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 DIN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 575 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM1979 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his application for the restoration of a regular second appeal that was previously dismissed in default. The petitioner had sought restoration under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for condonation of delay. The High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 does not apply to restoration applications for appeals dismissed in default. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner conceded the inapplicability of Section 5 but argued that the appeal should have been restored under the inherent powers of the court pursuant to Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to justify his absence on the date of hearing despite receiving a registered notice. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioner failed to explain the delay and that the absence appeared deliberate.
Questions settled- Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to an application for the restoration of an appeal dismissed in default?
- Can inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked to restore an appeal dismissed in default when the applicant fails to justify their absence?
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs MESSRS JAN LACE & GENERAL MILLS/JAN1979 PLC 115 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs FAIZ AHMAD1979 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a second appeal in a suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,000 based on a promissory note. The petitioner-defendant denied executing the note, alleging his thumb impression was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation regarding a separate undertaking. The trial court dismissed the suit, doubting the evidence of consideration and execution. However, the lower appellate court reversed this, finding the execution proved and noting that the defendant failed to substantiate his allegations of fraud. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the trial court's findings. The Court held that the evidence, including the testimony of the scribe and the failure to cross-examine the fingerprint expert, sufficiently proved the execution of the promissory note. Affirming the High Court's decision, the Court laid down that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the execution of a promissory note is established, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove the absence of consideration, which the petitioner failed to discharge.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving the absence of consideration shift to the defendant once the execution of a promissory note is established?
- Can a court draw an adverse inference under the Evidence Act when a party fails to produce witnesses to support the source of funds?
- Is the testimony of a handwriting expert sufficient to prove the execution of a document if the witness is not cross-examined on that point?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 2 Other1979 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the restitution of possession of a property following the setting aside of an ex parte eviction decree. The landlord obtained an ex parte eviction order against the tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 and subsequently took possession of the property. After the ex parte decree was set aside, the tenant sought restitution of possession, which the Rent Controller initially dismissed, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed this, holding that the Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to order restitution while acting in the capacity of a civil court. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that while a Rent Controller acts as a specialized tribunal when passing ejectment orders under section 13 of the Ordinance, they function as a civil court when executing those orders. Consequently, the Rent Controller possesses the inherent jurisdiction to entertain applications for the restitution of possession. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in limine, confirming that the Rent Controller is competent to handle restitution proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to order the restitution of possession after an ex parte eviction decree is set aside?
- Does a Rent Controller act as a civil court when executing an ejectment order passed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Mst. KALSOOM BIBI AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs I. -G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 65 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-08-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH ETC vs Talc STATE1979 PLD Lahore 941 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arose out of a pre-arrest bail application in a criminal case registered against two petitioners following a fatal car accident involving a young boy. The prosecution alleged that petitioner No. 1 left an official vehicle unattended with the keys inside, after which petitioner No. 2, who lacked a driving licence, operated the controls, causing the vehicle to strike the deceased. The police registered a case under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution opposed bail on the grounds that petitioner No. 1 lacked authority to move the car, petitioner No. 2 had no licence, and Martial Law authorities intended to seek transfer of the case. The High Court held that the core of an offence under Section 304-A is a rash or negligent act; lacking a driving licence or moving a vehicle without departmental permission does not escalate the offence to culpable homicide under Section 304. It further held that informal instructions to submit a challan to Martial Law authorities do not oust court jurisdiction under Article 212-A of the Constitution without a formal transfer order. Consequently, interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed.
Questions settled- Does driving without a driving licence convert an offence of causing death by negligence under Section 304-A PPC into culpable homicide under Section 304 PPC?
- Does unauthorized use of an official vehicle convert an offence from Section 304-A PPC to Section 304 PPC?
- Does informal police instruction to submit a challan to Martial Law authorities oust High Court jurisdiction under Article 212-A of the Constitution in the absence of a formal transfer order?
- MUHAMMAD AYYUB Alias AYUBA vs THE STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 536 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB SHAH AND 4 Others vs SARWAR SHAH AND Another1979 SCMR 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' revision application maintaining concurrent findings of the lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involved whether the pre-emption suit was barred by limitation, whether the suit land was exempt from pre-emption under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950, and whether the market value of the land was properly determined. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the question of limitation could not be raised for the first time when it was not pleaded in the written statement or agitated before the first appellate court as a mixed question of law and fact, that findings on exemption from pre-emption concluded by concurrent factual determinations cannot be reagitated, and that findings regarding market value based on evidence are questions of fact not open to interference. The key principle laid down is that mixed questions of law and fact not raised in pleadings or initial appellate stages cannot be urged subsequently, and concurrent findings of fact based on evidence remain undisturbed.
Questions settled- Can a plea of limitation involving mixed questions of law and fact be raised for the first time when it was omitted from the written statement and the first appeal?
- Are concurrent findings of fact regarding the market value of suit land open to review by the Supreme Court?
- Does a suit for pre-emption against a second vendee run from the date of the mutation in favor of the first vendee or the second vendee when limitation was not properly pleaded?
- MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL ETC.S1979 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from a request for relief against the execution of a death sentence, following the petitioner's filing of mercy petitions before the Prime Minister and the Provincial Government. The core legal question was whether the court could interfere in the execution process based on pending or subsequent mercy petitions where the initial mercy petition had been dismissed. The Supreme Court held that once a mercy petition has been dismissed, the original sentence remains operative unless mercy is explicitly granted and the sentence is commuted. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Sadiq (C.P.S.L.A. No. 182 of 1978), the Court affirmed that the discretion of the President regarding mercy petitions is not subject to interference through writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court determined that it could not take cognizance of subsequent mercy petitions that had not resulted in a commutation order. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming that the existing sentence holds the field absent a formal grant of clemency.
Questions settled- Can the court interfere in the execution of a death sentence through writ jurisdiction based on a pending mercy petition?
- Does the filing of a subsequent mercy petition automatically stay the execution of a death sentence after an initial mercy petition has been dismissed?
- Is the discretion of the President in deciding a mercy petition subject to judicial review?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 211 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs REHMATULLAH KHAN AND Other1979 SCMR 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Peshawar High Court, which accepted the second appeal of the plaintiffs and restored the trial court's decree in a suit for declaration and possession of agricultural land. The dispute arose from a 1945 registered exchange deed wherein the plaintiffs' predecessor exchanged a 1/16th share of land, but the revenue officer erroneously recorded it as a 1/4th share in the mutation. The petitioner subsequently purchased the land based on the erroneous revenue entries. The core legal questions involved whether the erroneous revenue entry created estoppel against the original owner, and whether the suit was barred by limitation and adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that the erroneous revenue entry, not made at the instance of the original owner, did not create an estoppel, and limitation ran from the date the land became available for possession upon redemption of the mortgage in 1966, rendering the suit timely. The court laid down that a mistaken entry in revenue records does not override a registered deed, and a subsequent vendee is expected to examine the foundational document.
Questions settled- Whether an erroneous entry in a revenue mutation contrary to a registered exchange deed creates an estoppel against the original owner?
- From what date does limitation run for a suit for possession of land previously held under a mortgage?
- Does a subsequent vendee gain a valid title from an incorrect revenue entry without examining the foundational registered deed?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION, KARACHI1979 PLD Karachi 246 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former 4th Engineer of the National Shipping Corporation, challenged his termination of service on the grounds that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with Regulation 25 of the (Establishment Officers) Service Regulation 1965 and that he was denied a proper opportunity to defend himself. The respondent corporation contended that the termination was a termination simpliciter under Rule 10 of the Regulations and that the relationship was governed by the law of master and servant. The High Court considered whether a writ petition is maintainable for the reinstatement of an employee of a statutory corporation. Relying on established Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that employees of statutory corporations do not hold public offices and are not entitled to constitutional safeguards against arbitrary dismissal. The relationship between such corporations and their employees is governed by the general law of master and servant, and the remedy for wrongful termination lies in a suit for damages rather than a writ of mandamus or certiorari. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the employees of a statutory corporation can claim the status of government servants or invoke constitutional safeguards against arbitrary dismissal?
- Is a writ of mandamus or certiorari maintainable for the reinstatement of an employee of a statutory corporation whose services are terminated?
- What is the legal remedy available to an employee of a statutory corporation for wrongful dismissal under the law of master and servant?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MESSRS BAKHSH TEXTILE MILLS, LTD., DHABEJI1979 PLC 155 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-01-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs WALAYAT SHAH AND ANOTHER-1979 P Cr. L J 719 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI ETC.1979 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing to interfere with the setting aside of an ex parte decree. The petitioner had obtained an ex parte decree in a suit for declaration regarding a property sale by providing an incorrect address for the defendant, thereby procuring substituted service through publication. The respondent, a resident abroad, subsequently applied to set aside the decree, alleging fraud and suppression of his correct address. The trial court and revisional court set aside the decree, finding that the petitioner had deliberately misled the court. The Supreme Court addressed whether the ex parte decree was validly obtained and whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion. The Court held that the petitioner committed fraud on the court by suppressing the defendant's correct address to secure substituted service. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision to set aside the ex parte decree, emphasizing that substantial justice requires the suit to be decided on merits. The Court further noted that procedural objections not raised before the trial court are deemed waived.
Questions settled- Does the deliberate suppression of a defendant's correct address to obtain substituted service constitute fraud on the court?
- Can a party raise procedural objections like limitation or invalidity of a power of attorney in a higher forum if they were not raised before the trial court?
- Under what circumstances may a court set aside an ex parte decree obtained through substituted service?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN ETC vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Em1979 PLD Lahore 843 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed to challenge a land acquisition notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which sought to acquire the petitioners' land for the construction of office accommodation for the Assistant Commissioner, Kabirwala. After the petitioners filed objections, the respondents issued a subsequent notification under Section 17 of the Act, invoking urgency powers to bypass the objection process. During the proceedings, it was admitted that the office of the Assistant Commissioner had already been constructed on other land. The respondents argued that the land was still needed for an approach road, a Bar Room, and Civil Courts. The High Court held that since the specific public purpose for which the land was originally sought to be acquired had already been fulfilled elsewhere, the impugned notification lost its purpose and lapsed. The Court declared the notification to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, noting that the government remains free to issue a fresh notification if a new public purpose arises.
Questions settled- Does a land acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse if the specific public purpose for which the land was sought has already been fulfilled elsewhere?
- Can the government divert land acquired for one specified public purpose to another subsequent public purpose without issuing a fresh acquisition notification?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 811 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 610 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs KHAIR MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others1979 P Cr. L J 372 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND Another vs The STATE1979 SCMR 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the bail previously granted to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners were accused of murdering the deceased by inflicting multiple knife blows. The High Court cancelled their bail upon the submission of the challan, holding that reasonable grounds existed to believe they were guilty of the offence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the High Court failed to properly consider the inordinate delay in the submission of the challan and the minority of petitioner No. 1. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had duly applied its mind to the facts and that the discretion to cancel bail was not exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition while directing that the trial be given priority and heard at an early date, establishing that cancellation of bail following the submission of the challan, where reasonable grounds of guilt exist, warrants no interference unless the High Court's discretion is exercised arbitrarily.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted on the ground of non-submission of challan can be cancelled after the challan has been submitted?
- Does the minority of an accused coupled with delay in trial automatically entitle them to bail in a capital charge?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in cancelling bail?
- MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE "C", KARACHI1979 PLD Karachi 465 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ KHAN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 932 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND 5 OTHERS vs Mst. JAMILA KHATOON1979 CLC 367 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against the appellants by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Additional District Judge on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the landlady. The appellants contended that because the landlady did not enter the witness box to testify to her personal need, her bona fide requirement was not established. The respondent argued that her occupation of a rented house sufficiently proved her bona fide requirement, and that her failure to testify was not fatal. The High Court held that while living in a rented house satisfies the condition that the landlord does not occupy another suitable building, it does not automatically establish the requirement of good faith. The Court ruled that the landlord is a material witness whose statement on oath is most relevant to prove bona fides. Unless prevented by physical or mental disability, a landlord's failure to testify without explanation detracts from their bona fides. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the ejectment application.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's failure to enter the witness box to testify to their personal need is fatal to proving their bona fide requirement for ejectment?
- Does the mere fact that a landlord resides in a rented house automatically establish the element of good faith required for ejectment?
- Can the testimony of a landlord's attorney or relatives substitute for the landlord's own statement on oath regarding personal need when no disability is shown?
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND Others vs T1E STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 51 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARIF vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 602 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARIF vs SHAH MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1979 CLC 514 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Mst: NASIM BEGUM1979 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent orders of the District Judge which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the disputed shop on the ground of personal need. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord's son, for whose benefit the shop was required, was in occupation of another suitable shop in the same locality. The Supreme Court held that since it was established as a matter of fact that the landlord's son did not occupy another shop, the further requirement regarding the suitability of another shop under the relevant statutory provision did not arise. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the landlord must be in occupation of another suitable shop for the ground of personal need to fail?
- Does the question of suitability of another shop arise when it is established that the landlord or her child does not occupy another shop?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need in an ejectment matter?
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Malik FAZAL ELLAHI1979 CLC 222 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs ABDUL SHAKOOR1979 SCMR 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), MULTAN1979 SCMR 245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the allotment of land to refugees from Alwar State. The core legal questions involved the validity of a Press Note issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, which prescribed a method for verifying land claims akin to Schedule VI of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, and whether this conflicted with paragraph 29 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Additionally, the court examined the legality of cancelling the respondents' original allotment without notice and the subsequent re-allotment to the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the Press Note was validly issued under paragraph 23 of the Scheme and did not violate paragraph 29. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the cancellation of the respondents' allotment without proper notice was void ab initio, and the petitioners could not acquire vested rights through such void proceedings. The Court established that administrative instructions issued under the Scheme are valid unless explicitly barred, and that failure to reserve land during pending objections renders subsequent allotments legally infirm.
Questions settled- Can the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner issue a Press Note prescribing a verification method for refugee claims that differs from the procedure in paragraph 29 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Does the cancellation of a land allotment without notice to the allottee render the subsequent allotment to a third party void ab initio?
- Is there a mandatory requirement under paragraph 20 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme to reserve land when objections regarding a claim are pending?
- MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MUKHTIARKAR KANDIARO ETC.S1979 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute over agricultural land in District Nawab Shah. The petitioners, claiming ownership through a 1947 sale deed, failed to obtain confirmation from the Custodian of Evacuee Property, causing the land to vest in the Central Government and subsequently transfer to a third party. When the new owner sought Batai (share of produce), the petitioners challenged the Mukhtiarkar's notice before the High Court, which dismissed their petition. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners abandoned their claim under Evacuee Laws, instead asserting ownership based on adverse possession exceeding 12 years. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners' claim of adverse possession against the Government was legally untenable. The Court affirmed that possession of land, even for a duration exceeding 12 years, does not confer title against the Government once the property has vested in it under the relevant evacuee property laws. Consequently, the petitioners had no valid legal claim to the disputed land, and the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can a claim of adverse possession be successfully maintained against the Government regarding land vested in it?
- Does possession of land for more than 12 years automatically confer ownership rights against the State?
- Does the failure to obtain confirmation from the Custodian of Evacuee Property regarding a sale deed result in the land vesting in the Central Government?
- MUHAMMAD AMIN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 28 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 4 Others vs THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE1979 SCMR 637 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance XXI of 1959 before the District Judge, Lahore, seeking a declaration that the disputed property was their private property and that the notification issued by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf assuming its management was without lawful authority. The District Judge eventually accepted the application and declared the property to be non-waqf after closing the respondent's case for non-production of evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. On appeal, a learned Single Judge of the High Court remanded the matter for a fresh decision to ensure a disposal on merits, a view subsequently upheld by a Letters Patent Bench. The Supreme Court held that the discretionary order of the High Court remanding the case to permit the production of evidence upon payment of costs did not warrant interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a case for decision on merits by setting aside the closure of evidence despite the negligence of a party?
- Can an appellate court interfere with the discretionary remand order of a lower appellate bench when costs have been awarded to compensate for default?
- What is the scope of challenge under Section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance XXI of 1959 regarding notifications issued by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf?
- MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER- Respondents1979 P Cr. L J 822 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs ANARA AND 4 OTHERS1979 P Cr. L J 566 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs ALLAH DITTA AND 4 Other1979 PLD Lahore 763 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI HASHMI vs MOM GOKAL SHIPPING & TRADING CORPORATION1979 PLC 133 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-04-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALAM vs KARAM ILLAHLAND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 838 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs THE STATE1979 PCr. L J 614 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT No. 9, FAISALABAD AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 862 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Other.1979 PLD Lahore 782 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs GOVERNMENT,OF PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT,ETC AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, RAWALPINDI1979 PLC 184 · Labour Court · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1979 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND Others vs SULTAN SALEEM AND Other1979 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the orders of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the defendants' writ petition and subsequent review petition in limine. The plaintiffs had filed a suit under Section 77(k) of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 for the rendition of accounts of joint land situated in four villages, alleging the defendants were in cultivating possession in excess of their shares, which resulted in concurrent findings and preliminary decrees against the defendants through the revenue hierarchy up to the Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether co-sharers in possession of joint land in excess of their shares are liable for rendition of accounts, and whether unlitigated claims concerning land in a fifth village could defeat this liability. The Supreme Court held that co-sharers in possession in excess of their entitlement are liable to render accounts, and extraneous claims regarding property not the subject-matter of the suit cannot invalidate the impugned orders. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a co-sharer in cultivating possession of joint land in excess of their share is liable for rendition of accounts?
- Can a claim regarding land situated in a different village, which was not the subject-matter of the original suit, be raised to challenge a decree for rendition of accounts?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND 12 OTHERS vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LYALLPUR1979 CLC 361 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 58 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-06-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR BUGTI vs CHIEF SECRETARY, BALUCHISTAN AND 3 Other1979 PLD Quetta 233 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-07-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN ETC. vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1979 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of agricultural land in Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. The core legal question was whether the Assistant Settlement Commissioner’s order, which confirmed the land in favor of the respondent, was legally deficient for failing to be a 'speaking order' and whether the High Court erred in upholding that decision. The Supreme Court held that the order was not deficient, as the relevant khata contained a detailed, reasoned decision explaining that the respondent held a superior claim due to an earlier allotment and priority in the village settlement records. The Court affirmed the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition, noting that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any factual error or violation of fundamental legal principles in the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. The key principle laid down is that where a summary order in a case file is supplemented by a detailed, reasoned order in the relevant record (khata), the requirement for a 'speaking order' is satisfied, and concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities will not be disturbed absent a clear legal error.
Questions settled- Does a summary order in a case file fail the test of a 'speaking order' if the detailed reasoning is recorded in the relevant khata?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land allotment priority made by settlement authorities and the High Court?
- Does an earlier claimant in a village settlement have priority over a subsequent allottee in the event of double allotment?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND Another vs THE STATE1979P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH KHAN vs COLLECTOR/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,1979 PLD Lahore 844 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-01Read full judgment →
- MUBARAK MASIH AND 4 Other vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND 4 OTHERS1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 51 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUBARAK ALI vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 45 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZOHRA NAQI vs ASGHAR KHAN, D. S. P. AND Other1979 PLD Lahore 587 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAITOON vs THE STATE AND ANOTHHR-1979 P Cr. L J 279 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the petitioner, Mst. Zaitoon, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings and process issued against her under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a direct complaint alleging the murder of her husband. The core legal question revolves around whether the continuation of criminal proceedings, based purely on circumstantial evidence and weak inferences where no probability of conviction exists, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The Sindh High Court held that the circumstantial evidence relied upon—including motive, alleged delay in reporting the disappearance, recovery of blood-stained articles from a flat not in the exclusive possession of the petitioner, and being last seen together—was insufficient, speculative, and incapable of sustaining a conviction. The court established the principle that where the material on record, even if accepted as true, fails to connect the accused with the crime and excludes all reasonable hypotheses of guilt, allowing the prosecution to continue is a futile exercise and an abuse of process, warranting quashment under section 561-A.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the available evidence is insufficient to secure a conviction?
- Does the recovery of blood-stained articles from a premises not in the exclusive possession of the accused constitute sufficient ground for a murder charge?
- Whether the last-seen theory alone can sustain a charge of murder when a significant time gap exists and alternative possibilities are not excluded?
- Is motive alone sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused in the absence of corroborative and direct evidence?
- Mst. WAZIR BEGUM vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND 7 OTHERS1979 CLC 72 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision concerns the refusal of a trial court to allow an amendment to a written statement in a pre-emption suit. The petitioner sought to amend her written statement to include a plea regarding the limitation period for filing the suit. The trial court dismissed the application, characterizing it as an afterthought and a belated attempt to introduce a new factual plea. The High Court held that there is no universal rule prohibiting amendments at a belated stage, provided the opposite party is not prejudiced and has an opportunity to respond. The Court emphasized that the issue of limitation is a legal duty for the court to consider under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while an admission in a written statement cannot be withdrawn, an amendment introducing inconsistent pleas is permissible, leaving the trial court to determine the effect of such inconsistencies upon evidence. Consequently, the revision was accepted, and the amendment was allowed subject to costs.
Questions settled- Can an amendment to a written statement be disallowed solely on the ground that it is sought at a belated stage?
- Is it permissible to introduce inconsistent pleas in a written statement through an amendment?
- Does a court have a duty to consider the issue of limitation even if not explicitly raised in the initial pleadings?
- Can an amendment to a written statement be allowed if it does not involve the withdrawal of a specific admission?
- Mst. WALAYAT KHATUN vs KHALIL KHAN AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Supreme Court 821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns the rejection of a pre-emption suit due to the plaintiff's failure to rectify a deficient court-fee within the court-ordered timeframe. The core legal question was whether a court is mandatorily required to grant time to make up court-fee deficiencies under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly when the limitation period has expired or the plaintiff is negligent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's rejection of the plaint. The Court held that while Sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 grant judicial discretion to extend time, this power is not to be exercised mechanically. Courts must strike a balance between assisting a suitor and protecting a defendant's vested right of limitation. Where a plaintiff is negligent, contumacious, or lacks bona fides, or where granting time would unfairly prejudice the defendant, the court is not obligated to grant extensions. The court must apply its mind judicially to the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Questions settled- Is a court mandatorily required to grant time to a plaintiff to make up a deficiency in court-fee under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the court have the discretion to refuse an extension of time for payment of court-fee if the plaintiff is found to be negligent or lacking in bona fides?
- Can a court grant an extension of time for court-fee payment if doing so would deprive the defendant of a vested right of limitation?
- Mst. TAJ MAHAL BIBI AND Other vs ABDUL WA14EED AND Or11ers1979 PLD Supreme Court 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court arising from proceedings under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question concerns the proper construction of section 2(3) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, specifically whether it bars verification of all property left in India or only agricultural land situated outside municipal limits in the agreed areas, and whether a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner could annul a verification order beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Supreme Court held that section 2(3) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 only excludes agricultural land outside municipal limits in the specified agreed areas, while urban property and land within municipal limits remain eligible for verification. The Court further held that the Deputy Commissioner acting as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to set aside the verification order after the expiry of the statutory limitation period. The appeal was accepted, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the original verification and allotment orders.
Questions settled- Does section 2(3) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 bar the verification of urban property and land situated within municipal limits in agreed areas?
- Whether a revision petition under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 is competent against an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner acting as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Can a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner set aside a land verification order after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period?
- Mst. SURRIAYA BEGUM vs GOVERNOR OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 Others1979 P Cr. L J 660 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHARIFAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1979S C M R 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Mst. Sharifan under Article 184 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking the transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed against her by her husband, Muhammad Yousaf, from the Court of Family Court Judge, Nowshera Feroz, Sind to Lahore, Punjab, where the petitioner had earlier instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage. The core legal question considered by the Court was whether a petition for the transfer of a civil suit between different provinces is maintainable under Article 184 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Article 184 of the Constitution does not warrant the institution of an application for the transfer of a civil suit of this nature. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Article 184 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan warrant the institution of an application for the transfer of a family suit from one province to another?
- Can the Supreme Court transfer a suit for restitution of conjugal rights pending in Sind to a court in Lahore under Article 184?
- Mst. SAMINA BEGUM vs THE STATE1979 PLD Karachi 424 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs MUHAMMAD ZIA ULLAH KHAN, CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.S1979 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal regarding the transfer of a portion of property in Khanewal under settlement laws. The core legal question is whether a party whose claim form was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and who failed to file an appeal or revision against that initial order can subsequently challenge the transfer proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having failed to challenge the initial rejection of her form, acquiesced in that order and could not later resile from that position or maintain a challenge against the transfer of the property. The key principle laid down is that failure to challenge an adverse initial order of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner through available statutory remedies constitutes acquiescence, precluding the aggrieved party from subsequently questioning the final transfer of the property.
Questions settled- Does failure to appeal against the initial rejection of a claim form by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner amount to acquiescence?
- Can a party excluded from property transfer in initial proceedings challenge subsequent orders without appealing the original adverse order?
- Whether settlement authorities are justified in excluding a non-appealing claimant from property transfer.
- Mst. SAJJAN AND 3 Others vs THS STATE AND ANOTHER-----1979 P Cr. L J 814 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAHIB KHATOON AND ANOTHER vs KHAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 273 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. RESHAM JAN vs ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), ABBOTTABAD, HAZARA AND 6 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 75 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1972, challenging the transfer of an evacuee property in Havelian to respondent No. 5 under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The petitioner, a claimant displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir, claimed eligibility for the transfer and alleged fraud and lack of jurisdiction in the transfer made in favour of respondent No. 5, while noting that an appeal regarding the matter was already pending before the settlement authorities. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner, having never been in possession of the disputed property and being ineligible for its transfer under the applicable settlement laws, was not an aggrieved person and lacked locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction was inappropriate while an alternative remedy by way of a pending appeal before the competent settlement authority had already been availed of by the petitioner.
Questions settled- Whether a person who has never been in possession of an evacuee property and is ineligible for its transfer qualifies as an aggrieved person to maintain a constitutional petition?
- Can a petitioner invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court while an appeal concerning the same subject matter is already pending before a competent statutory tribunal?
- Does a claimant displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir have a vested right to claim a specific rural or extended area property under Settlement Scheme No. VII without prior possession?
- Mst. RAZIA BUTT vs GHULAM RAZA1979 PLD Quetta 157 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge against the appellant-tenant. The core legal questions were whether the respondent, claiming to be the successor of the deceased original landlord, qualified as a "landlord" under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether eviction proceedings for default were maintainable without serving a notice under Section 13-A. The Court held that the respondent failed to establish his status as a landlord, as the mere collection of rent on behalf of another does not confer the legal entitlement to receive rent. Furthermore, the Court ruled that even if ownership had transferred, the failure to serve a mandatory notice under Section 13-A of the Ordinance precluded the initiation of eviction proceedings on the ground of default. The judgment establishes that the definition of "landlord" requires an independent entitlement to receive rent, not merely the act of collection, and that Section 13-A is a mandatory procedural requirement for new owners to initiate default-based eviction proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the mere act of collecting rent on behalf of a property owner make a person a 'landlord' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, a mandatory prerequisite for initiating eviction proceedings based on default?
- Does the definition of 'landlord' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, require proof of independent entitlement to receive rent?
- Mst. RAZIA BEGUM vs CHAIRMAN, INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY BOARD, MIRPUR—Non1979 CLC 288 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM vs Mst. AISHA BIBI ETC.1979 CLC 509 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAHIMA vs ABDUL KHALIQ1979 PLD Quetta 32 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. RABIA vs AHMAD ALI AND 8 Other1979 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a revision petition against the appellate court's refusal to extend time for making up a deficiency in court-fee. The core legal question concerns whether the appellate court and High Court rightly exercised their discretion in declining to extend time under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for making good an insufficient court-fee affixed on a memorandum of appeal, filed under an outdated valuation following amendments introduced by the Punjab Finance Act 1973. The Supreme Court held that the lower forums exercised their discretion on sound grounds without illegality or arbitrariness, and therefore revisional interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was unwarranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an appellate court declines to exercise discretion under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend time for making up a deficiency in court-fee?
- Does an appellant commit a fatal error by affixing court-fee on a memorandum of appeal according to repealed law rather than amended statutory provisions?
- Is an appellate court bound to grant an extension of time to make up a deficient court-fee where the appellant fails to show good cause for the delay?
- Mst. NOOR JEHAN AND Another vs Syed MUHAMMAD HASSAN SHAH AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 796 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. NAZIR BEGUM AND Another vs Sheikh ABDUL RASHID AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 546 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. MEHR JAN vs SAIDAN SHAH1979 PLD Peshawar 196 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. MASROOR SULTANA vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER!1979 P Cr. L J 518 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAROOF SULTANA AND 2 OTHERS vs PROFESSOR AGHA RAZA AND 21979 CLC 419 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. MAQSOODA BANO vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 677 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. MANSAB AND Others vs Kh. MUHAMMAD DAUD AND Other1979 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the eviction of tenants from an evacuee shop in Peshawar. The dispute arose from the Settlement Department assigning two different numbers to the same shop, leading to conflicting claims of ownership and tenancy. The respondent, Khawaja Muhammad Daud, purchased the shop via public auction after the previous transfer to one Anwar Shah was cancelled for non-payment. The respondent sought eviction of the occupant, Irshad Ahmad, for default in rent payment. Following unsuccessful litigation by the occupant and Anwar Shah, the occupant's legal heirs (the petitioners) filed objections in execution proceedings, claiming they were statutory tenants entitled to notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were merely set up by the occupant to protract litigation after he failed to retain possession. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, finding the respondent to be the lawful transferee and the petitioners' claims to be a tactical attempt to obstruct the execution of a valid eviction order.
Questions settled- Can legal heirs of a deceased tenant claim statutory tenancy status to obstruct execution proceedings after the original occupant has failed in eviction litigation?
- Does a transferee of an evacuee property through public auction acquire valid title despite previous administrative errors in property numbering?
- Is a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, required for every individual occupant if the property transfer is valid and the occupant is a defaulter?
- Mst. KISHWAR SULTANA vs CHIEF MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ETC.1979 P Cr. L J 757 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID vs Haji ABDUL HADI AND 4 Other1979 PLD Quetta 39 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959 challenged an appellate order confirming the summary ejectment of the appellant from rented premises. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is bound to frame an issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant when that relationship is disputed before ordering the deposit of rent or striking off a defense. The Balochistan High Court held that the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Rent Controller to entertain or proceed with an ejectment application. The Court ruled that whenever such a relationship is disputed by either party, the Rent Controller must frame a specific issue and determine it upon evidence before issuing provisional rent orders under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, and failure to do so renders subsequent orders void for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh determination in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to order the deposit of rent without first determining the disputed relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Is it incumbent upon the Rent Controller to frame an issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant when such relationship is contested by the parties?
- What is the legal effect of orders passed by a Rent Controller without establishing the foundational relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can a Rent Controller proceed with an ejectment application and strike off a defense when the preliminary question of tenancy remains unadjudicated?
- Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM vs THE STATE THROUGH THE HOME SECRETARY, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERSs1979 P Cr. L J 1056 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHEED BIBI AND Another vs AHMAD AHD 2 Otherp L D 1979 Lahore 846 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM SAKINA vs NASIM HAI DER1979 CLC 4 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA vs HAJI AHMAD1979 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA vs DR. AMANULLAH AND 3 Other1979 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee house located in a rural area. The house was initially transferred to respondent No. 1 in May 1968, and a permanent transfer deed was issued. The petitioner, claiming a subsequent transfer of the same property under Settlement Scheme No. VII in August 1968, challenged the respondent's transfer. Although the petitioner succeeded in an initial appeal, the Settlement Commissioner (Land) restored the transfer to respondent No. 1. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish her own entitlement or possession of the property, and that she could not succeed by merely relying on the alleged weaknesses of her adversary's title. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that factual findings regarding possession and identity of the property had been adequately considered below and that a party seeking a transfer must succeed on the strength of their own title.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenging the transfer of evacuee property succeed solely by pointing out weaknesses in the adversary's title without establishing their own entitlement?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings of settlement authorities and the High Court regarding possession and identity of property?
- Does the settlement law prohibit the transfer of evacuee properties to minors?
- Mst. FAHMIDA IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs Mirza JAVED AKHTAR1979 PLD Lahore 689 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. CHANAN JAN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND Another1979 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, where a learned Single Judge granted bail to the respondent in a case involving charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 13 of the Arms Act. The High Court's decision to grant bail was based on the finding that the respondent's case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner sought to challenge this bail order before the Supreme Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and directing notice to the Advocate-General, Punjab, the Supreme Court considered the matter. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the Lahore High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent under the specified provisions.
Questions settled- Can bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case involving Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 13 of the Arms Act?
- What is the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting bail?
- Can a Supreme Court petition challenge a High Court order granting bail?
- Mst. BIBI AMIRUNNISSA AND 2 Other vs THECHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER SIND1979 PLD Karachi 200 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. BHAG SULTAN AND OTHERS vs SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL, RAWALPINDIETC1979 SCMR 292 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions challenging the exercise of mercy jurisdiction by the Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA) regarding death row convicts. The petitioners contended that the CMLA’s stated policy of being guided by the decisions of courts of law when disposing of mercy petitions was an improper and illegal exercise of jurisdiction. It was argued that the power of mercy is distinct from the judicial process, and that authorities should prioritize human considerations, such as the plight of the convict's family, rather than relying on judicial findings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, reiterating its reasoning from a prior case (C.P.S.L.A. No. 182 of 1978). The Court held that mercy and justice cannot be entirely divorced from one another. Consequently, when exercising the power of mercy, the authority may legitimately consider whether justice was properly administered in the underlying legal proceedings. The Court affirmed that judicial outcomes remain a relevant factor for the executive authority when evaluating mercy petitions, thereby rejecting the argument that such considerations are legally improper.
Questions settled- Is the Chief Martial Law Administrator legally barred from considering judicial decisions when exercising the power of mercy?
- Can the power of mercy be entirely divorced from considerations of justice?
- Are judicial outcomes a relevant factor for an authority exercising the power of mercy?
- Mst. BARKAT BIBI vs GULZAR AND Another1979 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court upon a petition for cancellation of bail directed against an order of the Lahore High Court whereby respondent No. 1 was granted bail in a case registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to an accused charged with a capital offense where a specific role of catching hold of the deceased was attributed to him in furtherance of a common intention under section 34, and whether the mere submission of a challan warrants bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail, noting that section 34 was prima facie attracted and the submission of a challan without commencement of trial is insufficient to justify bail. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the bail order, and directed that the respondent be taken into custody. The key principle laid down is that the mere filing of a challan does not constitute a ground for further inquiry under section 497(2) for granting bail, and active participation through common intention in a murder precludes bail at a pre-trial stage.
Questions settled- Does the mere submission of a challan to the trial court make a case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of granting bail?
- Are the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prima facie attracted where an accused is alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while a co-accused inflicted fatal blows?
- Does section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a party from moving the Supreme Court directly against a bail order passed by the High Court?
- Mst. ANWAR BAT vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 21979 PLD Karachi 706 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMTUL BEGUM vs COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN's COMPENSATION,1979 PLC 487 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. ALMAS BEGUM AND Others vs FAZAL BAKHSH AND Other1979 SCMR 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioners' objections against the execution of a consent decree for possession. The core legal question was whether a compromise deed entered into during the pendency of an ejectment suit—granting the judgment debtor time to vacate the premises upon payment of a monthly sum for use and occupation—amounted to a novation of contract creating a tenancy relationship governed by rent restriction laws. The Supreme Court held that the agreement did not constitute a tenancy or novation of contract, but merely granted a grace period with compensation for vacating the land, and thus the decree remained fully executable through execution proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a compromise allowing a judgment debtor a limited period of occupation and payment during that time does not create a tenancy or attract the provisions of urban rent restriction laws so as to bar execution of a consent decree for possession.
Questions settled- Does a compromise agreement granting a judgment debtor a limited period to vacate premises and pay monthly compensation create a tenancy relationship?
- Whether a compromise allowing temporary occupation during execution proceedings constitutes a novation of contract under rent laws?
- Can a consent decree for possession be executed directly without resorting to rent restriction proceedings when temporary respite has been granted?
- Mst. AFZAL BEGUM AND Other vs Y. M. C. A. THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY1979 PLD Supreme Court 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing two miscellaneous petitions seeking to set aside an ex parte ejectment order passed under Section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal questions pertained to whether substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC constitutes 'due service' for computing limitation, which Article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to applications for setting aside ex parte orders under rent legislation, the impact of non-impleadment of an heir under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 on abatement, and whether a guardian ad litem continues to represent a minor upon attaining majority. The Supreme Court held that substituted service is valid due service unless proven to be fraudulently procured. The Court clarified that an ejectment order under Section 15 is an appellate order rather than a decree; thus, Article 169 of the Limitation Act does not apply, and such applications are governed by the residuary Article 181, which prescribes a three-year limitation period. Furthermore, partial representation of an estate by existing heirs prevents total abatement, and under Order XXXII Rule 3(5) CPC, a guardian ad litem continues until formally discharged.
Questions settled- Does substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure constitute due service for calculating the limitation period to set aside an ex parte decree or order?
- Which Article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application to set aside an ex parte appellate order passed under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does an appeal abate in toto if one heir is omitted from the record when the estate of the deceased respondent is already represented by other co-heirs?
- Does the authority of a guardian ad litem automatically terminate when a minor defendant attains majority during pending legal proceedings?
- Msssrs ASAHI INDUSTRIES vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 493 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MRS. NASREEN RAO ABDUL RASHID vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 923 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →