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.
- Mt. BEGUM ZUBIDA HAQ vs MESSRS EASTERN FEDERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd.1978 PLD Lahore 264 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-08Read full judgment →
- Mt. BASHIRAN BIBI vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION, SHORKOT AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-18Read full judgment →
- Mt. AKHTAR SULTANA vs DR. ABDUR RAUF NAGI1978 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZUBEDA AND 6 OTHERS vs GHULAM AHMAD1978 P Cr. L J 123 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZEENAT BIBI AND 3 Other vs MEHR DIN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZARINA BUTT And 4 OTHERS vs Malik AZIM AHMAD AND 2 Other1978 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order that set aside a Settlement Commissioner's decision to extend the time for payment of a transfer price regarding a property. The core legal question is whether the time restriction for payment imposed by paragraph 3-A of Settlement Scheme No. VIII can override the broader powers of restoration granted to the Chief Settlement Commissioner under paragraph 24 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that while the High Court relied on paragraph 3-A to invalidate the extension, paragraph 24 of the Schedule to the Act appears to confer wider discretion for restoration without such specific time constraints. The Court held that the conflict between the statutory provisions of the Act and the subordinate legislation of the Settlement Scheme requires authoritative determination, as the rights of the parties are governed by the Act. Consequently, the Court stayed further proceedings before the Settlement Authorities pending the final adjudication of this legal conflict.
Questions settled- Does paragraph 3-A of Settlement Scheme No. VIII restrict the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to restore property under paragraph 24 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a subordinate Settlement Scheme impose time limitations on the restoration of property that are not present in the parent Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Is the cancellation of a property transfer valid when based on a compensation book later declared bogus without providing the transferee an opportunity to be heard?
- Mst. ZAINAB HAJIANI vs AL HILAL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND 21978 PLD Karachi 848 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges the dismissal of a suit for a declaratory injunction, where the trial court rejected the plaint for want of the mandatory one-month notice required under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957. The plaintiff sought to restrain the construction of an electric sub-station, arguing that such construction was not a function of the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) and thus did not trigger the notice requirement. The court held that the KDA possesses the authority to provide for lighting and electricity supply within its development schemes under Article 29 of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957. Consequently, the construction of an electric sub-station, even if executed by a third party under a No-Objection Certificate from the KDA, constitutes an act done under the authority or direction of the KDA. The court affirmed that the suit was barred by the failure to serve the statutory notice required by Article 131, as the act in question fell within the purview of the KDA's powers.
Questions settled- Is the construction of an electric sub-station a function falling within the powers of the Karachi Development Authority under the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957?
- Does the requirement of notice under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957, apply to acts performed by third parties under a No-Objection Certificate issued by the Authority?
- Can a suit be maintained against the Karachi Development Authority or those acting under its authority without the expiration of one month from the delivery of a written notice as prescribed by Article 131?
- Mst. TILAWATUNNISA AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1978 SCMR 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute regarding the auction and transfer of a big mansion known as Laxmichand Building in Karachi, originally auctioned under Settlement Scheme No. III to 42 purchasers represented by an attorney. The core legal question concerns whether the attorney could lawfully substitute himself and his family members as the purchasers after the original 42 purchasers had withdrawn from the agreement, and whether the Settlement Department's cancellation of the transfer was justified. The Supreme Court held that the contract of purchase was made with the 42 original purchasers through the attorney and did not confer any personal right of transfer upon the attorney or his family members. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition, ruling that the substitution of transferees was illegal and that the petitioners had approached the court with unclean hands through a subterfuge to enforce the attorney's private claims. The key principle laid down is that an attorney bidding on behalf of principals acquires no personal rights to the property upon the principals' withdrawal, and unauthorized substitution of purchasers in settlement proceedings is void.
Questions settled- Does an attorney who places a bid on behalf of multiple purchasers acquire any personal right to the property if the principals withdraw from the agreement?
- Can the Settlement Department legally transfer a big mansion to persons other than those whose bid was originally accepted under Settlement Scheme No. III?
- Whether a writ petition filed as a subterfuge by unauthorized persons can be dismissed on the ground of coming with unclean hands?
- Mst. TAUHEED-UN-NISA vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, BALUCHISTAN1978 PLD Quetta 103 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves contempt proceedings initiated under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act against Captain Saleh Mohammad Khan, the then Member, Board of Revenue and Chief Settlement Commissioner, Baluchistan, for flagrantly ignoring and violating the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the transfer of property. The core legal question was whether a contemner can claim the discharge of a contempt notice as a matter of right upon tendering an unconditional apology, and whether such an apology completely purges the contempt. The court held that an unconditional apology does not entitle a contemner to a discharge as a matter of right and merely serves as a mitigating circumstance, and that the respondent was guilty of deliberate contempt of court. The key principles laid down are that superior court orders must be strictly obeyed by inferior and quasi-judicial authorities, that the acceptance of an apology is at the discretion of the court depending on its sincerity and the gravity of the offense, and that deliberate defiance of judicial verdicts by public functionaries warrants penal consequences.
Questions settled- Does an unconditional apology entitle a contemner to a discharge from contempt proceedings as a matter of right?
- Can the disobedience of a superior court's judgment by a quasi-judicial functionary constitute contempt of court?
- Is an apology considered a complete purging of contempt or merely a mitigating circumstance?
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND Another vs Malik MOHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 7 Other1978 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which remanded a land acquisition compensation case to the civil court. The Punjab Government acquired land for the New Ravi Bridge, Lahore, leading to an award by the Collector. Due to difficulties in apportionment because the land was shamlat deh, the Collector made a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the civil court to establish title and entitlement. The Reference Court made an award, which was challenged in a regular first appeal before the High Court. The High Court found that the civil court failed to issue notices to all persons entitled to compensation, thereby acting outside the terms of reference, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal while ordering the surrender of compensation previously received and sharing of court fees. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court was justified in examining the entire case and ordering the refund of compensation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly remanded the matter and ordered the refund of compensation as the entire award was in question. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act requires the civil court to issue notices to all persons entitled to compensation?
- Can an appellate court order the refund of compensation received under a flawed reference court award upon remanding the matter?
- Whether an appeal before the High Court against a compensation award opens up all aspects of the matter for consideration?
- Mst. SALLAN vs LAL AND Other1978 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order disposing of a habeas corpus petition regarding the custody of a woman. The core legal question was whether the High Court could summarily dismiss the petition and determine custody without recording the evidence of the detenu, despite conflicting claims by the parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to record the detenu's evidence, relying instead on unrecorded statements and assertions made by supporters of the parties during hearings. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision after recording the necessary evidence. The key principle laid down is that in habeas corpus proceedings involving disputed facts, the court is mandated to record the evidence of the detenu to reach a just and lawful conclusion, and cannot rely on informal or unrecorded statements to supplement pleadings or determine the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Can a High Court decide a habeas corpus petition without recording the evidence of the detenu?
- Is it permissible for a court to rely on unrecorded statements made by persons present in court to supplement pleadings in a habeas corpus case?
- What is the proper procedure for a High Court when faced with conflicting claims regarding the custody of a detenu in a habeas corpus petition?
- Mst. SAID BEGUM AND Other vs NUR AHMAD AND Other1978 PLD Supreme Court 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a pre-emption suit instituted by multiple plaintiffs under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. During the pendency of the second appeal, two of the pre-emptor appellants passed away, and their legal representatives were not brought on record. The vendee-appellant contended that the failure to substitute the legal representatives resulted in the total abatement of the appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the death of some pre-emptors causes the suit or appeal to abate in toto or only in part. The Court held that the right of pre-emption is a personal statutory right, and when multiple pre-emptors join in a single suit, their individual rights do not merge into a joint right. Applying the test of whether the surviving plaintiffs could have originally instituted the suit alone, the Court concluded that the death or withdrawal of one pre-emptor merely eliminates that individual from the proceedings. Consequently, the appeal abated only partially (qua the deceased appellants) and the surviving pre-emptors remained entitled to prosecute the appeal to pre-empt the entire suit land.
Questions settled- Does the death of one of several pre-emptors who joined as plaintiffs in a single pre-emption suit cause the suit or appeal to abate in toto?
- What is the legal test to determine whether a suit or appeal abates as a whole or only in part upon the death of a party?
- Does the joining of multiple pre-emptors with equal rights in a single suit convert their individual rights into a joint right?
- Mst. RAZIA BEGUM vs Mst. SARDAR BBGUM AND Other1978 PLD Lahore 696 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHIDA vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND 2 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 818 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. RASHI DA BEGUM AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SAEED AND 4 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 160 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAHILA vs THE STATE AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. PERVEEN AKHTAR AND Another vs GHULAM RABBANI1978 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a custody dispute under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The respondent filed a petition for custody of his two minor children, alongside an interlocutory application for their interim protection. Under a court-approved compromise, the petitioner mother was permitted to take one minor child to Canada on the condition that she return and produce the child in court after six months, backed by a surety bond executed by the co-petitioner. Upon the mother's failure to produce the child within the stipulated period, the Guardian Judge rejected her application for an extension and forfeited the surety bond due to the lack of reasonable justification. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' revision petition in limine. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that because the compromise and the execution of the bond were undisputed, and the child had still not been produced, the surety bond was rightly forfeited. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a surety bond executed to secure the temporary removal of a minor child from the court's jurisdiction can be legally forfeited if the child is not returned within the agreed timeframe?
- Does the failure of a mother to produce a minor child in court pursuant to a compromise agreement justify the forfeiture of the surety bond executed on her behalf?
- Can a revision petition challenging the forfeiture of a guardianship surety bond be dismissed in limine if the breach of the bond's conditions is undisputed?
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, S ARGODHA AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 83 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. NASIM AKHTAR vs NOOR REHMAN AND 2 Other1978 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUSARRAT BIBI vs Mst. SAIRA BIBI1978 PLD Lahore 932 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUNIRA BIBI AND 7 Other vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN1978 PLD Quetta 121 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan acting as Chief Settlement Commissioner, which reopened a long-standing property dispute and declared a residential house in Quetta to be evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the authorities could treat a property as evacuee after the statutory cut-off date of 1st January 1957, when it had previously been declared non-evacuee and no proceedings were pending. The Balochistan High Court held that under Section 3 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957, no person or property not treated as evacuee immediately before 1st January 1957 could be treated as such thereafter, save for pending proceedings or unauthorized occupations. The court ruled that the impugned orders declaring the property as evacuee were passed without lawful authority, coram non judice, and void ab initio. The key principle laid down is that the statutory bar against treating properties as evacuee after 1st January 1957 is absolute unless saved by active pending proceedings or unauthorized possession as contemplated by the statute.
Questions settled- Whether a property not treated as evacuee immediately before the 1st day of January 1957 can be declared as evacuee property thereafter?
- Does a Deputy Custodian possess inherent jurisdiction to recall a final non-evacuee order suo motu beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
- Whether an order passed by a special tribunal without jurisdiction is void and non-existent in the eyes of the law?
- Mst. MOTIBAI ROMAN IRANI AND 3 Other vs ABBASBHOY MOOSAJI (THROUGH HIS LEGAL RFPRESEN TATIVES )1978 PLD Karachi 851 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. MEHRAI vs Mst. NOOR BHARI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 771 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHURSHID vs Haji ABDUL HADI AND 4 Other1978 PLD Quetta 68 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHATIJA BAI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 395 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. JAMILA BEGUM vs AWAM UN NASS AND 15 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. JAMEELA vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 224 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. ISMAT KHANUM TOOR vs RAO RIAZ ALI KHAN AND 2 Other1978 SCMR 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from a High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Additional District Judge, which had refused to set aside an ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage obtained by the appellant. The core legal question was whether the High Court appropriately exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to reappraise evidence and set aside concurrent factual determinations regarding service of process under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the High Court erred by reappraising evidence and acting as an appellate forum. Furthermore, minor typographical errors in a substituted service publication do not invalidate service where the respondent had actual knowledge of the proceedings and deliberately avoided service. The Court established that constitutional relief is discretionary and should not be exercised to prolong litigation where concurrent findings establish actual notice and deliberate avoidance.
Questions settled- Can the High Court reappraise evidence under its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside concurrent factual findings of lower courts?
- Whether technical non-compliance with statutory notice requirements invalidates service when the defendant had actual knowledge of the suit?
- Does a typographical error in the body of a published newspaper notice invalidate substituted service if the title of the suit contains the correct name?
- Mst. IRSHAD BIBI vs BASHIR AHMAD1978 PLD Lahore 518 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. IQBAL BEGUM vs Sh. ASHRAF PERVAIZ AND 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. IQBAL BEGUM AND 4 OTHERS vs MIAN MANZOORUL ISLAM1978 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a second appeal regarding an ejectment order against the petitioners. The petitioners, tenants, faced eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord on grounds of default, personal requirement, and property damage. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, which was upheld by the Additional District Judge, and subsequently by the High Court. The petitioners argued that the High Court erred by deciding the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution under Order XLI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when their counsel failed to appear. They also contested the finding of default, arguing the landlord amended the default period without permission. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, holding that the High Court correctly decided the matter on merits. Crucially, the Court affirmed the finding of default, noting that the rent was tendered after the statutory sixty-day grace period stipulated in the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Court held that late tender of rent, regardless of the specific start date of default, constitutes a valid ground for ejectment under the law.
Questions settled- Can a High Court decide an appeal on merits when the appellant's counsel fails to appear, rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution?
- Does the tender of rent after the expiry of sixty days from the due date constitute default under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Is an amendment to an ejectment petition regarding the date of default permissible if the tenant fails to controvert the amended allegation?
- Mst. INAYAT BIBI vs ABDUL AZIZ AND 4 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. IJAZ FATIMA vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER II AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 769 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. GULZAR BEGUM Alias GULZARI vs GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, ISLAMABAD AND 2 Other1978 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. GUL BIBI- vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Quetta 117 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM FATIMA vs QAMAR HUSSAIN AND 5 Other1978 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a Regular Second Appeal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had been properly served with notice of the appeal proceedings, thereby justifying the ex parte order, and whether sufficient cause existed to set aside said order and condone the delay in filing the application. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and found that the petitioner had been duly served through her husband during the pendency of the appeal. Furthermore, a notice sent via registered post for the actual date of hearing was deemed sufficient intimation under the High Court Rules and Orders. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in refusing to set aside the ex parte order, as the petitioner failed to appear despite receiving proper notice. The principle laid down is that the posting of a notice card, in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders, constitutes sufficient service of the date fixed for hearing.
Questions settled- Does the posting of a notice card in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders constitute sufficient service of the date fixed for a hearing?
- Can an ex parte decree be set aside if the party was duly served with notice of the proceedings?
- Is a High Court's refusal to set aside an ex parte order justifiable when the record demonstrates that the party had received timely notice of the appeal?
- Mst. FEROZE BEGUM vs LT. COL. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1978 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed an order of the Family Judge/Guardian Judge delivering custody of two minor children to their father under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The father sought custody after the mother obtained a maintenance order under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The lower courts granted custody primarily based on the father's superior financial status and literary capacity compared to the mother's relative poverty and illiteracy. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the lower courts' judgments. The Court held that the lower courts erred by ignoring the evidence on record and failing to evaluate the actual welfare of the minors. It laid down that under Section 25, the welfare of the minor—encompassing material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being—is the overriding and paramount consideration, and a father's financial advantage or natural guardianship does not automatically entitle him to custody if uprooting the children from an environment where they are thriving does not serve their welfare.
Questions settled- Is the mother's inability to maintain her children a valid ground for depriving her of their custody under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
- Whether the superior financial status of a father overrides the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor in custody proceedings?
- Does a father's status as natural guardian compel the court to grant him custody under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 without proof that it serves the welfare of the ward?
- Mst. FATIMA AND Another vs S. H. O., POLICE STATION, GOLRA SHARIF AND 21978 PLD Lahore 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. DILSHAD BEGUM vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI1978 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-03-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. DANI ETC. AND ABDUL GHANI vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L), MULTAN DIVISION MULTAN. ETC.S THS SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION MULTAN ETC1978 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two connected petitions for special leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions challenging the cancellation of land allotments. The petitioners, who migrated to Pakistan in 1947, had their land allotments in Chak No. 133/EB confirmed in 1951 and 1952. Subsequently, the Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner ordered a general revision of allotments in 1956. Although the High Court initially quashed this revisional order, the Supreme Court of Pakistan later restored it in a reported judgment (PLD 1972 SC 307). Under the criteria established by the revisional order, only specific categories of temporary allottees with claims pending on the prescribed date were eligible. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners did not meet these criteria, as their claims were not pending in the estate on the target date. The Court also rejected the petitioners' argument regarding the finality of the High Court's judgment inter se, noting that the parties were represented in the earlier Supreme Court appeal and were bound by its decision. Consequently, the petitions for special leave to appeal were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a party represented in an earlier Supreme Court appeal is bound by its decision despite a prior favorable High Court judgment?
- Can a claimant assert temporary allottee status in two different estates simultaneously for the purpose of land allotment?
- Does the transfer of a land claim back to an estate after the prescribed target date satisfy the eligibility criteria for a general revision of allotments?
- Mst. CHOORI vs GHULAM HUSSAIN1978 SC M R404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal concerning a land dispute. The core legal question involved whether the High Court was bound to examine and reappraise the evidence when the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court were at variance. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court should have examined the basis of the varying findings of the courts below in light of established precedent, the first appellate court was ultimately justified in reversing the trial court's finding as it was based on proper materials on record. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is required to examine the basis of varying findings arrived at by the trial court and the first appellate court in a second appeal?
- Can a finding of fact by the first appellate court be interfered with in second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal when the first appellate court's reversal of the trial court's finding is based on proper materials on record?
- Mst. BIBI RABIA vs Haji ABDUL KHALIQ1978 SCMR 232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns a claim to ancestral property in the former Kalat State, originally adjudicated by a 1923 Jirga award. The core legal question was whether the appellant could challenge the 1923 award and assert inheritance rights under Shariat law, despite having accepted a gift under the award and the significant lapse of time. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant possessed no valid cause of action. The Court found that the 1923 Jirga award, which denied her inheritance rights, was final and that she had accepted a benefit under it, thereby precluding her challenge. Furthermore, the 1948 Farman promulgating Shariat in Kalat explicitly barred the reopening of cases decided before 1948. The Court affirmed the principle that a party who accepts a benefit under an award cannot subsequently challenge the validity of that award, and that the retrospective application of new laws does not revive claims already settled by final adjudication unless expressly provided by the enacting authority.
Questions settled- Can a party who has accepted a benefit under an award subsequently challenge the validity of that award?
- Does the promulgation of Shariat law in the State of Kalat permit the reopening of inheritance cases decided prior to 1948?
- Does the acceptance of a gift recommended by a Jirga award preclude a party from later challenging the award?
- Mst. BIBI KHATOON AND 7 Other vs ABDUL JALIL1978 PLD Supreme Court 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a second appeal and upheld a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell shops. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had agreed in writing to sell shops to his brother after obtaining Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.D.s) from the Settlement Department. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance years after the issuance of the P.T.D., leading the petitioners to contest the claim as time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, arguing that the date of the P.T.D. constituted a fixed date for performance under the maxim id certum est quod certum reddi potest. The Supreme Court examined comparative case law and Privy Council authorities, holding that an agreement contingent upon an uncertain future event—such as the discretionary issuance of a P.T.D. by the Settlement Department—does not fall under the first part of Article 113 as having a "date fixed for the performance". Instead, limitation begins when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. The concurrent findings of fact regarding notice and lack of laches were upheld, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell contingent upon the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed by the Settlement Department fall under the first part of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Can the maxim 'id certum est quod certum reddi potest' be applied to determine a 'date fixed for performance' under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908 when performance depends on a discretionary future event?
- When does time begin to run for filing a suit for specific performance of a contract where no specific date for performance is fixed?
- Mst. BASHIRAN BIBI vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION, SHORKOT1978 PLD Lahore 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMINA BEGUM AND Other vs Mehar GHULAM DASTGIR1978 PLD Supreme Court 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court affirming the ejectment of tenants from an evacuee shop. The core legal question was whether an ejectment petition filed by a transferee landlord under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is ab initio incompetent if initiated during the six-year statutory protection period provided by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, even if that protection period expires during the pendency of the proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ejectment application was not ab initio incompetent, particularly as it alleged default, which forfeits statutory protection. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, courts possess the discretion to take notice of subsequent events, such as the expiry of the protection period, and mould the decree according to the circumstances existing at the time of the final decision. The judgment establishes that premature litigation may be maintained if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the suit.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court take notice of events occurring after the institution of a suit to grant relief?
- Does the expiry of the statutory protection period under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, during the pendency of ejectment proceedings, validate a previously premature petition?
- Is an ejectment petition filed by a transferee landlord ab initio incompetent if filed during the period of statutory protection?
- Mst. AKHTAR SULTANA vs DR. ABDUR RAUF NAGI1978 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-25Read full judgment →
- Mss. KHATUA BAT AND Another MAW vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANKS1978 PLD Supreme Court 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal regarding the mode of trial of a recovery suit filed by a bank on the basis of a promissory note and guarantee. The core legal questions involved the propriety of procedures under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the distinction between suits on promissory notes and suits on originating summons, and whether a party can challenge an order obtained upon their own application through suppression of material facts. The Supreme Court held that suits on promissory notes under Order XXXVII are distinct from suits on originating summons, that the practice of serving defendants in Order XXXVII suits via originating summons is incorrect and must be discontinued, and that a party cannot object to an order that was granted on their own application. The court laid down the principle that holders of bills of exchange or promissory notes are entitled to speedy resolution, and condemned dilatory tactics and the suppression of facts in judicial proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether suits under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be initiated or served through an originating summons?
- Can a party be permitted to challenge an order of the court that was procured upon their own application through the suppression of material facts?
- Whether a suit based on a promissory note is distinct in nature and procedure from a suit instituted on an originating summons?
- Mrt. FATIMA BEGUM vs HUSSAIN MUHAMMAD AND 4 Other1978 SCMR 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed by Mst. Fatima Begum seeking review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dismissing her petition for special leave to appeal. The core dispute involves the competing allotment of agricultural land in Faisalabad District originally allotted to the respondents in 1947 as sitting allottees and confirmed in 1953, versus a subsequent allotment made to the petitioner as garden area in 1959 by the Garden Committee without notice to the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the review petition is devoid of force as it merely re-argued the case without establishing any ground such as discovery of fresh evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court affirmed that disturbing the respondents after continuous possession of thirty years would be unjust and contrary to rehabilitation policy, while observing that the petitioner, being a widow, should receive priority in the satisfaction of her claim through other available means of compensation.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition can be entertained when it merely re-argues the case without showing an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of fresh evidence?
- Is it just to disturb sitting allottees in continuous possession of land for thirty years?
- Whether an ex-parte allotment made without notice to the prior confirmed allottees is sustainable?
- Mrs. ROSHAN D. MINWALLA vs THE KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARACHI AND Another1978 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-22Read full judgment →
- MRS. FEROZE ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1978 PLD Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a writ petition filed by a landlord challenging an order passed by a Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte ejectment order against the tenant and reopening eviction proceedings. The core legal question is whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order setting aside an ex parte ejectment order when the final eviction proceedings are still pending. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that since a final order had not yet been passed, the petitioner had an adequate alternate remedy by way of an appeal under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, wherein any interlocutory order could be challenged. The Court laid down the principle that fragmentary decisions and writ petitions against interlocutory orders in rent matters are strongly discouraged to prevent protracted litigation and delay in the administration of justice.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte ejectment order?
- Can interlocutory orders that are not independently appealable be challenged in an appeal filed against the final order under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does a party suffer remediable harm requiring writ jurisdiction when challenging preliminary orders in ongoing rent proceedings?
- MRS. DAPHNE JOSEPH vs Malik ERIC ROSHAN KHAN1978 PLD Karachi 336 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against an order of the District Judge, Karachi, dismissing a divorce petition filed by a Christian wife under section 10 of the Divorce Act of 1869 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant contended that jurisdiction was available under the proviso to rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, arguing that the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, applied to Christians as well as Muslims and served as a procedural statute. The core legal question was whether the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, overrides or supersedes the provisions of the central Divorce Act of 1869 regarding Christian marriages and divorces. The Sindh High Court held that while the Family Courts Act is not exclusively applicable to Muslims, it cannot curtail or exclude the exhaustive provisions of the central Divorce Act of 1869, which specifically governs persons professing the Christian religion. Furthermore, under Article 134 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962, a provincial law cannot be inconsistent with a central law. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, applies exclusively to Muslims or includes persons professing the Christian religion?
- Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, exclude the application of the central Divorce Act of 1869 to Christians?
- How does Article 134 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 apply in case of an inconsistency between a provincial law and a central law?
- MR. ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-12Read full judgment →
- MR. ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO vs THE STATE1978 PLD Supreme Court 125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed by the appellant, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, requesting the Chief Justice of Pakistan to recuse himself from the Bench hearing his appeal and to refrain from nominating the Bench, citing alleged bias. The core legal questions were whether the Chief Justice was disqualified due to perceived partiality and whether a litigant possesses the right to demand a specific Bench composition. The Court rejected the application, holding that the objections were misconceived, factually incorrect, and highly belated. The Chief Justice ruled that the allegations failed to establish any real likelihood of bias, which is the requisite legal standard for disqualification. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under the Constitution and law, it is the duty and obligation of the Chief Justice to personally preside over important cases and to nominate Benches. The judgment established that a party cannot demand a Bench of their own choice, and that mere suspicion of bias, without demonstrating a real likelihood, is insufficient to render a judicial decision void or disqualify a judge.
Questions settled- Does a litigant have the right to demand a Bench of their own choice in the Supreme Court?
- Is mere suspicion of bias sufficient to disqualify a judge from hearing a case?
- What is the legal test to determine if a judge is disqualified from acting in a judicial capacity due to interest or bias?
- Does the Chief Justice of Pakistan have the constitutional duty to preside over important cases and nominate Benches?
- MR. YUSUF ALI KHAN, BARATLaw vs MUHAMMAD JAVID IQBAL CHEEMA, ADDL.1978 PLD Lahore 291 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-30Read full judgment →
- Mr. YUSUF ALI KHAN, BAR-AT-LAW vs MUHAMMAD DAVID IQBAL CEEEMA, ADDL.1978 PLD Lahore 291 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-30Read full judgment →
- MOTHERWELL BRIDGE CONTRACTING & TRADING Co. LTD. vs RIAZ ALI KHAN Etc.1978 PLD Karachi 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1966-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three applications for the appointment of a receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed in the context of a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The plaintiff and defendants sought the appointment of specific individuals as receivers to wind up joint venture affairs, while creditors filed a separate application alleging collusion between the parties to defeat creditor claims and requesting an independent receiver. The core legal question was whether the court should appoint a receiver under the circumstances, particularly where the parties insisted on their own nominees and failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of wastage or necessity. The Court held that the appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary remedy requiring the demonstration of a prima facie case and that it is 'just and convenient' to do so. The Court emphasized that a receiver must be disinterested and independent. Finding that the parties failed to establish a prima facie case or necessity, and noting the lack of allegations of wastage, the Court dismissed all applications.
Questions settled- Is a court bound to appoint a receiver of the parties' choice if they reach an agreement?
- Does the appointment of a receiver require a showing of a prima facie case and wastage of property?
- Can a court appoint a receiver suo motu or upon the application of a third party interested in the suit property?
- Is the appointment of a receiver considered the harshest remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mot. SHAHEDA AND 2 Other vs IMAMUDDIN1978 PLD Karachi 472 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
- MOOSA HASSAN AMLANI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AHD 4 Other1978 PLD Karachi 883 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MOMS NAWAZ AGENCIES, LAHORE vs INCOMETAX OFFICER, MCIRCLE, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 198 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mom ZAMINDAR CORPORATION Lto., KARACHI vs QM MUHAMMAD TAQI1978 PLD Karachi 458 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MOKHA vs ZULFIQAR AND 9 Other1978 PLD Supreme Court 10 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a petition to assail the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partially set aside the convictions and sentences handed down by the trial court in a double murder case stemming from a historical family blood feud. Fourteen persons were originally tried, and several were convicted under sections 148, 302, 201, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with death sentences and life imprisonments awarded. On appeal, the High Court acquitted several respondents and substituted the capital sentences of others with transportation for life, relying on grounds of interested witnesses and private revenge. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondents and altering the sentences based on a misreading and erroneous appraisal of the ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was founded on a misreading of evidence and a failure to consider material, disinterested testimony, leading to a grave miscarriage of justice. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the acquittals of the respondents were set aside, their convictions under sections 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were restored, and compensation was ordered under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondents based on a finding that the prosecution witnesses were interested?
- Does private revenge constitute a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser penalty in a murder case?
- Can the omission of names in a First Information Report be used to completely destroy the credibility of eye-witnesses?
- Does the doctrine of expectancy of life apply in appeals against acquittal involving inordinate delays?
- MOHAMMADRE-ROLLING MILLS. KARACHI AND 3 Other vs SHAMSUDDIN AND 21978 PLD Karachi 356 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD YASIN AND 9 OTHERS vs Mst. BEGUM NOOR AND 9 OTHERS1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 112 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-06-17Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD UMER vs MESSRS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 423 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-26Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD UMAR vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SIND1978 PLD Karachi 282 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-10Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SALEEM ABDULL AH NAZKANI AND ANOTHER s vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 625 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-08Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD MALIK vs THE AIRPORT MANAGER, CIVIL AIRPORT, KARACHI,AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 185 · Labour Court · 1977-08-16Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-10-24Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD JAVED IQBAL vs MOHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI1978 PLC 526 · Labour Court · 1975-10-22Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD ISHAQUE KHAN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, WORKSHOPS, PAKISTANRAILWAYS, LOCO SHOP MOGHALPURA, LAHORE1978 PLC 222 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD IRSHAD vs RAWALPINDI ELECTRIC POWER Co. LTD. THROUGH ITS1978 PLC 483 · Labour Industrial Relations Commission · 1978-01-07Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD ALI AND ANOTHER vs MERCHANT & BROS., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 426 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-01-27Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD AFZAL vs MESSRS WAZIR ALI INDUSTRIES LTD., HYDERABAD1978 PLC 77 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-06Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD ABDUL RAUF vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1978 PLD Lahore 917 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-12Read full judgment →
- MODERN TENTAGE & TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No, 11978 PLD Lahore 965 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-25Read full judgment →
- MODERN TENTAGE & TEXTILE INDUSTRIES Lm. vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 11978 PLD Lahore 965 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-25Read full judgment →
- MITHO vs The STATE1978 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against an order of the Sind High Court which dismissed the bail application of the petitioner, who was challaned for the murder of the deceased during a sudden fight over a water turn dispute. The core legal question is whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the plea of the right of private defence and whether the question of exceeding such right warranted further inquiry under the law. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and accepted it, holding that prima facie the petitioner's side had a right of private defence and the question of whether that right was exceeded required further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that where cross-versions and circumstances at the preliminary stage prima facie establish a right of private defence and the extent of its exercise is debatable, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when a prima facie case of private defence is established?
- Does the question of whether an accused exceeded the right of private defence warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Miss SALEEMA HAMID ALI vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 84 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Miss NASREEN FATIMA AWAN, Miss NAILA RASHID ,Miss RUKHSANA MALIK vs _f9d2c2981978 PLD Quetta 17 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Four constitutional petitions were heard together before the High Court of Balochistan concerning admissions to Bolan Medical College, Quetta, under the quota allocated for rural areas of Quetta District for the 1977–78 academic session. The core legal issues centered on the evidentiary value of domicile and residence certificates, the scope of judicial review under Article 199 over administrative selection tribunals, the validity of policy resolutions issued by the Council of Common Interests on provincial educational matters, and the adherence to natural justice in modifying residential statuses. The High Court held that a domicile certificate issued under statutory inquiry provides strong presumptive proof of permanent residence and cannot be arbitrarily disregarded by administrative committees. It further ruled that the High Court retains authority to intervene where administrative bodies act arbitrarily, misread, or ignore material evidence. Moreover, any adverse alteration of a person's residential certificate requires notice and a fair hearing. Consequently, Petition No. 77 of 1977 succeeded, while the remaining three petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Does a domicile certificate issued under Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 constitute presumptive evidence of a candidate's permanent residence for admission purposes?
- Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution interfere with factual determinations of an administrative selection committee if the decision is arbitrary or overlooks material evidence?
- Does the Council of Common Interests possess constitutional authority under Article 154(1) of the Constitution to regulate admission policies for provincial professional colleges?
- Can a statutory authority cancel or adversely amend a candidate's residence certificate without providing a prior show-cause notice and hearing?
- Miss NASEEM AKHTAR AND 2 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, STATES AND FRONTIER REGIONS DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND 8 Other1978 PLD Supreme Court 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a leave petition impugning a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed a writ petition filed by female students against the nomination of certain respondents for admission to Fatima Jinnah Medical College, Lahore, against reserved seats for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The core legal question is whether the policy of allocating reserved medical seats agency-wise on population basis with merit restricted inter se within each agency violates constitutional provisions or merit principles. The Supreme Court held that the policy of reserving seats for specific agencies and restricting merit within each respective agency is valid and designed to ensure uniform and balanced educational progress among backward areas. The key principle laid down is that public authorities may make special provisions for the advancement of socially or educationally backward classes or areas under the Constitution, and allocation of reserved seats to specific territorial units without inter-agency merit shifting is lawful.
Questions settled- Whether the reservation of medical college seats for specific agencies of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas on a population basis is lawful?
- Does restricting the criterion of merit inter se among candidates of a particular agency violate fundamental rights?
- Can a reserved seat for an agency with no eligible female candidates be allocated to a candidate from a nearby agency within the same division?
- Whether public authorities can make special provisions for the advancement of socially or educationally backward classes under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Miss MEHRUN NISSA BALOCH vs APPELLATE COMMITTEE, KARACHI AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 214 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the cancellation of their Permanent Residence Certificates (PRCs) for Thatta District by the Appellate Committee under the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971. The petitioners contended that satisfying the criteria of Rule 6 (being born in Sindh with a father domiciled in Sindh) automatically entitled them to a PRC for Thatta District, particularly as their fathers held domicile certificates specifying Thatta District. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It held that Rule 6 merely sets out pre-conditions for eligibility and does not automatically entitle an applicant to a PRC for a specific district. Under Rules 2, 4, and 5, the District Magistrate and Appellate Committee must independently determine as a factual matter whether the applicant is a permanent resident of that specific district. Furthermore, a domicile certificate under Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 pertains to Pakistan as a whole, and any local district mentioned therein is merely evidentiary, not conclusive.
Questions settled- Does meeting the general eligibility criteria of Rule 6 of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules 1971 automatically entitle an applicant to a Permanent Residence Certificate for a specific district?
- Does a domicile certificate issued under Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 conclusively establish an applicant's permanent residence in a specific district for medical college admissions?
- Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution interfere with factual findings made by an Appellate Committee regarding permanent residence status under the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules 1971?
- Miss MEHRUN NISA BALOCH vs APPELLATE COMMITTEE AND Other1978 SCMR 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of her writ petition by the Sind High Court, which upheld the cancellation of her Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) by the Appellate Committee. The core legal question was whether a minor is entitled to a PRC for a specific district solely based on the father's domicile certificate, and whether Rule 6 of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971, provides an exhaustive list of criteria for issuing PRCs or merely acts as a restriction on the District Magistrate's powers under Rule 4. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that Rule 6 does not confer independent power but restricts the District Magistrate's discretion under Rule 4. The Court held that a PRC is not automatically granted based on parental domicile; the District Magistrate retains discretion under Rule 4, subject to the restrictive criteria in Rule 6. Consequently, the Committee's factual determination regarding the petitioner's residence was supported by evidence and thus lawful, as the Court found no error in the High Court's refusal to interfere with the Committee's discretionary decision.
Questions settled- Does Rule 6 of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971, confer independent power on the District Magistrate to issue a Permanent Residence Certificate?
- Is a minor entitled to a Permanent Residence Certificate for a district solely because their father holds a domicile certificate for that district?
- Does the District Magistrate have the authority to issue a certificate of domicile for a specific district under Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951?
- Can a High Court interfere with the factual findings of the Appellate Committee regarding the grant of a Permanent Residence Certificate if such findings are supported by material on the record?
- Miss MAJIDA TABASSUM vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 222 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
- Miss FOZIA NASIR vs PRINCIPAL AND CHAIRMAN, SELECTION BOARD FOR1978 PLD Karachi 1103 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-05Read full judgment →
- Miss F. DUBASH vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 551 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-14Read full judgment →
- Miss ANIS KUBRA And Another vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND Other1978 PLD Karachi 556 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
- Miss ALKA HUSSAIN vs UNIVERSITY OF PANJAB Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
- MISAL KHAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mirza YOUNUS BAIG vs SIND LABOUR COURT No. V, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 570 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 264 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD AHMAD BEG vs Mirza AMJAD BEG1978 PLD Lahore 421 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD AHMAD BAIG vs Mirza AMJAD BAIG1978 PLD Lahore 421 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
- MIRAL vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 161 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed under Sections 435, 439, and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of preventive proceedings initiated under Section 110 of the Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dadu. The applicant was remanded to custody following an order under Section 112 without a separate emergency order under Section 117(3), on vague police allegations, with proceedings remaining pending for nearly three years without examining a single witness. The High Court considered whether proceedings under Section 110 could be sustained where the police report lacks specific instances, where the person proceeded against was remanded without compliance with Section 117(3), and where the statutory period in the Section 112 order had expired. The High Court allowed the revision and quashed the proceedings, holding that a person under Chapter VIII is not an accused and cannot be remanded without a reasoned order under Section 117(3), that general police allegations without independent local witnesses cannot justify proceedings, and that no proceedings can continue after the expiry of the period specified in the Section 112 order.
Questions settled- Can a person proceeded against under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be remanded to custody without an order recording reasons under Section 117(3)?
- Are vague and stereotyped allegations in a police report without specific instances sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can evidence of general repute in proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be established solely by the testimony of police officers without local witnesses?
- Can proceedings initiated under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 continue after the expiry of the time period specified in the preliminary order passed under Section 112?
- Mir SADARUDDIN vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND 2 OTHERSs1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 92 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-06-05Read full judgment →
- MIR HASSAN AND 2 OTHERS vs RAJA1978 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
- MIR HASSAN AND 2 Other vs RAJA1978 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mir Haji GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN TALPUR AND Another vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD1978 PLD Karachi 919 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-24Read full judgment →
- Mir GHULAM ABBAS KHAN TALPUR vs THE STATE Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 125 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-23Read full judgment →
- MIR AKBAR vs KALA ETC.S1978 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant against an order of the Lahore High Court, which granted post-arrest bail to two accused persons charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail primarily on the ground of prolonged delay in the commencement of the trial, despite the seriousness of the offense. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the lower court properly exercised its discretion given the peculiar circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that where the state cannot provide a proximate estimate for the commencement of a trial, and where the accused has already suffered incarceration for a significant period without substantial progress in the proceedings, the delay constitutes a valid ground for bail to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail decisions must depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and that indefinite detention without trial is not justified.
Questions settled- Does prolonged delay in the commencement of a trial constitute a valid ground for granting bail in a capital case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail if the decision is based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case?
- Is the failure of the state to provide a proximate estimate for the commencement of a trial a relevant factor in bail adjudication?
- MIDDLE EAST CONTRACTORS, MIRPUR vs PROJECT DIRECTOR, RESETTLEMENT1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 142 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →