Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,817 judgments in total.
- Zubair Aziz Durrani vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Mandi Baha1999 CLC 1615 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
- Ziledar Alias Noor Muhammad vs Town Committee, Farooqa Through Administrator And 4 Other1999 CLC 834 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
- Ziaur Rehman Khan Naghar vs Sindh Employees Social Security1999 PLC (C.S.) 641 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
- Ziauddin vs Pakistan Defence Housing Authority1999 CLC 723 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a retired civilian officer of the Pakistan Army to challenge a show-cause notice and consequential order issued by the Pakistan Defence Housing Authority, which cancelled the allotment of a commercial plot previously allotted to him by the defunct housing society. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent Authority could lawfully cancel an allotment made decades prior under Article 17 of President's Order No. 7 of 1980, and whether a past and closed transaction creating a vested right could be reopened. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner had acquired a valid vested right upon the allotment of the plot and fulfillment of all financial demands, which matured into a concluded contract. The Court ruled that the Authority could not reopen a past and closed transaction or rescind an allotment that had taken legal effect, especially when the residential plot allotment of the same individual had been regularized, rendering the cancellation discriminatory and without lawful authority. The key principles laid down include that vested rights cannot be arbitrarily taken away after a lapse of many years, the doctrine of locus poenitentiae restricts authorities from withdrawing orders that have created closed transactions, and excessive use of lawful statutory power is unlawful.
Questions settled- Can the Pakistan Defence Housing Authority cancel an allotment of a plot made by the defunct society after a lapse of several years?
- Whether an allotment that has taken legal effect and created a vested right can be rescinded under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897?
- Does the regularization of one plot allotment by a housing authority prevent it from cancelling another plot allotment held under the same circumstances?
- Whether a statutory power conferred on a public functionary can be exercised to reopen past and closed transactions?
- Ziarat Enterprises and another vs Ahmed Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. and others1999 PTD 736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from eight civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against judgments of the Balochistan High Court. The core legal question was whether advance income-tax could be included as a component of the ad valorem cost of imported ships, boats, and floating structures for the purpose of calculating and charging octroi by the local Octroi Contractor under a Balochistan Government notification. The Supreme Court held that the term 'taxes' in the relevant notification refers only to taxes directly relatable to the imported goods themselves, whereas income-tax is a personal tax liability of the importer and cannot be added to the value of the goods for octroi computation. The Court further held that upon finding an illegal recovery of octroi, the High Court possesses the constitutional authority to grant consequential relief by directing refunds. Leave to appeal was refused, and a mechanism for calculating refundable amounts through the High Court Registrar was provided.
Questions settled- Whether advance income-tax can be included in the ad valorem cost of imported ships for the purpose of charging octroi?
- Does the term 'taxes' in the Balochistan Government notification dated 8-4-1982 include personal income-tax liability of the importer?
- Can the High Court grant a consequential direction for the refund of illegally recovered octroi in a constitutional petition?
- Zia Ullah alias Jajj vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1821 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
- Zia Shahid vs Sh. Rafiq Ahmed1999 CLC 1491 · Election Tribunal · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
- Zarif Khan vs The State1999 MLD 2330 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
- Zar Badshah vs Samiullah and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 915 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-06Read full judgment →
- Zamir Ahmed vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Communications Division, Islamabad and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 501 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Zameerulhassan and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 546 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
- Zameer Khan vs The State1999 MLD 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
- Zakaullah Bajwa, Extra Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate 1ST1999 PLC (C.S.) 866 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
- Zakaullah Bajwa vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Services Cases 23 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Zaka Ullah Khan vs Zila Council, Kasur Through Administrator And 31999 CLC 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
- Zahur Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 PLD Supreme Court 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves several appeals and petitions concerning the interpretation of clauses (4-A) and (4-B) of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The core legal question is whether an interim stay order granted by a High Court regarding the assessment or collection of public revenues automatically expires after six months, regardless of whether the High Court has disposed of the main case within that period. The Supreme Court held that the six-month limitation prescribed in Article 199(4-A) is mandatory and operates by operation of law. The Court rejected arguments that the failure of the High Court to decide the case within the timeframe mandated by Article 199(4-B) allows for the extension of interim orders. Furthermore, the Court ruled that even if an impugned order is challenged as being without jurisdiction, the constitutional limitation on the duration of interim relief remains binding. The judgment establishes that constitutional provisions regarding the duration of interim orders cannot be circumvented through judicial interpretation or the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, affirming that such orders cease to have effect upon the expiry of the statutory period.
Questions settled- Does an interim stay order granted by a High Court in matters of public revenue automatically expire after six months pursuant to Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution?
- Can a High Court extend an interim stay order beyond the six-month period prescribed by Article 199(4-A) if the main case remains pending due to court congestion?
- Does the constitutional limitation on interim orders apply to cases where the impugned order is alleged to be without jurisdiction on the face of the record?
- Can the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit be invoked to extend the life of an interim order beyond the statutory six-month limit?
- Zahur Textile Mills and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 3 others1999 SCMR 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition where the petitioners contended that no authoritative decision exists from the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Clause (4-B) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, inserted by P.O. No. 14 of 1985, concerning the extension of stay orders beyond the stipulated time when a High Court is unable to dispose of a matter for valid reasons. The core legal question involves the proper interpretation of this constitutional provision regarding interim stays. The Supreme Court held that the contention raises a question of public importance and of an academic nature, and consequently granted leave to appeal for the examination of the said contention. The Court laid down that interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding the extension of stay orders beyond stipulated timeframes requires authoritative adjudication by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether a stay order can be extended beyond the stipulated time under Clause (4-B) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if the High Court is unable to dispose of the matter for valid reasons?
- Does the interpretation of Clause (4-B) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 constitute a question of public importance and academic nature warranting leave to appeal?
- Zahooruddin Arshad vs The State1999 MLD 3356 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
- Zahoor-Ud-Din Aasi and another vs Saeed Ahmed Alvi and another1999 PLC 351 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-02-16Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Khan vs Rehmat Khan and 7 others1999 MLD 3395 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
- Zahoor and another vs The Presiding Officer, Iiird Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and others1999 PLC 399 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
- Zahoor and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 894 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-12Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Akram vs State1999 YLR 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmed. vs Mehra through Legal Heirs and others1999 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Lahore High Court in a regular second appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns whether the Trial Court was justified in closing the appellant-defendant's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. upon failure to produce evidence on the adjourned date. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in failing to grant sufficient time to the appellant to produce evidence, and noted that the law favours decisions on merits rather than on technicalities unless gross negligence is established. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments of the lower courts, and remitted the case back to the Trial Court for recording the appellant's evidence regarding the market value of the suit land and any rebuttal evidence by the respondent. The principle laid down is that procedural rules like Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. should not be invoked to shut out evidence and prevent a decision on merits unless the defaulting party is guilty of gross negligence.
Questions settled- Was the Trial Court justified in closing the evidence of the appellant under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.?
- Does the law favour a decision on merits over technicalities in pre-emption suits?
- When can a Trial Court close the evidence of a party for failure to produce witnesses?
- Zahoor Ahmed vs Syed Nazir Hussain Rizvi1999 MLD 3038 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-09Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmed vs Mst. Rukhsana Kausar and 4 others1999 MLD 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 1466 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad and others vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others1999 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of writ petitions challenging Circular No. 23, dated 2-7-1998, issued by the State Bank of Pakistan. The circular directed banks and non-banking financial institutions to remove liens or encumbrances on foreign currency deposits used as security for loans, requiring borrowers to either provide alternative security or allow the liquidation of liabilities through a set-off against these deposits. The petitioners argued that this action constituted illegal expropriation of property, violated the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992, and infringed upon fundamental rights protected under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the State Bank of Pakistan acted within its regulatory authority under the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962. The Court determined that the circular was a valid policy measure intended to protect the banking system and depositors' interests, rather than a confiscatory act. It affirmed that the State Bank possesses the statutory power to regulate credit and security, and the impugned measure did not violate the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992 or constitutional property rights, as the deposits remained the property of the account holders, subject only to the requirement of providing adequate security for existing loans.
Questions settled- Does the State Bank of Pakistan have the statutory authority under the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 to issue directions requiring the removal of liens on foreign currency deposits?
- Can the State Bank of Pakistan mandate the set-off or liquidation of loan liabilities against foreign currency deposits used as security?
- Does a circular issued by the State Bank of Pakistan in the interest of banking policy violate the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992?
- Is the State Bank of Pakistan amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Zahir Enterprises, Karachi vs Government of Baloch1stan FoodK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 396 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Zahir Enterprises vs Government of Balochistan and others1999 MLD 3112 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a firm of wheat dealers challenging the secret and non-transparent deal entered into by the Government of Balochistan through its Food Department to purchase a large quantity of imported wheat from a private respondent without inviting open public tenders. The core legal question was whether the government's awarding of a major supply contract to a single private party without open competitive bidding, bypassing the Finance Department and flouting established procedural rules, violated the constitutional rights of other traders and the principles of transparency and fairness in public contracts. The Balochistan High Court held that administrative authorities must exercise their discretion transparently, fairly, and in accordance with the law, and that awarding contracts without open tenders violates citizens' fundamental rights to freedom of trade and equality. The court declared the secret deal and related administrative orders unconstitutional and without lawful authority, laying down that openness, transparency, fairness, and justness are essential constitutional requirements for all government transactions and contract awards.
Questions settled- Whether the government's award of a supply contract to a private party without inviting open public tenders is a violation of constitutional rights to freedom of trade and equality?
- Does a citizen engaged in the same business have sufficient locus standi to challenge a non-transparent government procurement contract under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Are administrative authorities bound to structure their discretion and adopt a policy of openness and transparency when dealing with public property and funds?
- Whether bypassing the Finance Department in transactions affecting the provincial finances violates the prescribed Rules of Business?
- Zahida Khatoon vs Joint Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs, Islamabad and 13 others1999 YLR 2564 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Zahid Parvez vs Special Judge, Special Court No.1 for Antiterrorism, Bahawalpur and another1999 YLR 1716 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition called in question the validity of an order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, whereby the trial court assumed jurisdiction to try the petitioner for child molestation under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Terrorism Court possessed jurisdiction to try offences relating to child molestation when the specific penal provisions were not included in the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The Lahore High Court held that penal statutes must be construed strictly and courts cannot supply legislative omissions or read unlisted provisions into a statute's schedule. The Court ruled that since sections 364-A and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 were omitted from the Schedule, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction. The constitutional petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Sessions Judge for trial.
Questions settled- Whether the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 has jurisdiction to try an offence not included in the Schedule to the Act?
- Can courts supply legislative omissions or read unlisted penal provisions into the schedule of a penal statute?
- Does child molestation fall within the trial jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court if the relevant penal sections are omitted from the Schedule?
- Zahid Mahmood and another vs The State1999 MLD 2508 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-18Read full judgment →
- Zahid Latif vs Muhammad Hamid and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-11Read full judgment →
- Zahid Iqbal alias Zahid Khan vs The State1999 YLR 1579 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
- Zaheerullah Khan vs Abeda Begum1999 CLC 771 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-11Read full judgment →
- Zaheeruddin Pathan through Legal Heirs and 8 others vs Mst. Hajiani1999 YLR 728 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants sought specific performance of a sale agreement for immovable property. The respondent, a Pardanashin lady, claimed the document was a lease agreement and that she was misled. The trial court dismissed the suit, applying the Pardanashin doctrine. On appeal, the Sindh High Court reversed this decision. The Court held that the Pardanashin rule is a protective measure, not a legal disability, and does not automatically invalidate contracts. Given the respondent’s demonstrated awareness of her property affairs and the presence of her husband during the execution, the Court found no evidence of undue influence or lack of understanding. Furthermore, the Court ruled that oral evidence contradicting the written terms of the agreement was inadmissible under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order. Consequently, the Court held the transaction was a valid sale and directed specific performance, while noting that the purchaser bore the burden of proving payments made to the owner, not to unauthorized third parties. The appeal was partly allowed, and the suit was decreed.
Questions settled- Does the Pardanashin lady doctrine create a legal disability that renders contracts voidable?
- Is oral evidence admissible to contradict the terms of a written agreement regarding the nature of a transaction?
- Can a purchaser claim credit for payments made to a third party when the contract requires payment to the owner?
- Does the presence of a spouse during the execution of a document by a Pardanashin lady satisfy the requirement for independent advice?
- Zaheer-Ud-Din Azhar vs Additional CommissionerK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 486 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Zaheer Ud Din Azhar vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue)1999 CLC 325 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Hussain Shah and 2 others vs Secretary, Government of Sindh1999 YLR 1417 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Ahmed Qureshi through Legal Heirs vs Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah1999 SCMR 2605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The petitioners challenged the decree, arguing that the trial court erroneously placed the burden of proof regarding the execution of the agreement on the defendants, thereby causing prejudice. The Supreme Court addressed the legal question of whether the misplacement of the onus of proof warrants interference when both parties have already led evidence. The Court held that once both parties have produced evidence on an issue, the question of onus becomes immaterial, as the matter must be decided based on the preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, which were based on material evidence, were not subject to interference absent any showing of misreading or non-reading of evidence. The principle laid down is that the issue of onus of proof loses significance where both parties have fully led their evidence, and the court must decide the case based on the evidence produced.
Questions settled- Does the misplacement of the burden of proof warrant interference if both parties have already led evidence on the issue?
- When does the question of the onus of proof become immaterial in a civil trial?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court if they are based on material evidence?
- Zaheer Ahmad vs Government of Sindh and anothers1999 MLD 2881 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the order of the Home Secretary and Chairman of the Permanent Residence Certificate (P.R.C.) Appellate Committee, which restored the domicile and P.R.C. of Respondent No. 2. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 2 obtained these documents through fraud, including the submission of forged electoral lists and manipulated identity documents to secure admission in a medical college. The core legal question concerned whether the Appellate Committee erred in restoring documents obtained through fraud and whether the appeal before the Commissioner was time-barred. The High Court held that the documents were obtained via fraud, and fraud vitiates all proceedings, rendering the bar of limitation inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court established that limitation periods regarding such certificates run from the date of knowledge, not the date of the order. Consequently, the Court set aside the Appellate Committee's order, declared the admission of Respondent No. 2 illegal, and upheld the petitioner's entitlement to the medical college seat. The Court also affirmed that uncontroverted averments in a petition are presumed true.
Questions settled- Does the law of limitation apply to orders obtained through fraud?
- From what date does the period of limitation run in cases involving the challenge of a Permanent Residence Certificate?
- What is the legal effect of failing to controvert the averments made in a constitutional petition?
- Can an order obtained by misrepresentation and forged documents be sustained in law?
- Zaheer Ahmad Qureshi (Deceased) And Another vs (Syed) IftikharK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 310 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Zahar Hussain Shah and others vs Shah Nawaz Khan and others1999 P Cr. L J 1981 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
- Zah1d Iqbal Akhtar, Advocate vs Rehanul Hassan Farooqi and another1999 YLR 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
- Zafaruddin Ahmed Zuberi and 2 others vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 909 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-21Read full judgment →
- Zafar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 663 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
- Zafar Mahmood vs WAPDA through Superintending Engineer, Electricity, Faisalabad and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an appeal by a former Line Superintendent of WAPDA challenging the dismissal of his service appeal by the Service Tribunal, arising from his termination from service in 1982 following prolonged absence. The core legal question concerned whether the refusal or failure of a departmental appellate authority to decide a time-barred departmental appeal obligates the Service Tribunal to examine the matter on merits and whether limitation stands condoned. The Supreme Court held that where the departmental authority declines to reopen or decide a time-barred appeal, no final order emerges on the element of limitation, leaving the appellant unable to assail the conclusion either on limitation or on merits before the Tribunal. The Court laid down that while a departmental remedy's continued pendency or inaction may be addressed via constitutional jurisdiction, reminders do not extend limitation periods, and discretionary departmental condonation cannot be arbitrarily inferred by the Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the refusal of a departmental authority to decide a time-barred appeal create an appealable order for the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Can the Service Tribunal interfere with a departmental authority's refusal to condone delay when such condonation is purely discretionary?
- What remedies are available to a civil servant when departmental authorities procrastinate or refuse to pass a final order on an appeal or representation?
- Does the submission of a departmental reminder extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zafar Iqbal, who was charged under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Section 302, following an incident resulting in the death of the complainant's brother. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused were the aggressors who entered the complainant's house and opened fire. Conversely, the petitioner presented a counter-version, supported by a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging that the complainant party were the initial aggressors who attacked the petitioner's family, prompting the petitioner to act in self-defense. The core legal question was whether the existence of a credible counter-version warrants the grant of bail pending trial. The Court held that where two conflicting versions of the same incident exist, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, establishing that determining the veracity of competing versions is a function reserved for the trial court, not the bail stage.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a counter-version in a criminal case entitle an accused to bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Is the determination of which version of an occurrence is correct a matter to be decided at the bail stage or by the trial court?
- Does the summoning of the complainant party by a Magistrate in a private complaint constitute a ground for granting bail to the accused in the main case?
- Zafar Iqbal Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 342 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
- Zafar Hussain vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 31999 PLC (C.S.) 468 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
- Zafar and anothers vs The State1999 SCMR 2028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the confirmation of death sentences for two appellants convicted of murder. The core legal questions concerned the correctness of the conviction under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and whether mitigating circumstances—such as the appellants' age, lack of criminal history, and prior provocation—warranted commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the conviction under Section 302(a) was a typographical error and corrected it to Section 302(b). Regarding the sentence, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the death penalty. It established that the normal sentence for murder is death, and courts are not required to provide reasons for awarding it, whereas reasons are necessary only when awarding a lesser sentence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that "tender age" as a mitigating factor applies to minors under sixteen, not to adults aged twenty-three or twenty-four. Additionally, the Court ruled that a petty incident occurring days prior does not constitute sufficient provocation to mitigate a premeditated, cold-blooded murder, emphasizing the principle of proportionality between provocation and reaction.
Questions settled- Is a court required to provide reasons when awarding the death sentence for murder?
- Does a prior incident of physical provocation occurring several days before a murder justify the commutation of a death sentence?
- Can a typographical error in the citation of a penal section in a conviction order be corrected by the appellate court?
- At what age does the mitigating factor of 'tender age' cease to apply in capital punishment cases?
- Zafar Ali vs The Government of Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 167 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad through Administrator_Mayor Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 1427 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PLD Lahore 440 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 3 others1999 SCMR 2602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts and the High Court ordering the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed quarter on grounds of default in rent and bona fide personal use. The core legal question was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and whether the failure to prove title or the absence of a proper statutory notice vitiated the eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the existence of the tenancy and default were unexceptionable, being supported by the petitioner's own pleadings, admissions, and rent receipts, and that a tenant raising a bare plea of title is not invariably entitled to have the matter referred to a civil court. The Court affirmed that where tenancy and admissions of rent payment exist, the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship fails, and leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant denying the relationship of landlord and tenant can compel the Rent Controller to refer the matter of title to a civil court?
- Does the admission of rent receipts and tenancy preclude a tenant from denying the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent and tenancy are open to interference when based on admissions and pleadings?
- Zafar Ali and 4 others vs The State1999 MLD 2248 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ahmad vs Messrs Iona Enterprises and another1999 PLC 402 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-02-09Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ahmad vs Associated Press of Pakistan (A.P.P.) and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 544 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
- Zabih Ullah vs S.H.O.1999 MLD 399 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-25Read full judgment →
- Yummy Milk Products (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Managing Director vs Government of Punjab And 4 Other1999 CLC 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an administrative letter dated 17-9-1992 issued by the Government of Punjab, permitting the manufacture and sale of ice cream containing vegetable fat under the label 'non-dairy ice cream' as an interim measure. The core legal question was whether products not conforming to the statutory definition of ice cream—which mandates milk fat under the Punjab Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 and Pure Food Rules, 1965—could be legally manufactured, marketed, and sold as ice cream through executive instructions. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned letter was ultra vires the Ordinance and Rules, null and void, and that departmental instructions cannot amend statutory rules. The Court ruled that products containing vegetable fat do not meet the definition of ice cream and selling them as such constitutes adulteration and misbranding under the Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that executive authorities cannot alter or supplement statutory provisions through administrative memos, and products must be strictly labelled to prevent public deception, especially where consumers are children.
Questions settled- Can administrative instructions or letters amend, modify, or supplement statutory rules framed under an Ordinance?
- Does ice cream manufactured with vegetable fat instead of milk fat conform to the definition provided under the Pure Food Rules, 1965?
- Is the sale of a food product under a designation that does not match its prescribed statutory recipe considered adulteration or misbranding under the Punjab Pure Food Ordinance, 1960?
- Whether an interim administrative policy permitting the sale of non-conforming food products can protect manufacturers from statutory prohibitions.
- Yousuf Gill and another vs The State1999 YLR 487 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Ali vs Inayat AliK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 501 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
- Younus through duly constituted General Attorney, Rafique H. Usman and 2 others vs Najmunnisa and 21 others1999 MLD 2805 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-05Read full judgment →
- Yaseen And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 516 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
- Yaqub vs The State1999 YLR 921 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
- Yamin Khan and 5 others vs Rais Jhangli Khan and another1999 CLC 1755 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These first appeals arose from a judgment of the Senior Civil Judge decreeing suits filed by a plaintiff challenging the sale and exchange of agricultural land executed by his father while the plaintiff was a minor. The core legal questions involved whether a natural guardian has the authority to alienate a minor's property, whether such transactions are void or voidable, and whether the suits were barred by the law of limitation. The Sindh High Court held that an alienation of a minor's property by a natural guardian for the minor's benefit is valid but voidable at the instance of the minor upon attaining majority, whereas alienations for legal necessity are unassailable. The Court found that in Appeals Nos.103 and 104 of 1987, the plaintiff was 16 years old at the time of the transactions and 25 years old at the filing of the suit, rendering those suits hopelessly time-barred under the Limitation Act. In Appeal No.102 of 1987, where the plaintiff was a minor at the time of sale, the Court held the transaction voidable but dismissed the appeal due to collusive litigation and lack of proof that the sale was not for the minor's benefit, while leaving the appellants at liberty to seek damages from the father.
Questions settled- Whether an alienation of property by a natural guardian on behalf of a minor is void or voidable upon the minor attaining majority?
- Is a suit filed by a plaintiff challenging a transaction executed during minority barred by time if brought beyond the period prescribed under Article 44 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Whether a court is bound to dismiss a suit as time-barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 even if limitation is not specifically pleaded in the written statement?
- What is the distinction between the benefit of a minor and legal necessity regarding the power of a natural guardian to alienate immovable property?
- Yakoob vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 921 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
- XEN, Highways, Mirpur vs Ch. Maqsood Ahmad, Overseer, Roads1999 PLC (C.S.) 1252 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Wymco Traders & Shoe Makers vs Hafeezuddin1999 YLR 746 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-29Read full judgment →
- World Trade Corporation vs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Trbiunal79 TAX 643 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Wisal Muhammad Khan vs Faiz Gul,Naibtehsildar and others1999 MLD 1163 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
- Welding Rods Manufacturing Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 778 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-08-16Read full judgment →
- Webster Industries Ltd. vs Union of India and others1999 PTD 431 · Calcutta High Court · 1997-01-31Read full judgment →
- Wazirullah vs Chief Engineer (Hydel) North, WAPDA and another1999 SCMR 2270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal against the termination of his services as a Mali on probation by WAPDA without assigning reasons. The core legal question concerns the legality of terminating a probationer's service without inquiry when the termination allegedly stems from a misconception regarding the employees' son quota utilization. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after allowing the impleadment of the new incumbent and providing a hearing to all concerned. The key principle laid down is that public functionaries must place complete material before judicial or quasi-judicial forums to ensure fair adjudication of legal rights, and where termination is purportedly linked to factual misconceptions regarding employment quotas, an inquiry is necessary.
Questions settled- Can the services of a probationer be terminated without holding an inquiry when the termination is allegedly based on a misconception regarding employment quota utilization?
- Is it obligatory for public functionaries to furnish complete material before judicial or quasi-judicial forums to resolve legal rights fairly?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is justified in dismissing a service appeal in limine without requiring the department to produce complete details regarding the factual basis of termination?
- Wazir vs Muhammad Yaqoob and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-21Read full judgment →
- Wazir Shah and others vs The State1999 MLD 375 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
- Wazir Ali through Representative and another vs Mrs. Hamida Nizamuddin1999 CLC 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-16Read full judgment →
- Wazir Ahmad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 994 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-16Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority through Its Chairman, WAPDA Ho_a223224fK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 361 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority through Chief Engineer vs Saadullah Khan and others1999 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against High Court judgments regarding land acquisition compensation. The core legal question was whether a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable when a specific statutory appeal is provided under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the omission of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, renders such statutory appeals ineffective. The Supreme Court held that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a complete code, and where a statute provides a specific remedy of appeal, that remedy must be pursued. The Court clarified that the omission of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did not destroy the substantive right of appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Consequently, the petitions were converted into appeals but dismissed as time-barred, as the appellants failed to justify the delay. The principle established is that specific statutory remedies cannot be bypassed by invoking general constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the omission of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, invalidate the right of appeal provided under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Can a party file a petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when a specific statutory appeal is provided by the governing Act?
- Does the principle of incorporation by reference mean that a provision incorporated into a statute remains part of that statute even if the original provision is repealed from the parent Act?
- Water and Power Development Authority Through Chairman And 51999 CLC 492 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves Civil Revisions challenging orders passed by the lower courts regarding a temporary injunction against the disconnection of electricity supply by WAPDA. The respondent filed a suit challenging a substantial electricity bill, claiming the furnace was inoperative during the billing period. The Trial Court granted a conditional injunction requiring the deposit of half the bill amount and a bank guarantee. The Appellate Court modified this, allowing the injunction upon furnishing a security bond. The core legal question was whether a court can grant a temporary injunction restraining electricity disconnection without requiring the consumer to deposit the disputed bill amount. The High Court held that the Appellate Court acted with material illegality by ignoring the mandatory requirements of the Electricity Act, 1910. The Court ruled that under the proviso to Section 54-C of the Electricity Act, 1910, an injunction restraining the licensee from discontinuing supply is contingent upon the plaintiff depositing the assessed amount in court. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in monetary disputes, the element of irreparable loss is absent, necessitating the deposit of the disputed sum as a condition for discretionary relief.
Questions settled- Can a court grant a temporary injunction restraining the disconnection of electricity supply without requiring the deposit of the disputed bill amount?
- Is the deposit of the disputed electricity bill amount a mandatory condition under Section 54-C of the Electricity Act, 1910, for obtaining an injunction against disconnection?
- Does a dispute over a specific monetary sum satisfy the requirement of irreparable loss for the grant of a temporary injunction?
- Water and Power Development Authority and others vs Shamshadulhaq1999 SCMR 2398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the entitlement of a permanently disabled WAPDA employee to pensionary benefits and medical expense reimbursement. The core legal questions were whether an employee retired due to service-related permanent disability is entitled to pensionary benefits despite failing to meet the minimum qualifying service period, and whether the employer is liable for medical expenses incurred by the employee after discharge from the employer's hospital. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent’s disability, classified as paraplegia, fell under Rule 5, Chapter IV of the Pakistan WAPDA Pension Rules 1977, which provides protection for involuntary disability regardless of minimum service tenure. Furthermore, the Court upheld the reimbursement of medical expenses, emphasizing the employer's obligation to provide adequate treatment for injuries sustained during duty. The Court established that involuntary retirement due to service-related permanent disability is governed by specific provisions protecting the employee independent of general minimum service requirements applicable to optional invalid retirement.
Questions settled- Does an employee retired due to service-related permanent disability qualify for pensionary benefits if they have not completed the minimum period of qualifying service?
- Is an employer liable to reimburse medical expenses incurred by an employee for treatment of injuries sustained during the course of employment after the employee is discharged from the employer's hospital?
- Does the rule governing 'invalid pension' for optional retirement apply to cases of involuntary retirement caused by permanent disability?
- Water and Power Development Authority and others vs Shamshad-Ul-1999 PLC (C.S.) 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal concerns the entitlement of a WAPDA employee to pensionary benefits and medical reimbursement following his retirement due to permanent disability sustained during the course of his duties. The core legal questions were whether an employee rendered permanently invalid while on duty is entitled to pension benefits despite failing to complete the minimum qualifying service period, and whether the employer is liable to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the employee after his discharge from the employer's hospital. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Federal Service Tribunal's decision. The Court held that while "optional" retirement due to disability requires minimum service, "involuntary" disability resulting from duty-related injuries is governed by Rule 5, Chapter IV of the WAPDA Pension Rules, 1977, which provides protection regardless of the length of service. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an employer is legally and equitably obligated to reimburse medical expenses incurred by an employee for duty-related injuries when the employer fails to provide adequate treatment, rejecting the employer's restrictive interpretation of medical attendance rules.
Questions settled- Is an employee retired due to an involuntary, duty-related disability entitled to pension benefits even if they have not completed the minimum period of qualifying service?
- Does Rule 5 of Chapter IV of the WAPDA Pension Rules, 1977, override the minimum service requirements for invalid pension in cases of duty-related permanent disability?
- Is an employer liable to reimburse an employee for medical expenses incurred for duty-related injuries after the employee's discharge from the employer's hospital?
- Water and Power Development Authority and anothers vs M.N. Steel1999 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals, by leave of Court, arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the legality of Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) recovering fixed charges from industrial consumers under Tariff-B-3 during periods of scheduled loadshedding. The core legal question was whether industrial consumers are liable to pay minimum fixed charges for electricity when WAPDA suspends power supply due to shortages or loadshedding. The Supreme Court held that while fixed charges cover both service line maintenance and the reservation of power, WAPDA's inability to preserve and reserve power during loadshedding warrants a proportionate adjustment, as the generated energy is redistributed to other consumers. Consequently, the Court modified the High Court's judgment, holding that industrial consumers are entitled to a 50 percent proportionate reduction in fixed charges for the duration of loadshedding. The key principle laid down is that fixed charges encompass distinct components of service maintenance and power reservation, and equitable relief in the form of a proportionate reduction is due when power cannot be reserved due to systemic loadshedding.
Questions settled- Whether industrial consumers are liable to pay minimum fixed charges to WAPDA during periods of scheduled loadshedding?
- Does the imposition of fixed charges under Tariff-B-3 include both service line maintenance and the reservation of power?
- Is an industrial consumer entitled to a proportionate reduction in fixed minimum monthly charges when electricity is not supplied due to power shortfalls?
- Can past payments of fixed charges made without protest be recovered or adjusted as past and closed transactions?
- Watan Party and others vs Chief Minister and others1999 P Cr. L J 2003 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-05Read full judgment →
- Wasim Ali, Etc. vs Province of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 76 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
- Wasim Ali Tabish and others vs Province of Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 83 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
- Waseemul Haque vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 394 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-11Read full judgment →
- Waseem Ali Tabish and 4 others vs Province of Punjab through SecretaryGeneral, Administration and Information Department and 6 others1999 SCMR 1293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 185 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' constitutional petition. The petitioners, serving as Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars, challenged the proposed administrative action to replace them with surplus magistrates as Sub-Registrars, rendering their posts surplus. The core legal question was whether civil servants have a vested right to claim or hold a specific post or discipline within government administration, and whether the executive's decision regarding posting and internal departmental affairs is open to judicial review. The Supreme Court held that civil servants are subject to the administrative control of the government and possess no vested right to stick to any specific post, and that running government affairs falls within the exclusive domain of the executive under the separation of powers. The court affirmed that courts will not interfere in the internal working and administrative postings of government departments, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant has a vested right to claim or stick to a specific post in government service?
- Can the High Court interfere with the executive decisions of the Government regarding the internal working and postings of its departments?
- Does the separation of powers bar the judiciary from regulating or supervising the day-to-day administrative affairs of the Government?
- Waryam vs S.H.O., Police Station Nawan Shahr, District Khanewal and others1999 MLD 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
- Waryam and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
- Waris Ali alias Dulli and others vs The State1999 SCMR 1469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with a co-accused, committed the murders of two deceased persons following an election rivalry. The trial court convicted the appellants, sentencing two to death and one to life imprisonment, which the High Court maintained. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court limited to the quantum of sentence. The core legal questions involved whether the absence or unproven nature of motive warranted the mitigation of the death penalty to imprisonment for life, and whether independent accusations against co-accused justified differing sentence considerations. The Supreme Court held that where ocular evidence firmly establishes guilt and fatal injuries are directly attributed to the accused without mitigating circumstances, the death penalty is the normal and appropriate sentence, and uncertainty regarding motive does not invalidate it. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the absence or failure to prove motive necessitates the conversion of a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
- Does the proof of guilt through reliable ocular evidence alone warrant the imposition of the death penalty in the absence of extenuating circumstances?
- Can independent accusations against co-accused persons justify separate considerations regarding the quantum of sentence?
- Whether the Supreme Court can recall an order granting leave to appeal upon examining that the grounds for which leave was granted do not arise in the case?
- Ward Abbas vs Raja Waheed, Subinspector1999 P Cr. L J 194 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-21Read full judgment →
- Waqar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 555 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-30Read full judgment →
- WAPDA through Superintending Engineer, Electricity, WAPDA, Gujrat and 21999 PLC 42 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-06-13Read full judgment →
- WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and 4 others vs Muhammad Fayyaz Butt and anothers1999 MLD 2731 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of a civil dispute regarding the disconnection of electric supply and the issuance of a detection bill by WAPDA to a consumer. The core legal question revolves around the legality of granting a temporary injunction against the disconnection of electricity without requiring the deposit of disputed dues, in light of statutory bars. The Lahore High Court held that pecuniary loss does not constitute irreparable loss and that an appellate court acts illegally by modifying a temporary injunction to dispense with the deposit condition mandated by law. The Court set aside the appellate order and restored the trial court's order requiring the deposit of the disputed amount, albeit modified to permit deposit in the form of National Saving Certificates.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary injunction restraining the disconnection of electricity can be granted without making it contingent upon the payment or deposit of outstanding charges?
- Can apprehended pecuniary loss be termed as an irreparable loss for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction?
- Whether the bar of jurisdiction under section 54-C of the Electricity Act, 1910 is attracted without prior service of notice under section 24?
- WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and 3 others vs Muhammad Jamil & Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others1999 MLD 3303 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
- Walt Dad vs Mst. Tasneem Kausar And Another1999 CLC 163 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership and possession of a haveli. The respondent No.1 claimed the property was transferred to her by her husband (respondent No.2) in lieu of dower at the time of their marriage, a fact recorded in the Nikahnama. The appellant, the husband's uncle, claimed ownership through a subsequent exchange deed. The trial court, while acknowledging the validity of the gift in lieu of dower, dismissed the suit based on the appellant's claim of a bona fide exchange. The appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the transfer of property in lieu of dower at the time of marriage is a valid gift under Muslim Law, not requiring registration as a sale under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court further held that the appellant failed to prove a bona fide transfer, particularly given the familial relationship and the timing of the exchange during pending litigation, and affirmed that a court may grant relief based on averments even if not specifically prayed for.
Questions settled- Does a transfer of immovable property by a husband to his wife in lieu of dower at the time of marriage require registration under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Can a court grant relief to a party based on the averments in the plaint even if that specific relief was not explicitly prayed for?
- Does the failure to claim a specific relief in a previous suit, which was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one, bar a subsequent suit for that relief under the principle of estoppel or waiver?
- Is a transfer of property in lieu of dower considered a sale requiring a registered instrument?
- Wall Muhammad vs The State1999 YLR 2525 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-19Read full judgment →