. MAJIDAN BEGUM1982 SCMR 1100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals through special leave challenge a High Court judgment that set aside a Guardian Judge's order and appointed the paternal aunt as guardian of the person and property of the minors in preference to their mother. The core legal question concerned whether the welfare of the minors lay with their mother, who had remarried a stranger, or with their paternal aunt, who was also married to a stranger. The Supreme Court held that other things being equal, the welfare of the minor is best served by entrusting guardianship to the real mother, especially where the aunt was similarly situated regarding marriage to a stranger and failed to enter the witness box. The Court laid down that the disqualification of a mother's remarriage to a stranger loses significance when the competing claimant is equally connected to a stranger, and the primary consideration remains the paramount welfare of the minors, taking into account their age, living arrangements, and the involvement of adult brothers in overseeing their upbringing and property.
Questions settled- Whether the remarriage of a mother to a stranger disqualifies her from being appointed as the guardian of her minor children in preference to a paternal aunt who is also married to a stranger?
- Does the welfare of minor children lie in appointing their real mother as guardian when both competing claimants are equally situated regarding marriage outside the prohibited degree?
- Can the order of a Guardian Judge appointing a mother as guardian be legally set aside without strong or sufficient justification regarding the welfare of the minors?
- Mst. SARDARAN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 628 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mst. SARDARAN AND Others vs Mst. BADSHAH BEGUM1982 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partially allowed an appeal against a remand order in a civil suit concerning a declaration and cancellation of a registered gift deed procured through alleged fraud. The core legal question revolves around the propriety and legality of successive remand orders passed by lower appellate courts and whether the High Court was justified in converting a remand order under Order XLI, Rule 23-A into one under Order XLI, Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted with substantial merit in converting the remand order to enable the first appellate court to decide the appeal on merits upon receipt of findings on limitation, ensuring that parties' rights of objection and appeal remain unaffected under the procedural framework. The Court laid down that appellate courts must provide clear reasoning when remanding matters and that procedural mechanisms like Order XLI, Rule 25 C.P.C. may be appropriately utilized by High Courts to cure vague remand orders and prevent protracted litigation.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in converting a remand order under Order XLI Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 into one under Order XLI Rule 25?
- Can an appellate court remand a case without specifying the exact defects in the form of the suit or recording clear reasoning?
- Does a remand under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 adversely affect the parties' right of appeal?
- Mst. SARDAR BIBI vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1982 CLC 635 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SANAM IQBAL vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND OTHER1982 CLC 395 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAMINA SAEED vs NAYYER NAZIR AND 2. OTHER1982 CLC 799 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAMINA SAEED vs NAYYER NAZIR AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 799 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAMEERI vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KASLJR AND Ss1982 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a challenge to the restoration of a candidate's nomination papers for a local council election. The core legal questions were whether the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was time-barred, whether it was improperly instituted due to the absence of a certified copy of the original order, and whether the Deputy Commissioner failed to conduct an inquiry into the genuineness of signatures on the nomination papers. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's challenge, noting that the Assistant Commissioner failed to provide the required copy of the rejection order to the respondent or the Deputy Commissioner, as mandated by the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979. Furthermore, the High Court found that the Assistant Commissioner had rejected the nomination papers without conducting any inquiry. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no grounds for interference, as the procedural failures by the Assistant Commissioner justified the Deputy Commissioner's intervention. The judgment affirms that procedural lapses by election officials can invalidate the rejection of nomination papers.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a Returning Officer to provide a copy of an order rejecting nomination papers invalidate the rejection?
- Can an election appeal be entertained if the original order was not accompanied by a certified copy due to the official's failure to provide one?
- Is a Returning Officer required to conduct an inquiry before rejecting nomination papers based on allegations of bogus signatures?
- Mst. SALMA ZAHEEN AND ANOTHER vs ANWAR H. PIRBHAI AND 6 OTHERS1982 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. SALMA ZAHEEN AND ANOTHER vs ANWAR H. PIRBHAI AND 6 OTHER1982 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BIBI vs SHER KHAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BIBI vs SHER KHAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAHIB KHATUN vs AMAN ULLAH ETC.1982 CLC 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAHIB KHATUN vs AMAN ULLA H ETC.1982 CLC 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAFIA BIBI vs Mst. AISHA BIBI1982S C M R 494 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court order dismissing the petitioner's application to recall a previous order, which had disposed of a writ petition based on an alleged compromise. The petitioner contended that the compromise was fraudulent, having been entered into by an unauthorized person posing as her attorney. The core legal question was whether the High Court was obligated to inquire into these allegations of fraud and misrepresentation rather than directing the petitioner to seek alternative remedies. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing to adjudicate the matter. The Court established that, pursuant to Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a party challenging the validity of a judgment, decree, or order on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction must seek redress by filing an application before the court that passed the order, and is expressly barred from filing a separate suit for this purpose. Consequently, the High Court was required to hold an inquiry into the petitioner's allegations.
Questions settled- Does Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a court to inquire into allegations of fraud or misrepresentation regarding its own orders?
- Can a party challenge a judgment or order on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation by filing a separate suit?
- Is a court obligated to adjudicate an application challenging an order based on fraud, or can it direct the applicant to seek other legal remedies?
- Mst. SAEEDA TASEER vs MESSRS ORIENT IMPEX1982 CLC 288 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAEEDA BANO, ETC. vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1982 SCMR 799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a property dispute concerning the transfer of a basement portion (Portion 'E') of property No. S-31-R-147. The property was initially auctioned, and the petitioners, Mst. Saeeda Bano, etc., emerged as the highest bidders, subsequently receiving a P.T.O. and a P.T.D. A third party, Masood Ali, later sought to have the letter 'E' substituted for 'G' in a previous Settlement Commissioner's order, effectively transferring a different property to him. The High Court, upon reviewing a writ petition, remanded the matter to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision based on an alleged agreement between parties. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that the Settlement Commissioner's order was a nullity as they were not impleaded in the revision proceedings, and that their P.T.D. was obtained without fraud or misrepresentation, precluding the reopening of the transfer. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding merit in the petitioners' contentions that the order passed without impleading the affected parties was legally flawed and that the finality of the P.T.D. should be protected.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner pass an order affecting property rights without impleading the parties in possession?
- Is a property transfer evidenced by a P.T.D. liable to be reopened in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Does a High Court's remand order based on an alleged agreement between parties supersede the requirement to address the legality of the original impugned order?
- Mst. SABIRA BEGUM AND Others vs FAZAL DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property house in Lahore, which was originally allotted to the private respondents through an NCH form, while the petitioners claimed rights based on an alleged deed of association with the deceased Abdul Hamid and a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) issued in his favour. The core legal question was whether a deed of association and a P.T.O. issued without the formal approval and independent order of the competent Settlement Authorities could be sustained, and whether the Lahore High Court properly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction in setting aside the Settlement authority's order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that merely filing an agreement of association is insufficient unless both parties appear before the proper authority to admit it and the competent authority formally accepts it. The petition was dismissed, affirming that settlement authorities are not bound to act upon an association unless it is formally approved according to settled practice.
Questions settled- Whether a deed of association for the transfer of evacuee property is valid without the formal approval and acceptance of the competent Settlement Authorities?
- Can a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) be sustained when it is not supported by any underlying order or approval of the Settlement Department?
- Does the High Court exceed its constitutional jurisdiction by setting aside an order of a Settlement Commissioner that is contrary to the established practice regarding deeds of association?
- Mst. RUQIA ETC. vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN ETC.1982 CLC 2178 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-27Read full judgment →