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. 232,813 judgments in total.

• Sardar Rehmat Ullah Dogar vs Additional District Judge, Kasur1999 MLD 2847 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
• Sardar Nazir Ahmad Khan vs Muhammad Shaukat Khan and 4 others1999 MLD 1193 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-08-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Zulfiqar vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Sindh, Karachi and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 363 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-01Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Sharif Dogar and another vs The State1999 YLR 2146 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs Shaukat Zaman Khan1999 CLC 954 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-14
  territorial jurisdictioncause of actiontransfer of suitforum non conveniensplaintiff's right to choose forumcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court order transferring a civil suit from the District Judge, Rawalakot to the District Judge, Pallandri. The respondent had sought the transfer on the grounds of his residence and the location of the subject matter (a bridge) in Pallandri. The High Court initially accepted this, citing Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, focusing on the defendant's residence. The appellant challenged this, arguing that a substantial part of the cause of action, including financial transactions and the location of relevant witnesses and government offices, occurred in Rawalakot. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by ignoring clause (c) of Section 20, which grants jurisdiction where the cause of action arises, in whole or in part. The Court affirmed that a plaintiff is the arbiter of their own forum, and courts should be reluctant to interfere with this right unless a clear preponderance of convenience is proven by the defendant. Finding that a substantial part of the cause of action arose in Rawalakot, the Court set aside the transfer order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have jurisdiction to hear a suit if only a fraction of the cause of action arises within its local limits?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to choose the forum for their suit when the cause of action arises in multiple jurisdictions?
  • Should a court transfer a suit based on the defendant's residence if a substantial part of the cause of action arose in the plaintiff's chosen jurisdiction?
  • Under what circumstances should a court interfere with a plaintiff's right to choose the forum for instituting a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Saeed Khan vs The Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore1999 YLR 997 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-28Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Nasim vs Sajjad HussainK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 133 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan and others., Sardar Muhammad Khurshid1999 PLC (C.S.) 69 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-09-07
  writ of quo warrantoterms and conditions of serviceage of superannuationdate of birthjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal were directed against a consolidated order of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petitions in limine. The petitioners had filed a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment and continuation in service of the respondent as Secretary, Services and General Administration, alleging that he had reached the age of superannuation based on his date of birth in his Matriculation certificate and that subsequent government notifications altering his date of birth were unlawful. The High Court dismissed the petitions holding that the dispute essentially related to the determination of the date of retirement, which forms part of the terms and conditions of service, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 47 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, in light of a prior pronouncement of the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, ruling that despite being couched as a writ of quo warranto, the petitions inherently required a declaration regarding the correct date of birth and retirement age, matters exclusively falling within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the petitions for leave to appeal were refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dispute concerning the date of birth and retirement age of a civil servant relates to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ of quo warranto that fundamentally requires a declaration regarding the correct date of birth and superannuation of a civil servant?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court ousted by section 47 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974 in service matters relating to retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad and 14 others vs Mst. Jantey and others1999 YLR 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-24Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs The State1999 MLD 1918 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 3147 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-29Read full judgment →
• Sardar Harvinder Singh Sehgal and others vs Assistant Commissioner1999 PTD 1946 · Gauhati High Court · 1997-05-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ghulam Ahmed Khan and 2 others vs Custodian of Evacuee1999 MLD 220 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-06-11Read full judgment →
• Sardar Fateh Ali Khan Umrani vs Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Sardar Bahar Khan vs Muhammad Siddique Raza And 2 Other1999 CLC 863 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
• Sardar Bahadur Khan Bangulzai and others vs Sardar Attaullah Khan Mengal and another1999 SCMR 1921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-11
  defectionfloor crossingdisqualification of membersChief Election Commissionerpolitical party headjurisdictional factorganizational dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals concerning the interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, regarding disqualification on the ground of defection. The core legal question was whether the Chief Election Commissioner possesses the jurisdiction to determine the identity of the head of a political party when a reference for defection is filed, and how organizational disputes regarding party leadership should be handled. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the Chief Election Commissioner is not merely a post office and has the jurisdiction to determine the jurisdictional fact of who is the head of the political party, he lacks the power to resolve complex, in-built organizational and structural disputes. The Court laid down the principle that the Chief Election Commissioner must examine the bona fides of any plea challenging the status of a party head; if the person has acted as head in the past, the Commissioner should proceed on that assumption, but if a genuine and substantial dispute exists regarding internal party elections, the parties may be directed to resolve it through a civil court, thereby balancing the eradication of the vice of floor-crossing with the limitations of a special tribunal's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Election Commissioner has the jurisdiction to determine who is the head of a political party in a reference under Article 63-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the Chief Election Commissioner merely a post office upon receiving a reference under Article 63-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the Chief Election Commissioner can resolve in-built organizational structural disputes of a political party?
  • How should the Chief Election Commissioner deal with a bona fide plea challenging the status of the head of a political party in disqualification proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Attaullah Khan Mengal vs Chief Election Commissioner And Another1999 CLC 1460 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
• Sardar and 3 others vs The State1999 YLR 628 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Khan vs Mst. G}Iulam Fatma1999 YLR 374 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-14Read full judgment →
• Sardar Aftab Ahmed, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Muzaffarabad vs Sardar Khurshid Hussain, Deputy Superintendent of Police and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 40 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-01-22
  Service Tribunallimitation periodcondonation of delaydepartmental representationseniority disputeremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against an order of the Service Tribunal whereby the tribunal accepted the respondent's appeal and set aside a government order in favor of the appellant. The core legal question involved whether the Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appellant's departmental representation as time-barred without considering the merits, and whether the appellate authority had impliedly condoned the delay. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that where an authority is conscious of the question of limitation and proceeds to decide the matter on merits, such action amounts to an implied condonation of delay. The Court ruled that the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the matter on a technical ground of limitation without addressing the merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Service Tribunal and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate authority can be deemed to have impliedly condoned delay when it decides a matter on merits while being conscious of the limitation question?
  • Does Order XIII Rule 3 sub-rule (1)(ii) of the Supreme Court Rules apply to appeals originating from Service Tribunals?
  • Is a Service Tribunal justified in dismissing a service appeal on technical grounds of limitation without addressing the merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Aftab Ahmed and 5 others vs Maj. (Retd.) Muhammad Aftab1999 MLD 187 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-07-17
  writ jurisdictionmandamuscivil service appointmentquota for army personnellocus standiaggrieved personpublic service commissionillegal executive order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the High Court's judgment accepting a writ petition and directing the Chief Secretary and Secretary Services to implement the Prime Minister's directives for issuing a notification appointing respondent No. 1 as a Superintendent of Police from the quota reserved for retired Armed Forces personnel. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to enforce an executive order that violates statutory appointment rules and service quotas, and whether aggrieved senior police officers have locus standi to challenge such a judgment. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court erred in issuing a writ to enforce an unlawful order of the Prime Minister, as initial appointments to Grade 16 and above must follow the prescribed Public Service Commission examination procedure and statutory rules, and the 10% quota for army personnel was already exhausted. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to direct authorities to give effect to an illegal administrative order, and that a person with a prima facie affected interest, such as a right to promotion, qualifies as an aggrieved person to challenge judicial orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court issue a writ of mandamus to enforce an executive order or directive of the Prime Minister that is violative of statutory appointment rules?
  • Whether senior police officers in lower cadres have the locus standi as aggrieved persons to challenge a High Court judgment directing the appointment of a direct inductee that adversely affects their promotion prospects?
  • Does an initial appointment to a post in Grade 16 or above require tests and examinations conducted by the Public Service Commission under the relevant civil servant rules?
  • Whether an administrative quota for retired army personnel can be utilized when it has already been exhausted by a prior induction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdul Hafeez Khan vs Sardar Muhammad Tahir Khan Loni and 131999 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  election petitionElection TribunalRepresentation of the People Actinvalidation of votesrecountsecrecy of ballotcorrupt practiceselection machinery failure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an Election Tribunal's order that set aside the appellant's election to the Balochistan Assembly and declared the respondent as the returned candidate. The respondent had alleged widespread irregularities, including missing signatures and stamps on ballot papers, unsealed election bags, and improper voter identification. The Election Tribunal, after examining the record, invalidated specific votes of the appellant and declared the respondent elected. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that while election laws concerning voters are mandatory, those concerning election officials are generally directory. However, where non-compliance is so pervasive that it materially affects the election result, the entire electoral process must be declared void under Section 70(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Court determined that the irregularities in this case—including flagrant violations of Section 33 and the compromised state of election materials—were too extensive to merely unseat the successful candidate. Consequently, the Court modified the Tribunal's order, declaring the entire election for the constituency void and ordering a fresh poll to ensure a fair and lawful electoral outcome.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an Election Tribunal declare an entire election void rather than just unseating the returned candidate?
  • Does the failure of election officials to comply with procedural requirements regarding ballot paper issuance automatically invalidate the election?
  • What is the scope of an Election Tribunal's discretion to order the inspection of ballot papers and counterfoils under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Is a candidate required to provide specific pleadings for all corrupt practices in an election petition, or can the Tribunal consider evidence of irregularities discovered during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer and others1999 PTD 1473 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-08-23Read full judgment →
• Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3804 · Supreme Court of India · 1999-03-10Read full judgment →
• Saraspur Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2059 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-10-04Read full judgment →
• Sar Anjam vs Abdul Raziq1999 SCMR 2167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-30
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadpleadingsmaterial factsevidencerevisional jurisdictionCode of Civil Procedureco-sharer
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court disposed of three appeals concerning pre-emption rights under the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor is required to specify in the plaint the names of witnesses, and the date, time, and place of making 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' (immediate demand). The Court held that it is not a sine qua non for a pre-emptor to specify these details in the plaint, reiterating the fundamental principle that pleadings should contain only material facts (factum probandum) and not evidence (factum probantia) or names of witnesses. The Court also clarified that High Courts, in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, should not re-appraise evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity. Furthermore, it was held that where a pre-emptor and vendee are co-sharers of the same class, they have equal pre-emption rights and the property should be shared equally.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a pre-emptor to specify in the plaint the names of witnesses, and the date, time, and place of making 'Talb-i-Muwathibat'?
  • Can a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, re-appraise evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
  • What is the distinction between 'factum probandum' and 'factum probantia' in pleadings?
  • What are the pre-emption rights of co-sharers when both the pre-emptor and vendee fall within the same class?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib alias Saqi and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sanjay Construction Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 889 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-09-12Read full judgment →
• Sandoz (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Muhammad Hashim and others1999 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-06
  octroi taxconstitutional petitioncontractual disputeinterim orderleave to appealadministrative lawtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the collection of octroi tax from a multinational company, Sandoz (Pakistan) Ltd., by a contractor, Muhammad Hashim, following the Union Council’s unilateral decision to alter an existing fixed-tax agreement. The High Court of Sindh, in a constitutional petition, ordered Sandoz to deposit a substantial sum of money as security pending the final outcome. Sandoz challenged this order before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal questions involve whether the Provincial Government or the Union Council could unilaterally cancel a subsisting fixed-tax agreement, whether retrospective demands for enhanced octroi were legally permissible, and whether the High Court possessed the authority to order a massive financial deposit in the exercise of its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction without the adjudication of evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the contractual and statutory legitimacy of the tax demands. Furthermore, the Court directed the High Court to ensure the expeditious disposal of the underlying constitutional petition, which had remained pending for two years.

  Questions settled

  • Can a local government authority unilaterally cancel a subsisting agreement for the payment of fixed octroi tax?
  • Is it legally permissible for a local government to retrospectively demand enhanced octroi tax rates for a period already covered by a fixed-rate agreement?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to order a party to deposit a specific sum of money in the exercise of its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction without the adjudication of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanctus Drugs Pharmaceuticals (Private) Ltd. and another vs Union1999 PTD 695 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-07-25Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State1999 YLR 346 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Khan vs Hassan Khan And Another1999 CLC 1735 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-09
  pre-emptionTalb-e-Muwathibatlimitationrevision petitionpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for possession of land through pre-emption, which was initially decreed in favour of the petitioner by the trial Court. On appeal, the District Judge set aside the decree and dismissed the suit on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and that the mandatory requirements regarding making Talbs (Talb-e-Muwathibat) in a timely manner had not been fulfilled by the pre-emptor. The petitioner challenged this appellate decision through a revision petition before the Peshawar High Court. The High Court reviewed the record and the detailed reasoning of the lower appellate Court, holding that the appellate court's findings were supported by evidence, free from illegality or material irregularity, and constituted a speaking order. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the dismissal of the pre-emption suit. The key principle laid down is that a pre-emptor must strictly establish the timely making of Talb-e-Muwathibat and file the suit within the statutory period of limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to make Talb-e-Muwathibat within the prescribed time renders a pre-emption suit liable to dismissal?
  • Is a pre-emption suit barred by time if instituted beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 31 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987?
  • Does the High Court interfere in revision with a well-reasoned appellate judgment that suffers from no illegality or material irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah and 3 others vs The State1999 YLR 815 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 546 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-08Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan Gandapur, Advocate vs Muhammad Iqbal Khan Kundi, Advocate and 5 others1999 MLD 1794 · Election Tribunal · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
• Sampat vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 787 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
• Sampat and another vs Sufaid Khan and others1999 CLC 422 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-03Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah Khan and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1113 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sami Ul Haq vs Dr. Maqbool Hussain Butt And 2 Other1999 CLC 899 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• Sambali Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1611 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Saman Diplomatic Duty Free Bonded Warehouse through Manager1999 PLD Karachi 170 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-08
  customs bonded warehouselicence suspensionshow-cause noticeaudi alteram partemsearch and seizurecustoms actnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs suspending the petitioner's licence to operate a Diplomatic Duty Free Bonded Warehouse. The core legal question was whether the customs authorities could suspend a warehouse licence under section 13(4) of the Customs Act, 1969, without first issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of being heard under section 13(3), and whether provisions relating to smuggling and search warrants applied to the inspection and suspension of bonded warehouses. The court held that while the authorities possess powers of access and inventory under the warehousing provisions of the Act, a licence cannot be suspended under section 13(4) without initiating proceedings and issuing a show-cause notice under section 13(3), as the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem must be read into provisions affecting property or business rights. Consequently, the suspension order was struck down, and the respondents were directed to decide the matter in accordance with law after affording a proper hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a customs bonded warehouse licence be suspended under section 13(4) of the Customs Act, 1969 without issuing a show-cause notice under section 13(3)?
  • Do the search and seizure provisions relating to smuggling under Chapter XVIII of the Customs Act, 1969 apply to the inspection and inventory of private bonded warehouses?
  • Is a prior notice or opportunity of hearing required to be read into a statutory provision that empowers authorities to suspend a licence affecting business rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Riaz Chaudhry vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 YLR 1229 · Lahore High Court
  unfair meansdisciplinary committeematriculation examinationeducational malpracticejudicial reviewconstitutional jurisdictionaward list discrepancy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, which disqualified him from passing his Matriculation examination and appearing in the next two examinations due to the use of unfair means. The allegation was that the petitioner solved a question in his Chemistry paper outside the examination hall, evidenced by discrepancies in the award lists and the use of different ink colors on his answer sheet. The petitioner argued that the charge was unsupported by evidence, that witnesses were examined in his absence, and that he was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the initial award list signed by examiners showed the question was not attempted, while a subsequent alteration inflated the marks. Distinguishing the case from precedents where candidates were exonerated due to lack of evidence or specific mitigating circumstances, the Court held that the Board's findings were supported by material evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Disciplinary Committee's decision was based on cogent evidence and procedural fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction substitute its own findings for those of an educational board's disciplinary committee?
  • Is a disciplinary committee required to follow the strict procedural rules applicable to courts of plenary jurisdiction?
  • Does the alteration of marks in an award list and the use of different ink on an answer sheet constitute sufficient evidence of unfair means in an examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Salma Mehmood through her duly constituted Attorney vs M & N Builders1999 YLR 673 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Salim vs Mst. Hawa Bai1999 MLD 3149 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-16Read full judgment →
• Salim Adamjee vs Al-Faysal Investment Bank Ltd. and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 468 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-12
  pledged sharestemporary injunctionbanking finance facilitypawnee rightsdefault in paymentreasonable noticerecovery of loans
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of an application for a temporary injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in a suit challenging a bank’s recovery actions regarding a finance facility. The appellant sought to restrain the respondent bank from selling pledged shares, alleging the sales were conducted at unfavorable prices and without proper authorization. The core legal question concerned the extent of a pawnee’s right to dispose of pledged securities upon the pawner's default. The Court held that under Section 176 of the Contract Act 1872, a pawnee possesses an absolute right to sell pledged goods once default occurs, provided reasonable notice is given. This right is not contingent upon market fluctuations or the potential for future price increases. The notice requirement serves to afford the pawner an opportunity to redeem the property, balancing the interests of both parties. The Court affirmed that while the bank may proceed with the sale, the appellant retains a cause of action for damages if the bank acts imprudently or sells below market rates.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pawnee have an absolute right to sell pledged goods upon the pawner's default under Section 176 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Is a pawnee's right to sell pledged securities contingent upon market conditions or the potential for future price increases?
  • What is the legal purpose of the notice requirement for the sale of pledged goods under the Contract Act 1872?
  • Does a borrower have a cause of action if a bank sells pledged shares at a price lower than the prevailing market rate?
  Read full judgment →
• Salgaonkar Mining Industries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2624 · Bombay High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
• Salem Cooperative SPG. Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1999 PTD 3419 · Madras High Court · 1997-02-12Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 199 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
• Saleem Saeed Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 52 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Saleem Masih vs The State1999 YLR 109 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-10Read full judgment →
• Saleem KHAN/Accused vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 140 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-22
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clauseattempt to commit qatl-e-amdnon-vital injuriestentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused facing trial for offences under sections 324, 147, 148, and 149, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the injuries sustained by the victim were on non-vital body parts, no motive was assigned, and the accused did not repeat fire despite having the opportunity. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant’s case required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the absence of repeated fire and the lack of injuries to vital organs prima facie indicated a lack of murderous intent, rendering the applicability of section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, a matter for trial. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence under section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that where an offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause, bail is the rule and refusal the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of repeated firing by an accused, despite having the opportunity, prima facie negate the intention to commit murder under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an offence punishable under section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered to fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is the grant of bail considered the rule and refusal the exception?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Hyder vs The State1999 MLD 1255 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Saleem Baig vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
• Saleem and others vs Usman Ali1999 YLR 2658 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-25Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhter vs Judge Family Court and 2 others1999 MLD 1679 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-27
  dissolution of marriageKhularestitution of conjugal rightsFamily Courtwrit jurisdictionlachesreconciliation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, with leave of the Court, challenges an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition in limine, which had sought to impugn a Family Court decree dissolving the parties' marriage on the basis of Khula. The appellant and respondent No. 2 were married, but Rukhsati did not take place. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a suit for dissolution of marriage via Khula, while the appellant filed a cross-suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court decreed the wife's suit on the ground of Khula and dismissed the husband's suit. The core legal question concerns whether the Family Court rightly granted Khula and whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that where spouses have developed deep-seated hatred and aversion, and all reconciliation efforts fail, a wife is entitled to Khula as of right to avoid forcing a hateful union. The Court further held that concurrent factual findings based on evidence by a Family Court cannot be lightly interfered with in writ jurisdiction, and that the appellant's unexplained delay of over four months constituted fatal laches.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a wife is entitled to dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula as of right if she satisfies the conscience of the Court that reconciliation is impossible?
  • Can findings of fact recorded by a Family Court regarding the demeanor and attitude of spouses be interfered with in constitutional/writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether an unexplained delay of over four months in filing a writ petition against a family court judgment, during which time the opposite party has remarried, attracts the principle of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar vs Federation of Pakistan and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-12
  Exit Control Listfreedom of movementfundamental rightsexecutive discretionconstitutional petitionmalafide action
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Saleem Akhtar to challenge the placement of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Federation of Pakistan, which prevented him from traveling abroad to visit his ailing brother. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government's discretion to place a citizen's name on the ECL could be exercised without any concrete incriminating material or legal justification, and whether it violated fundamental rights. The Sindh High Court held that although the Exit Control Ordinance vests broad powers in the executive, such discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably, justly, and in accordance with the law and the Constitution. The Court ruled that a bald, unsubstantiated allegation that the petitioner was a front man for a political figure, in the absence of any pending criminal cases, FIRs, or material showing activities prejudicial to national security, renders the placement on the ECL illegal. The key principle laid down is that executive discretion regarding travel restrictions must be supported by tangible material and cannot arbitrarily infringe upon the constitutional rights of citizens to liberty and movement under Articles 4, 9, and 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government can place a citizen's name on the Exit Control List without any incriminating material or legal justification?
  • Does placing a person's name on the Exit Control List without sufficient grounds violate Articles 4, 9, and 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is executive discretion under the Exit Control Ordinance 1981 subject to judicial review for fairness and reasonableness?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali And Other vs S.H.O. Sadar Arifwala And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 350 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin vs Inayat Ullah and another1999 YLR 2109 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
• Sakina vs The State1999 YLR 1732 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Muhammad vs Muhammad Nasir Bashir1999 CLC 454 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · -
  possessory suitSpecific Relief Actillegal dispossessionquestion of titlelimitation periodrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by way of leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant, which arose out of a suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in determining the question of title instead of strictly confining themselves to the ingredients of Section 9, namely prior possession and dispossession within six months. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that while the Trial Court and High Court erred in delving into the question of title in a summary suit under Section 9, the error was curable as the issues and evidence properly established that the plaintiff was in lawful possession and was illegally dispossessed by the defendant within the statutory period of six months. The Court laid down the principle that in a possessory suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, the question of title is entirely irrelevant, and the court must strictly confine its inquiry to prior possession and timely institution following dispossession, deleting any findings on title recorded by lower forums.

  Questions settled

  • Is the question of title relevant in a suit for recovery of possession filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to be proved by a plaintiff in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to cross-examine a witness on a material assertion made during examination-in-chief?
  • How does a court treat findings on title erroneously recorded by lower courts in a possessory suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Ahmed Khan vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 MLD 3410 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Hussain Shah and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 279 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 450 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali Shah vs The State1999 YLR 1286 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali Etc. vs Deputy Commissioner Chairman RecruitmentK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 78 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajjad Hyder vs The State1999 MLD 1301 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 64 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs S.H.O., Police Station Khairpur Sadaat and others1999 P Cr. L J 322 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-26Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider vs Imam Bakhsh and others1999 MLD 2472 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider vs Collector/D.C. Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 132 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed Javed Bhatti vs The Secretary, Establishment Division1999 SCMR 2186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-22
  civil servicesenioritypromotionservice tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceinterim order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal order that upheld the Selection Board's refusal to grant the petitioner seniority and promotion. The petitioner, a member of the Police Service of Pakistan, had previously faced suspension and inquiry, leading to deferred promotion consideration. Despite reinstatement, his subsequent litigation regarding seniority had been repeatedly dismissed by the Service Tribunal, the Supreme Court, and the High Court. The current dispute arose from an interim High Court order directing the Selection Board to consider the petitioner for promotion alongside his batchmates, which the Board subsequently deferred due to missing performance records and lack of range experience. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly determined the Selection Board's consideration was conditional upon the outcome of the underlying writ petition. Since that petition was dismissed, the interim order lost its efficacy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to pass such interim orders regarding civil servant promotion matters, citing the constitutional bar under Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which excludes High Court jurisdiction in matters concerning the terms and conditions of service.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to pass interim orders regarding the promotion of civil servants in light of Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a conditional recommendation by a Selection Board be implemented if the underlying judicial order authorizing that consideration is subsequently dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad Ansari vs The Government of Sindh and others1999 CLC 388 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad and 4 others vs Secretary, Irrigation and Power1999 MLD 3256 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sajid Zaman and 2 others vs Muhammad Yaqoob and others1999 YLR 2716 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sajid Sharif Randhawa vs The State1999 MLD 2005 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Sajid Naveed vs The State1999 MLD 156 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
• Sajid Mehmood vs Asia Bano throughShazia Bano1999 YLR 1793 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Saira Bano vs The Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 YLR 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-05Read full judgment →
• Saifulhaq Ziay, Advocate vs Majid Nizami and others1999 MLD 2503 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-28Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 314 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-03Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah Kiian vs The State1999 MLD 2406 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 213 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Said Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 245 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Said Rasool Khan. vs The State and another1999 YLR 2544 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-17Read full judgment →
• Said Nawaz Khan vs Sultan Ahmad and 2 others1999 YLR 2260 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-15Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad vs The State1999 SCMR 2758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-02-24
  abductiondeath sentencecommutation of sentencecriminal appealsentencing discretionlesser rolesuppression of terrorist activities
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a jail petition filed by Said Muhammad, who was convicted under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Sargodha, for his involvement in an abduction case, resulting in a death sentence. While the appellant was not present during the actual abduction, evidence established his role in facilitating the escape of the main culprits by signaling that the passage was clear. The appellant did not contest the conviction on merits but sought a reduction in the sentence, arguing that his role was minor compared to the co-accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the conviction but accepted the plea regarding the sentence. The Court held that, given the appellant's secondary role compared to the primary abductors, the ends of justice were better served by commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court established the principle that a distinction in sentencing is appropriate where an accused's participation is significantly less culpable than that of the principal offenders.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the minor role of an accused compared to co-accused?
  • Is an accused who facilitates an abduction by signaling a clear passage liable for conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the principle of sentencing distinction apply when an accused's participation is secondary to that of the principal offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad vs Ramzan And 6 Other1999 CLC 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad vs Karam Dad and 5 others1999 YLR 117 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-06-30
  partition proceedingsres judicataCivil Procedure CodeRevenue Officerland revenuesubsequent applicationfinal adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed with leave of the Court, challenges the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court's judgment declaring partition proceedings ordered by the Member Board of Revenue and Commissioner Mirpur Division to be without lawful authority on the ground that section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code barred the subsequent application. The core legal questions involved whether section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code or general principles of res judicata apply to partition proceedings before a Revenue Officer, and whether a previous dismissal of a partition application on technical grounds constitutes a final adjudication operating as a bar. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that a Revenue Officer conducting partition proceedings is not a court of civil jurisdiction, meaning section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply on its own strength nor via section 141. Furthermore, general principles of res judicata require that an issue be tried and finally decided, which did not occur here because the prior application was dismissed on a technical ground based on a temporary factual position that had since changed. The appeal was accepted and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to partition proceedings conducted by a Revenue Officer?
  • Is a Revenue Officer acting under the Land Revenue Act considered a court of civil jurisdiction for the purposes of section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Does the dismissal of a prior partition application on technical grounds operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent partition application?
  • When are general principles of res judicata applicable to proceedings where statutory res judicata is excluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Ali vs The State1999 YLR 1014 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-06-14Read full judgment →
• Sahibzadi Ghazala Ismat Hassan Khan Sabri vs Vicechancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore and others1999 SCMR 2487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-20
  leave to appealre-markingexamination paperscondonation of delaylimitationfactual inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking a direction to the University of the Punjab to remark her English examination papers. The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the examination papers had already been destroyed under the relevant rules, and that a re-checking of the marks had already been conducted in the petitioner's presence without objection. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the university had merely recounted the marks on the title page rather than conducting a proper re-checking. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's plea required an investigation into factual matters, which could not be undertaken in these proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was barred by 144 days, and the explanation for the delay was vague and unsupported by documentary evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition on both merits and limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court direct an investigation into disputed factual matters regarding the re-checking of examination papers in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be entertained when it is barred by limitation and the application for condonation of delay lacks specific dates and supporting documentary evidence?
  • Can a court order the re-marking of examination papers if those papers have already been lawfully destroyed by the educational institution under its rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1767 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmad vs The State1999 MLD 1258 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
• Sagh Ir Ahmad vs Mst. Rukhsana Tabassum and 2 others1999 YLR 882 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
• Safdar Shah vs The State1999 MLD 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-19Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali and another vs The State1999 MLD 2306 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-11Read full judgment →
• Saeeduddin Shaikh vs Ministry of Production, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 220 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Saeed Baloch vs Raeesa Bi1999 MLD 2082 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs The State and 2 others1999 MLD 581 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Jamila Khanum1999 CLC 852 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed alias Saeedu vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 812 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →