Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Mst. Razia Sultana vs Judge Family Court etc2022 LHC 1964 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Sultana vs Judge Family Court and others2022 MLD 2077 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Bibi vs Additional Sessions Judge-Ii, (East) Islamabad and others2022 IHC 56 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Raj Begum (deceased) through her L.Rs and others vs Mst. Ajaib Jan2022 SCP 100, 2022 SCMR 1394, 2022 PLJ SC 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns the inheritance rights of daughters against their brothers who claimed exclusive ownership of agricultural land under customary law. The core legal question was whether the male heirs could exclude female heirs by invoking customary law, relying on the death of their predecessor prior to the enactment of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the appellants' reliance on Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 was misplaced because the inheritance mutation in their favor occurred in 1956, well after the statutory cut-off date of March 15, 1948. The key principle laid down is that protection for customary acquisitions under the 1962 Act is strictly limited to those formally acquired before the 1948 cut-off date. Consequently, any acquisition occurring after this date must devolve according to the Islamic law of inheritance, ensuring all legal heirs receive their rightful shares.
Questions settled- Does Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 protect acquisitions of agricultural land made under custom after March 15, 1948?
- Is a mutation attested after the enactment of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 sufficient to establish exclusive ownership by male heirs under customary law?
- Must agricultural land inherited after the 1948 cut-off date be distributed according to Islamic law of inheritance despite the death of the predecessor occurring before said date?
- Mst. Rabia vs Station House Officer, Police Station Waleed, Larakana and 52022 YLR 1125 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant-mother seeking custody of her three minor children from the respondent-father and setting aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. The core legal question was whether the High Court or Sessions Court can grant interim custody of minors under Section 491 Cr.P.C. in the absence of exceptional circumstances and when the minors are residing outside the court's territorial jurisdiction with their father. The court held that while the Guardian Court is the final arbiter for child custody, Section 491 can be invoked as an interim measure only in exceptional circumstances involving the illegal removal of a child from lawful custody and true urgency. The court decided that since the children were residing with their father in Karachi and no exceptional urgency or illegal removal was established, the application was rightly dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction and lack of exceptional grounds, leaving the applicant to approach the appropriate Guardian Court.
Questions settled- Is the Guardian Court considered the final arbiter for adjudicating the question of custody of children?
- Can jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to seek interim custody of minors in the absence of exceptional circumstances?
- Does a High Court have jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the minors are residing outside the limits of its appellate criminal jurisdiction?
- Mst. Rabia Gula, etc vs Muhammad Janan, etc2022 SCP 28, 2022 SCMR 1009, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 161, 2022 PSC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, decreeing a suit for declaration of ownership over two properties. The core legal questions involved the bar of limitation on challenging a 1977 gift mutation and the validity of a 2004 sale mutation. The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, holding that the challenge to the gift mutation for Suit Property No.1 was time-barred. The purported donor, Mawaz Khan, failed to challenge the gift mutation within the limitation period despite the donees taking possession, and his legal heir (the respondent) was not entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as no fraud concealing the right to sue was proven. The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the sale mutation for Suit Property No.2, upholding the High Court's finding that the beneficiary failed to prove the essential ingredients of the sale transaction, particularly the payment of consideration. The Court clarified that an 'actual denial' of proprietary rights, such as taking possession based on a mutation, triggers the limitation period, unlike mere adverse revenue entries.
- Mst. Phatain Bibi vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 734 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Mst. Phatain Bibi, under Section 9(C) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1150 grams of heroin. The core legal question before the Court was whether the prosecution successfully proved the chain of custody of the seized contraband, specifically linking the recovered substance to the forensic analysis report. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court observed a critical discrepancy: while prosecution witnesses testified that the sample was handed over for chemical analysis on February 2, 2014, the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report indicated that the sample was deposited by a different official on March 11, 2014. The Court held that this significant contradiction in the chain of custody rendered the forensic evidence unreliable and failed to connect the seized substance to the analysis report. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellant. This judgment reinforces the principle that a broken chain of custody regarding narcotic samples is fatal to the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy in the date and identity of the person depositing a sample for forensic analysis break the chain of custody in a narcotics case?
- Is a conviction under The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 sustainable when the prosecution fails to link the seized contraband to the forensic report?
- What is the legal consequence when prosecution witnesses provide conflicting testimony regarding the transmission of case property for chemical analysis?
- Mst. Parveen (Deceased) through LRs vs Muhammad Pervaiz and others2022 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a suit filed by two sisters challenging a gift mutation (No. 318) dated 22 November 1992, through which their father purportedly gifted his property to his two sons, excluding the daughters. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, the Appellate Court decreed it, and the High Court subsequently restored the dismissal. The Supreme Court addressed a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, holding that since the suit valuation was below fifty thousand rupees and no issue was framed to the contrary, a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) was the correct remedy rather than a direct appeal under Article 185(2)(d). On the merits, the Court held that the burden of proving a gift lies heavily on the beneficiary. The brothers failed to produce the surviving attesting witness, failed to prove acceptance of the gift, and did not establish the delivery of possession. Furthermore, the donor was not identified as per Section 42(7) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the Appellate Court's decree and directing the distribution of the estate according to Islamic laws of inheritance.
- Mst. Noor Elahi vs Muhammad Abbas etc2022 PLJ Lahore 118, 2022 YLR 2383 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a dispute over land ownership where the petitioner challenged a mutation, alleging it was fraudulent and based on impersonation. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of mutation entries, the admissibility of handwriting expert opinions, the maintainability of a declaratory suit without seeking possession, and the applicability of the law of limitation to fraudulent transactions. The Court held that mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature, not judicial, and do not confer title; thus, the burden remains on the beneficiary to prove the underlying transaction. It further ruled that handwriting expert opinions are weak evidence and not conclusive. Additionally, the Court affirmed that a suit for declaration is maintainable even without seeking possession where the land is under lease, and that fraud vitiates limitation periods, with each new entry in revenue records providing a fresh cause of action. Consequently, finding the appellate court misread the evidence, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does a mutation entry in revenue records constitute a deed of title?
- Is a suit for declaration maintainable without seeking possession when the land is under lease?
- Does the law of limitation bar a suit challenging a transaction procured through fraud?
- What is the evidentiary value of a handwriting expert's opinion in civil proceedings?
- Mst. Nizakat Bibi vs Muabad Khan & others2022 PHC 430 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nighat Waheed and others vs Mr. Arif Latif2022 LHC 2953 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nida Begum, widow of Muhammad Sohail, caste Sudhan r/o Soon2022 SC AJ&K 25, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 563 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Mst. Nazia Ghunio vs Naveed Ahmed Sadhayo and Others2022 CLC 1829 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nazeer Bibi and another vs Higher Education Commission and another2022 IHC 210 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Nausheen Saeed vs The State and another2022 MLD 1373 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 402 registered at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad, under Sections 435 and 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 26 of the Forest Act 1927, Section 5 of the Islamabad Preservation of Landscape Ordinance 1966, Sections 11 and 19 of the Environment Protection Act 1997, and Section 26 of the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance 1979, following a viral TikTok video showing her in front of a fire in the Margalla Hills National Park. The core legal question was whether sufficient incriminating evidence existed to sustain the charges and warrant the denial of pre-arrest bail, particularly regarding the ingredients of mischief by fire and the mandatory complaint requirement for Section 188. The Islamabad High Court held that the ingredients of Section 435 were not met prima facie, that Section 188 was not competently invoked without the requisite written complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the TikTok video alone constituted insufficient evidence. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where a case lacks sufficient incriminating evidence and appears founded on circumstances not satisfying the penal ingredients at a tentative assessment stage.
Questions settled- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the primary evidence against the accused is a social media video lacking direct proof of active commission of the offense?
- Whether an FIR under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is legally sustainable without a written complaint from the concerned public servant under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What constitutes sufficient tentative assessment of evidence regarding property damage under Section 435 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
- Mst. Naseem Ishaq and others vs Khizar Hayat and others2022 PHC 666 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseem Gulshan vs Government of Punjab through District Collector, Okara and others2022 YLR 1629 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naila Hameed vs Ejaz Mahmood and 2 others2022 MLD 920 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nabeela vs Raja Muhammad Musharaf Janjua& 5 others2022 IHC 164 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Musarat wife of Bakht Rawan (late) vs Aziz Ahmad & Others2022 PHC 518 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mumtaz Bibi vs Qasim and others2022 [M] CLR 388 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mumtaz Bibi vs Qasim and 4 others2022 PLD Islamabad 228 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the mother of a minor girl seeking her recovery from alleged abduction, where respondents claimed the minor had contracted a marriage. The core legal question was whether a minor under the age of 18 has the legal capacity to enter into a valid marriage contract, and whether such a contract is lawful in view of penal provisions criminalizing sexual conduct with children. The Islamabad High Court held that a marriage contract involving a party under the age of 18 is void ab initio as its object and consideration are unlawful, being directly forbidden by sections 375 and 377A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and constitutional protections. The court laid down that biological age, not puberty, is the test for legal competence to marry, that child marriage contracts are void and unenforceable, and that custody of the minor must remain with her parents rather than an alleged adult spouse.
Questions settled- Whether a minor under the age of 18 has the legal capacity to enter into a valid contract of marriage?
- Does the attainment of puberty alone establish the legal competence of a female child to contract a marriage?
- Is a marriage contract involving a child under the age of 18 void ab initio under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, due to unlawful object and consideration in light of penal provisions?
- Whether the provisions of Sections 375 and 377A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, override personal law regarding the permissible age of marriage and sexual consent?
- Mst. Mukhtar Begum, etc vs Mst. Mumtaz Asghar (deceased) through L.Rs., etc2022 LHC 2343 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Mukhtar Begum and 5 others vs Mst. Mumtaz Asghar (Deceased)2022 MLD 1474 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Lalarukh Saqlain, etc vs Punjab Health Department through its2022 LHC 4271 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Lailan Khatoon and another vs Imran Ali and others2022 MLD 1034 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kundan Mai vs Judge Family Court, Multan and others2022 MLD 1621 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khanam Bibi vs Mst. Fozia Bibi and 5 others2022 PLJ Peshawar 9 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kausar Bibi vs Muhammad Sarwar and others2022 YLR 1028 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kausar Bibi vs Civil Judge etc2022 LHC 8611 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kanwal vs Dr. Muhammad Suhail2022 CLD 1063 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneeza Bibi and 4 Others vs Sabir Hussain and 3 Others2022 LHC 7967 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kaneez Fatima vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2022 PCRLJ 860 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an inquiry report prepared by a Magistrate under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 concerning the death of the petitioner's son in an alleged police encounter, and the subsequent dismissal of the petitioner's revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground of maintainability. The core legal questions involved the nature of an inquiry report under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether it is a judicial proceeding amenable to revision, as well as the scope and jurisdiction of a Magistrate holding an inquest. The Lahore High Court held that an inquiry under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a judicial proceeding and orders passed thereon are revisable. Furthermore, the Court held that the scope of such an inquest is strictly limited to ascertaining the apparent cause of death and does not extend to determining the guilt or innocence of any person or recording findings on self-defence. The petition was disposed of by expunging the excess findings of the Magistrate and clarifying the petitioner's remedy through a private complaint.
Questions settled- Whether an inquiry and report by a Magistrate under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitutes a judicial proceeding subject to revisional jurisdiction?
- What is the exact scope and object of an inquest or inquiry conducted by a Magistrate under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a Magistrate holding an inquiry under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have the jurisdiction to determine the guilt or innocence of any person or record a finding on self-defence?
- Mst. Kamalan Bibi vs Province of Punjab through District Officer and 92022 CLC 890 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and others vs Muhammad Amin Agha (Deceased)2022 PLJ SC 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted a civil revision filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and decreed their suit for possession of property originally transferred to them by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department. The core legal questions involved whether the property in possession of the appellants formed part of the respondents' lawfully allotted property, and whether the appellants could claim ownership through allotment or alternatively via adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish any proprietary rights, allotment, or pending claims before the settlement authorities, particularly after the repeal of settlement laws by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The Court further held that a plea of adverse possession is self-destructive when raised alongside a claim of independent ownership, and that the concept of ownership by adverse possession runs counter to Islamic Injunctions. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's findings.
Questions settled- Whether settlement authorities can initiate proceedings for allotment or conferment of rights after the repeal of the settlement laws through the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Is the plea of ownership based on adverse possession available under the law in light of Islamic Injunctions?
- Can a party simultaneously claim ownership on the basis of allotment and raise the plea of adverse possession?
- Mst. Kalsoom Begum vs Peran Ditta, etc2022 SCP 108, 2024 PLJ SC 20, 2022 PLJ SC 357, 2022 SCMR 1352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns the inheritance rights of a granddaughter whose father predeceased her grandfather. The appellant challenged a gift deed executed by her grandfather in favor of her paternal uncles, arguing it was a fraudulent attempt to deprive her of her inheritance under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The core legal questions were whether Section 4 of the Ordinance remains valid law pending the appeal of the Federal Shariat Court's decision in Allah Rakha, and whether the gift was validly executed given the lack of evidence regarding the donees' acceptance. The Court held that because the appeal against the Federal Shariat Court's decision is pending, Section 4 of the Ordinance remains the subsistent law. Furthermore, the Court held that a valid gift requires three essential ingredients: declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. Since the donees failed to plead or prove acceptance of the gift, the gift was incomplete and invalid. The Court restored the Appellate Court's judgment, affirming the appellant's right to inherit.
Questions settled- Does Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 remain valid law while an appeal against the Federal Shariat Court's decision in the Allah Rakha case is pending?
- What are the three essential ingredients required to constitute a valid gift under Islamic law?
- Does the mere possession of land by a son from his father constitute sufficient evidence of acceptance of a gift?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the validity of a gift?
- Mst. Jamhoriat vs Sami Ul Haq2022 PHC 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Iqbal Bibi, etc vs Additional District Judge, etc2022 LHC 8234 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ilyas Akhtar vs Province of Punjab, etc2022 LHC 8362 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hussan Ara widow of Imtiaz Hussain Zahid (late) vs Mst. Surayya2022 PHC 456 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Hira Bibi vs The State etc2022 [M] CLR 611 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hira Bibi vs State etc2022 PLJ Lahore 302, 2022 PLD Lahore 545 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hayat Bibi and others vs Alamzeb and others2022 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the estate of Habib Khan, who died in 1986. The appellants, daughters of the deceased, filed a suit claiming their inheritance shares under Islamic Shari'ah, which was concurrently dismissed by the trial court, appellate court, and High Court. The contesting respondents (the deceased's third wife and her children from a previous marriage) claimed the entire estate based on a Meharnama (dower deed) dated 12 May 1971 and a Razinama (compromise) dated 13 June 2004. The Supreme Court observed that two of the attesting witnesses to the Meharnama were minors (aged seven and sixteen) at the time of its execution, casting serious doubts on its authenticity. Furthermore, the Razinama was not signed by any of the legal heirs. The Court held that upon the death of a Muslim, property immediately devolves upon the legal heirs, and possession by one is deemed possession by all. The burden of proving an exclusive claim contrary to Shari'ah lies on the claimant. The Court set aside the concurrent judgments, holding that the suit was not time-barred and decreed the suit in favor of the appellants.
Questions settled- Whether minor witnesses can validly attest a dower deed (Meharnama) to deprive legal heirs of their inheritance?
- Does the possession of one legal heir of a deceased Muslim's estate constitute possession on behalf of all legal heirs?
- Can a Jirgah or family settlement (Razinama) alter or substitute the inheritance shares prescribed under Islamic Shari'ah without the consent of the legal heirs?
- Is a suit for partition and inheritance by Muslim legal heirs barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Mst. Hayat Begum vs Rehman Malik and others2022 PHC 256, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 189 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hafza Mai vs Muhammad Qasim2022 LHC 2331 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima, (Deceased), through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Khan2022 MLD 1501 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima Zehra vs Muhammad Sheroz2022 SHC 80, 2022 MLD 1506 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima vs Director-General Nadra and another2022 YLR 1567 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farzana Iftikhar vs Federal Secretary Overseas Pakistanis2022 CLC 237 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farida Bibi etc. vs Judge Family Court etc2022 LHC 1981 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farah Naz vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S) 1266 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by the widow of a deceased employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), seeking various post-retirement and ancillary benefits including bonuses, farewell grants, burial charges, benevolent grants, group insurance, and family pension following her late husband's acceptance of the Voluntarily Separation Scheme (VSS) in 2007-2008. The core legal questions pertained to the maintainability of the constitutional petition in light of binding precedents regarding employees who opted for the VSS, whether an employee who received a separation bonus is entitled to further pensionary and ancillary benefits, and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that employees who voluntarily availed of the VSS and received separation benefits cannot simultaneously claim pensionary and ancillary benefits. The court reaffirmed the principle that the VSS is a binding contract, and raising such claims after receiving benefits is barred by the doctrine of laches and settled jurisprudence from the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when the aggrieved party has voluntarily availed benefits under the Voluntarily Separation Scheme?
- Can an employee who accepted a separation bonus under the Voluntarily Separation Scheme subsequently claim pensionary and ancillary retirement benefits?
- Does the acceptance of the Voluntarily Separation Scheme constitute a binding contract preventing subsequent challenges to post-retirement benefits?
- Whether a petition filed four years after the accrual of the cause of action regarding service benefits is barred by the doctrine of laches?
- Mst. FalakShehnaz& another vs Mst. Farah Deeba& others2022 PHC 668, 2025 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Fatima vs Muhammad Sarwar2022 SCP 58, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 208, 2022 SCMR 870, PLJ 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal under Article 185(2)(d)(e) of the Constitution arose from a pre-emption suit regarding land measuring 46 kanals and 7 marlas. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the pre-emptor's suit, but the High Court allowed the civil revision and decreed the suit. On appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant must file a cross-appeal or cross-objection when a suit is dismissed in toto but certain findings were decided against him, whether the pre-emptor proved the mandatory Talab-e-Ishhad, and whether he possessed a superior pre-emption right at the time of sale. The Supreme Court held that when a suit is dismissed in its entirety, the successful defendant is not required to file a cross-appeal or cross-objection to challenge adverse trial court findings. The Court further affirmed that upon denial of receipt of a notice of Talab-e-Ishhad, production of the postman and acknowledgment due is mandatory. Additionally, the pre-emptor failed to prove his co-ownership in the property at the time of sale. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Is a defendant required to file a cross-appeal or cross-objection against an adverse finding when the suit against him is dismissed in its entirety?
- Is the testimony of the postman and production of the acknowledgment due mandatory to prove service of notice of Talab-e-Ishhad when receipt of notice is denied under oath by the defendant?
- Must a pre-emptor prove the existence of a superior right of pre-emption at the time of sale, at the time of filing the suit, and at the time of the decree?
- Mst. Bharai Bibi and others vs Muhammad Arif and another2022 LHC 6986 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bakht Begum vs Afrin Khan2022 PHC 252, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bakhmina vs The Government of Sindh through Home Secretary and others2022 MLD 1192 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Badami and others vs Mst. Budhee and others2022 LHC 2200 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Azra Gulzar vs Muhammad Farooq and another2022 SCMR 1625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and upheld the appellate court's decree dismissing her suit. The dispute arose over the ownership and transfer of a residential plot between siblings following a compromise and subsequent refusal to execute commitments. The core legal question was whether the High Court in civil revision properly exercised its jurisdiction when faced with divergent findings of fact between the trial court and the first appellate court. The Supreme Court observed that where the courts below are at variance in their findings, the High Court is obligated to re-appraise the entire evidence to determine which court's findings were supported by proper appraisal of evidence and appreciation of law. Finding that the High Court failed to appraise the evidence or legal points, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for fresh decision by another Single Judge.
Questions settled- What is the duty of the High Court in civil revision when the findings of the trial court and appellate court are at variance?
- Whether a revisional court is required to re-appraise the entire evidence when the courts below have reached conflicting findings?
- Should a case be remanded to the High Court if it dismisses a revision petition without appraising the evidence where lower forum findings conflict?
- Mst. Azizan Bibi vs Nasir Mehmood2022 MLD 1945 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aziz Mai vs The State and others2022 YLR 424 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged her conviction for the murder of her seven-month-old niece, allegedly committed with an iron blow pipe. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt amidst significant evidentiary inconsistencies. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, resulting in the appellant's acquittal. The court identified several fatal flaws: an unexplained seven-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of crucial spot recoveries like blood-stained earth, and the failure to produce the Investigating Officer. Crucially, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony, as the nature of the child's skull fracture was inconsistent with a blow from an iron pipe and suggested a fall. Furthermore, the court drew an adverse inference from the prosecution's failure to produce the child's mother, a natural witness, and noted the failure to substantiate the alleged motive. The court reaffirmed that where ocular evidence is contradicted by medical findings and the chain of events is broken by investigative lapses, the conviction cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR warrant the rejection of the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be sustained when medical evidence contradicts the ocular testimony provided by witnesses?
- What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce the Investigating Officer during a criminal trial?
- Does the failure to produce a natural witness in a criminal case justify drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution?
- Mst. Aysha Begum vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Housing and Town Planning and others2022 YLR 2219 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ayesha Bibi vs Government of Punjab through its Chief Secretary2022 LHC 4781, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 580 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court challenging an order passed by the Managing Director of the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation canceling the provisional allotment of a plot to the petitioner and refunding the cost, as well as challenging the vires of Rule 19(3)(b) of the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Rules, 2013. The core legal question was whether the delegated rule-making power could confer powers upon the Managing Director that transgressed the scope of the parent statute, the Punjab Government Servants Housing Foundation Act, 2004. The Court held that Rule 19(3)(b) enlarges the scope of the parent Act by devolving powers exclusively vested in the Board of Directors to the Managing Director, rendering the rule ultra vires. The Court established the key principle that delegated legislation must remain strictly within the precinct and parameters of the parent statute, cannot run parallel to it, and must yield to the statute if it injures its intent and spirit.
Questions settled- Whether delegated legislation can enlarge the scope of a parent statute?
- Can rules framed under a statute confer statutory powers upon an authority contrary to the parent Act?
- Is a rule that transgresses the limits of the enabling legislation liable to be declared invalid and ultra vires?
- Whether an allotment of a plot made pursuant to court directions can be arbitrarily cancelled without express provisions of law?
- Mst. Ayesha Anwar vs The State and another2022 MLD 444 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 215/2021, involving allegations under Sections 406, 380, and 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically regarding the nature of the alleged criminal breach of trust and the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The court reasoned that the FIR was delayed without sufficient explanation, raising doubts about the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the court determined that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature, with the FIR serving as a potential tool for harassment. The key principle laid down is that mere breach of a promise or contract does not constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without clear evidence of entrustment, and that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal liabilities to harass or pressure an accused.
Questions settled- Does a mere breach of contract or promise constitute a criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a criminal case be initiated solely to convert a civil liability into a criminal one for the purpose of harassment?
- Is the registration of prior cases without conviction sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail to an accused?
- At the pre-arrest bail stage, how should the element of mala fide be established by the accused?
- Mst. Asma Nadeem vs Federation Of Pakistan and 5 others2022 PLD Sindh 264 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Asma Bibi vs State etc2022 PLJ Lahore 181 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Asiya vs The State and another2022 SCP 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Peshawar High Court's order denying post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case. The petitioner was implicated for abetment in the death of her husband, despite having initially reported him missing. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established a prima facie case of abetment, the evidentiary value of Call Data Records (CDR) in the absence of other material, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency and the welfare of her suckling infant. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and that the CDR was not conclusive evidence of guilt. Emphasizing the welfare of the petitioner's 17-month-old infant and the rule of consistency regarding a co-accused already granted bail, the Court granted the petition. The key principles laid down are that a suckling child's welfare is incompatible with jail life, justifying bail for the mother, and that liberty cannot be curtailed on bald allegations without concrete material.
Questions settled- Is a Call Data Record (CDR) sufficient, in the absence of other concrete material, to establish the guilt of an accused?
- Does the presence of a suckling infant in jail with the mother constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offence of abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused claim the benefit of the rule of consistency if a co-accused has already been granted bail by the High Court?
- Mst. Ashi vs Province Of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab and 4 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 564 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns the regularization of Assistant Directors Land Records, initially recruited on contract via the Punjab Public Service Commission for the Board of Revenue, and subsequently transferred to the Punjab Land Records Authority (PLRA). The core legal question was whether these employees, having been transferred to the PLRA, remained entitled to regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, or if they were disqualified as 'project employees.' The Court held that the petitioners were not project employees but were recruited against permanent-nature posts under statutory service rules. The Court determined that their transfer to the PLRA did not alter their protected terms and conditions of service, nor did it extinguish their right to regularization. Consequently, the Court set aside the PLRA Board's decision denying regularization and directed the Senior Member Board of Revenue to process the regularization of the petitioners' services. The judgment reaffirms that employees transferred from a government department to a statutory body retain their original service protections, and that contractual employment under statutory rules cannot be arbitrarily denied regularization benefits.
Questions settled- Whether employees transferred from a government department to a statutory body retain their original terms and conditions of service?
- Are contract employees recruited through the Punjab Public Service Commission entitled to regularization under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
- Does the transfer of an employee to a statutory body like the Punjab Land Records Authority constitute a waiver of their right to seek regularization of service?
- Can employees recruited under statutory service rules be classified as 'project employees' to deny them regularization benefits?
- Mst. Anwari Begum vs Muhammad Akram2022 MLD 678 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aneeqa Shoail, etc vs Lahore Development Authority, etc2022 LHC 5987, 2024 MLD 183 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Almas Bano vs Pakistan International Airlines Corp & others2022 SHC 186 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Alia Alias Nainan vs State etc.PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 987 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Mst. Alia alias Nainan, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarded by the trial court in a private complaint regarding a murder case. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account, the sufficiency of corroboratory evidence including motive and medical testimony, and the integrity of the weapon recovery and forensic analysis. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inherent flaws and contradictions in the ocular testimonies, an unexplained delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, lack of independent corroboration, and failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of the weapon and crime empty to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The court laid down the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution story must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of eyewitnesses with delayed statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sufficient to maintain a murder conviction?
- Does medical evidence provide substantive corroboration of an ocular account in a criminal trial?
- What is the legal effect of a failure by the prosecution to establish the safe custody and transmission of a weapon of offense and crime empty to the forensic agency?
- How should reasonable doubts arising from contradictions in the prosecution's case be resolved?
- Mst. Akbari Begum and another vs Mst. Ishrat Bano (deceased) through L.Rs2022 PLD Lahore 580, 2022 P LC (C.S.) 1545 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision, filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding a claim for pensionary benefits. The core legal questions were whether the trial court’s failure to separately discuss an additional issue regarding the alleged forgery of a Nikahnama vitiated the judgment, and whether the court erred in the allocation of the burden of proof. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the failure to separately discuss an additional issue does not render a judgment illegal or void, provided the judgment addresses all material points in controversy and the parties were fully cognizant of the real matter. Furthermore, the court held that the question of the burden of proof loses significance once both parties have adduced sufficient evidence. The key principles laid down are that a judgment is not void for failing to discuss every issue separately if it resolves the questions involved, and that non-framing or non-discussion of an issue is not a ground for remand absent demonstrable prejudice.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to separately discuss an additional issue in its judgment render the decree illegal or void?
- Is a case liable to be remanded if the trial court fails to explicitly mention an additional issue in its final judgment?
- Does the allocation of the burden of proof remain significant after both parties have led sufficient evidence?
- Can a composite issue covering multiple contradictory stances be considered sufficient for adjudication?
- Mst. Adeeba Khan vs The State Through FIA2022 MLD 496 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, a former Branch Manager of a commercial bank, who was refused bail by the Special Court in a case concerning the embezzlement of Rs. 4.75 million through fraudulent term deposit certificates and parallel banking under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question was whether the accused woman was entitled to the concession of bail under the statutory proviso for females given the heinous nature of the economic crime and the incriminating material on record. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the statutory leniency for women in non-bailable offences is discretionary and must be weighed against the gravity, societal impact, and specific role attributed in the offense. The court laid down that financial crimes causing massive losses and impairing public trust in the banking system fall within the prohibitory clause, rendering refusal the rule and bail an exception, particularly where tentative assessment connects the accused prima facie to the crime.
Questions settled- Does the statutory provision allowing leniency for women in non-bailable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle every female accused to mandatory release on bail?
- Whether an accused involved in a financial embezzlement case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be granted bail without establishing exceptional circumstances?
- What is the scope of tentative assessment and deeper appreciation of evidence while deciding a post-arrest bail application in white-collar crimes?
- Mst. Abida Zakir through attorney vs Raja Aman Ullah Khan and another2022 PLJ Islamabad 29 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Abida Zakir alias Aubaida Zakir through Attorney vs Raja Aman Ullah2022 PLD Islamabad 54 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mst Sahiba Khatoon Through Her Lrs vs Muhammad Soomar Memon &2022 SHC 90 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst Asia Shehzadi vs Government of Punjab and 5 others2022 YLR 1458 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mst Aliya Khisro vs Govt of Kp2022 PHC 180, 2022 CLC 1896 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
- MS.P vs State of Uttarakhand & Anr2022 PSC (Crl.) 580 · Supreme Court of India · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a High Court order that affirmed the discharge of the accused respondent for the offence of rape (Section 376, Indian Penal Code 1860) due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the alleged offence of rape, committed in Delhi, and the offences of criminal insult and intimidation (Sections 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code 1860), allegedly committed in Chamoli, constituted 'the same transaction' under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, thereby permitting a joint trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acts were distinct and lacked the requisite proximity of time, place, and continuity to form a single transaction. The Court affirmed that 'same transaction' is a question of fact determined by factors such as community of purpose and continuity of action. Consequently, the Sessions Judge correctly discharged the accused of the rape charge for want of territorial jurisdiction, as the offences were not connected enough to be tried together.
Questions settled- Does an offence of rape committed in one jurisdiction and offences of intimidation committed in another constitute 'the same transaction' under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973?
- Can a trial court discharge an accused of a specific charge on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction while transferring other charges to a competent court?
- What are the criteria for determining whether a series of acts constitute 'the same transaction' for the purpose of a joint trial?
- Does the acquittal of an accused for certain offences in a trial court preclude a subsequent trial for a distinct offence that could not have been tried by the first court?
- Ms. Sajida Islam vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Education and Professional Training, Pak-Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 135 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the Judge in Chambers upholding the repatriation of the appellant, a deputationist, from the Federal Directorate of Education to her parent department. The core legal questions involve whether a deputationist has a vested right to permanent absorption or legitimate expectation thereof, and whether repatriation can be ordered contrary to the terms of deputation and applicable policies. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that deputation is a contract between the borrowing and lending departments, that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on deputation or seek permanent absorption, and that repatriation can be ordered at any time without notice if the borrowing department no longer requires their services. The court further held that explicit conditions in the deputation order barring absorption and the absence of clear representations preclude the application of the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. The key principles laid down affirm the absolute right of the borrowing department to repatriate a deputationist and the lack of any enforceable right to absorption.
Questions settled- Does a deputationist have a vested right to permanent absorption in a borrowing department?
- Can a borrowing department repatriate a deputationist to their parent department without notice?
- Does the initiation of a process to consider absorption create a legal right for a deputationist to be absorbed?
- Can the doctrine of legitimate expectation be invoked when the original deputation terms explicitly bar absorption?
- Ms. Qaiser Jehan Begum vs Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA)2022 MLD 308 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
- Ms. Kinza Anwar Office Assistant HR, (NEPRA) vs Office of The Ombudsman2022 PLJ Islamabad 72, 2022 CLC 1477 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the Ombudsman's order setting aside a disciplinary penalty imposed by NEPRA against Respondent No. 2 for workplace harassment. The Ombudsman had invalidated the inquiry committee's proceedings on the ground that two members were junior to the accused and subsequently assumed jurisdiction to conduct a fresh inquiry. The core legal questions were whether the 2010 Act requires committee members to be senior to the accused and whether the Ombudsman, while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, can conduct a fresh inquiry. The Court held that Section 3(2) of the 2010 Act contains no seniority requirement for committee members. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Ombudsman’s appellate powers are restricted to confirming, setting aside, varying, or modifying the lower authority's decision. The Ombudsman cannot initiate a fresh inquiry while hearing an appeal, as that power is reserved for cases where the complaint is initially filed before the Ombudsman. The petition was allowed, and the matter remanded for a fresh appellate decision.
Questions settled- Does Section 3(2) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 require members of an inquiry committee to be senior in rank to the accused?
- Can the Ombudsman, while hearing an appeal under Section 6 of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, exercise the power to conduct a fresh inquiry?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order of the Ombudsman if the order suffers from a patent jurisdictional error, despite the availability of an alternative remedy?
- Does the Ombudsman have suo moto powers to conduct an inquiry under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 in the absence of a complaint filed directly before the Ombudsman?
- Ms. Gulnar vs Muhammad Yousuf Barakzai & others2022 SHC 298 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-01Read full judgment →
- Ms. Fozia Naseem vs Higher Education Commission, etc2022 LHC 8077 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-01Read full judgment →
- Ms. Farzana Liaqat vs Program Director, Integrated Reproductive Maternal2022 LHC 6795 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mrs. Zulekha & another vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 400 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawab Khan vs Bahader Sher2022 PHC 574 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Zeenat Salim vs Pakistan Naval Farms through Director and 3 others2022 PLD Islamabad 138 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-01-07Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shamshad Butt vs Deputy Commissioner, CDA, Islamabad and others2022 IHC 188 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-06-24Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Sardar Begum Farooqui through Legal Heirs and another vs Dr. Azhar2022 PLD Sindh 565 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing an application under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought a DNA test to determine the respondent’s paternity. The core legal question was whether the court should compel a DNA test to challenge a person's legitimacy in a civil suit, particularly when the parents never disputed such paternity during their lifetimes. The Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the application was frivolous, belated, and lacked evidentiary support. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that DNA testing is a personal right, permissible only in exceptional circumstances. Relying on Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the Court affirmed that birth during a valid marriage serves as conclusive proof of legitimacy, which cannot be easily challenged. The judgment underscores that courts must prioritize societal cohesion and the sanctity of family bonds over speculative paternity disputes. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned order, noting that allowing such requests would open a floodgate of litigation and undermine established legal presumptions regarding legitimacy.
Questions settled- Can a court order a DNA test to determine paternity when the parents of the individual never challenged it during their lifetime?
- Does the birth of a child during a valid marriage constitute conclusive proof of legitimacy under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Is a court required to grant a request for a DNA test if it is filed at a belated stage of the proceedings without substantial evidence?
- Can a third party, such as a cousin, seek a DNA test to challenge the paternity of another person in a civil suit?
- Mrs. Sara Jalil vs Muhammad Jamil Baber and 2 others2022 CLC 569 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing an application for the dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The appellant argued that the respondent (plaintiff) failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the court-ordered timeframe, citing Supreme Court precedents requiring such deposits. The core legal question was whether a suit for specific performance must be dismissed for failure to deposit the balance sale consideration when the court's original order did not explicitly warn of such consequences for non-compliance. The Court held that the suit could not be dismissed, noting that the order directing the deposit lacked a specific warning regarding the consequences of non-compliance. Relying on the principle that specific performance is a discretionary relief, the Court emphasized that a plaintiff must be put on notice that non-deposit would be deemed an inability to perform the contract before such a drastic penalty is imposed. Furthermore, the Court clarified that leave-refusing orders do not constitute binding law and distinguished the cited precedents based on the specific facts of the case.
Questions settled- Can a suit for specific performance be dismissed for failure to deposit the balance sale consideration if the court order did not explicitly warn of such consequences?
- Does a leave-refusing order from the Supreme Court constitute binding law?
- Is the deposit of balance sale consideration mandatory at the time of institution of a suit for specific performance?
- What is the legal effect of failing to put a plaintiff on notice that non-deposit of sale consideration will be deemed an inability to perform the contract?
- Mrs. Samina Yaqub vs Jalil Ahmad Kapoor & Others2022 SHC 246 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nighat Naeem and others vs Karachi Development Authority and others2022 SHC 126, 2025 CLC 858 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-08Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Nasira Khalique and 7 others vs Mst. Rabia Sharif through L. Rs.2022 YLR 1531 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the applicants' suit regarding a residential property. The core legal question involved the validity of a property transfer effected in favour of the respondents on the basis of a gift allegedly contained within or attached to a nikahnama executed decades prior, without the participation or notice of the admitted original owner. The Sindh High Court held that a nikahnama is a contract strictly between the bride and bridegroom, and third-party property cannot be alienated through it without explicit, proved authorization or a validly established gift satisfying the essential ingredients of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession, supported by proper evidence. The Court laid down that beneficiaries of a disputed gift bear a heavy burden to prove its validity and original transaction through cogent evidence, that third parties cannot be bound by recitals in a nikahnama merely due to witness signatures, and that statutory authorities cannot transfer title clandestinely without due notice to the living owner.
Questions settled- Whether a third party can be bound by recitals concerning property alienation contained in a nikahnama they merely signed as a witness or wakeel?
- Does the burden lie upon the beneficiary to prove the validity and legality of a disputed gift through cogent and reliable evidence?
- Can a property be legally transferred by a development authority on the basis of an unregistered gift declaration without putting the living owner on notice?
- Is a revisional court competent to interfere with concurrent findings of fact when there is a prima facie misreading and departure from settled legal principles?
- Mrs. Naila Naeem Younus, etc vs M/s Indus Services Limited through its2022 SCP 106, 2022 SCMR 1171, 2022 PCTLR 869, 2022 PLJ SC 362, 2022 PSC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a High Court order that dismissed an application for the rectification of a company's register of members on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question was whether an application for rectification of a company's register under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, is subject to the three-year limitation period prescribed by Article 181 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the Companies Ordinance, 1984, is a self-contained statute that does not prescribe a limitation period for such applications. Consequently, Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, does not apply to rectification proceedings. The Court emphasized that proprietary rights should not be extinguished without clear, express statutory language. Furthermore, the Court noted that fraudulent or illegal entries in a company register are serious matters, and imposing an arbitrary limitation period would be unjust. The petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the rectification of the register was ordered to restore the petitioners' shareholding.
Questions settled- Is an application for the rectification of a company's register of members under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, subject to the three-year limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Does the Companies Ordinance, 1984, constitute a self-contained law regarding the maintenance and rectification of a company's register of members?
- Can proprietary rights in shares be extinguished by the application of a general limitation provision in the absence of an express statutory limitation period?
- Mrs. Muhammad Akbar vs Abdul Jalil and others2022 PLJ SC 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court, which ordered the eviction of the appellant from residential premises sought by the landlord for non-residential use. The core legal question was whether, under Section 11 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, a landlord must obtain prior written permission from the Rent Controller before filing an eviction application for converting a residential building into a non-residential one. The Supreme Court held that while Section 11 mandates prior permission for converting an existing residential building into a non-residential one without structural changes, this requirement does not apply when the landlord intends to demolish or materially alter the structure of the building. The Court reasoned that once a building undergoes material structural changes or reconstruction, it ceases to be an existing residential building governed by the Rent Controller's jurisdiction regarding conversion, falling instead under local zoning bye-laws. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Is prior permission from the Rent Controller required under Section 11 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when a landlord intends to materially alter or reconstruct a residential building for non-residential use?
- Does the Rent Controller retain jurisdiction over the conversion of a building that is to be demolished or structurally altered for non-residential purposes?
- Does Section 11 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, apply to the reconstruction of a building or only to the conversion of an existing building without structural change?
- Mrs. Muhammad Akbar vs Abdul Jalil & others2022 SCP 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from eviction applications filed by the respondent-landlords seeking the vacation of residential houses rented to the appellant and other tenants. The landlords sought eviction on the ground of personal bona fide use, intending to remove the intervening walls of the houses to create a single unit for a construction material business. The Rent Controller and the High Court concurrently allowed the eviction. The appellant contended that under Section 11 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, prior written permission from the Rent Controller was mandatory before converting a residential building into a non-residential one. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 11 applies only to existing buildings where the use is converted without structural changes. Where a landlord intends to make major structural changes or demolish and reconstruct the building, the Rent Controller loses authority, and prior permission under Section 11 is not required.
Questions settled- Is prior written permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 mandatory when a landlord intends to make major structural changes to a residential building to use it for non-residential purposes?
- Does Section 11 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 apply to cases where a residential building is to be demolished or structurally altered into a single unit, or is it limited to existing buildings used without structural changes?
- Mrs. Kaneez Fatima vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Others2022 LHC 4171, 2022 PLJ Lahore 693 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, widow of a deceased judge of the Lahore High Court who died while in service, sought benefits under a revised assistance package approved by the Prime Minister via an office memorandum dated 4th December 2015. While a lump sum amount was initially paid, the remaining claim was eventually declined and the previous clarifying office memorandum was withdrawn by the government. The core legal question was whether the widow of a judge is entitled to the benefits and privileges of the revised assistance package for government employees who die in service. The Lahore High Court held that Paragraph 29 of the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997 acts in addition to Paragraph 28, making judges and their spouses eligible for privileges determined by rules applicable to officers holding the rank of Secretary to the Government of Pakistan. The Court laid down that an office memorandum issued with legal backing has the force of law, and once a benefit has accrued and been acted upon, the executive is barred by the principle of locus poenitentiae and vested rights from unilaterally rescinding it.
Questions settled- Whether the widow of a High Court judge who died in service can claim the benefits of the revised assistance package for government employees?
- Do office memorandums issued by the government have the force of law?
- Can the executive unilaterally withdraw an office memorandum after benefits have accrued and been acted upon under the principle of locus poenitentiae?
- Whether Paragraph 29 of the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997 is restricted by or operates in addition to Paragraph 28?
- Mrs. Geeta Narayana Shahani through legal heir Raju Bhagwan Butaney vs Shyam Prem Shahani another2022 SHC 72 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mrs. Faryal Talpur vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PLD Sindh 116 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-26Read full judgment →