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 ANWAR BUTT vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR1980 CLC 598 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANSARUL ISLAM QARNI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Public Prosecutor, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing his constitutional petition regarding his service status and promotion. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner’s re-engagement in 1978 constituted reinstatement or a fresh appointment, and whether the government was bound by seniority in promoting an Assistant Public Prosecutor to the position of District Public Prosecutor under the Sind Law Officers (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1940. The Supreme Court held that the notification of the petitioner's 1978 engagement used the term "appoint," clearly denoting a fresh appointment rather than reinstatement. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim seniority based on his prior service. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court’s finding that Rule 3-B(i) of the Rules confers discretion upon the government to select candidates for promotion based on merit rather than strictly adhering to seniority. The petition was dismissed, establishing that where service rules grant discretionary power for promotion, seniority is not the sole or pivotal consideration, and the specific language of an appointment notification determines the nature of service tenure.
Questions settled- Does the use of the word "appoint" in a government notification imply a fresh appointment rather than reinstatement?
- Does Rule 3-B(i) of the Sind Law Officers (Conditions of Service) Rules 1940 mandate that promotions be based strictly on seniority?
- Can a government exercise discretion in selecting candidates for promotion to the post of District Public Prosecutor?
- MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1929 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 256 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs ZAHID HUSSAIN1980 PLD Rev. 22 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1976-07-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMJAD vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE1980 CLC 237 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 954 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ETC.1980 PLC (C. S.) 665 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 195 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Drug Court under the Drugs Act, 1976, for an offense allegedly committed under the repealed Drugs Act, 1940. The core legal question revolves around whether the Drug Court constituted under the 1976 Act possessed retrospective jurisdiction to try offenses committed during the operation of the repealed 1940 Act, and whether a change of forum affecting substantive rights can operate retrospectively. The Lahore High Court held that the Drugs Act, 1976, is prospective in operation and does not possess retrospective effect to take cognizance of offenses committed under the repealed 1940 Act, particularly where the new forum and penalties affect substantive rights of appeal and defense. The court laid down the principle that penal statutes and changes in forum that impair existing rights or remedies are prospective only, and a tribunal established under a new enactment cannot assume jurisdiction over offenses committed under a repealed statute unless expressly or by necessary implication provided by the legislature.
Questions settled- Whether the Drug Court constituted under the Drugs Act, 1976 has jurisdiction to try offenses committed under the repealed Drugs Act, 1940?
- Does a change of forum under a new enactment operate retrospectively when it affects substantive rights of appeal and penalties?
- Can an accused person in criminal proceedings be estopped from raising the plea of lack of jurisdiction for the first time on appeal?
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs Mst. ASKARI BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 44 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALAMGIR KHAN vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 23 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALAM KHOSO vs DIVISIONAL COMMITTEE, SUKKUR DIVISION, SUKKUR AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 97 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AL1 vs Haji ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a second appeal by the Baluchistan High Court, which upheld the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a plot of land. The core legal question concerned whether a landlord who is not the registered owner can seek eviction for reconstruction under Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when the building sanction was obtained in the name of the owners (his sons), and whether such a landlord satisfies the definition of 'landlord' under Section 2(c) of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent, who leased the property and collected rent on behalf of the owners, qualifies as a landlord under the wide definition in the Ordinance, and that relying on the municipal sanction obtained by the actual owners does not violate Section 13(2)(vi). The Court laid down the principle that a literal interpretation leading to unreasonable results should be avoided, and that a person competent to receive rent on behalf of owners can maintain an eviction petition for reconstruction using a sanction obtained by the owners, while ensuring statutory tenant protections remain fully intact.
Questions settled- Can a person who is not the owner of the property but is entitled to receive rent on behalf of the owners maintain an eviction application as a 'landlord' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does a landlord seeking eviction for reconstruction under Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, violate the law by relying on a building sanction obtained in the name of the property owners rather than the landlord himself?
- Whether the tenant's statutory protection against non-erection of a building under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, remains available when the eviction application is filed by a landlord who is not the owner.
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs ABDUL GHAFOOR ETC.1980 SCMR 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a service dispute over the appointment and promotion of teachers in a municipal high school. The core legal questions addressed are whether the Deputy Commissioner had the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by a municipal employee against an appointment order under the repealed Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, and whether the Punjab Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction over municipal employees prior to the nationalization of schools. The Supreme Court held that the Punjab Administrative Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose when the parties were municipal employees rather than civil servants, and the relevant Act lacked retrospective effect. The Court further held that the Deputy Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the appellant's service appeal, as neither the applicable service rules nor the successor Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1975 permitted such an appeal to the Controlling Authority. The key principle laid down is that statutory service appeals must strictly follow the prescribed forum and rules, and appellate jurisdiction cannot be invoked where rules expressly exclude service matters or where the governing statute has been repealed without saving such remedies.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain service disputes of municipal employees that arose prior to the nationalization of schools?
- Does a Deputy Commissioner have jurisdiction under section 119 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 to hear an appeal regarding a municipal employee's appointment?
- Whether rules framed under a statute can restrict the right of appeal provided under the parent statute?
- Whether the concept of the Controlling Authority under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 was saved by the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1975?
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 103 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed against the judgments of the trial and appellate courts convicting the applicant under section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the death of a boy by a motor accident and sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether driving at a high speed on an uncongested road, ipso facto, constitutes a rash or negligent act under section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court accepted the revision, holding that high speed alone does not amount to rashness or negligence without conclusive evidence showing a failure to drive with due care and caution, or that the driver omitted to take action to avoid the accident. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must conclusively establish a rash or negligent act by direct evidence, and that high speed per se does not prove criminal liability where the evidence shows an absence of traffic and proper vehicular control.
Questions settled- Does high speed alone amount to rashness or negligence under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What must the prosecution establish to secure a conviction for causing death by a rash or negligent act?
- Can an error of judgment in driving serve as a valid defense against a charge of rash and negligent driving?
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR ANSARI vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 107 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-08-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND ANOTHER vs DR. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE ETC.1980 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil petitions for special leave to appeal were filed by tenants challenging the High Court's judgment that allowed the landlords' second appeal and ordered ejectment on the grounds of personal requirement and reconstruction. The landlords had initially filed ejectment applications on grounds of default, subletting, and personal requirement, but subsequently amended the applications upon obtaining a sanctioned construction plan from the municipal authority. The primary questions were whether the amendment introducing the ground of reconstruction was made at an impermissibly belated stage and whether the failure to produce the municipal authority's forwarding/sanctioning letter invalidated the proof of the sanctioned building plan. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the amendment filed shortly after the original application and years prior to the Rent Controller’s decision was not belated. The Court further ruled that the non-production of a forwarding letter is immaterial where the court is otherwise satisfied that the plan is genuine and duly sanctioned as required by law.
Questions settled- Whether an application to amend an ejectment petition to add the ground of reconstruction is barred if filed while proceedings are pending before the Rent Controller?
- Whether the non-production of a municipal forwarding or sanctioning letter invalidates a sanctioned building plan if its genuineness is otherwise established?
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs MRS. QAMAR ANWAR SHEIKH1980 CLC 664 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the appellant-tenant by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of default in rent. The core legal questions involved whether a tenant remains liable to eviction for a past default despite subsequent payment and acceptance of arrears, and whether the landlord's conduct constituted a waiver of the right of ejectment. The Sindh High Court held that once a default in payment of rent is committed within the statutory period, the tenant is liable to eviction notwithstanding subsequent payment of arrears, unless the landlord has waived the right. However, on the facts of the case, the Court held that the landlord's prolonged silence, subsequent acceptance of arrears and ongoing rent for an extended period without initiating proceedings amounted to an intentional relinquishment of the right to eject, establishing a valid defense of waiver. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order set aside.
Questions settled- Does a tenant remain liable to ejectment for a past default in rent if the arrears are subsequently paid and accepted by the landlord?
- Does acceptance of rent by a landlord after a default automatically constitute a waiver of the right to seek ejectment?
- What circumstances are sufficient to establish a landlord's waiver of the right to eject a tenant for non-payment of rent?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL ETC vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 295 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 518 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH KHAN vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 105 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDUL AZIZ ABBASI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT CAF STATE OF J & K1980 PLC (C. S.) 526 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-05-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD A SIN vs Mst. DILSHAD BEGUM1980 PLD Lahore 32 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- MUGHAL BAZ KHAN vs SHER AFZAL KHAN1980 SCMR 692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land situated in Nowshera District. The respondent filed a suit to pre-empt the sale on the grounds of co-ownership and contiguity, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate and revisional courts. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a co-sharer in a village shamilat that is used as a public thoroughfare can claim a right of pre-emption or resist a superior right of pre-emption on the basis of such contiguity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a co-sharer in a public thoroughfare does not possess disposing power, the right to partition, or exclusive ownership rights capable of supporting a pre-emption claim. The Court laid down the principle that ownership in a thoroughfare cannot be utilized to claim pre-emption or defeat a superior right of pre-emption, as allowing such claims would defeat the underlying object of pre-emption law to exclude strangers from a homogeneous society.
Questions settled- Whether a co-sharer in a village shamilat used as a public thoroughfare can claim a right of pre-emption?
- Can a co-owner of a thoroughfare defeat the superior right of pre-emption of another claimed on the basis of contiguity?
- Does a co-sharer in a public thoroughfare possess disposing power or the right to partition for the purposes of pre-emption law?
- Mufti RAFIQ AHMAD vs Mst. MAHMOODA BEGUM AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an Inter-Court Appeal as incompetent under the Laws Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and an earlier judgment dismissing the petitioner's writ petition on merits. The underlying dispute relates to the determination of shares of co-transferees in an evacuee property, specifically the Nishat Cinema in Sialkot, allotted under the settlement laws. The core legal question concerns the correct determination of co-transferees' shares based on their verified claims under the relevant settlement statutes and whether the Inter-Court Appeal was barred. The Supreme Court held that the shares of the co-transferees were correctly determined in accordance with the Chief Settlement Commissioner's Press Note issued under paragraph 16-B of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, proportionate to their verified claims. The Court found the settlement order unexceptionable and dismissed the petition on merits, rendering the question of the retrospective applicability of the bar on the Inter-Court Appeal of academic importance only.
Questions settled- Whether the shares of co-transferees in an evacuee property are to be determined in accordance with their verified claims under the settlement laws?
- Whether an Inter-Court Appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge in a writ petition arising from settlement proceedings is barred under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- MUBARIK DIN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L 1 985 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUBARIK ALI vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 23 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
- MUBARIK AHMAD MALIK AND 4 Other vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 21980 PLC (C. S.) 418 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1969-10-25Read full judgment →
- MUBARAK vs PHULLAN AND 7 OTHERS1980 CLC 485 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two regular second appeals arising from a consolidated judgment of the trial court which dismissed the appellants' pre-emption suits. The core legal questions involve whether the pre-emption suits suffered from partial pre-emption due to the appellants' separate tenancies and whether the appeals were liable to dismissal due to a deficient court-fee where no application under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants' tenancies were separate rather than joint, rendering their suits instances of partial pre-emption, and that the insufficiently stamped memoranda of appeal were not proper appeals in the absence of a formal application under section 149, C.P.C. to make up the deficiency. The court laid down that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 do not apply to memoranda of appeal, and an insufficiently stamped memorandum of appeal remains a mere piece of paper unless time is extended under section 149 upon a proper application.
Questions settled- Whether an insufficiently stamped memorandum of appeal can be regarded as a proper appeal without an application for extension of time under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Do the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to memoranda of appeal?
- Does filing a pre-emption suit for a half share in each killa of land constituting separate tenancies amount to partial pre-emption?
- Whether pending appeals stand transferred to the Collector upon an amendment creating a new forum for pending suits only?
- MUBARAK ALI vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mubarak Ali was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Ishfaq Ahmad and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the trial court, which decision was upheld by the Peshawar High Court along with the dismissal of a cross-revision for sentence enhancement. The convict filed a criminal petition for special leave to appeal against his conviction, and the father of the deceased filed a petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony by a sole independent eye-witness, the corroborative value of medical evidence and the accused's prolonged abscondence, and the existence of mitigating circumstances regarding the sentence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts based on trustworthy ocular evidence, recovery, medical corroboration, and unexplained abscondence warranted no interference. Furthermore, the enhancement petition was time-barred and lacked merit due to mitigating circumstances. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by lower courts will not be disturbed by the apex court unless a violation of law or natural justice is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of a sole eye-witness's testimony warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does unexplained abscondence of an accused constitute corroborative evidence of guilt?
- Whether an altercation of an unspecified nature and the absence of a proved motive serve as mitigating circumstances against the imposition of capital punishment?
- Can a delayed petition for special leave to appeal seeking sentence enhancement be entertained without sufficient cause for condonation?
- Mst.FAROOQ JAN vs ILYAS AND 2 OTHERS1980 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the widow of a deceased against the dismissal of a State appeal by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the conviction of the respondents for simple hurt rather than murder. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who assaulted the deceased, could be held liable for murder despite medical evidence indicating the deceased was suffering from severe pre-existing illnesses, making his death a result of simple hurt rather than an intentional killing. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of murder. The Court reasoned that since the deceased's own wife and daughter denied he was ill, the respondents could not be imputed with knowledge of his fragile health. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the medical evidence was misread, affirming that injuries causing death in a diseased person do not automatically constitute murder if the accused lacked knowledge of the victim's condition. The principle established is that liability for murder requires proof of intent or knowledge regarding the victim's vulnerability, which cannot be presumed if even close family members were unaware of it.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted of murder for causing death to a victim with a pre-existing illness if the accused had no knowledge of that illness?
- Does medical testimony stating that injuries were sufficient to cause death necessarily contradict evidence that the victim was a diseased person?
- Can the knowledge of a victim's health condition be imputed to an accused when the victim's own immediate family denies such condition exists?
- Mst.BEVI vs GHULAM SHABBIR AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondent, Ghulam Shabbir, of murder. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, along with others, conspired and murdered Mumtaz over multiple motives. The trial court convicted the accused, but the High Court acquitted them by discrediting the eyewitnesses as chance or interested witnesses, finding contradictions with the medical evidence, and rejecting weapon recovery evidence. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court misread the medical and ocular evidence and whether the acquittal was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misread the evidence and that the independent eyewitness testimony, corroborated by weapon matching, established the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal was set aside. However, considering that the prosecution's asserted motive involving the co-accused failed, the Supreme Court mitigated the sentence from death to transportation for life with a fine, laying down that the principle of benefit of doubt can extend to the question of sentence.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can set aside an acquittal when the High Court has misread the medical and ocular evidence?
- Does a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular testimony invariably warrant the rejection of eyewitness accounts?
- Can the principle of benefit of doubt be applied to mitigate a sentence from death to transportation for life when the prosecution's asserted motive fails?
- Whether the matching of crime empties with a recovered weapon constitutes valid corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
- Mst. ZULEKHA vs AMIR AND 5 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 619 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAMMARUD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a property dispute involving the alleged encroachment by the third respondent upon the roof of a house (House No. 1/8) transferred to the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest by the Settlement Department. The petitioner sought the removal of the structure, but the Settlement authorities rejected her claims, citing boundary issues. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition, holding that the dispute involved complex questions of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere. The Supreme Court held that the dispute indeed turned on questions of fact requiring evidence, which could not be resolved in writ proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's title to the property was itself sub judice in other litigation, and she had failed to disclose that another heir existed. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, establishing the principle that writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for resolving disputed questions of fact, particularly where the petitioner's own title is contested and material facts have been suppressed.
Questions settled- Can a High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner's title to the subject property is sub judice in other litigation?
- Does the suppression of material facts regarding the status of heirs affect the maintainability of a writ petition?
- Mst. ZAINAB KHATOON AND ANOTHER vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA1980 SCMR 331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition seeking review of an order dated 5th November, 1977, which dismissed a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question involves whether findings of fact can be interfered with in second appeal and whether a rehearing can be permitted under the guise of a review petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the contentions regarding the finality of findings of fact under sections 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 had already been considered and that a review petition cannot be used as a vehicle for a rehearing of the case. The key principle laid down is that re-arguing previously considered points and attempting a rehearing is impermissible in review proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a petition for review be used as a vehicle for the rehearing of a case?
- Whether findings of fact based on conjectures and surmises can be interfered with in second appeal?
- Did sections 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit the reopening of decisions on questions of fact in the circumstances of this case?
- Mst. ZAINAB BIBI AND ANOTHER vs CHAIRMAN, MIANI SAHIB GRAVEYARD1980 CLC 1598 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAHIDA KHATOON BEGUM vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1640 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. ZAHIDA KHANUM vs THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, LAHORE1980 CLC 212 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. WALLAN vs Mst. BASHIR BIBI AND camas1980 CLC 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. TOHEED KHANAM vs MUHAMMAD SHAMSHAD1980 SCMR 593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant for personal use of a shop. The core legal questions were whether the landlord’s requirement for the premises for her son’s business was bona fide and whether the application was barred by the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence by ignoring unrebutted testimony regarding the son’s unemployment and the family’s financial capacity to establish a business. The Court found that the landlord’s requirement was genuine and that the lower courts erred in relying on extraneous factors, such as previous rent enhancement attempts, to discredit the claim. The Court emphasized that statutory safeguards, specifically the tenant's right to re-entry if the landlord fails to occupy the premises, provide sufficient protection, and courts should not deny relief where the evidence of bona fide need is credible and unrebutted. The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment order was granted.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a landlord to occupy premises for personal use after obtaining an eviction order provide a remedy to the tenant?
- Can a landlord's attempt to enhance rent be used as sole evidence to negate the bona fide nature of a personal requirement for premises?
- Is an ejectment application based on personal need barred by res judicata if a previous application on similar grounds was dismissed?
- What is the correct mode of assessing the bona fide requirement of a landlord under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Mst. SURRAYA BEGUM vs TASSADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH1980 CLC 1955 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHRIN BAI AND ANOTHER vs Mst. KULSOOM BAI AND 5 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged an order by the Civil Judge dismissing the plaintiffs' application to withdraw a suit and granting the defendants' application for transposition of parties. The core legal question was whether the court could exercise its discretion under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to transpose parties in a suit for accounts, thereby preventing the plaintiffs from withdrawing the suit. The High Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion. The ratio established that the paramount consideration for transposition is the effectual determination of the rights of the parties and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation. Since both parties in the suit were seeking accounts from one another, the transposition did not alter the nature or character of the suit. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiffs' withdrawal application was rightly rejected to ensure a full and final adjudication of the dispute, particularly where the withdrawal appeared motivated by ulterior considerations.
Questions settled- Can a court transpose parties in a suit under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to avoid multiplicity of litigation?
- Does the transposition of parties in a suit for accounts alter the nature of the suit?
- Can a court reject a plaintiff's application to withdraw a suit if it is necessary to allow a transposition of parties for the effectual determination of the dispute?
- Is the power of the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, limited to cases where the lower court has acted with material irregularity?
- Mst. SHERIN TAJ vs Haji AKBAR KHAN (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) AND OTHERS1980 CLC 787 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHEHNAZ BEGUM vs Mst. PUKHRAJ BEGUM1980 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of her ejectment application filed against the respondent tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had dismissed the ejectment application, holding that the default was condonable as the rent had been tendered but refused. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this finding and accepted the appeal, a decision subsequently upheld in second appeal by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the first appellate court erred in rejecting the oral evidence regarding the tender of rent and that the High Court improperly preferred the first appellate court's view over that of the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court was fully entitled to re-appraise the evidence and reach a contrary conclusion, and as the petitioner failed to point out any material error in the finding of fact, the petition lacked substance. The petition was accordingly dismissed based on the undertaking given by the respondent.
Questions settled- Whether the first appellate court is entitled to re-appraise evidence and reach a contrary conclusion to that of the Rent Controller?
- Does the High Court err in upholding the factual conclusions of the first appellate court regarding the tender of rent in second appeal without a showing of material error?
- Mst. SHEEDI vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 477 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Mianwali, which maintained the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for possession on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 95 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for possession alleging that a previous consent decree regarding her inherited property was fraudulent, collusive, and obtained through impersonation without her participation. The lower appellate court dismissed the suit relying solely on the limitation period. The Lahore High Court examined the applicability of Article 95 of the Limitation Act and held that where a plaintiff was not genuinely a party to a decree or transaction—such as in cases of impersonation or where a person was never a party to the suit—Article 95 does not apply, because the decree is ab initio null and void and need not be set aside. The Court ruled that the lower appellate court erred in deciding the limitation issue without first recording findings on the merits regarding whether the plaintiff was actually a party to the consent decree. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded.
Questions settled- Does Article 95 of the Limitation Act apply to a suit challenging a decree where the plaintiff was not actually a party to the decree or transaction?
- Is it necessary to seek cancellation of a decree that is ab initio null and void due to impersonation or lack of participation?
- Can a question of limitation under Article 95 of the Limitation Act be determined without first recording findings on the merits of whether the plaintiff was a party to the disputed decree?
- Mst. SHARIFAN AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing their constitutional petition regarding the transfer of an evacuee property. The core legal question was whether a transferee of an evacuee house could seek the correction of a house number on the premise of a clerical error when the property in actual occupation had already been transferred to another party under a valid earmarking scheme. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the matter was not a simple case of clerical error. The Court found that the two houses involved belonged to different evacuee owners and the house in the petitioner's occupation had been legally transferred to a respondent prior to the petitioner's application. The key principle laid down is that a claimant cannot, under the guise of correcting a house number, lay claim to a property belonging to a different evacuee owner that has already been validly transferred to another party under an earmarking scheme, as the transfer process is inextricably linked to the specific identity and ownership of the property.
Questions settled- Can a transferee of an evacuee property seek correction of a house number to claim a property already transferred to another person?
- Does the transfer of an evacuee property under an earmarking scheme preclude subsequent claims based on alleged clerical errors in house numbering?
- Is a claimant entitled to seek the transfer of a property belonging to a different evacuee owner by alleging an incorrect house number in their original application?
- Mst. SAYYADA KHATOON vs MANSOOR ALI KAPASI AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 1909 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAYEDA AZIZ KHATOON AND 9 OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1980 CLC 363 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARWAT KAZMI vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION1980 CLC 1779 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE1980 PLD Azad J & K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 289 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAJADA BANU vs Mst. MAQSOODAN BEGUM1980 CLC 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAID BEGUM AND ANOTHER vs HASSAN MUHAMMAD1980 CLC 2209 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. RUKHSANA AHMAD vs TARIQ ATAULLAH1980 SCMR 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against an ex parte ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's first appeal before the lower appellate authority was time-barred, and whether the courts below correctly computed the limitation period for filing said appeal. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the statutory limitation period prescribed under the relevant rent legislation. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to file an application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the lower appellate authority and the High Court correctly computed the time requisite for obtaining certified copies and properly dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding no error in the computation of the limitation period, and dismissed the petition, though it granted the petitioner three months to vacate the premises subject to continued rent payments.
Questions settled- Is an appeal filed after the expiry of the limitation period maintainable without an application for condonation of delay?
- How is the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy computed for the purpose of limitation in rent appeals?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to dismiss an appeal in limine if it is filed beyond the period of limitation?
- Mst. RESHAM JAN vs ALLAH DITTA AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 739 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMATEY AND 7 OTHERss vs KHANAN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1980 CLC 1765 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMAT BIM alias REHMO vs Ch. NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 770 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMAT BIBI AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. MARYAM AKHTAR1980 CLC 883 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAJ BEGUM vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 30 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-05-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. QAMARZAMNI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 586 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. NOOR JEHAN vs VTH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI AND 31980 PLD Karachi 305 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. NOOR JEHAN BEGUM vs DR. ABDUS SAMAD AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 2104 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZIR vs Hafiz GHULAM MUSTAFA AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1024 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASIRA BEGUM vs SARDAR BEGUM1980 CLC 2015 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASIM BANO AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 1189 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAJMUNNISA vs ADMINISTRATOR, ABANDONED PROPERTIES AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the status of a property declared as abandoned. The core legal question was whether an alleged oral gift of a house, made by a Bengali owner to the petitioner prior to the enactment of the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975, was genuine and legally effective, despite the absence of mutation in the society's records and the lack of supporting evidence. The Supreme Court held that the Administrator of Abandoned Properties and the High Court correctly concluded the gift was not established. The Court emphasized that the significant delay in seeking mutation, the lack of evidence regarding rent collection, the absence of intimation to the tenant, and the implausibility of the donor transferring substantial property to a cousin while disinheriting her own children rendered the claim meritless. The principle laid down is that in the absence of tangible evidence, factual findings by a competent authority regarding the genuineness of a property transfer will not be disturbed in appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a property transfer be recognized as valid when there is a significant delay in seeking mutation and no supporting evidence of the transaction?
- Is the factual finding of the Administrator of Abandoned Properties regarding the genuineness of a gift subject to interference if supported by the evidence?
- Does the failure to produce rent receipts or notify tenants of a property transfer undermine the claim of a valid oral gift?
- Mst. NAFEES BANO vs Mst. AMJADI BEGUM AND 5 OTHERS1980 PLD Rev. 43 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-10-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. MOTIBAI vs ABBAS BHOY MOOSAJI1980 CLC 305 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. MOHBAT BI vs QASIM ALI AND others1980 CLC 1642 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. MISAR JAN AND ANOTHER vs STATE & F. I. U., MUZAFFARABAD AND ANOTHER Non1980 P Cr. L J 642 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. MIRAN vs MIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 549 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAJEEDA BEGUM vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONERII AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from a dispute over the transfer of the western portion of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The respondent's transfer was previously upheld by the Supreme Court, which clarified that the entire western portion stood transferred to him. Despite this, the petitioner (wife of an occupant) obtained a transfer order from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner after the respondent's transfer was cancelled for an alleged default in paying the balance price. The High Court quashed the cancellation and the subsequent transfer to the petitioner. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the petition, held that the property was not available for transfer as the respondent's transfer was subsisting. The Court ruled that under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, where a transferee has paid at least 25% of the transfer price, any remaining arrears must be recovered as arrears of land revenue rather than by cancelling the transfer. Furthermore, cancellation of a transfer for non-payment without serving a proper demand notice is without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Can a property transfer be cancelled for non-payment of the balance price without first serving a proper demand notice on the transferee?
- Whether outstanding arrears of transfer price can result in the cancellation of a property transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII if the transferee has already paid more than 25% of the total price?
- Can a property be treated as available for transfer to a third party while a valid and subsisting transfer order in favor of another party remains in field?
- Mst. MAI DHAYANI vs THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI1980 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. KISHWAR SULTAN JEHAN BEGUM vs M. A. WASTI AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought a review of a Supreme Court order dated 15th January 1978, dismissing a civil petition. The primary ground urged was that although the petition was heard by a three-member bench, the dismissal order was signed by only two judges, constituting an error on the face of the record and affecting the effective date of an offer made during proceedings. The Supreme Court acknowledged the omission regarding the signatures resulting from an official's negligence and agreed to rectify the error, but held that the petitioner's contention regarding the effective date of the offer was incorrect, as the offer was made in court prior to the dismissal which had taken effect from the original date. Furthermore, the review petition was barred by a delay of 318 days, which the Court condoned subject to all just exceptions. Ultimately, the review petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the omission of a judge's signature on a court order affect the effective date of a dismissal or an offer made during proceedings?
- Can a delay of over 300 days in filing a review petition be condoned subject to just exceptions?
- Mst. KHADIJA BII3I vs ABDUL WAHID1980 CLC 2145 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a landlady seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of a rent eviction case pending since 1967. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the High Court lacked supervisory jurisdiction because a Rent Controller is not a 'Court' subordinate to the High Court under Article 203. The High Court examined the constitutional history of supervisory jurisdiction from the Government of India Act 1935 through successive Pakistani Constitutions. It held that subordination is determined by whether a forum's orders are subject to the appellate or revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Applying a liberal and comprehensive interpretation, the Court ruled that a Rent Controller, while not a court in the strict classical sense of the Code of Civil Procedure, qualifies as a subordinate court for the purposes of Article 203. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the Rent Controller was directed to decide the preliminary issue within one month and report progress fortnightly.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller qualifies as a subordinate court under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What is the primary criterion to determine whether a forum or tribunal is a 'subordinate court' for the purposes of the High Court's supervisory control?
- Can the term 'Court' in Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be construed in a wider, non-technical sense to advance the administration of justice?
- Mst. KANEEZ FATIMA vs BASHIR AHMAD1980 CLC 865 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANATAN BIBI AND 6 OTHERS vs Kh. SHAIQ HASSAN1980 CLC 1564 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. JANAT vs DAULAT KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the Supreme Court's earlier refusal to grant leave to appeal regarding a land allotment dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, Mst. Jannat, was entitled to land found to be in excess of her sons' entitlement, or whether the respondent, Daulat Khan, who acted as the informant regarding the excess allotment, held a superior claim. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was correctly identified as the informant, as his information led to the discovery of the excess allotment. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the respondent possessed a preferential right to the allotment of the disputed land. The Court further held that the petitioner, having failed to provide information regarding the excess allotment herself, could not claim the land based on her independent, pending claim. The principle laid down is that an informant who brings an excess allotment to the attention of the authorities holds a superior right to the allotment of such land over other claimants who did not provide such information.
Questions settled- Can an informant who discovers excess land allotment claim a preferential right to that land?
- Does an independent pending claim entitle a person to land found to be in excess of another's entitlement without the claimant acting as an informant?
- Is a review petition maintainable where there is no error patent on the face of the record?
- Mst. HASHMAT BIBI vs MUHAMMAD RAFI AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 967 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil revision and second appeal arising from concurrent judgments refusing to make an arbitration award a rule of the court or to record it as a compromise under Order XXIII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an arbitration award obtained without the intervention of the court in a pending suit can be treated as a compromise or adjustment under Order XXIII, Rule 3, C.P.C., without the express consent of all parties under the proviso to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The Lahore High Court held that while the arbitration agreement was executed with valid authority through a power of attorney, the proviso to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act 1940 explicitly mandates the subsequent consent of all parties to the award before it can be considered as a compromise or adjustment of a suit. The court laid down that an arbitration reference made without court intervention in a pending suit is a nullity unless saved by Section 47, which requires contemporaneous or subsequent consent of all parties to utilize the award as a compromise, and antecedent consent does not satisfy this statutory requirement.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration award obtained without the intervention of the court in a pending suit can be treated as a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without complying with Section 47 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Does the proviso to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act 1940 require the consent of all parties to be given after the award is made, or does antecedent consent suffice?
- Can a husband enter into a valid arbitration agreement on behalf of his wife when holding a general power of attorney authorizing him to compromise and refer matters to arbitration?
- Mst. HASEENA alias MUNNI AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 118 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. GUL ZARIN vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 158 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. GORINA BEGUM vs AZAD GOVERNMENT & F.I.U. MILITARY SECURITY Non1980 P Cr. L J 640 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. FAZAL BI AND 8 OTHERS vs GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 789 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. FARKHANDA AKHTAR AND 3 OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST1980 PLD Lahore 804 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a dispute regarding the status of Property No. SW-96-R/3, Lahore, which had been transferred to the petitioners by the Settlement Department in 1960. The Evacuee Property Trust Board subsequently sought a declaration that the property was evacuee trust property. During the proceedings, the petitioners' names were struck off from the reference on the basis of a 1971 Central Government policy directing that urban evacuee trust properties utilized prior to June 30, 1968, should remain intact with the transferees, with the Board being reimbursed by the Settlement Department. No appeal was filed against the deletion of the petitioners' names. However, following a subsequent remand by the High Court in an appeal where the petitioners were not parties, the Chairman of the Board attempted to implead them again and stayed the issuance of their Permanent Transfer Deeds. The High Court held that once a party's name is struck off without objection or appeal, the matter cannot be unilaterally reopened. Furthermore, a person who was not a party to the appeal resulting in a remand cannot be impleaded at the remand stage. The Court also ruled that under the government's policy, even if the property were trust property, the transfer to the petitioners remained protected, and the Board's remedy lay solely in recovering the price from the Settlement Department. The impugned order was declared without lawful authority and void.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of striking off a party's name from proceedings when no appeal is filed against such an order?
- Can a person who was not a party to the High Court appeal that resulted in a remand be impleaded as a party during the subsequent remand proceedings?
- Does the Chairman of the Evacuee Property Trust Board have the authority to direct the Settlement Department to stay the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed for property already transferred via a Provisional Transfer Order?
- Does a government policy protecting transfers of utilized evacuee trust properties restrict the Evacuee Property Trust Board's remedy solely to recovering the price from the Settlement Department?
- Mst. FAHMEEDA BEGUM vs NISAR AHMAD QURESHI1980 P Cr. L J 700 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. BISMILLAH KHANUM vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 321 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. BILQUIS RIFAT SAJID vs DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged an order of the Sind Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding her entitlement to pay for the post of Headmistress (National Pay Scale 17). The petitioner, a Senior English Teacher, was initially posted as a Headmistress in 1973 on an ad hoc basis, pending regularization. She argued that she was entitled to the higher pay scale from her initial appointment date in 1973. The Tribunal held that the initial appointment was made by an incompetent authority and constituted a stop-gap arrangement, thus denying the claim for backdated pay. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the initial notification explicitly stated the appointment was on an ad hoc basis, requiring the petitioner to work on her own pay and grade until regularization. However, the Court noted that the Tribunal had effectively granted the petitioner the higher pay scale from the date of her formal promotion in 1975, despite formally dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order was contradictory and clarified that the appeal was, in fact, partly accepted.
Questions settled- Does an ad hoc appointment to a higher post entitle a civil servant to the pay scale of that post before formal regularization?
- Can an appointment made by an incompetent authority confer a legal right to the emoluments of a higher grade?
- Is an order that grants relief but concludes with a dismissal of the appeal legally sustainable?
- Mst. BILQUEES AND OTHERS vs BHA,NA1980 PLD Lahore 322 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. BILQEES BEGUM vs Syed ALI TURAB (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 930 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenges a trial court decree passed under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, following the appellant's failure to file a written statement. The core legal questions were whether the penal provisions of Rule 10 apply to a failure to file a written statement under Rule 1, and whether a general direction in a summons constitutes being "required" by the court to file such a statement. The Court held that Rule 10 indeed empowers the court to pronounce judgment for failure to file a written statement under Rule 1. However, it clarified that the term "so required" in Rule 10 necessitates a specific judicial direction, not merely a general instruction contained in the initial summons. Since the trial court had not specifically required the appellant to file a written statement, the immediate pronouncement of judgment without evidence was improper. The Court established that in the absence of a specific requirement, the court should proceed under Order IX, Rule 6, rather than invoking the summary powers of Order VIII, Rule 10. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded.
Questions settled- Does Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a failure to file a written statement under Rule 1?
- Does a general direction in a summons to file a written statement constitute a specific requirement under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court pronounce judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without evidence when a defendant fails to file a written statement?
- Mst. BIBI KHAIRUNNISA vs Syed BUNYAD ALI SHAH AND 6 OTHERS1980 CLC 494 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-06-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. BIBI JANA vs THE DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR AND 21980 PLD Peshawar 213 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. AZIZAN BIBI vs ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside an order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, which had cancelled land allotments deemed in excess of the respondents' entitlement. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner possesses the authority under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to cancel excess land allotments after a lapse of nearly two decades, particularly when the allottee was not responsible for the initial miscalculation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in assuming that the passage of time barred the exercise of statutory powers. The Court affirmed that under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, there is no specified time limit for correcting excess allotments, regardless of whether the allottee was at fault. The principle laid down is that statutory authorities retain the power to rectify excess allotments to ensure compliance with verified entitlements, and such actions cannot be invalidated solely on the grounds of delay or the absence of fraud by the allottee.
Questions settled- Does the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, impose a time limit for the cancellation of land allotments found to be in excess of a claimant's entitlement?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner cancel an allotment of land obtained in excess of entitlement if the allottee was not responsible for the error?
- Is a High Court order setting aside a statutory authority's decision sustainable if the High Court fails to address the merits of the entitlement calculation?
- Mst. AZIZA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1628 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-05-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMREZAN BIBI vs THE STATE1980 PLD Azad J & K 10 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMINA BEGUM vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE LAHORE1980 PLD Lahore 571 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two connected constitutional petitions relating to the transfer of an evacuee property initially allotted partly to the original transferee, Malik Ali Akbar, who subsequently died. The core legal question is whether an order of resumption of property passed without issuing a demand notice to the legal heirs of the deceased transferee, and instead issued in the name of the deceased person, is void as a nullity, and whether subsequent transfers based on such a void resumption can be sustained. The Lahore High Court held that the order of resumption passed in violation of mandatory provisions of Settlement Scheme No. VIII and without notice to all legal heirs is a nullity and without lawful authority. Consequently, all subsequent orders transferring the property to third parties fall alongside it. The Court laid down the principle that a void order is non-existent in the eye of the law, must be struck down regardless of the consequences, and cannot be cured by subsequent proceedings where there is a conflict of interest among heirs.
Questions settled- Whether an order of property resumption issued in the name of a deceased transferee without notice to his legal heirs is a nullity?
- Does a void order of resumption fall along with all subsequent transfers made on its basis?
- Whether service of demand notice on one legal heir constitutes valid notice to all heirs when there is a conflict of interest among them?
- Mst. STARAN BEGUM vs ABDUL HADI1980 P Cr. L J 79 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. ALLAH RAKHI AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 561 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →