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 BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs QUTABUDDIN AND OTHERS1981 CLC 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND 9 OTHERS1981 CLC 98 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two civil revision petitions arising from concurrent decisions of the lower courts that dismissed objections regarding the time-barred status of execution petitions filed by pre-emptors. The core legal question was whether the execution petitions were filed within the period of limitation under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, considering that Article 182 had been deleted and stay orders or pending appeals had previously operated. The Lahore High Court held that the right to apply for execution accrued or the starting point of limitation commenced from the date of the formal High Court order holding the second appeal abated, and that under section 15 of the Limitation Act, the period during which execution remained stayed by injunction or order must be excluded. The court established the principle that where an appellate proceeding concludes with an order of abatement, such an order marks the withdrawal of the stay or provides the operative date from which limitation runs, ensuring execution petitions filed shortly thereafter are within time.
Questions settled- When does the period of limitation for filing an execution application begin when a second appeal has abated?
- Does the deletion of Article 182 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act make Article 181 applicable to execution applications?
- Whether the period during which execution remains stayed by an injunction or order should be excluded in computing limitation under the Limitation Act?
- MUHAMMAD AZIZULLAH KHAN SUMBAL vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 446 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAM vs KHALID JAVED GILLAN, ETC.S1981 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition arising from an order of the Supreme Court granting bail to the first respondent, who was facing trial for murder. The core legal question centered on whether grounds existed to review and recall the bail order, which had been granted primarily on the basis of a plea of alibi supported by a medical certificate from a doctor. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the applicant failed to establish any error on the face of the record, as the challenges raised against the medical officer's integrity, newspaper clippings, and the respondent's mental condition were either irrelevant, unsupported by admissible evidence, or attempts to introduce new material that could have been produced earlier. The Court laid down the principle that bail orders are based on tentative assessments of material, that observations made therein do not prejudice the trial court's independent evaluation of evidence, and that review petitions cannot be entertained on the basis of fresh evidence omitted through prior negligence.
Questions settled- Can a bail order be reviewed on the basis of new material that could have been produced at the original hearing through reasonable diligence?
- Whether newspaper reports can be treated as admissible evidence in judicial proceedings for the purpose of a review petition?
- Does an observation made in a bail order prejudice the trial court's final assessment of the evidence?
- MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN vs Mst. AKHTAR JEHAN BEGUM AND 5 OTHERS1981 CLC 1251 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAD KHAN vs THE STATE--despondent19813 P Cr. L J 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB vs WAPDA/1981 PLC 75 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1072 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB BUTT vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN AND Other1981 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB BUTT vs ALLIED BANK LTD., PESHAWAR AND Oti113rs1981 PLD Supreme Court 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of revision petitions by the Peshawar High Court, which had refused to interfere with orders passed by a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, over interlocutory orders passed by a Special Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the High Court lacks revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding orders of the Special Court. The Court established the principle that the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, is a special law that excludes the application of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Furthermore, a Special Court is not a 'subordinate court' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Ordinance expressly bars challenges to interlocutory orders, ensuring the finality of Special Court proceedings to facilitate expeditious recovery.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 over orders passed by a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Is a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 considered a subordinate court to the High Court for the purposes of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an appeal be filed against an interlocutory order that does not dispose of the entire case before a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- MUHAMMAD AWAIS vs DIRECTOR. OF EDUCATION, LAHORE DIVISION , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 470 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 308 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SUPERINTENDENT, WATCH & WARD, PAKISTAN1981 PLC 624 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI AND ANOTHER ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 856 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs RESIDENT ENGINEER, GAS TURBINE POWER, POWER1981 PLC 232 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-11-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND ANOTHER , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 648 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 646 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM ETC. vs The STATE1981 SCMR 591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's order dismissing the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 326, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite specific overt acts attributed to them in the F.I.R. and the potential application of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners argued that they acted in self-defence, citing their possession of the property where the incident occurred, and further contended that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence involves complex questions of fact requiring evidence, which the High Court correctly declined to determine at the bail stage. The Court affirmed that the High Court's discretion in refusing bail was not exercised perversely. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that disputed factual claims, such as the right of self-defence or the nature of the altercation, are not sufficient grounds for granting bail when specific incriminating acts are alleged.
Questions settled- Can a plea of self-defence be determined at the bail stage when it involves disputed questions of fact?
- Does the mere allegation of a sudden quarrel constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Is the status of a petitioner as a student a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in serious criminal offences?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHEEMA vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL1981 PLC (C. S.) 864 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASIF vs MESSRS M. H. JAN MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1981 PLC 387 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASIF Alias NIKKA vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1029 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs WAPDA , .1981 PLC 457 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE1981 PLD FSC 323 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-07-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs GHULAM NABI AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 817 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs GENERAL MANAGER, ARMY WELFARE FOOD INDUSTRIES1981 PLC 451 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs DOST MUHAMMAD ETC.S1981 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the scope of review powers exercised by the Board of Revenue and the interpretation of government instructions regarding the disposal of 'Thara' sites (open spaces) in Sargodha. The core legal questions were whether a successor Member of the Board of Revenue could review a predecessor's order based on a different interpretation of facts, and whether the 'frontage' principle was the correct criterion for transferring these sites. The Supreme Court held that the power of review under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, is limited to grounds analogous to Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, such as an error apparent on the face of the record. It ruled that a mere difference of opinion or a re-evaluation of evidence does not constitute a valid ground for review. The Court affirmed that the 'frontage' principle, ensuring Tharas are transferred to the owner of the shop they front, was the correct interpretation of the government's policy. Consequently, the review order was set aside, and the original order restored.
Questions settled- Does a mere difference of opinion between two Members of the Board of Revenue constitute a valid ground for the exercise of review jurisdiction?
- Is the scope of review under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, limited to grounds analogous to Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a successor Member of the Board of Revenue review an order passed by their predecessor?
- Does the frontage of a shop create a preferential right to the purchase of an adjacent Thara site under government policy?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BUTT vs WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS, .1981 PLC 576 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1981-06-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHERS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS.(1981 PLC (C. S.) 731 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND Anothnrs vs The STATE1981 SCMR 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for special leave to appeal challenged the conviction and sentences of the petitioners, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Akram, for murder and attempted murder committed during an attempted robbery on a train. The petitioners were initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the High Court subsequently dismissing their appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the identification parade was legally flawed due to alleged police interference and that the court relied on an incorrect railway timetable. They further argued that their apprehension near the railway track was implausible. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding no evidence to substantiate the claims regarding the identification parade or the railway timetable's impact on the court's findings. The Court held that the petitioners' arguments failed to undermine the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court.
Questions settled- Does an unsubstantiated objection regarding the conduct of an identification parade suffice to invalidate the identification process?
- Can a conviction be challenged on the basis of a minor discrepancy in a railway timetable if the court's conclusion regarding the occurrence remains unaffected?
- Is the apprehension of accused persons near a crime scene inherently unbelievable?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND Another vs JAN MUHAMMAD1981 SCMR 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment, damage to the property, and personal requirement for setting up his son in business. The Rent Controller ordered eviction after finding default and establishing bona fide requirement, but the Additional District Judge on appeal condoned the default as technical and set aside the eviction. The Lahore High Court allowed the landlord's second appeal and restored the eviction order. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's alleged misreading of the written statement vitiated the appreciation of evidence regarding default. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding a wilful default of fifteen months and the lack of credible explanation or consent for delayed payments justified the eviction, and that a landlord is not barred from setting up a son in business merely because the sons are currently cultivating agricultural land. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a delay of fifteen months in the payment of rent constitutes a wilful default warranting eviction?
- Can a landlord seek the eviction of a tenant for personal requirement to set up a son in business merely because the son is engaged in cultivating agricultural land?
- Whether an appellate court is justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding a tenant's default in rent?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 6 Other vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH KHAN1981 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the appellants in respect of certain premises originally transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the legal heirs of the deceased statutory tenant on grounds of default, personal need, and property damage. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate court ordered ejectment. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that certain legal heirs were not properly served, that counsel lacked authority to represent some appellants, that the non-joinder of certain co-heirs was fatal, and that ejectment on personal need was initiated before the expiry of the statutory six-year protection period under Section 30 of the 1958 Act. The High Court held that the appellants were either properly represented or had notice and chose not to appear, that non-joinder of absent co-heirs not in possession was not fatal, and that a cause of action maturing during the pendency of proceedings cures any premature initiation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment application is rendered incompetent by the non-joinder of certain legal heirs of a deceased statutory tenant who are not in possession of the disputed premises?
- Can an ejectment proceeding initiated before the expiry of the six-year statutory protection period under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 be sustained if the said period expires during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Whether a tenant who has been personally served but fails to enter an appearance can later challenge an ejectment order on the ground of lack of representation or opportunity of being heard?
- Does the failure to frame an issue regarding the service of notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 vitiate proceedings when the receipt of such notice is admitted in the pleadings?
- MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 928 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHIQ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1343 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND 2 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHERS1981 CLC 1494 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE STATE1981 PLD FSC 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for review filed in a criminal appeal decided by the Federal Shariat Court on 28 March 1981, following the recent conferral of review powers upon the Court. The core legal question concerns the scope and exercise of this newly granted review jurisdiction in criminal appeals where no formal rules have yet been framed. The Court held that the power of review is discretionary in nature, and the Court elects to be guided by the principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the review of criminal cases. Consequently, the Court ruled that it will not normally interfere in the exercise of review jurisdiction with decisions previously rendered in criminal appeals, noting that such jurisdiction was primarily conferred in connection with Shariat Petitions. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Shariat Court can exercise review jurisdiction over its decisions given in criminal appeals?
- What principles govern the exercise of review jurisdiction by the Federal Shariat Court in the absence of framed rules?
- Is the power of review conferred upon the Federal Shariat Court mandatory or discretionary?
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD MEDICAL COLLEGE AND Another1981 SCMR 1196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the refusal of King Edward Medical College, Lahore, to admit him on merit. The petitioner had previously secured admission to Ayub Medical College on a reserved seat for Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas. The core legal question was whether a candidate already admitted to a medical college on a reserved seat is entitled to apply for and claim fresh admission on merit in another medical college. The Supreme Court held that the authorities rightly excluded the petitioner pursuant to the prospectus rule prohibiting a candidate previously admitted in another medical college from applying for fresh admission. The Court ruled that a candidate who has opted for a special seat cannot claim seats in the general quota and that his remedy lies in seeking readmission in the college where he was previously admitted. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate previously admitted to a medical college on a reserved seat can apply for fresh admission to another medical college on merit?
- Does opting for a special or reserved seat disentitle a candidate from competing for seats available in the general quota?
- Can a candidate claim admission to a particular medical college as a matter of legal right after securing a seat in another medical college?
- MUHAMMAD ARIF vs The STATE1981 SCMR 820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No. 97 of 1977, dated 26th July 1977, whereby bail previously granted to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge was cancelled. The case arose from an FIR registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging that the petitioner held the deceased in a Japha (embrace/grapple), facilitating his co-accused to deliver fatal dagger blows. The petitioner contended that he was empty-handed, that allegations of Japha are frequently fabricated to falsely implicate individuals, that a co-accused had been discharged, and sought the benefit of doubt for grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in cancelling bail. The Court observed that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot and that a specific, definite allegation of holding the deceased in a Japha was attributed to him in the FIR. At this preliminary stage, benefit of doubt could not be extended. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who allegedly held the deceased in a Japha to facilitate co-accused in inflicting fatal injuries is entitled to the grant of bail?
- Can the benefit of doubt be extended at the bail stage to an accused captured on the spot with a specific role assigned in the FIR?
- Whether the High Court properly exercises its discretion by cancelling bail granted to an accused assigned the role of catching hold (Japha) of the deceased during a murder?
- MUHAMMAD ARIF vs LIAQUAT ALI AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 591 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AREF EFFENDI vs EGYPT AIR, KARACHI1981 CLC 993 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AQIL vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 402 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND .2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 343 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Mst. NAFEESA BEGUM1981 PLD Karachi 85 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs ABDUL MAJEED AND 6 Other1981 PLD Karachi 528 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR ETC. vs Mst. SOMA1981 CLC 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's order entertaining a pre-emption appeal without a copy of the decree-sheet. The respondent filed a pre-emption suit which was dismissed by the trial court. The respondent appealed, but failed to append a copy of the decree-sheet to the memorandum of appeal as mandated by law. The lower appellate court entertained the appeal reasoning that the trial court had not drawn up the decree-sheet, making its preparation an exercise in futility. The core legal question is whether an appeal can be entertained and properly instituted without being accompanied by a copy of the decree-sheet. The High Court held that the lower appellate court erred in law by dispensing with the requirement of a decree-sheet, as an appeal not accompanied by a copy of the decree cannot be deemed to have been properly instituted. The revision is accepted, the appellate judgment is set aside, and the trial court's judgment is restored, leaving it open for the respondent to move the trial court for the preparation of the decree-sheet in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be properly instituted under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without being accompanied by a copy of the decree-sheet?
- Whether a lower appellate court can dispense with the mandatory requirement of filing a copy of the decree-sheet with the memorandum of appeal?
- What is the legal effect on an appeal filed without the annexation of the required copy of the decree-sheet?
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS JAWADAN CEMENT LTD. AND 61981 PLC 788 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE,1981 P Cr. L J 236 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AND OTHER vs THE STATE1981 PLD SC 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was directed against a decision of the High Court confirming the appellants' conviction and sentences under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the testimony of ocular witnesses who were close relatives of the deceased required independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and whether the evidence of recovery of weapons of offence could be established solely on the testimony of an investigating police officer after the private recovery witness was disbelieved. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions. The Court held that the eye-witnesses, including an injured witness, were natural and reliable, particularly as they were also closely related to the appellants and would not falsely implicate them. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that the evidence of a police officer regarding recovery cannot be automatically discredited or rejected merely because of his official status as a policeman, provided his testimony is trustworthy.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of a police officer sufficient to prove the recovery of crime weapons if the private recovery witness is disbelieved?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of eye-witnesses who are closely related to both the victim and the accused?
- Does the mere status of a witness as a police officer render his testimony regarding recoveries unreliable in a criminal trial?
- MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs NAZIR AHMED AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 912 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions for special leave to appeal along with a criminal miscellaneous application for the cancellation of bail previously granted to the petitioners Muhammad Amin and Irshad Ahmad Khan. The core legal question concerns whether bail granted through interim orders should be cancelled or continued while committal proceedings are ongoing before the magistrate. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that it would be inappropriate to express any opinion on the nature and quality of the prosecution evidence while inquiry proceedings were nearing completion. Consequently, the court decided to allow the interim bail orders to stand and left the determination of bail to the concerned trial court upon the committal of the petitioners to the Court of Session, with the consent of the parties. The key principle laid down is that where inquiry proceedings are at a concluding stage, superior courts may maintain interim bail and defer the question of post-arrest bail to the trial court upon committal.
Questions settled- Should interim bail be continued when inquiry proceedings are near completion?
- Can the Supreme Court defer the decision of bail to the trial court upon committal of the accused?
- MUHAMMAD AMIN vs MUHAMMAD GULZAR AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the acquittal of the respondents in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in acquitting the respondents, who claimed the right of private defence, and whether the appellate court should have interfered with the trial court's findings. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's findings, which were based on evidence including the presence of injuries on both sides and the recovery of broken furniture, were neither perverse nor flimsy. Consequently, the High Court correctly declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to order a retrial. The Supreme Court affirmed that where both parties sustain injuries in an occurrence, the plea of private defence is a valid consideration, and in the absence of legal error or perversity in the assessment of evidence by the trial court, the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal, nor will it re-evaluate the evidence to substitute its own findings.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal where the trial court's findings are based on evidence and are not perverse?
- Does a co-accused have the right of private defence if they acted to protect their companion who was also injured in the same occurrence?
- Is a case of sudden fight under Exception IV to section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, applicable when both parties have sustained injuries?
- MUHAMMAD AMIN AND Another vs THE STATE1981 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 6 Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMETN COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 3 Other1981 SCMR 689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the cancellation of a temporary garden allotment made in favor of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest and its subsequent re-allotment to another respondent in 1961 by an officer of the Central Record Office. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners' challenge against the allegedly without-jurisdiction cancellation and re-allotment orders was barred by laches due to their pursuit of departmental verification remedies rather than timely approaching the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the petitioners contended the cancelling officer lacked competence and that no departmental appeal lay against such orders, their failure to promptly challenge the orders via a writ petition and instead pursuing delayed verification proceedings for several years constituted fatal laches. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that inordinate delay in seeking constitutional remedies cannot be condoned based on mistaken departmental pursuits.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition challenging an allotment cancellation order is barred by laches when the petitioner pursues departmental verification instead of timely judicial remedies?
- Can a party be excused for delay in approaching the High Court on the ground that they were pursuing administrative proceedings before departmental authorities?
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALAI3AD ETC. , _1981 PLC (C. S.) 533 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 7 Other1981 SCMR 852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the resumption of property (House No. 5-6/4, Quetta) by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the resumption of property and subsequent auction to the petitioner were validly executed despite procedural lapses in serving notice and providing the defaulter an opportunity to pay the transfer price. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the resumption order was invalid due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of paragraph 3(2) of Chapter II of Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Court emphasized that substituted service by publication did not absolve the authorities from the obligation to inform the defaulter of the cancellation order, which would have allowed them to pay the outstanding transfer price. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding lack of locus standi, affirming that the legal representatives of a deceased transferee possess the right to pursue litigation concerning valuable property rights. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does substituted service by publication satisfy the mandatory requirement to inform a defaulter of a property resumption order under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Can the legal representatives of a deceased transferee maintain a constitutional petition to challenge the resumption of property?
- Does the failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements in Settlement Scheme No. VIII invalidate an order of property resumption?
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs HASAN BIBI AND Other1981 SCMR 875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Ali Shah against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his Second Appeal from Order in a rent case. The core legal question concerned the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and whether the petitioner was a defaulter in the payment of rent. The Supreme Court held that the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant is a question of fact conclusively decided by three courts below through concurrent findings, and since the petitioner admittedly failed to pay rent to the landlord, he was rightly ordered to be evicted. The petition was dismissed with costs as it was found to be without any substantial ground and filed merely to gain time.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant is a question of fact concluded by concurrent findings of the lower forums?
- Can a tenant who admits non-payment of rent to the claimed landlord be classified as a defaulter?
- MUHAMMAD ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1210 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs KARAM ILAHI1981 CLC 589 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs BATOOL BIBI1981 CLC 816 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM BUTT vs GHULAM RASUL1981 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's ejectment from the disputed premises. The core legal question concerns the validity of ex parte proceedings taken against the petitioner following the administrative transfer of the rent case to another Rent Controller, and whether the petitioner had proper notice of such transfer. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the petitioner's counsel did appear before the transferee Court—thereby establishing notice—and that the petitioner had no case on merits were unexceptionable and did not warrant interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, granting the petitioner three months to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Whether ex parte proceedings can be initiated when a case is transferred administratively and the party or their counsel fails to appear after initial appearance?
- Does a concurrent finding of fact regarding the appearance of counsel before a transferee court warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND 2 OTHERS vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI,1981 PLC 522 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR ETC. vs ABDUL HADI ETC.1981 SCMR 878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a landlord-tenant dispute wherein the tenant instituted a fresh civil suit challenging the landlord's title and seeking a declaration that prior orders, including a final Supreme Court order confirming ownership, were illegal and obtained by fraud. The trial court and first appellate court rejected the suit, but the High Court remanded the matter on second appeal, holding that the plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave, reversed the High Court's decision, and restored the rejection of the plaint. The Supreme Court held that Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not exhaustive regarding summary dismissal or rejection of a plaint. It further ruled that re-agitating settled title issues constitutes an abuse of the process of law. Crucially, under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, any challenge to a final judgment or decree on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction must be brought by filing an application before the court that passed the final order, rather than through an independent suit.
Questions settled- Is Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exhaustive of all situations in which a plaint can be rejected or a suit dismissed summarily?
- Can a separate civil suit be filed to challenge a final judgment or order on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does re-agitating a title already conclusively determined by the Supreme Court constitute an abuse of the process of law justifying summary rejection of a plaint?
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN vs BAHADUR KHAN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1516 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND 6 Other1981 SCMR 773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This leave to appeal petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing to cancel the pre-trial bail granted to the respondents who are accused in a murder case registered under sections 148 and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the propriety of cancelling bail on the grounds of subsequent submission of the challan and allegations of witness tampering. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where the State has already initiated security proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to address threats to prosecution witnesses, interference with the bail order is unwarranted at this stage. The Court laid down the principle that if police remedial action proves ineffective and accused persons persist in tampering with witnesses, the petitioner may approach the committing court under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for cancellation of bail, regardless of the High Court's earlier refusal order. Consequently, the leave petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted due to delayed challan and conflicting police reports should be cancelled upon the subsequent submission of the challan?
- Can bail be cancelled on the ground that the accused are attempting to suborn prosecution witnesses when the State has already initiated security proceedings?
- Does a High Court order refusing to cancel bail prevent the committing court from subsequently cancelling bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the accused persist in tampering with witnesses?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs The STATE1981SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed challenging the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 31st May 1980 on the ground that it constituted a nullity in law. The petitioner contended that the appeal was originally heard by a four-Judge Bench comprising the Chief Justice and three other Judges, but due to an inadvertent omission of the Chief Justice's name from the judgment sheet panel, the draft judgment was never circulated to him for his opinion, resulting in a judgment delivered by only three Judges. The Supreme Court acknowledged the substance of this submission, observing that the failure to circulate the judgment to a member of the Bench who had heard the appeal constituted a serious shortcoming requiring the rehearing of the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalled its previous judgment dated 31st May 1980, and directed that the main appeal be listed for rehearing before the Bench.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment delivered without circulating the opinion to a member of the Bench who heard the appeal is a nullity in the eye of law?
- Can a judgment be recalled on review if a Judge who originally heard the appeal was inadvertently omitted from giving his opinion?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 454 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs Haji ABDUL JALIL1981 PLD Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHAUDHRI vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION , . (1981 PLC (C. S.) 846 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFSAR AND Another vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 863 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABM HUSSAIN KHAN vs MESSRS BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI,1981 PLC 180 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs THE STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four criminal appeals and a review petition challenging convictions for corruption-related offences. The core legal question is whether the statutory requirement for prior sanction for prosecution under Section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, applies to an accused who was a public servant at the time of the alleged offence but had ceased to be one by the time of prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the requirement for prior sanction for prosecution under the Act does not extend to individuals who are no longer public servants at the time the court takes cognizance of the offence. The Court reaffirmed that the protection afforded by the Act is intended for serving public servants to ensure the orderly functioning of public services. The Court clarified that the explanation regarding the 'appropriate Government' in Section 6(5) serves only to identify the relevant authority for granting sanction when it is required, not to extend the scope of the protection itself. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the earlier precedents correctly interpreted the law.
Questions settled- Is prior sanction for prosecution under Section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 required for a person who has ceased to be a public servant at the time of prosecution?
- Does the definition of 'appropriate Government' in the explanation to Section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 extend the requirement of sanction to former public servants?
- Does the jurisdiction of a Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 terminate if the accused ceases to be a public servant before the trial?
- Mufti MUSHTAQ AHMED ) vs TIDE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD Supreme Court 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing an appeal against removal from service as incompetent and time-barred. The core legal questions were whether a railway employee performing clerical duties at the relevant time is a civil servant or a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, and whether an order passed in departmental revision after 1st July 1969 constitutes the final departmental order for maintainability under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Supreme Court held that determining whether an employee is a workman or a civil servant depends on the nature of duties actually performed at the relevant time rather than mere job designation. Because the appellant was performing clerical duties when the charges arose, he was a civil servant. Additionally, the court held that final orders under Section 4 include revisional orders exhausting departmental remedies. Since the Vice-Chairman of the Railway Board passed the revisional order after 1st July 1969, the appeal was competent. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and remitted the matter to the Service Tribunal for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does the nature of duties actually performed at the relevant time determine whether an employee is a civil servant or a workman?
- Does a departmental revisional order constitute a final order for the purpose of filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Ordinance 1973?
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal maintainable where the final departmental revisional order was passed after 1st July 1969?
- MUFIA/%41vIAD SHAREEF vs MESSRS NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.1981 PLC 921 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- MUBARIK ALI AND Another vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. LJ 986 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from the conviction and sentencing of two appellants under Section 156(1)(89) read with Section 178 of the Customs Act 1969, following their plea of guilty before the trial court. The appellants were charged with possession of foreign playing cards, padlocks, and glass water-sets. On appeal, a preliminary objection was raised by the State under Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the maintainability of the appeal after a plea of guilty. The High Court held that a plea of guilty does not bar an accused from challenging the prosecution if the alleged facts do not constitute an offence in law, nor does it allow the court to apply the law incorrectly. On the merits, the court observed that under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act 1969, the offence of smuggling requires the goods to be notified by the Federal Government and to exceed Rs. 1,000 in value. Only playing cards were notified under S.R.O. No. 1426(1)/73, and the prosecution failed to prove that their value exceeded Rs. 1,000. Absent proof of this jurisdictional fact, the conviction was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal from a conviction based on a plea of guilty is maintainable when the alleged facts fail to establish a criminal offence in law?
- Does an accused person's plea of guilty relieve the court of its duty to ensure that the ingredients of the charged offence are actually satisfied?
- Can a conviction for smuggling under Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act 1969 stand where the prosecution fails to establish that the notified goods exceeded Rs. 1,000 in value?
- Mst.AISHABAI AND 3 Other vs Mianakber HUSSAIN1981 PLD Karachi 52 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal challenged an order dismissing an execution application as time-barred. The primary legal questions were whether the appeal itself was filed within the limitation period, considering the 'time requisite' for obtaining certified copies, and whether Article 183 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to execution applications of decrees passed by the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The Court held that the appeal was maintainable because the 'time requisite' for obtaining copies extends until the litigant is informed that the copy is ready; where the court office fails to provide such notice, the period until actual delivery is excluded. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction, thus Article 183 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies, providing a six-year limitation period for execution. Consequently, the execution application was not time-barred. The principle established is that 'time requisite' under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 may be extended by the office's failure to notify the litigant of copy readiness, and that Article 183 governs execution of High Court original side decrees.
Questions settled- Does the 'time requisite' for obtaining copies under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 include the period after a copy is ready if the court office fails to notify the applicant?
- Does the High Court exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 183 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- What is the limitation period for the execution of a decree passed by the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction?
- Mst. ZULLO BAI vs M. A. RAHIM AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 48 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZULEKHAN vs NAIMATULLAH AND Another1981 P Cr. L J 1230 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZUBAIDA BAI vs II ND RENT CONTROLLER, CITY COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 82 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a landlady challenging an order of the Rent Controller directing the restoration of possession of the rented premises to the tenant. The landlady had originally obtained an ex parte ejectment order, which was executed with police aid. Subsequently, the appellate court set aside the ex parte order on the ground of non-service of notice and remanded the case. The tenant then applied for restitution of possession under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which the Rent Controller allowed. The landlady contended that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to order restitution as Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply to rent proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the power of restitution is inherent in the court to ensure that no act of the court causes injury to a suitor. When an ejectment order is reversed, restitution must follow automatically to restore the parties to their original position, and the Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to enforce this obligation.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to order restitution of possession to a tenant after an ex parte ejectment order is set aside on appeal?
- Is the power of restitution dependent solely on Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or is it an inherent power of the court to prevent injury to suitors?
- Can a party seek discretionary constitutional relief against an order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction if they failed to raise that jurisdictional objection before the lower tribunal?
- Mst. ZOHRA IRSHAD AND, Anqthers vs MESSRS S. K. & F. COMPANYPLD 1981 Supreme Court 598. · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines whether the Rent Controller and appellate authorities were justified in ordering the ejectment of the tenant appellants for default in rent, notwithstanding a payment of Rs. 30,000 made to a partner of the landlord firm. The core legal questions involved the limited and special jurisdiction of the Rent Controller regarding money claims, the nature of tentative rent orders under rent restriction laws, and whether unrelated financial transactions or loans can be adjusted against monthly rent or shield a tenant from default. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's jurisdiction is restricted to matters specified in the relevant rent ordinance and cannot extend to adjudicating upon independent money lending, borrowing, or loan repayment disputes totally unconnected with the tenancy. Furthermore, interlocutory tentative rent orders do not operate as res judicata for final adjudications. The Court ruled that the payment of Rs. 30,000 was not advance rent and could not be set off against rental default, affirming the concurrent findings of lower tribunals and dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller extends to adjudicating upon money lending, borrowing, and repayment disputes totally unconnected with the tenancy?
- Does a tentative rent order passed under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 operate as res judicata on the ultimate outcome of proceedings after evidence is recorded?
- Can an independent loan or payment made to a partner of a landlord firm be adjusted towards monthly rent to save a tenant from default?
- Whether a Rent Controller is justified in ordering ejectment of a tenant who fails to pay rent for the disputed period and whose plea of advance rent is found to be unsubstantiated?
- Mst. ZAINAB JAN vs ABDUL RASHID1981 CLC 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioner-tenant's suit for a permanent injunction against forcible ejectment was dismissed at the preliminary stage for allegedly failing to disclose a cause of action. The core legal question was whether a trial court can dismiss a suit or reject a plaint by looking beyond the contents of the plaint and examining evidentiary documents at the preliminary stage without framing issues or recording evidence. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision, holding that for the purpose of rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the court must examine the plaint alone and nothing else, and that the petitioner's plaint did disclose a cause of action. The court laid down the principle that a suit cannot be dismissed or a plaint rejected on the basis of extraneous material or a lack of supporting documents at the pre-trial stage without trial on merits.
Questions settled- Can a trial court dismiss a suit at a preliminary stage by examining documents outside the plaint?
- What material can a court examine when considering the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a suit seeking a permanent injunction against forcible ejectment disclose a cause of action when a tenant alleges threats of illegal eviction?
- Mst. ZAINAB BIBI AND Other vs Mst. BILQIS BIBI AND Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the distribution of the estate of the late Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, specifically regarding the legitimacy of his marriage to the first appellant, Mst. Zainab Bibi, and the legitimacy of their children. The core legal questions were whether the first appellant's conversion to Christianity during her prior marriage to another man automatically dissolved that marriage, and whether her subsequent marriage to the deceased was valid. The Supreme Court held that under the law applicable in 1924, a Muslim wife's apostasy from Islam automatically dissolved her marriage, rendering her free to remarry. The Court further held that the baptism certificate produced was admissible and substantive evidence, and that the deceased's repeated public acknowledgments of the first appellant as his wife and the other appellants as his children were of high probative value, sufficient to establish the marriage and legitimacy. The Court laid down that in civil proceedings, the standard of proof is a preponderance of probability, and that solemn admissions made by a deceased person in prior court proceedings regarding his marital status are highly reliable evidence.
Questions settled- Did the apostasy of a Muslim wife from Islam automatically dissolve her marriage prior to the enactment of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939?
- Is a baptism certificate admissible and substantive evidence under the Evidence Act 1872 when the author is unavailable to testify?
- Does Section 4 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 have retrospective effect on marriages dissolved by apostasy before its enactment?
- What is the evidentiary value of solemn admissions made by a deceased person in prior court proceedings regarding their marital status?
- Mst. ZAIBUNNISSA vs MUHAMMAD QASSAM AND 4 Others1981 CLC 1275 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAIBUN NISA AND Others vs Syed AMJAD HUSSAIN BOKHARI AND Another1981 SCMR 1065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed against the order of the High Court upholding the decision of the District Judge, which ordered the eviction of the petitioners on the ground of genuine bona fide personal need of the landlords. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the appellate authority in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the District Judge did not suffer from any omission or misreading of evidence, and therefore the High Court's refusal to interfere under its Constitutional jurisdiction was fully justified. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by a lower appellate court based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction unless vitiated by misreading or non-reading of the record.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact recorded by a District Judge in Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does a finding of fact based on evidence suffer from infirmity merely due to re-appraisal without showing omission or misreading of the record?
- Mst. ZAHOOR ELAHI vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 700 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. WARKHEMA AND 4 OTHERS vs ABDUL RASHEED AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 944 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. TAHSIN SHAFQAT vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1981 CLC 1663 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. SURRAYA AZEEM vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF SETTLEMENT1981 CLC 938 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM vs ASHFAQ AHMAD BUTTP L D1981 Lahore 393 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. SUBHAN KHATOON vs NAZAR MUHAMMAD Arm Otheri1981 PLD Karachi 474 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. SIFTAN vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHARMAN AND 5 Other vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.1981 PLD Karachi 701 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for damages was brought under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 by the mother and minor siblings of an eight-year-old boy who died of electrocution after stepping into rainwater accumulated around broken overhead electric wires belonging to the defendant corporation. The plaintiffs alleged negligence in maintaining safety devices and failing to act promptly upon receiving telephone complaints. The defendant claimed the incident was an act of God caused by heavy rain uprooting a tree, asserted strict compliance with safety rules, and contended that siblings are not statutory beneficiaries under the Act.
The Sindh High Court held that the defendant failed to show that reasonable maintenance and pre-monsoon safety checks had been carried out, rendering the failure of protective safety mechanisms a direct result of actionable negligence rather than an act of God. The Court ruled that siblings are not entitled to claim compensation under Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, making the mother the sole beneficiary. Assessing expected financial support based on a standard expected lifespan of 60 years in Pakistan, the Court decreed damages in favor of the mother while dismissing the siblings' suit.
Questions settled- Are siblings of a deceased person entitled to claim damages as beneficiaries in a suit filed under Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855?
- Whether the defense of an act of God applies to an electrocution accident when a electricity supply company fails to prove proper maintenance of protective safety measures?
- What is the standard expected span of human life in Pakistan for the purpose of calculating financial loss in fatal accident cases in the absence of evidence shortening or lengthening life expectancy?
- Mst. SHARIFAN BEGUM vs THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1981 CLC 1514 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. SHAMSUNISSA vs Smt. NIRMALA1981 CLC 1745 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR vs Mst. INSHA ALLAH BEGUM1981 CLC 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. SALMA ABBASI AND ANOTHER vs AHMED SULEMAN AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 462 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted for the recovery of mesne profits and possession of a disputed portion of land measuring 10 ghuntas, which the plaintiffs claimed to have purchased from an evacuee property transferee. The core legal questions involved the validity of the transfer of evacuee property, the legality of partition orders passed by Rehabilitation Authorities regarding joint evacuee and non-evacuee land, the operational date of a registered sale deed under section 47 of the Registration Act 1908, and whether a suit for possession and mesne profits by a co-sharer could be maintained or converted into a suit for partition in the absence of necessary parties. The Sindh High Court held that while the transfer of the evacuee share was valid and the sale deed operated from its date of execution prior to the suit, the Rehabilitation Authorities lacked jurisdiction to partition joint evacuee and non-evacuee property. Furthermore, the court held that although a court has the power to grant a partition decree even without an express prayer, it cannot do so when necessary co-sharer parties are not impleaded. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities are competent to partition property jointly owned by evacuees and non-evacuees?
- From which date does a registered document operate under section 47 of the Registration Act 1908?
- Can a court grant a decree for partition in a suit for possession when partition has not been expressly prayed for?
- Are all co-sharers necessary parties in a suit for partition of joint land such that no effective decree can be passed in their absence?
- Mst. SAKINA ETC vs THE STATE1981 PLD F SC 320 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-08-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BEGUM vs Mst. SURAT BIBI1981 CLC 398 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAEEDA vs LAL BADSHAH1981 SCMR 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from family court proceedings where the wife sought dissolution of marriage and insisted on the personal presence of her husband on each date of hearing. The Family Court dismissed her application, allowing the husband to be represented by an agent or counsel, a view upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether it is obligatory for parties to be personally present on each date of hearing under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and whether the provision permitting representation for pardanashin ladies excludes general representation by counsel. The Supreme Court held that the personal attendance of parties is not indispensable and that a party can be represented by an agent or counsel, as section 18 of the Family Courts Act does not take away the right of an advocate to appear and act for a client under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is it obligatory for parties to be personally present on each date of hearing in proceedings under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Does Section 18 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 take away the right of a counsel to appear and act for a client under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973?
- Can a party to a family suit be represented by an agent or counsel during proceedings?
- Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN AND OTHERS1981 CLC 620 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →