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. RUQIA ETC. vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN Etc .1982 CLC 2178 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. RUKHSANA BEGUM vs Mst. FARIDA1982 CLC 1298 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. ROSHNI vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR AND Other1982 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the appellant, who claimed a superior right of pre-emption over land sold by her mother, a refugee from East Punjab, to the respondents. The land had been allotted and subsequently confirmed in the mother's favour. The trial court decreed the suit, finding that the mother held permanent, transferable rights in the land. However, the first appellate court and the High Court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale was not pre-emptiable because the statutory provisions conferring permanent rights on allottees were inserted after the sale. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that even under the unamended provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, a confirmed allottee possessed permanent, transferable rights. The Court ruled that the sale of such confirmed land is indeed pre-emptiable, and set aside the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether the sale of land confirmed in favour of an allottee under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 is subject to pre-emption?
- Whether an allottee of land has permanent and transferable rights under the unamended Sections 15 and 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Can a new objection regarding mortgaged rights under Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 be raised for the first time on appeal if it was not pleaded in the written statement?
- Mst. ROSHI AND Others vs Mst. FATEH AND Other1982 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the inheritance of one Sada, who died in 1928. The core legal question was whether the deceased was a Sunni or a Shia, which determined the distribution of his estate between his widow and collaterals. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently held that the deceased was a Sunni. The petitioners challenged the appellate court's judgment in the Lahore High Court, arguing that the appellate judgment failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Order XLI, Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, by not elaborately discussing the evidence. The Supreme Court held that while the appellate judgment was not ideal, it constituted substantial compliance with the law. The Court affirmed that non-compliance with the strict provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 does not automatically vitiate a judgment if there is substantial compliance, particularly when the matter involves a question of fact rather than a complex point of law. Consequently, the concurrent findings of fact were upheld, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does non-compliance with the strict provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 automatically render an appellate judgment a nullity?
- What constitutes substantial compliance with the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a finding of fact be interfered with in a second appeal if the appellate court has substantially complied with procedural requirements?
- Mst. RIAZ BEGUM vs Khawaja HAYATULLAH AN ANOTHER1982 PLD Supreme Court 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a long-standing property dispute over an evacuee bungalow in Rawalpindi, involving two claimants, Mst. Riaz Begum and Khawaja Hayatullah, who had been in possession of separate portions of the property since 1950. The core legal question was the proper interpretation of the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order dated 16-8-1961, which directed the transfer of the bungalow 'according to their possession' following a spot inspection. The Supreme Court held that the bungalow was divisible and that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order intended for the property to be split into two equal portions. The Court affirmed that each party was entitled to retain the portion transferred to them by the final authority in the settlement hierarchy, including their respective halves of the courtyard, outhouses, and garage. The Court further directed that the central gallery, used by both parties, should be divided lengthwise into two equal halves in the event of the building's demolition, thereby resolving the dispute regarding the allocation of the property.
Questions settled- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order to transfer property 'according to possession' imply a division of the property into two equal portions when the property is structurally divisible?
- How should common areas such as a central gallery be divided when a property is split between two claimants based on their respective possession?
- Mst. RAZIA BEGUM vs SAGHIR AI IMAD1982 CLC 1586 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAZIA BEGUM vs SAGHIR AHMAD1982 CLC 1586 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAZIA BEGUM vs MESSRS PAK1STAN MEDICAL & GENERAL STORES1982 CLC 659 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAZIA BEGUM vs JAHANGIR AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave was filed by the complainant challenging the High Court's judgment reducing the death sentence awarded to respondent Jahangir under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to imprisonment for life. The trial court had convicted the respondent for stabbing the deceased to death due to his refusal to refrain from testifying against him in a pending criminal case. The High Court had reduced the sentence on the premise that the immediate cause of the attack remained shrouded in mystery. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court misread the evidence, as eye-witness testimony showed the attack was unprovoked and directly stemmed from the prior motive. However, because the respondent had already served out his sentence of life imprisonment, the Supreme Court, relying on established precedent, declined to reimpose the death sentence to prevent double punishment. Instead, the Court enhanced the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000 to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allowing the appeal in part.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reimpose a death sentence where a life sentence awarded by the High Court has already been served out by the convict?
- Whether a failure to prove an immediate cause triggers a mitigation of sentence when the origin of the attack and prior motive are established by ocular evidence?
- Can a court enhance a sentence by imposing a fine as compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in lieu of reimposing a death penalty?
- Mst. RAZIA BEGUM vs CIVIL JUDGE, FIRST CLASS, SHAKARGARH AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 737 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHIDA BIBI CHAUDHRY vs P. T. V. KARACHI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 257 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHDA PARVEEN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (PLOTS) AND 81982 PLD Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. QAMAR SULTANA Alias QAMARUNNISA vs ABDUL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 355 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arose from the dismissal of a suit for non-appearance and the subsequent rejection of a restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The suit had been administratively transferred, and a notice was issued for the appearance of the parties. On the scheduled date, the plaintiff's counsel reported "no instructions" because the plaintiff had temporarily taken the physical file, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The High Court examined whether the trial court had jurisdiction to dismiss the suit on a date fixed merely for appearance rather than a hearing. The Court held that "hearing" under Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 entails the taking of evidence, hearing arguments, or considering questions enabling final adjudication, and does not include interlocutory matters or mere appearance dates. Consequently, the trial court acted without jurisdiction. The High Court further emphasized that procedural rules should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice rather than stifle it on technical grounds. The revision was allowed, and the suit was restored.
Questions settled- Whether a court has jurisdiction to dismiss a suit for non-appearance on a date fixed solely for the appearance of parties or interlocutory matters rather than a formal hearing?
- What constitutes a "hearing" within the meaning of Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an advocate's oral statement of "no instructions" in the absence of the client legally terminate a Vakalatnama without complying with the prescribed rules for withdrawal?
- Mst. QAMAR SULTANA alias QAMAR-UN-NISA vs ABDUL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 767 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. QAMAR SULTANA Alias QAMAR UN NISA vs ABDUL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 767 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. QAMAR JEHAN vs MUKARAMALI1982 CLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. QAMAR JEHAN KAZMI AND 3 Others vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT1982 CLC 1076 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. NOUSHABA SULTANA vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1603 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. NOORI BEGUM vs MAHMOOD AHMED KHAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2500 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. NOORI BEGUM vs MAHMOOD AHMED KHAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 2500 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. NOOR NISA vs ABDUS SALAM AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Peshawar 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts that decreed a pre-emption suit against the petitioner regarding a purchased house. The core legal question concerns whether the sale in dispute is exempt from pre-emption under section 5(d) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, specifically regarding the ingredients of urban residency, property size, lack of other property, and purchase for own occupation. The Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence, ignored material statements and admissions, and failed to apply the correct statutory exemption provision. The Court established that all four necessary ingredients for exemption under section 5(d) were fully proven by the record. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the concurrent findings were set aside, and the pre-emption suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in revision when a misreading of evidence is established?
- What are the necessary ingredients required to claim exemption from pre-emption under section 5(d) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- What is the legal effect when a witness is not cross-examined on a particular point stated on solemn affirmation?
- Does a married woman residing permanently with her husband in an urban area acquire residency there for the purposes of pre-emption exemptions?
- Mst. NAZIR BEGUM AND OTHERs vs Mst. QAMARUNNISSA AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2271 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZIR BEGUM AND OTHERS vs Mst. QAMARUNNISSA AND OTHER1982 CLC 2271 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAWAB BIBI vs GHULAM SARWAR1982 CLC 2409 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAWAB BIBI vs GHULAM SAR WAR1982 CLC 2409 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAWAB BIBI vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 2159 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- MST. NAWAB BIBI ETC. vs SAIFUR REHMAN1982 SCMR 242(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The petitioners, successors-in-interest of the property owner, sought the ejectment of the respondent, Muhammad Din, and other occupants on grounds of rent default and unauthorized subletting. While the Rent Controller initially ordered ejectment, the High Court reversed this decision, finding that service of notice upon the statutory tenant, Muhammad Din, was not proven and that the other occupants could not be treated as sub-tenants given the specific claims raised. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the High Court's findings were based entirely on factual determinations regarding the service of notice and the status of the occupants. The Supreme Court held that it does not interfere with findings of fact in such proceedings. Consequently, the petition for special leave to appeal was refused, and the petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that the Supreme Court will not re-examine factual findings made by lower courts.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact made by the High Court in rent ejectment cases?
- Can an ejectment proceeding continue if the service of notice on the statutory tenant is not proven?
- Mst. NAWAB BIBI ETC. vs SAIFUR REHMAN ETC.S1982 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the respondents, who contested the proceedings alleging occupation in their own right rather than as sub-tenants of the original statutory tenant, Muhammad Din. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge ruled in favour of the petitioners ordering ejectment, but the Lahore High Court accepted a second appeal and set aside the ejectment based on findings regarding lack of proved service of notice on the primary tenant and the nature of the other respondents' occupancy. The core legal question concerned whether interference was warranted in concurrent or factual findings regarding service of notice and tenancy status. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that questions pertaining to the realm of fact, such as the service of notice and the existence of sub-tenancy, do not warrant interference by the apex court. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly refused and dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere in findings of fact relating to the service of notice on a statutory tenant?
- Can a person claiming occupation in their own right be proceeded against as a sub-tenant without proof of subletting?
- Does a finding regarding the sufficiency of service of notice on a tenant raise a question of law warranting leave to appeal?
- Mst. NASREEN RASHID vs Sardar GHULAM FARID, ADDITIONARDISTRICT JUDOS1982 PLD Lahore 555 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASREEN RASHID vs Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM QURESHI AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent orders of ejectment passed against the petitioner-tenant by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, which were affirmed by the Lahore High Court. The ejectment was sought and granted on the ground of "nuisance" under section 13(2)(iv) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, based on allegations that the tenant kept vicious dogs, indulged in political activities, and engaged in clashes, abuse, and manhandling of the landlady and her husband, who resided in the other portion of the same bungalow. The core legal question was whether the statutory expression "nuisance to the occupants of buildings in the neighbourhood" is restricted to public nuisance affecting multiple external buildings, or whether it includes conduct affecting the occupants of a single building or a co-tenant/landlord residing in another part of the same premises. The Supreme Court held that under section 13(2)(iv) read with section 12(2) of the General Clauses Act, the plural "buildings" includes the singular, thereby covering occupants of a single building or an adjacent portion of the same building. The Court laid down that keeping ferocious dogs and resorting to acts of violence, abuse, and misbehaviour against a landlord residing in the same house constitute actionable nuisance warranting ejectment under the Rent Ordinance.
Questions settled- Whether the expression 'buildings in the neighbourhood' under section 13(2)(iv) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 includes the occupants of a single building or portion of the same building?
- Do acts of physical violence, abuse, and keeping ferocious dogs by a tenant against a landlord residing in another portion of the same house constitute 'nuisance' under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the plural word 'buildings' in a statutory provision encompass the singular under the General Clauses Act?
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR AND Others vs Sh. MUHAMMAD RIAZ1982 CLC 1875 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUSSARRAT BASHIRUL HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD SALIM AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a contempt of court application filed by Mst. Mussarrat Bashirul Hassan against three respondents for failing to vacate rented premises in accordance with an undertaking given before the Supreme Court after the dismissal of their appeal against eviction. The core legal question concerns whether the respondents committed contempt of court by breaching their solemn undertaking to vacate the entire leased premises by a specified date. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents ultimately handed over the possession of the entire ground floor during the proceedings and an inventory of the premises was jointly prepared, no further contempt proceedings were warranted. The Court disposed of the contempt application while noting that the landlady could pursue her claims for arrears of rent and property damages before the appropriate forum based on the signed inventory. The key principle laid down is that contempt proceedings arising from a breached undertaking to vacate premises may be dropped if the undertaking is eventually complied with and possession is restored, leaving financial claims to appropriate forums.
Questions settled- Whether contempt proceedings can be disposed of if the respondent complies with the undertaking to vacate the premises during the course of the proceedings?
- How should a dispute regarding the condition of vacated premises and arrears of rent be addressed when a contempt application is disposed of?
- Mst. MUSSARAT JEHAN vs MUSTAFA ALI BEG1982 CLC 205 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUNAWAR BIBI vs Mehr MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT1982 CLC 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY Mst. NASIM BEGUM AND 6 OTHER1982 CLC 1735 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY Mst. NA SIM BEGUM AND 6 OTHERS1982 CLC 1735 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUHAMMADIA vs ZARI BACHA AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Peshawar 85 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition arose from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the complainant sought enhancement of the life sentence, while the accused challenged the conviction itself. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the sole ocular witness, the admissibility of a retracted confession, and the evidentiary value of forensic reports following procedural delays. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the ocular testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence, specifically regarding the presence of charring marks which contradicted the claimed firing distance. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the FIR lost its sanctity as it was recorded after preliminary investigation. The confession was deemed unreliable, having been recorded in violation of procedure while the accused was in police custody. Additionally, the unexplained twenty-day delay in submitting forensic evidence rendered the expert report doubtful. Consequently, the Court acquitted the accused, establishing the principle that discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, coupled with procedural irregularities in investigation, necessitate the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Questions settled- Does the recording of an FIR after preliminary investigation by the police affect its evidentiary value?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted confession that mirrors a police statement?
- What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending forensic evidence to an expert?
- Does the presence of charring marks on a wound contradict ocular testimony regarding the distance of the firing?
- Mst. MUHAMMADI BEGUM vs DR. H. H. MIRZA AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUHAMMAD! BEGUM vs DR. H. H. MIRZA AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1982 CLC 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. MASOODA BEGUM AND 6 Others vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1982 CLC 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. MARIAM BAI ADAM ALI vs Mst. SALIMA KHATOON1982 CLC 1314. · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenges an ex parte ejectment order and subsequent execution proceedings passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question concerns whether an ex parte order passed without service of notice is a nullity, and whether the bar of limitation applies to an appeal against such an order when service was never effected. The court held that where no service of summons or notice is effected upon the tenant and the Rent Controller proceeds on a wrong assumption of service, the resulting ex parte order is a nullity in law and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the statutory period of limitation does not bar an appeal against a void order, and the principle that limitation runs from the date of knowledge applies when proceedings are kept concealed or unserved. The key principle laid down is that an ex parte order passed without proper service of notice is coram non judice and a nullity, rendering limitation inapplicable to a challenge brought immediately upon discovery of the order.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte ejectment order passed without proper service of notice upon the tenant is a nullity in law?
- Does the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal apply to an impugned order that is found to be a nullity and without jurisdiction?
- Can an appellate court entertain a rent appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation when the appellant had no knowledge of the proceedings due to lack of service?
- Mst. MAQSOODA BEGUM vs BOSTAN KHAN1982 CLC 884 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAQBOOL BIBI vs IBRAHIM AND Other1982 SCMR 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute concerning the sanctioning of a warabandi and an irrigation outlet. The petitioner challenged the orders of the canal authorities through a declaratory suit, which was dismissed by the trial court, and subsequent appeals and a civil revision before the High Court were likewise dismissed on grounds including limitation and the raising of new points. The core legal questions involve the validity of the Divisional Canal Officer's order restoring a previous warabandi and sanctioning an outlet, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the matter of sanctioning the outlet and warabandi fell within the competence of the canal authorities and that the challenge to the earlier warabandi was barred by limitation. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' concurrent findings and decisions.
Questions settled- Whether a suit challenging a historical warabandi is barred by limitation?
- Does the Divisional Canal Officer have the competence to restore a previous warabandi and sanction an outlet?
- Can a new point challenging an earlier warabandi be allowed to be raised for the first time in revision?
- Mst. MAQBOOL BEGUM vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 200 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAKHDOOMA AND 8 Other vs MUHAMMAD ARIF AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 212 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, challenging a sale deed executed by the defendants in favor of a third party during the pendency of a prior suit for specific performance regarding the same property. The core legal question was whether a subsequent purchaser, having acquired property during pending litigation, could proceed with construction despite a prior agreement for sale and a registered notice of lis pendens. The court held that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, as the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 prohibits the alienation of property during pending litigation to the detriment of the other party. The court emphasized that a subsequent purchaser must prove they are a bona fide transferee for value without notice of the prior contract to defeat a claim for specific performance. Finding that construction would cause irreparable loss and complicate the litigation, the court granted an interim injunction maintaining the status quo and consolidated the present suit with the earlier pending suit for specific performance.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 prevent the alienation of immovable property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance?
- Must a subsequent purchaser of property prove they acted in good faith and without notice of a prior contract to defeat a claim for specific performance?
- Can a court grant an interim injunction to restrain construction on a disputed property when a suit for specific performance is pending?
- Does the failure to conduct a search for encumbrances on a property defeat a claim of bona fide purchase?
- Mst. MAJIDAN. vs AKBAR1982 CLC 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAJIDAN vs AKBAR1982 CLC 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAHMUDA TEHSIN vs The SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another1982 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a property dispute concerning a plot of land on Mission Road, Lahore, which had been the subject of competing claims between the petitioner, an occupant, and the second respondent, an auction purchaser. Following previous litigation, the Supreme Court had directed that the petitioner’s entitlement to the land be limited to the specific portion in her actual possession. Subsequently, the Settlement Commissioner allowed the second respondent to be impleaded in the proceedings before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to determine the remaining land rights. The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition and a Letters Patent Appeal, both of which were dismissed. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner acted illegally or perversely in allowing the auction purchaser to be impleaded as a party. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner exercised valid discretion, as the auction purchaser had a legitimate interest in the remaining portion of the plot. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with this administrative discretion under its limited constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an auction purchaser is a necessary or proper party in proceedings to determine the entitlement of an occupant to a portion of the auctioned land?
- Does the Settlement Commissioner have the discretion to allow an auction purchaser to be impleaded in proceedings concerning the transfer of land?
- Can the High Court interfere with the exercise of discretion by a Settlement Commissioner in its constitutional jurisdiction when the decision is not illegal or perverse?
- Mst. MAH JABEEN vs GHULAM QADIR1982 CLC 2027 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. MA SOODA BEGUM vs BOSTAN KHAN1982 CLC 884 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM ETC. vs MR. GHULAM KUBRA ETC.S1982 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, landlords who had obtained a final ejectment order against respondent No. 3, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that stayed execution proceedings pending the adjudication of an objection petition filed jointly by the judgment-debtor and other respondents under Order XXI, rules 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal question was whether an executing court has the power to entertain and adjudicate an objection petition filed by third parties claiming an independent title or interest in the property before their actual physical dispossession. The Supreme Court held that while an executing court possesses the inherent jurisdiction to examine an objection petition from a genuine third party claiming in their own right prior to dispossession, an objection petition filed in collusion with the judgment-debtor to re-litigate matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is incompetent and mala fide. The Court laid down the principle that execution proceedings cannot be hijacked by the judgment-debtor or allied objectors acting on his behalf to subvert a final eviction order.
Questions settled- Whether an executing court can entertain an objection petition regarding immovable property before the actual physical dispossession of the objector?
- Can a judgment-debtor join other family members in an objection petition during execution to re-litigate issues that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Controller?
- Does an executing court possess inherent jurisdiction to determine whether a person claiming independent title is liable to be evicted under a decree passed against another?
- Mst. KHANDO AND 7 Other vs YOUSAF AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Peshawar 151 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHAIRA BIBI, ETC. vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1982 CLC 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHAIRA BIBI, ETC. vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMIS-1982 CLC 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHADEJA SHAMIMAKHTER AND Others vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND OTHER1982 CLC 2003 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHADEJA SHAMIM AKHTER AND Others vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2003 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. KANIZ FATIMA vs NOOR MU HAMM AD1982 CLC 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. KANIZ BIBI vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. KANIZ BIBI vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHER1982 CLC 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. KANEEZFATIMA AND OTHERS vs CHIEF SLR MEMENT & REHABILITATION1982 CLC 2227 (2) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA, ETC. vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 CLC 977 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA AND OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1982 CLC 2227 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. KALSOOM vs DISTRICT JUDGE, HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 2484 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. KALSOOM vs DISTRICT JUDGE, HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 2484 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. JAMILA MEHDI KHAN vs MUKHTAR AHMAD ARSHI AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 775 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. JALEESA BEGUM vs IQBAL AHMAD QURESHI1982 PLD Supreme Court 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal addressed whether, following the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repealing) Ordinance, 1974, a landlord was still required to serve a notice under Section 30 of the repealed Act to a tenant before initiating ejectment proceedings. The High Court had previously held that such notice remained a mandatory requirement, viewing it as a vested right under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the ejectment order. The Court held that the protection afforded to tenants under the repealed Act vanished upon its repeal. Relying on the principle that a mere right to take advantage of an enactment without any action taken to avail oneself of it does not constitute a 'right accrued,' the Court determined that the statutory obligation to serve notice did not survive the repeal. Consequently, the landlord was not required to serve such notice for ejectment applications filed after the repeal of the Act.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act survive the repeal of that Act?
- Is the right to receive notice under a repealed statute considered a 'right accrued' under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act?
- Can a tenant claim protection under a repealed statute if no action was taken to avail that protection prior to the repeal?
- Mst. IQBAL BEGUM UMAR DIN vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 SCMR 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. INAYAT BIBI AND Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 98 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. ILAM BIBI AND 9 OTHERS vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB AND ANOTHERs1982 CLC 2109 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. HAKAN AND Another vs JAMUN AND Other1982 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns a dispute over inheritance rights between the daughters of a deceased landowner and his collaterals. The central legal question was whether the suit property was ancestral or non-ancestral, a determination critical to establishing the applicable Customary Law and the burden of proof regarding the exclusion of daughters from inheritance. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently held the property to be non-ancestral, favoring the daughters. However, the High Court set aside these findings, relying on entries in the Riwaj-i-Am without explicitly determining the nature of the property or addressing the specific issues contested before the lower appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to decide the fundamental issue of the property's character, which governs the applicable custom and burden of proof. Furthermore, the High Court improperly adjudicated issues not raised before the District Judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing that material questions of fact must be resolved to determine the correct legal position.
Questions settled- Does the character of property as ancestral or non-ancestral determine the burden of proof regarding the exclusion of daughters from inheritance under Customary Law?
- Can a High Court in second appeal decide issues that were not contested before the first appellate court?
- Is a Riwaj-i-Am conclusive proof of custom without supporting instances?
- Mst. HAJRA BAI SULAIMAN vs Mst. AISHA BAI1982 CLC 1444 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges the concurrent orders of the Controller and the Additional District Judge, Karachi, which dismissed the appellant-landlady's application for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant. The core issues were whether the respondent committed default in rent payment by sending money orders in the name of the owner care of the appellant, and whether the appellant established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It held that the rent tender, though technically addressed to the owner care of the attorney, did not constitute a default. Furthermore, the appellant failed to substantiate her claim of personal need, as the family members cited as the basis for her requirement were no longer residing with her. The court established that a landlord must prove bona fide need through convincing evidence; mere desire or occupation of rented premises does not automatically entitle a landlord to ejectment without satisfying statutory requirements under the relevant rent control laws.
Questions settled- Does the tender of rent via money order in the name of the owner, care of the attorney, constitute a valid tender to prevent default?
- Is a landlord residing in rented premises automatically entitled to the ejectment of a tenant from their own property?
- What is the standard of proof required for a landlord to establish a bona fide personal requirement for ejectment?
- Mst. GHULAM SAKINA vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 488 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA AND ANOTHER vs BORDER AREA ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE1982 CLC 2217 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. FIRDOUS BEGUM vs DR. SHAMSUNNISSA1982 CLC 332 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first rent appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was filed against the Rent Controller's dismissal of an eviction application. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and creating a nuisance. On the issue of default, the Court held that upon the expiry of a written tenancy agreement, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant, and the specific payment timelines in the expired agreement cease to apply; hence, no default occurred. On the issue of nuisance, the tenant had allegedly beaten the landlord, threatened her, thrown rubbish, and intercepted her mail. The Court clarified that 'nuisance' under the rent laws is not restricted to 'public nuisance' as defined in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. It encompasses any act or conduct causing material injury, annoyance, or discomfort to an occupant of a building in the neighbourhood, which includes a landlord residing in the same building. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered eviction.
Questions settled- Does a tenant become a statutory tenant upon the expiry of a written lease agreement, rendering the specific terms of the expired agreement inapplicable to rent payment timelines?
- What constitutes a 'nuisance' under Section 13(2)(iv) of the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and is it limited to 'public nuisance' as defined in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a landlord residing in the same building as the tenant qualify as an occupant in the neighbourhood for the purpose of establishing a nuisance claim?
- Mst. FATIMA vs THE STATE1982 P Cr: L J 930 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA BIBI AND ANOTHER vs DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA AND 101982 CLC 122 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA BAI vs JAN MUHAMMAD1982 PLD Karachi 971 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. FARIDA BEGUM vs SHER ALI KHAN1982 PLD Lahore 667 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. FARHAT SUHARWARDY vs Haji ABDUL GHANI AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2149 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. FARHAT SUHARWARDY vs Haji ABDUL GHANI AND OTHER1982 CLC 2149 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. FARHAT AND Another vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAKHRUNNISA AND 6 Others vs AHMADUDDIN1982 CLC 2551 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAKHRA MALI K vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB LOCAL1982 PLD Lahore 606 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAHMIDA AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1097 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAHMEEDA KAUSAR vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a long-standing property dispute regarding the demarcation of two properties, No. 18 and No. 18/A, transferred to the respective parties under settlement laws. Following previous litigation, the Settlement Commissioner was tasked with demarcating the properties based on the Taxation record. Upon finding the Taxation record insufficient to define the specific boundaries, the Commissioner utilized historical documents, including a 1937 partition deed and mutation records, to identify the properties and prepare a site plan. The petitioner challenged this demarcation, arguing that the Commissioner exceeded his scope and disregarded her actual possession. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner acted within his authority by relying on historical records when the primary Taxation record proved ambiguous. The Court further held that questions regarding actual possession are factual in nature and that the Settlement Authority's findings, having been upheld by the High Court, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the demarcation as determined by the Settlement Commissioner.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner rely on historical documents like partition deeds and mutation records when the Taxation record is insufficient for property demarcation?
- Is the Supreme Court bound to re-examine factual findings regarding actual possession of property that have been determined by Settlement Authorities and upheld by the High Court?
- Does a Settlement Commissioner exceed the scope of a demarcation inquiry by utilizing additional historical records to clarify ambiguous Taxation entries?
- Mst. FAHMEEDA BEGUM vs Khawaja KHALID HAMEED AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 477 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1980-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. DAULAT SADRUDDIN vs Mst. BADAR JAHAN1982 CLC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. DA ULAT SADRUDDIN vs Mst. BADAR JAHAN1982 CLC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. BISMILLAH BEGUM vs PERVEZ SUBHANI AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 93 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. BILQUIS JEHAN BEGUM vs Mst. TAJWAR SULTAN AND 2 Other1982 PLD Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from proceedings under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, and subsequent execution proceedings where an objection petition filed by the petitioner against an ejectment order was dismissed by the lower courts without recording evidence. The core legal question was whether a third-party objector claiming possession through the judgment-debtor could maintain an objection petition in execution proceedings prior to physical dispossession. The Peshawar High Court held that while an executing court can entertain an objection petition before physical dispossession in cases where the objector asserts an independent title, where the objector claims possession derived directly from the judgment-debtor, actual dispossession remains a condition precedent for filing such an objection petition under Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petition was accordingly dismissed on the merits.
Questions settled- Can an objection petition be filed in execution proceedings by a person not dispossessed from the property?
- Does an executing court have the power to adjudicate an objection petition filed by persons claiming through the judgment-debtor before physical dispossession?
- Can the question of title be agitated in proceedings under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act?
- Mst. BILQUEES JEHAN BEGUM AND 12 OTHERS vs Mst. KHATOON FATIMA1982 CLC 451 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. BILQEES BEGUM vs Syed KHALID MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2460 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. BHAGO AND Others vs MASITAY KHAN ETC.S1982 SCMR 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the restoration of land allotments to displaced persons following the reversal of confiscation orders. The appellants, Mst. Bhago and Habib, were original allottees of land in lieu of property abandoned in India. Their allotment was initially confiscated under Martial Law Regulation No. 49. Following the cessation of these proceedings, the appellants sought restoration of their land. The Chief Settlement Commissioner directed a re-examination of inheritance mutations. Subsequently, a delegate Settlement Commissioner ordered the restoration of the land to the appellants, necessitating the cancellation of subsequent allotments made to the respondents. The High Court set aside this order, ruling that the Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to review the Chief Settlement Commissioner's prior directive. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Settlement Commissioner’s order did not constitute an improper review but rather a lawful implementation of the restoration of rights following the lifting of the confiscation order. The Court affirmed that the original allotment remained valid upon the removal of the confiscation, and the Settlement Commissioner acted within his authority under Section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
Questions settled- Does the lifting of a confiscation order by Martial Law Authorities automatically revive the original land allotment?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner order the restoration of land to original allottees after a prior confiscation order is rescinded?
- Does an order directing the implementation of land restoration constitute an improper review of a prior administrative directive?
- Mst. BASHIRAN BIBI vs Sh. ALTAF HUSSAIN AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. BANI AND ANOTHER vs HAROON AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1772 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. BALQIS BIBI vs ALLAH DITTA1982 CLC 920 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. BAKHAN (REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS) AND Another vs MURAD1982 SCMR 765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the nature of proprietary rights held by a Muslim widow. The core legal question is whether proprietary rights acquired by a widow under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, are terminated under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, even though that provision specifically addresses the termination of a limited estate held by a Muslim female under Customary Law. The petitioners argued that the High Court failed to consider a binding precedent, Mst. Begum v. Mst. Bai (PLD 1971 Lah. 567), which applied the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Ram Din v. Muhammad Din (PLD 1964 SC 842) to similar circumstances. Upon review, the Supreme Court found merit in the contention that the precedent supported the petitioners' position. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the statutory termination of limited estates under Customary Law extends to proprietary rights acquired under the 1912 Act.
Questions settled- Can proprietary rights acquired by a widow under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, be terminated under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
- Does the termination of a limited estate under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, apply to rights held under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
- Mst. BAIGAN vs ABDUL HAKEEM AND Another1982 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court restoring a Regular Second Civil Appeal that had been dismissed for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the respondents' counsel. The petitioner contended that the restoration application was improperly allowed, arguing that the counsel's absence was negligent, that the application was filed under the wrong provision of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the counsel failed to submit a personal affidavit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the counsel's absence was not due to negligence but resulted from an honest estimate of timings while attending to another bench, which was supported by his clerk's affidavit. The Court ruled that mentioning an incorrect statutory provision does not invalidate a flawless pleading, and that a counsel's explanation regarding engagement before another bench, when established, constitutes a valid ground for restoration. The Court also condemned the use of objectionable language against High Court judges in the petition's grounds.
Questions settled- Does the citation of an incorrect procedural provision in a restoration application render the application invalid?
- Can a counsel's engagement before another bench of the same High Court constitute sufficient cause for restoring an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Is a court bound to formally call upon a party to furnish evidence in rebuttal during an inquiry into a restoration application?
- Mst. BADARUN NISA AND OTHERS vs Kh. HIDAYATULLAH AND OTHER1982 CLC 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-03Read full judgment →