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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Mst. Sumaira Ishaq vs Addl. District Judge, District Sahiwal and others2017 PLJ Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sumaira Akram vs Secretary Education, Gilgit-Baltistan and 62017 PLC (C.S.) 1321 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-04-19
  writ petitionpublic employmentdomicile certificatemerit listelementary school teacherGilgit-Baltistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the inclusion of respondent No.6 in the recommended list of female candidates for the post of Elementary School Teacher (BPS-14) for Union Council Sakwar/Minawar, Gilgit-Baltistan. The core legal question was whether a candidate could change their residential status and obtain a provisional domicile certificate after the announcement of test results to secure public employment in a reserved area where they did not originally belong. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the procurement of identity and domicile documents by respondent No.6 after the NTS test results were announced was an afterthought and an unlawful manipulation to the detriment of the petitioner, who possessed a legitimate right to appointment based on merit. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the official respondents to appoint the petitioner in the said union council while leaving the fate of respondent No.6 to be determined by the department in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate change their residential status and obtain a domicile certificate after the announcement of test results to claim public employment in a reserved area?
  • Does a candidate who qualifies on merit in a specific union council acquire a vested right of appointment to public office?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere with the allocation of public employment when documents of residence are managed as an afterthought?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sobia Saghir vs The State through Police Station City Kotli and 22017 P Cr. L J 819 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-12-15
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailbail cancellationabscondencemedical grounds for bailheinous offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under section 25 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement of Hudood and Tazeerat) Act, 1974 against an order of the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli, which recalled the pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner-accused. The petitioner was accused of amputating the penis of her husband, an advocate, using a sharp-edged weapon, leading to an FIR under sections 334, 337, 324, and 336 of the Azad Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out an extraordinary case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, particularly in view of allegations of mala fides, mental illness, and lack of direct eyewitnesses. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief that cannot be granted in a routine manner, especially in heinous offences, and that the medical records and surrounding circumstances prima facie connected the accused to the crime while her subsequent abscondence disentitled her to equitable relief. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail requires exceptional grounds such as clear mala fides or harassment, which were absent here, and that post-arrest bail principles and medical grounds cannot be conflated with anticipatory bail considerations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in routine matters for heinous offences involving severe penalties?
  • Does the absence of the accused at the time of the announcement of an order or during proceedings constitute abscondence disentitling them to pre-arrest bail?
  • Can medical grounds available under post-arrest bail provisions be automatically invoked to sustain an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether a prima facie connection of the accused to the crime based on tentative assessment of the FIR and medical history bars the confirmation of anticipatory bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad Akhtar through L.Rs, vs Muhammad Rafique Thakayda2017 MLD 1161 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Pirzada Khalil-Ur-Rehman and 2 Others2017 NLR Revenue 8 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shama vs The State and 3 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 386, 2017 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-15
  exhumationdisintermentsuspicious deathlocus standicause of deathforensic analysisinherent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order by an Additional Sessions Judge whereby a Magisterial order declining the exhumation of a deceased child's dead body was set aside. The petitioner, the mother of the deceased, argued that the paternal uncle lacked locus standi, that no First Information Report was registered, and that significant time had elapsed since the burial. The Lahore High Court held that Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not impose any restriction of locus standi, nor does it require the prior registration of an FIR or positive proof before ordering an exhumation to determine the cause of a suspicious death. The Court further held that the passage of time does not automatically preclude forensic analysis, as certain biological evidence and toxicological traces can remain detectable even after decomposition. The petition was dismissed, upholding the order for exhumation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a paternal uncle or any third party lack locus standi to request the exhumation of a dead body under Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the registration of a First Information Report a mandatory prerequisite for a Magistrate to order the exhumation of a corpse?
  • Does the lapse of a significant period of time between burial and the request for exhumation legally bar a Magistrate from ordering a forensic examination?
  • Can an appellate court interfere in its inherent jurisdiction with an order directing the disinterment of a dead body for investigating an unnatural death?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shama vs State & 3 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 386 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-15
  exhumationdisintermentlocus standisuspicious deathcriminal investigationcode of criminal procedureinherent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order by the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside a Magisterial order that had declined the exhumation of the dead body of a minor girl. The core legal question concerned whether a paternal uncle lacks locus standi to seek exhumation compared to the parents, and whether prior registration of a First Information Report or positive proof is a prerequisite for ordering disinterment. The Lahore High Court held that no statutory clog of locus standi exists under the relevant law, that registration of a First Information Report is not a sine qua non for probing a suspicious death, and that the Additional Sessions Judge rightly ordered the exhumation. The key principles laid down are that any person can set the law into motion for exhumation to determine the cause of a suspicious death, the State's duty to investigate overrides familial objections, and potential decomposition over time does not automatically bar forensic analysis.

  Questions settled

  • Does a paternal uncle have the locus standi to file an application for the exhumation of a deceased child under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the prior registration of a First Information Report a sine qua non for a Magistrate to order the exhumation of a dead body?
  • Does the lapse of time and potential decomposition of a corpse legally bar a magistrate from ordering its exhumation for forensic analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shakeela vs Muhammad Saleem and 8 others2017 MLD 1902 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahzadi alias Amirzadi vs The State2017 YLR 2141 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-31
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquirydelayed trialrecovery discrepanciesfalse implicationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Mst. Shahzadi alias Amirzadi, challenging the refusal of bail by the trial court in a narcotics case. The applicant was charged with the possession of 1800 grams of Charas. The core legal questions were whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the delayed trial, the lack of independent witnesses during recovery, the potential for false implication due to a land dispute, and the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution failed to conclude the trial within the previously stipulated timeframe, the investigation was complete, and there were significant discrepancies regarding the recovery procedure and the weight of the narcotics. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that any doubt at the bail stage must be resolved in favor of the accused. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to proceed with the trial and significant doubts exist regarding the recovery, bail should be granted under the principle of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to conclude a trial within a court-mandated timeframe constitute grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused person be granted bail if the recovery of narcotics was not witnessed by independent persons and the weight was not verified at the spot?
  • Is an accused barred from arguing the merits of a bail application if a previous application was withdrawn without being argued on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Nayar vs The State2017 MLD 100 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-20
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequemala fidesprohibitory clausecriminal liabilitySection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Mst. Shahnaz Nayar, in relation to an FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of mala fides and the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the cheque. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the applicant had initiated legal proceedings against the complainant for harassment and reported the theft of her belongings, including her purse, prior to the date of the cheque, suggesting the cheque was not issued to satisfy an existing obligation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where there is a prima facie case of mala fides and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when there is prima facie evidence of mala fides by the complainant?
  • Does the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the circumstances suggest a cheque was not issued for the repayment of an existing loan?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Bang vs Chairman WAPDA and 2 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 643 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-02
  family pensionpensionary benefitsabatement of inquirywithholding of pensionconstitutional petitionWAPDAservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the widow of a deceased WAPDA employee seeking a direction to the respondents to release the remaining 20% of her family pension and other pensionary benefits, which had been withheld on account of pending audit paragraphs and inquiries against her late husband. The core legal question was whether a department can lawfully withhold a portion of family pension due to inquiries or audit paragraphs pending against an employee who passes away during service, particularly after those cases have been closed. The Lahore High Court held that upon the death of an employee during service, all pending disciplinary proceedings and inquiries abate, and an employee or their family cannot be penalized for uncompleted inquiries. The court ruled that withholding the remaining family pension without legal justification or applicable rules is illegal. The principle laid down is that pensionary benefits are a vested right rather than a bounty, and pending departmental proceedings automatically abate upon the death or retirement of an employee, precluding the department from withholding legitimate dues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the department can legally withhold a portion of family pension due to pending audit paragraphs after the closure of cases against a deceased employee?
  • Do pending departmental inquiries automatically abate upon the death of a government or statutory employee during service?
  • Is pension considered a bounty or a vested right acquired after satisfactory service?
  • Can a department penalize an employee or their dependents for an inquiry that was not completed before the employee's death or retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Rani through Legal Heirs----Decree Holder vs Muhammad2017 CLC 1417 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Hafeez vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 81 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  disciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementnatural justicede novo inquiryservice appealburden of proofPEEDA Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges the order of compulsory retirement passed against the appellant, a DDEO (WEE), following disciplinary proceedings initiated under the PEEDA Act, 2006. The appellant faced charges of making fake appointments and allowing bogus appointees to join service. An initial inquiry exonerated the appellant, but the competent authority ordered a de novo inquiry without assigning reasons for disagreeing with the first report. The second inquiry officer recommended a major penalty, leading to the appellant's removal. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent penalty were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and evidentiary standards. The Tribunal held that the second inquiry was fundamentally flawed, as it failed to record prosecution witnesses, verify the appellant's signatures via forensic analysis, or examine the alleged fake appointees. The Tribunal emphasized that disciplinary inquiries must be based on solid evidence rather than hypothetical conclusions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, reinstated the appellant, and directed that the intervening period be treated as leave of the kind due.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority order a de novo inquiry without assigning reasons for disagreeing with the findings of an initial inquiry officer?
  • Is a disciplinary inquiry report valid if it fails to record the statements of key prosecution witnesses?
  • Does the failure to conduct forensic verification of signatures in a disciplinary inquiry regarding fake appointments violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Bibi d/o Abdul Malik wife of Kafeel Ahmed Shah r/o Ghan2017 SC AJK 140 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Sanam alias Shema vs The State2017 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-13
  post-arrest bailnarcotic smugglingcharas recoveryprohibitory clausewomanhood as bail groundControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner, a female widow, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after 4090 grams of charas were allegedly recovered from her personal possession during a police check. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of her womanhood and widowhood despite the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause. The Peshawar High Court held that mere womanhood or widowhood is no good ground to enlarge an accused on bail when a huge quantity of contraband is recovered from direct personal possession and the offense falls within the restrictive limb of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that the lenient consideration often accorded to female offenders does not apply when dealing with large-scale narcotic smuggling offenses falling under the prohibitory clauses of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere womanhood and widowhood is a sufficient ground to grant post-arrest bail in cases involving huge quantities of narcotics?
  • Does the recovery of 4090 grams of charas from the direct personal possession of an accused bring the case within the restrictive limb of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shafqat Parveen vs The Commissioner, Punjab Employees' Social2017 PLC (C.S.) 607 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-24
  constitutional petitionservice matterspecialized qualificationselection boardvested rightapprobate and reprobateappointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by a petitioner seeking to restrain respondents from appointing another candidate as a Physiotherapist, to be appointed herself based on her experience, and to cancel the advertisement containing specific qualifications. The core legal question was whether an employee can challenge an advertisement after participating in the recruitment process and whether prescribing specific qualifications and preferences for a specialized post is permissible. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an employer or government is fully empowered to prescribe qualifications and preferences for a vacant post based on exigencies, and a candidate who has applied and participated in the process cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the same advertisement. The key principle laid down is that the prescription of qualifications for a post is within the employer's domain, and a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging an advertisement after applying for the post.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate challenge the validity of a job advertisement after applying for the post and participating in the selection process?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to claim appointment or promotion to a post for which they lack the required specialized qualification?
  • Is the government or employer empowered to stipulate specific qualifications and preferences for a vacant post keeping in view organizational exigencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shafqat Gull vs Muhammad Khalid and 2 others2017 PLJ Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others vs Mst. Allah Rakhi through L.Rs, and others2017 MLD 689 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-19
  oral giftinheritance rights of femalesconcurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioners' suit for declaration regarding an oral gift of property was dismissed. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners successfully established the oral gift of inheritance made by female heirs in favor of their brother. The Lahore High Court held that an oral gift must be proved independently through clear, consistent, and unimpeachable evidence detailing the exact time, date, place, and witnesses, which the petitioners failed to do. Furthermore, the court emphasized that sisters cannot be deprived of their guaranteed Islamic right of inheritance through unproven oral gifts or exploitative domestic pretexts. The court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts under revisional jurisdiction will not be interfered with absent any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity, and that heavy burdens of proof rest upon those asserting oral gifts of immovable property, especially where inheritance rights of women are concerned.

  Questions settled

  • What are the mandatory requirements for proving an oral gift of immovable property under the law?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without a jurisdictional error?
  • Whether female heirs can be legally deprived of their inheritance rights through unproven oral gifts or customary pretexts?
  • What is the evidentiary standard required to establish an oral gift of land between close family members?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardara vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Branch Karak through Manager2017 CLD 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Umrani vs The State2017 MLD 1125 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderabsconsionweapon recoverytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges of murder and attempt to murder. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a female accused against whom no overt act of firing was attributed and whose alleged role of supplying a weapon was based on unverified assertion without specification between co-accused, made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for post-arrest bail, noting that the allegation of handing over the pistol was a bare claim without direct ocular evidence specifying the actor, and that absconsion alone cannot defeat the right to bail when a meritorious case for relief is otherwise established. The key principle laid down is that where an allegation of supplying a weapon is shared without specification among co-accused and lacks direct observation, and the case involves further inquiry, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of tentative assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the allegation of supplying the murder weapon is a bare assertion without specification between co-accused?
  • Does absconsion alone preclude an accused from obtaining bail if a meritorious case for further inquiry is otherwise made out?
  • What is the evidentiary value of tentative observations made by a court while deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Khatoon and 6 others vs Muhammad Asghar and 5 others2017 MLD 851 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Bibi vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 190 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-13
  post-arrest baildacoityevidentiary valueco-accused statementpreferential treatment of womencriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Sajida Bibi, who was accused of facilitating a dacoity at a bank under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner provided logistical support to the perpetrators, based on witness statements regarding suspicious visitors at her residence and a supplementary statement leading to a recovery of money and a cell phone. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence against her and her status as a woman. The Court held that the prosecution's case relied on inadmissible evidence, specifically the statement of a co-accused while in custody, and that the witness statements were insufficient to establish her active privity to the crime at the pre-trial stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that a woman with no prior criminal record is preferentially entitled to the concession of bail when the prosecution's case requires further evidentiary proof to establish active involvement.

  Questions settled

  • Is the statement of a co-accused while in police custody admissible evidence against another accused for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the lack of a prior criminal record entitle a female accused to preferential consideration for bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case against the accused relies on evidence that requires full trial scrutiny?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Bibi vs Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others2017 YLR 118 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira Khan vs State2017 PHC 984 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Bano vs Home Department, Government of Punjab and others2017 PLJ SC 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-09-27
  death penaltyinsanity pleaparanoid schizophreniaexecution of death warrantmental healthprison rulescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a writ petition filed by the wife of a death-row convict, Imdad Ali, seeking to stay his execution on grounds of mental illness. The core legal question was whether a convict diagnosed with 'paranoid schizophrenia' could avoid the execution of a death sentence after the plea of insanity had been consistently rejected by all courts, including the Supreme Court, and a mercy petition had been dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the petition was an attempt to delay the execution of a sentence that had already attained finality. The Court determined that schizophrenia is not a permanent mental disorder and does not automatically fall within the definition of 'mental disorder' under the Mental Health Ordinance 2001. The Court established that prison rules concerning mental sickness are not mechanisms to obstruct the execution of a death sentence. As the convict's mental state had been adjudicated during the trial and appellate proceedings, the plea could not be re-agitated to frustrate the legal process.

  Questions settled

  • Does a diagnosis of schizophrenia automatically constitute a 'mental disorder' sufficient to stay the execution of a death sentence under the Mental Health Ordinance 2001?
  • Can a convict re-agitate a plea of insanity to avoid the execution of a death warrant after the conviction and sentence have attained finality up to the Supreme Court?
  • Are the provisions of the Prison Rules 1978 regarding mental sickness intended to be used as a mechanism to delay the execution of a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safa Arshad vs Additional Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad and others2017 CLC 681 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadia Masood vs Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary, Government of Pakistan and another2017 PLC (C.S.) 109 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2015-11-26
  service appealremoval from servicecompulsory retirementlimitation perioddepartmental inquiryproportionality of penaltyunauthorized absence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by a civil servant challenging an order of removal from service imposed by the departmental authority following allegations of unauthorized absence from duty and illegal drawal of allowances. The core legal question was whether the penalty of removal from service was commensurate with the proved charges, particularly considering the appellant's explanations regarding family and health issues, and whether the appeal was time-barred. The Tribunal held that while the departmental representation was filed within the statutory period of limitation—reckoned from the date of formal communication of the impugned order rather than the date of knowledge—the penalty of removal from service was disproportionately harsh given that the charges were only partially proved. The Tribunal modified the penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement from service, acknowledging the appellant's inability to continue service due to personal circumstances. The key principle laid down is that departmental penalties must be commensurate with the gravity of the proved misconduct, and that limitation periods for departmental representations commence from the date of formal communication of the order.

  Questions settled

  • From what date is the period of limitation for filing a departmental representation reckoned?
  • Can a service tribunal modify a penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement?
  • Does the regularization of absence as leave without pay automatically preclude the imposition of a penalty for the period of absence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadaf and others vs Additional District Judge and others2017 PLJ Lahore 613, 2017 YLR 1814 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadaf and another vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and 22017 PLJ Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabira Bibi and others vs Hikmat Khan and others2017 YLR 102 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabiha Khanam vs Muhammad Ahed Khan Cheema, DG, LDA and others2017 YLR 1748 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-27
  contempt of courthousing schemeplot allotmentLDAanticorruptionrecord computerizationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a contempt petition and a writ petition filed against the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) and its officials for failing to comply with a court order regarding the allotment of an exempted plot to the petitioner in lieu of her acquired land. The core legal question concerned whether the respondents willfully flouted judicial directions and engaged in foul play by attempting to auction plots meant for the petitioner and repeatedly retracting allotment offers. The Lahore High Court held that although the respondents committed contempt through high-handedness and malicious conduct, the contempt proceedings would not be pursued further as the petitioner's grievance was ultimately redressed during the proceedings through the allotment of the rightful plot. The Court laid down principles emphasizing the urgent need for restructuring LDA, computerizing records, implementing GPS mapping, archiving property records with a third party to prevent fraud, taking strict deterrent action against corrupt officials, and ensuring accountability of the Director General.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt proceedings can be dropped when the respondent authority ultimately complies with the court's directions and redresses the petitioner's grievance?
  • Can a citizen seek damages against state authorities for mental torture and pecuniary loss caused by prolonged and unnecessary litigation resulting from malicious conduct?
  • What structural and preventive measures must the Lahore Development Authority undertake to secure property records and eliminate corruption?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. S. Yasmin vs Pakistan Railways through General Manager and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-23
  disciplinary proceedingsabatement of proceedingsdeath of employeeposthumous penaltyretrospective dismissalservice benefitspensionary benefitscoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition assailed an order dated 30.05.2014 passed by respondent No. 2, which denied service benefits to the widow of a deceased railway employee. The petitioner's husband was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, and passed away on 20.08.2002. Subsequently, on 21.08.2002, the respondents issued an order imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service, making it effective retrospectively from 06.08.2002. The core legal question was whether disciplinary proceedings abate upon the death of an employee prior to their culmination, or whether a penalty can be imposed posthumously. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to pay all service benefits to the petitioner. The court held that disciplinary proceedings automatically abate upon the death of an employee, divesting the department of jurisdiction to impose any departmental penalty posthumously or retrospectively against a deceased person.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental disciplinary proceedings against an employee abate automatically upon his death?
  • Can a major penalty of dismissal from service be imposed posthumously or retrospectively after an employee's death?
  • Whether the department retains jurisdiction to pass a disciplinary penalty against a deceased employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ruqiya Bibi, etc. vs Allah Ditta, etc2017 LHC 4490 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-28
  specific performanceagreement to sellQanun-e-Shahadat Orderattestation of documentsfunctus officioconditional decreeextension of timeburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision and connected writ petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal questions concerned the standard of proof required for an agreement involving financial obligations under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and whether a court retains jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the balance sale consideration after the expiry of the period stipulated in a conditional decree. The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the agreement, noting that the alleged vendor lacked title at the time of the purported transaction, and the mandatory requirements for attestation and examination of witnesses under Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, were not met. Furthermore, the Court established that where a decree for specific performance is conditional upon payment within a fixed time and stipulates dismissal upon default, the court becomes functus officio and lacks the authority to extend the time for payment. Consequently, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the power to extend the time for depositing the balance sale consideration in a specific performance suit where the decree explicitly states the suit shall stand dismissed upon default?
  • Is a document creating financial liability admissible as evidence if the mandatory attestation requirements under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, are not satisfied?
  • Can a party lead evidence on facts not specifically pleaded in the plaint?
  • Does the failure to examine attesting witnesses for a document creating financial liability warrant an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Sajjad vs Syed Muhammad Areeb2017 CLC 450 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Parveen, etc. vs Muhammad Ashraf, etc.2017 LHC 2226 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Parveen, etc vs Muhammad Ashraf, etc2017 C.L.R. 860 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-31
  inheritance rightsmutationburden of prooffemale legal heirsex parte proceedingsfraud and misrepresentationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two civil revision petitions challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial and appellate courts regarding the inheritance rights of female legal heirs. The core legal question was whether a land mutation executed in favour of brothers, which was challenged by their sisters as fraudulent and void, was validly proven, and whether the courts below erred in denying inheritance rights to certain female heirs who were proceeded against ex parte. The High Court allowed the revision petition of the female heirs, holding that the brothers failed to discharge the burden of proving the mutation's execution, particularly by failing to produce material witnesses like the Revenue Officer. The Court found the mutation to be an outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. The Court affirmed that the beneficiary of a document bears the burden of proving its execution, and that courts have an inherent duty to protect the legitimate inheritance rights of females, even when parties are proceeded against ex parte, by applying an independent judicial mind to the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the beneficiary of a document bear the burden of proving its execution when the document is challenged?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to produce material witnesses, such as the Revenue Officer, to prove a disputed mutation?
  • Are courts required to independently examine evidence to protect female inheritance rights even when parties are proceeded against ex parte?
  • Does a mutation, by itself, confer legal title when its authenticity is challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Bibi, etc. vs Government of Pakistan, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Bibi vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 510 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-27
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtindependent corroborationnon-examination of witnessescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Mst. Rukhsana Bibi, for the possession of narcotics. The appellant was originally charged with possessing 1500 morphine tablets and 5 kilograms of hemp. The trial court convicted the appellant, but the High Court noted that the trial court had already discarded the prosecution's evidence regarding the morphine tablets. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the charge of possession of contraband, particularly in the absence of independent corroboration and the failure to examine key witnesses. The High Court held that once the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was discarded regarding the morphine, it could not be relied upon for the remaining charge without independent corroboration, which was absent. Furthermore, the court highlighted the failure to examine the lady constables involved in the arrest as a significant lapse. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered her immediate release, emphasizing that the prosecution's failure to produce essential witnesses created a reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be relied upon for a partial conviction if that same testimony has been discarded by the trial court regarding other aspects of the case without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to examine material witnesses, such as the arresting lady constables, create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce all witnesses to establish a charge under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Begum vs Sajjad, etc.2017 PLJ SC 330, 2017 P.S.C. (Crl.) 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-25
  criminal appealreappraisal of evidencechance witnessbenefit of doubtcorroboratory evidencemurder convictionrecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a murder conviction where the appellants challenged their sentences for the murder of two individuals. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of eye-witness testimony, the status of chance witnesses, and the validity of recovery evidence in the absence of independent corroboration. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court found the prosecution's case riddled with reasonable doubts. The Court held that the complainant's presence at the crime scene was implausible given the accused's failure to target him despite allegedly encircling the victims. Furthermore, the Court determined that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was not satisfactorily explained, and their testimony was inconsistent with the site plan and medical evidence. The Court laid down the principle that eye-witnesses cannot corroborate themselves through recovery evidence; such corroboration must originate from an independent source. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and extended the benefit of doubt, emphasizing that a single reasonable doubt regarding a witness's presence is sufficient to discard their testimony in its entirety.

  Questions settled

  • Can an eye-witness corroborate their own testimony through the recovery of crime weapons?
  • Does a single reasonable doubt regarding the presence of a witness at the crime scene justify discarding their testimony in its entirety?
  • What constitutes a chance witness in criminal proceedings?
  • Is it legally permissible for eye-witnesses to corroborate themselves by acting as attesting witnesses to the recovery of incriminating articles?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Begum vs Sajjad and 9 others2017 SCMR 596, 2017 P.S.C. (Crl) 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-25
  reappraisal of evidencereasonable doubtchance witnesscorroborationcriminal appealmurder trialFIR fabrication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal involves the reappraisal of evidence in a murder case where the appellants were convicted by the trial court and the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses and the integrity of the investigation. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, citing significant discrepancies: the FIR appeared to be recorded after deliberation at the crime scene; the medical evidence in the inquest reports contradicted the prosecution's timeline; and the complainant’s presence was doubtful given the unnatural conduct of the assailants in sparing him. Furthermore, the Court determined that the corroboratory evidence was unreliable, as the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and could not corroborate themselves by acting as recovery witnesses. The Court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt regarding the presence of witnesses at the crime scene is sufficient to discard their testimony, and that corroboratory evidence must originate from an independent source, not the eye-witnesses themselves. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can an eye-witness act as an attesting witness to the recovery of crime articles to corroborate their own testimony?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the presence of a witness at the crime scene warrant the rejection of their entire testimony?
  • Is the testimony of a witness who lacks a cogent explanation for their presence at the crime scene considered that of a chance witness?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of assailants in sparing a prime target cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Begum vs Sajjad & others2017 PLJ SC 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-25
  murder appealreappraisal of evidencebenefit of doubtchance witnesscorroboratory evidenceFIR registrationcriminal acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of the appellants for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of eye-witness testimony and recovery evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The Court observed that the FIR appeared to be recorded at the crime scene after deliberation, rather than at the police station, and noted significant discrepancies between the inquest reports and the FIR regarding the time of death. Furthermore, the Court found the complainant’s testimony unbelievable, as he claimed to be a prime target yet remained unharmed during the attack, which contradicts natural human conduct. Additionally, the Court ruled that an eye-witness cannot corroborate their own testimony by acting as an attesting witness to the recovery of crime weapons. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that a single reasonable doubt regarding a witness's presence is sufficient to discard their testimony. The principle laid down is that corroboratory evidence must originate from an independent source, and eye-witnesses cannot corroborate themselves through recovery proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an eye-witness act as an attesting witness to the recovery of crime weapons to corroborate their own testimony?
  • Does the failure of assailants to harm a prime target present at the crime scene render the eye-witness account unbelievable?
  • Is a witness whose presence at the crime scene is not cogently explained considered a chance witness whose testimony should be discarded?
  • Does the registration of an FIR at the crime spot after deliberation invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Begum and others vs Sajjad and others2017 SCMR 596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-25
  murderappellate jurisdictionreappraisal of evidencechance witnessbenefit of doubtcorroborationrecovery of weaponscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for murder and rioting under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of eye-witness accounts and the integrity of the investigation. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The Court found the FIR was likely fabricated at the crime scene after deliberation, rather than at the police station as claimed. Furthermore, the Court rejected the testimony of the complainant and eye-witnesses, noting that the complainant’s survival despite being the alleged prime target was unnatural. The Court also held that the recovery of weapons was unreliable because the attesting witness was the same discredited eye-witness, violating the principle that corroboration must come from an independent source. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that a single reasonable doubt regarding a witness's presence necessitates discarding their testimony, and that eye-witnesses cannot corroborate themselves through recovery proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an eye-witness corroborate their own testimony by acting as an attesting witness to the recovery of crime weapons?
  • What is the legal effect of a delay in recording an FIR or recording it at the crime scene after deliberation?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the presence of an eye-witness at the crime scene necessitate the rejection of their testimony?
  • Is the survival of a complainant, who was allegedly the prime target of an attack, a factor that can render their testimony unbelievable?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Mst. Rukhsana Begum (2) Sajjad son of Inayat and (3) others vs (1)2017 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealeye-witness credibilitychance witnessbenefit of doubtrecovery evidencecorroborationmurder trialFIR fabrication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of eye-witness testimony and the validity of recovery evidence in a case involving alleged long-standing enmity. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants. The Court reasoned that the complainant’s presence was highly improbable, as he claimed to be the prime target yet was inexplicably spared by the assailants, a behavior contrary to natural human conduct. Furthermore, the Court determined that the FIR was likely fabricated at the crime scene rather than at the police station, and the recovery of weapons was tainted because the attesting witness was the same discredited eye-witness. The Court established the principle that eye-witnesses cannot corroborate their own testimony by acting as attesting witnesses for recoveries; such corroboration must originate from an independent, unimpeachable source. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the presence of a chance witness without a cogent explanation renders their testimony unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Can an eye-witness act as an attesting witness for the recovery of crime weapons to provide corroboration?
  • Does the failure of an assailant to harm a prime target, despite having the opportunity, undermine the credibility of the eye-witness account?
  • What constitutes a 'chance witness' in criminal proceedings, and what is the evidentiary consequence of their presence?
  • Is the recovery of incriminating evidence legally valid if the attesting witness is the same person whose testimony as an eye-witness has been discarded?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar vs Federation of Pakistan through2017 PLC (C.S.) 703 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-13
  Special Family Pensionwrit jurisdictionservice matterdiscriminationpensionary benefitsjudicial reviewmartyred personnelArticle 199
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, mother of a deceased Pakistan Army soldier, challenged the refusal of the Federation of Pakistan to grant her 100% 'Special Family Pension' benefits. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to hear the matter given the bar under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the denial of full pension benefits was discriminatory and contrary to the applicable Pension Regulations. The Court held that the jurisdictional bar under Article 199(3) is not absolute and does not preclude judicial review where an order is alleged to be mala fide or discriminatory. It further held that the refusal of full pension benefits was legally unjustified, as the rules cited by the respondent were inapplicable to 'Special Family Pension' benefits. The Court established that administrative authorities cannot discriminate against similarly placed beneficiaries and must interpret pension regulations to ensure the dignified livelihood of the families of martyred personnel, declaring the impugned order without lawful authority and directing the grant of full pension benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 prevent the High Court from reviewing service matters involving allegations of mala fides?
  • Is Rule 111 of the Pension Regulations Vol-1 2010 applicable to 'Special Family Pension' benefits?
  • Does the failure to exhaust the remedy before the Pension Appeal Committee bar a writ petition when the specific grievance does not fall within the Committee's limited jurisdiction?
  • Can the state discriminate against the mother of a martyred soldier regarding the entitlement to full 'Special Family Pension' benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukayya Parveen and another vs Province of Punjab through D.O.2017 MLD 1493 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-30
  temporary injunctionoral giftstate landcolonization of government landsmutation of inheritanceprima facie casecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition is directed against the concurrent orders of the lower courts whereby the petitioners' application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was dismissed. The petitioners claimed ownership of state land through an oral gift made by their predecessor-in-interest in favour of their brothers, who were subsequently murdered, and challenged a mutation of inheritance. The Lahore High Court held that since the suit land vests in the Government, no valid gift could be made without the prior approval of the District Collector under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not lie in their favour, and the revenue record showed the respondents to be in possession. The High Court affirmed that all three mandatory ingredients for a temporary injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—must coexist, and dismissed the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a valid gift of state-owned leasehold land can be made without the sanction of the Collector under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
  • What are the essential ingredients that a plaintiff must prove for the grant of a temporary injunction?
  • Can a temporary injunction be granted when the revenue record shows possession of the suit land to be with the opposing party?
  • Whether concurrent orders of lower courts refusing a temporary injunction warrant interference in civil revision when no jurisdictional error is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubina Kausar vs Asj etc2017 PLD Lahore 604, 2017 LHC 351 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-18
  DNA testpaternity disputeinheritanceconsentpersonal libertyconstitutional petitioncivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order setting aside a trial court's dismissal of an application for a DNA test in an inheritance suit. The core legal question was whether a person's paternity in a civil inheritance matter can be determined through a compulsory DNA test without their consent. The Lahore High Court held that DNA tests cannot be ordered in a routine manner in civil inheritance cases, and a person cannot be compelled to undergo a medical or DNA test against their consent, as doing so violates fundamental rights to personal liberty. The Court laid down that resort to DNA testing is permissible only in rare and exceptional circumstances, requires the free consent of the party concerned, and cannot be forced, especially when independent oral and documentary evidence is available to resolve the controversy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether paternity of a person in a civil case pertaining to inheritance can be determined by conducting a DNA test?
  • Can a person be compelled to undergo a DNA test against their wish without their consent?
  • Is it permissible to resort to DNA testing in civil matters of inheritance as a matter of routine?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubina Kausar vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2017 PLD Lahore 604 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-18
  DNA testpaternity determinationcivil inheritance suitpersonal libertyconsent for medical examinationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order setting aside a trial court decision and granting an application for a DNA test to determine the paternity of the petitioner in a civil suit for inheritance and cancellation of mutations. The core legal question was whether a person's paternity in a civil inheritance dispute can be determined through a compulsory DNA test against their consent, and whether such tests should be ordered routinely. The Lahore High Court held that DNA tests cannot be ordered as a matter of routine in civil inheritance matters, and no person can be compelled to undergo a DNA test or provide blood samples without their free consent, as doing so violates fundamental rights to personal liberty. The court emphasized that resort to DNA testing is limited to rare and exceptional circumstances, and paternity can be established through regular oral and documentary evidence. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order directing the DNA test was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court compel a party in a civil inheritance dispute to undergo a DNA test against their consent?
  • Is a DNA test permissible as a matter of routine practice in civil cases to determine paternity?
  • Does forcing a person to submit to a blood test for DNA profiling violate their right to personal liberty?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rozina Begum vs The State2017 MLD 1576 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-24
  narcotic traffickingrepresentative samplingconscious possessionmens reaControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal appealsentencing reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for transporting 30 kilograms of charas, resulting in a life imprisonment sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the validity of the arrest by an ASI, the necessity of private witnesses, the requirement of mens rea, and the legality of the conviction based on improper sampling of the seized narcotics. The court held that the conviction was sound regarding the possession of narcotics, rejecting arguments concerning the arresting officer's rank, the appellant's gender, and the absence of private witnesses. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to take representative samples of the entire seizure, as required by the principle established in Ameer Zeb v. The State. Consequently, the court held the appellant liable only for the quantity actually tested (3 kilograms) rather than the total seizure. The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to five years and six months, with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applied.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of sections 20, 21, and 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 mandatory or directory?
  • Does the exclusion of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotic cases permit the absence of private witnesses?
  • What is the effect of failing to take representative samples of the entire seized narcotic substance on the quantum of punishment?
  • Does section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 shift the burden of proof regarding conscious possession to the accused once physical custody is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Roheela Yasmin vs Ms. Neelofar Hassan and 6 others2017 CLC 516 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Resham Bibi etc. vs Ali Muhammad etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 608 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia vs The State and 3 others2017 MLD 1306 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-09
  cancelled class reportsection 173 Cr.P.C.quashing of orderjudicial mindpolice investigationcognizance of offenceinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed to assail an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate disposing of a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the 'cancelled class'. The core legal question involved whether the Magistrate properly applied his judicial mind in accepting the police report recommending cancellation despite conflicting statements of prosecution and defence witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the Magistrate acted mechanically by endorsing the police report without recording independent findings or considering the incriminating material available against the nominated accused. The court laid down the principle that the findings of the police or investigating agency are not binding on the court, and determining the guilt or innocence of accused persons is the exclusive prerogative of the trial court after recording evidence, rather than relying on police conclusions at the investigation stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the finding of a police investigating agency regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused is binding on a Magistrate?
  • Can a Magistrate dispose of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the cancelled class without applying an independent judicial mind to the available material?
  • Is the conflict between prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses to be resolved during the investigation stage or after recording evidence at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Begum vs Muhammad Afzal Khan2017 CLC 644 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasheedan Bibi, etc vs Abdul Razzaq2017 PLJ Lahore 994 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raeesa Begum vs Khaleeq-Ur-Rehman, Etc2017 PLJ Lahore 422, 2017 LHC 300 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raeesa Begum vs Khaleeq-Ur-Man. etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 422 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08
  gifttamleekIslamic lawregistrationdelivery of possessionspousescivil revisioninheritance mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a consolidated judgment passed by the lower appellate court, which had set aside the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner, as the widow of the deceased owner, filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership of a 1/4th share in the disputed property based on a written tamleek or gift deed executed by her late husband. The core legal questions involved the validity of the unregistered gift deed between spouses and whether the essential ingredients of an Islamic gift (offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession) were fulfilled. The Lahore High Court held that under Muslim personal law, a valid gift or tamleek does not require compulsory registration under the Registration Act 1908, provided the three essential ingredients—declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession—are established, especially between spouses living together where formal delivery of possession is not strictly required. The court laid down that an oral or written gift among Muslims is valid without registration if the foundational requirements are met, and appellate courts cannot reverse well-reasoned trial court findings based on a selective reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered gift or tamleek deed executed between spouses requires compulsory registration under the Registration Act 1908 to be valid under Islamic law?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute a valid gift or tamleek under Islamic law?
  • Is formal delivery of possession required when a gift is made between spouses residing together?
  • Can an appellate court reverse the findings of a trial court based on a selective reading of isolated portions of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qaisra Bano vs Shaikh Shahid Abbas and others2017 PLD Sindh 486 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nosheen Bibi vs Ziaullah and 2 others2017 YLR 1514 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Sarwar vs Mst. Shabana Kausar & 7 others2017 SCR 158 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-10-09
  fraud upon the courtinherent powersrecall of judgmentwrit jurisdictionforged appointment orderequitable remedyrecovery of emoluments
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that declared the appellant’s appointment order as a Primary Teacheress to be fabricated and fraudulent. The High Court had previously recalled a judgment it had issued in the appellant's favor in an earlier writ petition, ordered the recovery of emoluments received by the appellant, and directed the registration of an FIR against her. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to recall its own judgment and order recovery of emoluments when such judgment was procured through fraud. The Supreme Court held that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings, and courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to recall any order or judgment obtained by practicing fraud upon the court. Consequently, the Court upheld the recall of the previous judgment and the recovery of emoluments. However, the Court modified the direction regarding the FIR, ruling that further departmental inquiry was necessary to identify the actual perpetrator of the forgery before initiating criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the inherent power to recall a judgment obtained by practicing fraud upon it?
  • Is a judgment obtained through a forged and fabricated document considered a nullity?
  • Can a court order the recovery of emoluments received by a party based on a fraudulent appointment order?
  • Is a prior departmental inquiry required before ordering the registration of an FIR for a forged appointment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazia Tabasum vs Taj Haider and others2017 LHC 2858 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naik Parveen vs Jewan KhanK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 299, 2017 LHC 3120 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naheed Fatima and another vs Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad and others2017 YLR 1079 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nabeera Shafique (Minor) through her next friend vs Additional2017 CLC 794 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarat Abid vs Messrs Akbar Builders through Managing Partner2017 MLD 329 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Banu vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2017 MLD 309 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mithan vs Jatoi and 7 others2017 MLD 1101 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-02
  Family Court jurisdictionNikah Namarecovery of dowerretrospective effectprocedural lawconstitutional petitionSchedule of Family Courts Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate court judgment that had set aside a Family Court decree in a suit for recovery of dower. The petitioner sought to enforce a promise of agricultural land made in her Nikah Nama. The core legal questions were whether the Family Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate matters arising from entries in the Nikah Nama, and whether the amendment to the Schedule of the Family Courts Act, 1964, specifically Entry No. 10, had retrospective effect. The High Court held that the Family Court indeed possessed the requisite jurisdiction to decide such matters. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that the amendment to the Schedule, being a procedural change regarding the forum for trial, operates retrospectively. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment, restored the original Family Court decree in favor of the petitioner, and affirmed that matters arising out of a Nikah Nama fall within the purview of the Family Court's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Family Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters arising out of entries in a Nikah Nama?
  • Does the amendment adding Entry No. 10 to the Schedule of the Family Courts Act, 1964, have retrospective effect?
  • Is a change of forum for the trial of a case considered a procedural change?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehtab Bibi vs Khadim Hussain through L.Rs, and another2017 YLR 1020 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehreen vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PHC 1263 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehboob Bibi and others vs The State2017 SCMR 1835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-22
  abduction for ransombenefit of doubtdelay in FIRransom money recoverycriminal appealacquittalanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for the abduction of a minor for ransom under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The trial court and High Court had convicted and sentenced the appellants to death and imprisonment for life. Upon hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence and noted significant flaws in the prosecution's case, including an unexplained four-day delay in lodging the FIR, lack of recovery of the vehicles allegedly used in the abduction, absence of call data records to substantiate the ransom demands, contradictions in witness statements regarding the recovery of the abductee, and unreliable evidence concerning the payment of ransom and subsequent recoveries of weapons and personal items. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, allowed the appeal, and acquitted them of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the FIR is fatal to a criminal prosecution for abduction?
  • Can a conviction for abduction and ransom be sustained in the absence of call data records or proof of ransom payment?
  • Does the failure to recover vehicles allegedly used in an abduction undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Whether uncorroborated recoveries of articles and weapons at the instance of accused persons can form the basis of a capital conviction when the core charge is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Malookan vs Bacho Mal and 4 others2017 CLC 1123 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Majida vs Din Ullah and others2017 P.S.C. (Crl.) 953 · Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan · 2017-08-29
  cancellation of bailabductionfurther inquiryleave to appealspecific roleheinous offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Chief Court, which granted bail to the respondents accused of offences under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail, arguing that the respondents were nominated in the FIR, were intercepted by police while transporting the abducted victim, and that the offences were heinous, carrying a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the Chief Court erred in granting bail on the grounds of further inquiry. Upon review, the Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan found that the respondents were not attributed any specific role in the commission of the alleged offence. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Court affirmed the decision of the Chief Court and refused the leave to appeal, establishing the principle that bail may be granted where the record does not attribute a specific role to the accused in the commission of the alleged offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted to an accused when the record does not attribute a specific role in the commission of the offence?
  • Does the mere nomination of an accused in an FIR automatically preclude the grant of bail?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with a bail-granting order if no illegality or infirmity is pointed out in the impugned order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Madina vs DIG Police Mardan (Reagan) and 4 others2017 P Cr. L J 617 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-08
  registration of FIRsecond FIRcognizable offenceJustice of Peacewrit petitionself-defencecriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Justice of Peace, Mardan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of a criminal case against the respondent. The petitioner alleged that her husband was murdered by the respondent, despite the respondent's claim of self-defense in an existing FIR regarding a dacoity incident. The core legal question was whether a second FIR could be registered when the petitioner's version of events directly contradicted the initial FIR, particularly where the initial version appeared potentially concocted or collusive. The Court held that the Justice of Peace erred in dismissing the application. It set aside the impugned order and directed the registration of the second FIR based on the petitioner's version. The Court laid down the principle that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, police are legally obligated to record information regarding cognizable offenses. Where a subsequent version of an incident is not merely an amplification but fundamentally contradicts the initial FIR, a second FIR must be registered to ensure a fair investigation and unearth the truth.

  Questions settled

  • Is the registration of a second FIR permissible when the version provided contradicts the initial FIR?
  • Does the police officer have a legal obligation under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register a second FIR if the initial FIR is suspected to be concocted or collusive?
  • Can a Justice of Peace dismiss an application for the registration of an FIR when the petitioner's version of a cognizable offence differs significantly from the existing police record?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Madina vs D.I.G. Police Mardan (Reagon) and others2017 P Cr. L J 617, 2017 PLJ Peshawar 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-08
  registration of FIRsecond FIRcognizable offencewrit jurisdictionmala fide FIRcriminal investigationJustice of Peace
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Justice of Peace, Mardan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of a criminal case against the respondent for the murder of her husband. The respondent had previously registered an FIR claiming self-defense after the deceased allegedly entered his house. The core legal question was whether a second FIR could be registered when the initial FIR is alleged to be collusive or concocted, and whether the police are legally obligated to record a counter-version. The Court held that the police are under a legal obligation to register a second FIR if the subsequent information provides a version that is not a mere amplification but runs contrary to the earlier one, particularly when the first FIR is alleged to be mala fide. The Court established the principle that to ensure a fair investigation and unearth the truth, the police must register a second FIR where the initial version is disputed or distorted, thereby allowing the actual facts to surface.

  Questions settled

  • Is the police officer in charge of a police station legally obligated to register a second FIR if the new information provides a version contrary to the first?
  • Can a court direct the registration of a second FIR when the initial FIR is alleged to be collusive or concocted?
  • Does the registration of an initial FIR regarding an incident bar the registration of a subsequent FIR containing a different version of the same event?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Latifa vs Moiz Abbas2017 SHC 209 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lala Rukh Bukhari vs Syed Waqar ul Hassan Shah Bokhari, etc.2017 LHC 2268 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Bibi vs Mst. Ayesha Bibi and 6 others2017 CLC 1601 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-11
  fraudinheritancearbitration awardSection 12(2) CPCwomen's inheritance rightsnullity of decreevitiation of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of a review application and the setting aside of a judgment and decree that had made an arbitration award a rule of the court. The dispute arose when a brother, through his wife (the petitioner), obtained a decree via an arbitration award concerning property inherited by his sisters. The sisters, respondents, successfully challenged this decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alleging fraud. The court held that the decree was a product of fraud and misrepresentation, as the sisters were never party to the arbitration agreement and were not impleaded in the suit. The court emphasized that fraud vitiates all proceedings, rendering the decree a nullity. It rejected the petitioner's argument that the matter required a full trial with evidence, noting that the fraud was apparent on the record. The court affirmed that women's inheritance rights, protected by Islamic law and the Constitution, cannot be usurped by fraudulent acts, and dismissed the petition, directing administrative action against the judicial officer who passed the original fraudulent decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree obtained through fraud and misrepresentation be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does fraud vitiate all solemn acts and legal proceedings, including judgments and decrees?
  • Is it necessary to record evidence in an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when fraud is apparent on the face of the record?
  • Can a court pass a decree based on an arbitration award regarding property owned by individuals who were not parties to the arbitration agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kamayan Bi vs Muhammad Din2017 MLD 1251 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-09-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kamalan Bibi and others vs Rab Nawaz and others2017 YLR 844 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Javeria vs The State2017 MLD 1367 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janat Bibi, through L.Rs, vs Aslam Khan and 13 others2017 CLC 436 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-20
  inheritanceMuslim Personal Lawco-sharerlimitationmutationcustomrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the judgment and decree of the District Judge whereby the plaintiffs' suit regarding inheritance was dismissed, reversing the trial court's decision in their favour. The core legal questions involved whether female heirs could be deprived of their shari shares based on a custom prevailing prior to the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Peshawar High Court held that the 1935 Act has retrospective effect, requiring succession disputes of Muslims to be resolved under Muslim Personal Law regardless of the date of death, and that possession of one co-sharer is deemed possession for all, meaning limitation does not run against co-sharers from the date of death or mutation alone. The court laid down the principles that inheritance opens automatically upon death vesting property in heirs without need for revenue interventions, mutations do not confer title, and time does not extinguish inheritance rights of co-sharers until actual denial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935 have retrospective effect for determining succession where the death occurred prior to its enactment?
  • Does limitation run against a co-sharer from the date of the predecessor's death or the attestation of an inheritance mutation?
  • What is the legal effect of an evasive denial of pleadings in a written statement under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does an inheritance mutation confer any independent title or right in property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jameela Begum vs Qadeer Ahmad2017 LHC 138 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-06
  Parda Nasheengift mutationburden of proofinheritancerevisional jurisdictionfraudulent transfercivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged the concurrent dismissal of a suit filed by an illiterate woman seeking to set aside two gift mutations regarding inherited property. The petitioner alleged that the mutations, transferring her share to her father and subsequently to her brother, were fraudulent and executed without her consent. The High Court examined whether the lower courts correctly assessed the validity of the gifts and the maintainability of the suit. The Court held that the lower courts erred by misreading the evidence and failing to apply the correct legal standard regarding transactions involving 'Parda Nasheen' ladies. It was established that the burden of proof lies heavily on the beneficiary to prove the genuineness of such transactions, including the essential ingredients of a valid gift: offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession. Since the respondent failed to prove these elements or the identity of the donor, the mutations were declared void. The Court emphasized that quality of evidence prevails over quantity and that concurrent findings based on misreading of evidence are not immune from interference in revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the beneficiary when a transaction involving an illiterate 'Parda Nasheen' lady is challenged?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts immune from interference in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to prove the validity of a gift under Muhammadan Law?
  • Can a mutation entry alone serve as proof of title without establishing the underlying transaction of gift?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Begum and another vs Government of Punjab and othersK.L.R. 2017 Labour & Service Cases 66 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12
  civil servantterms and conditions of servicetransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionservice tribunalwrit petition maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a batch of constitutional petitions filed by civil servants (teachers) challenging their transfer and surrender orders issued by departmental authorities. The core legal question is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the transfer and posting of civil servants, or whether such matters are exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal under the constitutional framework. The Court held that the petitions are not maintainable. The ratio is that matters relating to the transfer, posting, and placement of civil servants fall squarely within the definition of 'terms and conditions of service.' Consequently, Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 creates an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain such matters, regardless of allegations of mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of fundamental rights. The principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal is the exclusive forum for adjudicating grievances arising from terms and conditions of service, and constitutional petitions cannot be used to bypass this statutory remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Do matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants fall within the ambit of 'terms and conditions of service' under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can a civil servant challenge an order of transfer on the grounds of mala fide or lack of jurisdiction in the High Court, or must they approach the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the doctrine of merger apply when an initial illegal order by a subordinate authority is followed by a final order from a competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Begum & another vs Government of Punjab & others2017 LHC 455 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12
  civil servanttransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalterms and conditions of serviceArticle 212writ petition maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a consolidated set of constitutional petitions filed by civil servants (teachers) challenging orders of transfer, surrender, and relieving from their respective educational institutions. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate upon the transfer and posting of civil servants, or if such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petitions are not maintainable, ruling that the transfer and posting of civil servants are integral components of the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, creates an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters. The Court further established that allegations of mala fide or claims that an order is without jurisdiction do not bypass this constitutional ouster, as the Service Tribunal is the appropriate forum to resolve both factual and legal controversies regarding service matters. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Are transfer and posting orders of civil servants considered part of the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does an allegation of mala fide or lack of jurisdiction confer upon the High Court the power to entertain a petition otherwise barred by Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an interim departmental order regarding the transfer of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Fatima through Special Attorney vs Khalid Naeem and 2 others2017 YLR 2368 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat-Ur-Rehman through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Anwaar Saeed2017 YLR 2406 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Humera Rasheed vs Executive District Officer (Health) and 82017 PLC (C.S.) 1238 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-17
  Intra Court Appealpublic appointmentvested rightmerit listrecruitment committeeconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition filed against the refusal to issue an appointment letter for the post of Midwife. The core legal questions involve whether appointment is a vested right, whether courts can interfere with the selection process of a recruitment committee without proof of mala fides, and whether an interim observation can override a final judgment. The Lahore High Court held that public employment is not a vested right, the competent authority and recruitment committee are the best judges of recruitment, courts will not substitute their opinion absent mala fides or political influence supported by evidence, and disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court laid down the principle that appointment without following the prescribed statutory procedure is impermissible and courts will not accommodate candidates outside the merit list.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public employment or appointment to a post constitutes a vested right of a candidate?
  • Can a court substitute its opinion for the selection made by a competent recruitment committee in the absence of mala fides?
  • Whether disputed questions of fact regarding political influence in appointments can be inquired into in constitutional petition proceedings?
  • Can a candidate be appointed against a vacant post without adopting the prescribed procedure under the rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hilal Murad vs Haji Amir Zaman and 8 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 179 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hijab Fatima Tariq and 2 others vs Kohat Cement Co. Ltd. & others2017 PLJ Peshawar 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hifsa Naseer vs Additional District Judge, Gujar Khan and others2017 PLJ Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hifsa Naseer vs A.D.J. Gujar Khan and 3 others2017 PLJ Lahore 7, 2017 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-30
  custody of minorhizanatwelfare of minorremarriage of motherconstitutional jurisdictionguardians and wards
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner-mother's defense and granting the custody of her minor daughter to the respondent-father based primarily on the mother's second marriage. The core legal question addressed is whether a mother's remarriage to a person not within the prohibited degree operates as an absolute bar to retaining the custody of her minor child, or whether the paramount consideration of the minor's welfare overrides it. The Lahore High Court held that while the mother generally loses her preferential right of hizanat upon contracting a second marriage with a stranger, this rule is not absolute; the welfare of the minor remains the ultimate and overriding consideration. The Court established that remarriage alone cannot be the sole deciding factor, and custody cannot be handed over to a third party or paternal grandmother in derogation of the mother when the father resides abroad and the minor's welfare clearly lies with the mother.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the remarriage of a mother to a person not within the prohibited degree is an absolute bar to her right of hizanat?
  • Can the custody of a minor be handed over to the paternal grandmother in the presence of the real mother?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts in minor custody matters can be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount and overriding consideration in determining custody disputes regardless of technical disqualifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameedan Bibi and anothers vs Muhammad Sharif2017 YLR 399 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajani Sherbano vs Qazi Muhammad Fareed & Ors2017 SHC 340 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulzaran Bibi alias Shama vs The State2017 YLR 705 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-11
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtextra-judicial confessioninterested witnesschance witnessdelayed FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of her husband, while a revision petition sought the enhancement of her sentence to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on interested, related, and chance witnesses, a delayed FIR, and inconclusive medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the delayed post-mortem examination suggested the fabrication of evidence and that the ocular account provided by the complainant and witnesses was unreliable. Furthermore, the Court found the evidence of extra-judicial confession to be weak and the alleged recoveries to be disconnected from the crime. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of doubt, and dismissed the revision petition. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace, and the prosecution must present solid evidence to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delayed post-mortem examination suggest the fabrication of prosecution evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based solely on the testimony of interested, related, and chance witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession considered a strong or weak type of evidence in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Zameeran and 3 others vs Mst. Aasia2017 CLC 1431 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-21
  inheritance rightsdivorce deedMuslim Family Lawsburden of proofcivil revisionadverse presumptionbest evidence rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Application challenged an appellate court judgment that reversed a trial court's dismissal of a suit filed by a widow claiming her share in her deceased husband's estate. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had been validly divorced by her late husband, thereby excluding her from inheritance, based on an alleged divorce deed. The High Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, ruling that the defendants failed to prove the execution of the divorce deed. The Court held that the burden of proving the divorce rested on the defendants, and their failure to produce the original document warranted an adverse presumption. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that for a divorce to be effective, it must strictly comply with the notice requirements stipulated under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Court affirmed the principle that where findings of fact between the trial and appellate courts conflict, the appellate court’s findings, if based on a proper re-appraisal of evidence, must prevail. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, confirming the plaintiff's status as a legal heir.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce an original document in court, when it is the basis of a claim, warrant an adverse presumption against the party relying on it?
  • Is a divorce effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 if the mandatory notice requirements to the Union Council are not satisfied?
  • When findings of fact between a trial court and an appellate court conflict, which finding should prevail?
  • Does the burden of proving a divorce lie on the party asserting it when the wife denies the existence of the divorce?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Muhammad Khan through L.Rs, and 4 others2017 YLR 23 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fiza Naeem Bukhari And others vs Province of Punjab And others2017 MLD 2105 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Ehsan Ali Ghori through Legal Heirs vs Messrs Standard2017 YLR 1007 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-17
  recovery of moneybank liabilityburden of proofunauthorized transactioncivil suitbanking negligencedocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit concerns a claim for recovery of funds and damages filed by the plaintiff against the defendant bank. The core legal question was whether the bank was authorized to debit the plaintiff's dollar savings account for the purchase of Dollar Bearer Certificates, based on an alleged authorization letter. The plaintiff denied signing the document, and the bank failed to produce the original letter or evidence of the transaction. The court held that the bank failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the authenticity of the disputed authorization. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the bank to refund the principal amount with interest at the prevailing savings bank rate. However, the claim for additional damages was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that a financial institution must strictly prove the validity of a disputed transaction when the customer denies authorization, particularly when the original supporting documentation is withheld or unavailable, and that the burden of proof rests on the party asserting the validity of such documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does a bank's failure to produce the original document authorizing a disputed transaction shift the burden of proof against the bank?
  • Is a bank liable to refund a customer's account if it cannot prove the authenticity of a disputed withdrawal authorization?
  • Can a court grant a decree for recovery of funds where the defendant fails to lead evidence to substantiate the disputed transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Begum vs Bashir Ahmed and 3 others2017 YLR 922 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Falak Naz vs Tariq Mehmood Khan, Lac.2017 KLR Revenue Cases 75 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-04
  contempt of courtland acquisitioncompensationawardreferee courtnon-compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the Land Acquisition Collector for alleged non-compliance with a previous High Court order regarding compensation for acquired land. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to pay a specific sum of Rs. 33,58,460/-, which she claimed was the amount directed by the Court. The core legal question was whether the amount mentioned in a writ petition, subsequently incorporated into a court order, constitutes a binding adjudicated determination of compensation that the respondent is compelled to pay, or merely a claim. The Court held that the amount mentioned in the order was not an adjudicated figure but a mere assertion by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the contempt petition, ruling that the respondent is only bound to pay the compensation determined in the official Award. The key principle laid down is that a court order directing payment of compensation in accordance with the law does not validate a specific claim amount mentioned in a petition unless that amount has been formally adjudicated upon by the Court. Parties dissatisfied with an Award must seek redress before the appropriate Referee Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amount mentioned in a writ petition, when incorporated into a court order, constitute a binding adjudicated determination of compensation?
  • Is a Land Acquisition Collector bound to pay a specific amount claimed by a petitioner if that amount has not been formally adjudicated by the Court?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a landowner dissatisfied with the compensation amount mentioned in an official Award?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faiz Elahi through. Legal heirs vs Imam Bakhsh and others2017 LHC 407 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faiz Elahi through Legal Heirs vs Imam Bakhsh and others2017 C.L.R. 241 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11
  civil revisiontamleekgift mutationessential ingredients of giftdelivery of possessionburden of proofinheritance rightsconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for declaration regarding the ownership of suit land. The core legal question revolves around the validity of mutation of Tamleek (gift) executed by the parents in favor of their son to the exclusion of their daughters, and whether the essential ingredients of a valid gift under Muslim law—namely, declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession—were established. The Lahore High Court held that the beneficiary of a gift mutation carries a heavy onus to prove the original transaction through cogent evidence, including the production of attesting witnesses and proof of actual delivery of possession at the time of the transaction, which the respondent failed to do. The Court laid down that failure to prove the essential ingredients of a gift, coupled with the absence of attesting witnesses and suspicious circumstances surrounding the total deprivation of female heirs, renders gift mutations void. Consequently, the revision was allowed, concurrent findings were set aside, and the suit was decreed in favor of the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mutation of gift is sufficient proof of title without establishing the original transaction?
  • What are the essential ingredients of a valid gift under Mohammadan Law?
  • Does the heavy onus lie on the beneficiary to prove the validity of a gift made in his favor to the exclusion of other legal heirs?
  • Can the High Court set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts in revisional jurisdiction when they are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →