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.

• Saeed Ahmad Malik vs Shamim Ahktar and others1999 SCMR 1558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-01
  inheritancepartition suitevacuee propertyPermanent Transfer Deedpredeceased sonFederal Shariat Courtconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a partition suit concerning the inheritance of property originally owned by Mst. Ghulam Zainab, an evacuee property transferee. The petitioner challenged concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had determined the shares of the heirs based on the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The core legal questions involved the validity of inheritance rights granted to a predeceased son's daughter and a step-daughter under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the evidentiary weight of the P.T.D. entries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to challenge the P.T.D. entries under settlement laws and could not raise new objections regarding the share determination that were not pleaded in the lower courts. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Federal Shariat Court holds exclusive jurisdiction to determine the repugnancy of any law to the Injunctions of Islam and Sunnah. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, finding no misreading of evidence or legal error in the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding the date of death and inheritance shares.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have exclusive jurisdiction to determine if a provision of law is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and Sunnah?
  • Can a petitioner raise a challenge to the validity of a law in the Supreme Court when the issue was not raised before the lower courts?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding inheritance shares subject to interference if no misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali vs The State and another1999 YLR 796 · Board of Revenue · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
• Sabtain vs The State1999 MLD 897 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sabir Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 604 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1806 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain and 3 others vs The State1999 MLD 2208 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-02
  protective bailpre-arrest bailjudicial proprietyassignment of casesZina Ordinancebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for protective bail by four accused persons involved in a criminal case registered under the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicants sought protective bail to approach the Sessions Judge, Sanghar, for pre-arrest bail. The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that because co-accused had previously been granted bail by another Judge of the High Court, the current application must be placed before that same Judge, citing the rule in The State v. Zubair (PLD 1986 SC 173). The Court addressed whether the rule requiring subsequent bail applications to be heard by the Judge who decided the first application applies to protective bail. The Court held that the rule in Zubair’s case is inapplicable to protective bail applications. It reasoned that protective bail is a tentative, procedural measure intended to enable an accused to surrender before a competent court, and does not involve an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the Court granted the protective bail, establishing that the practice of granting such relief remains distinct from substantive bail proceedings and does not trigger the requirement of assignment to the same Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule requiring subsequent bail applications to be heard by the same Judge who decided the first application apply to protective bail?
  • Is the grant of protective bail considered a decision on the merits of a case?
  • Can a High Court grant protective bail to enable an accused to approach a court of competent jurisdiction for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali and others vs Islamuddin1999 SCMR 2515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-24
  oral giftproprietary titleconcurrent findings of factlimitation periodburden of proofimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioners against their father, the respondent, seeking a declaration of proprietary title over a house. The petitioners claimed the property was gifted to them orally by their grandfather in 1971. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioners failed to prove the oral gift and that the suit was time-barred. The appellate court and the High Court affirmed these findings, noting that the evidence was unreliable and that the property remained recorded in the respondent's name in official records. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had successfully established the existence of an oral gift of immovable property and whether the suit was maintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the failure to prove the gift were sound and supported by the record. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an oral gift of immovable property must be strictly proved and cannot be established based on mere assertions, especially when contradicted by official documentary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for declaration of title based on an alleged oral gift be maintained if the gift transaction is not proven by credible evidence?
  • Does the concurrent finding of fact by lower courts regarding the failure to prove an oral gift warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a suit for declaration of title based on an oral gift barred by time if not instituted within the statutory period prescribed by the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali and 3 others vs Khushi Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others1999 YLR 318 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Saadi Cement Limited through Director vs Muhamma D Rashid Jamal and 16 others1999 YLR 1649 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-06Read full judgment →
• Saadi Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 2535 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →
• Saad Ullah Jan vs The State and another1999 YLR 2262 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Saad Amanullah Khan vs Ayesha Tahir Shafique and another1999 CLC 1544 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-25Read full judgment →
• S.M. Ilyas vs Messrs Reckitt & Colman Pakistan Limited1999 PLC 456 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-04-14Read full judgment →
• S.M. Gharib Nawaz Daccawala vs Sindh Bar Council and another1999 CLC 1046 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-10Read full judgment →
• S.M. Farooq and others vs Muhammad Yar Khan and others1999 SCMR 1039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-02
  service lawsenioritysurplus staffabsorptioncivil servanttransferservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over seniority between a surplus civil servant, who was absorbed into the Department of Tourist Services, and existing officers. The core legal question was whether a surplus employee, upon absorption into a new department, carries their previous seniority from their parent department or if seniority is reckoned from the date of regular appointment in the new post. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal misconstrued the legal position. The Court ruled that under the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, seniority in a cadre by transfer takes effect from the date of regular appointment to that specific post. Consequently, the respondent, upon absorption, ranked junior to those already serving in the Department of Tourist Services. The Court emphasized that service rights of existing employees cannot be affected by outside introduction without specific rules. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the respondent was directed to either accept this position or exercise an option to return to his parent department to preserve his previous service rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does a surplus civil servant absorbed into a new department carry their previous seniority from their parent department?
  • From what date should the seniority of a civil servant appointed by transfer to a new cadre be reckoned?
  • Can a service tribunal set aside a seniority list based on equitable considerations when specific statutory rules govern the determination of seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• S.C. Subjally vs A. Hamid Khan and anothers1999 MLD 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02
  Section 249-A Cr.P.C.premature acquittalstage of trialprosecution evidencecriminal trialdischarge of accusedrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition before the Lahore High Court challenged orders of the trial and revisional courts dismissing the petitioner's application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a trial court is justified in refusing to decide a Section 249-A application on its merits when the criminal trial has already reached its final stage. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the underlying spirit and essence of Section 249-A Cr.P.C. is to protect an accused from the expense, agony, and ordeal of undergoing a full trial if the charge is groundless or there is no probability of conviction at an early stage. However, where the trial has reached its concluding phase—the prosecution evidence is complete, statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. are recorded, and the case is set for defence evidence or final arguments—invoking Section 249-A Cr.P.C. is incompatible with its purpose, and the trial court is fully justified in declining to decide the application on merits at such an advanced stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court justified in refusing to decide an application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on its merits when the trial has already reached its final stage?
  • What is the underlying spirit and purpose of Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding premature acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• S.A.M. Wahidi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and another1999 SCMR 1904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-16
  pensioncivil servicequalification payorderly allowancereasonable classificationdiscriminationcomplete justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a retired Solicitor to the Government of Pakistan who retired in 1987, filed two appeals challenging the rejection of his claims for pension recalculation. In the first appeal, he sought the inclusion of a qualification pay allowance introduced in 1991 for serving officers. In the second appeal, he claimed a Special Additional Pension equal to the pre-retirement orderly allowance introduced in 1991 for retired officers of BPS-20 to 22. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the first appeal, holding that since the qualification pay was part of active salary and not pension, and because the appellant retired prior to its introduction, he could not seek a notional revision of his pay scale for pension re-computation. However, the Court allowed the second appeal, holding that because the orderly allowance was specifically granted as a 'Special Additional Pension', excluding earlier retirees from this pension benefit without an intelligible differentia violated the principle of equal protection under Article 25 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retired civil servant claim recalculation of pension based on a qualification pay allowance introduced for serving officers after their retirement?
  • Whether the exclusion of past retirees from a newly introduced 'Special Additional Pension' violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under Article 25?
  • Can the Supreme Court overlook technical procedural defects under Article 187 of the Constitution to do complete justice?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Ziaul Hasan Tirmizi vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Karachi1999 PLC (C.S.) 1071 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• S. Tariq Saud vs Maroof Ali Shah through Attorney1999 YLR 394 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
• S. Sagheer Ahmed Rizvi through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Sagheer1999 CLC 1710 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-06Read full judgment →
• S. Ram vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3623 · Madras High Court · 1996-12-12Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Saddiq & Company vs Dawate-Hadiya Akbar Ali Hassan1999 CLC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-26
  personal requirementbona fide needlandlord and tenantrent appealmanaging trusteegood faithevictionpugree
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant's eviction from the demised premises on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement by the respondent-trust to establish its trust office. The core legal questions involve whether the respondent established good faith in its personal requirement claim, whether the managing trustee possessed valid authority to institute the eviction proceedings, and whether past litigation or alleged payment of pugree barred the ejectment. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord's requirement was made in good faith with cogent reasons rather than mere whim, that the tenant had previously acknowledged the managing trustee's authority and could not blow hot and cold, and that prior default litigation did not attract res judicata. The court laid down the principle that a landlord's sufficiency of accommodation and personal requirement, when proven honestly, justifies eviction under the rent laws, subject to statutory safeguards and penalties against misuse under the relevant ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement must establish good faith beyond a mere desire or whim?
  • Does a tenant who previously dealt with a managing trustee as an authorized representative of a trust are estopped from subsequently challenging his authority to institute an eviction case?
  • Whether previous litigation between the landlord and tenant on the ground of default operates as res judicata against a subsequent eviction petition filed on the ground of personal requirement?
  • What statutory safeguards and remedies are available to a tenant under the rent law if a landlord obtains possession on the ground of personal requirement but fails to use it for that purpose within the stipulated period?
  Read full judgment →
• S. K. Sahana & Sons Ltd. and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3236 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
• S. Iqbal Hussain vs Federal Public Service Commission1999 CLC 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-08Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Tabassam vs Judge, Family Court And 2 Other1999 CLC 878 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-11
  restitution of conjugal rightsmaintenance allowanceprompt dowerHaq Mehrfamily lawwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three consolidated writ petitions arising from marital litigation between Mst. Rukhsana Tabassum and her husband Saghir Ahmad involving suits for restitution of conjugal rights, maintenance allowance, and dower. The core legal questions addressed relate to whether a wife is entitled to maintenance and to live apart when prompt dower remains unpaid, and whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights can be granted unconditionally when dower is outstanding. The Lahore High Court held that a wife has an independent right to demand prompt dower and, upon non-payment, is legally entitled to live apart from her husband and claim maintenance, making a decree for restitution of conjugal rights conditional upon the payment of prompt dower. The Court established that non-payment of prompt dower constitutes a valid and complete defence to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and that a wife living apart for this reason remains entitled to maintenance. Consequently, the husband's petition challenging the maintenance award was dismissed, the wife's petition for enhancement of maintenance was dismissed, and her petition setting aside the unconditional decree for restitution of conjugal rights was accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a wife is entitled to claim maintenance when living apart from her husband due to the non-payment of prompt dower?
  • Can a decree for restitution of conjugal rights be granted unconditionally when the husband has not paid the prompt dower demanded by the wife?
  • Does the filing of a suit for the recovery of dower constitute a valid legal demand for prompt dower?
  • Is a decree for restitution of conjugal rights an absolute decree that can be strictly enforced regardless of outstanding dower obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Ahmed vs Shakil Ahmed1999 YLR 1725 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-07-02Read full judgment →
• Rozdar Khan vs Muhammad Haroon and another1999 YLR 406 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
• Roshan Din through Legal Heirs and 2 others vs Suleman1999 YLR 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-10Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Mangi vs Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad1999 PLC (C.S.) 673 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Mangi vs Secretary, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 438 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-05-10Read full judgment →
• Roman Catholic Church vs Government of Punjab And Other1999 CLC 1389 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-03Read full judgment →
• Roland Desouze and others vs Karachi Building Control Authority1999 YLR 2130 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
• Rohtak Textiles Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1471 · Delhi High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
• Rizwanullah and others vs The State1999 MLD 1443 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Rizwan HUSSAIN/Accused vs The State1999 MLD 2293 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Hussain vs The State1999 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-07
  post-arrest bailcar snatchingheinous offensedelay in trialHudood Ordinancejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought bail in a case involving charges under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, specifically related to the armed snatching of a motor vehicle. The petitioner had initially applied for bail before the trial court and subsequently the High Court, relying on the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, citing delay in the conclusion of the trial. Both lower courts dismissed the bail applications, noting the heinous nature of the offense. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in refusing bail. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the high incidence of car-snatching offenses in Karachi justified the invocation of the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court held that the refusal of bail was appropriate given the gravity of the offense and the prevailing circumstances, and thus dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the high incidence of car-snatching offenses justify the denial of bail under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused on the ground of the heinous nature of the offense despite a delay in the trial process?
  Read full judgment →
• Riyaz Qasim vs Messrs Ama (Pvt.) Ltd.1999 CLC 445 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-23
  ex parte decreeSection 12(2) CPCcondonation of delaylimitationfraud and misrepresentationfinality of proceedingsnegligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court appeal arises from the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought to set aside an ex parte decree passed against the appellant. The core legal question was whether the appellant had established sufficient grounds of fraud or misrepresentation to warrant setting aside the decree and whether the application was maintainable given the prior dismissal of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to substantiate allegations of fraud or misrepresentation and that the application was an attempt to re-litigate matters that had already attained finality. The Court affirmed that Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked to remedy a party's own negligence or to circumvent the finality of judicial proceedings. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 requires a specific, day-to-day explanation of the delay, which was absent in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be used to re-litigate issues already decided in previous proceedings?
  • Is a party required to explain the delay of each day when seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the failure to prove fraud or misrepresentation render an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 incompetent?
  • Can a party invoke Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to remedy their own negligence in failing to appear in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Riazur Rehman vs The State1999 YLR 1366 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
• Riazul Haque Sheikh vs Zulfiqar Hussain And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 473 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ul Haque Sheikh vs Zulfiqar, Hussain and 3 others1999 YLR 2040 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain, General Manager (Adminsitration and Industrial1999 PLC 235 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1998-12-19Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs The State1999 MLD 3281 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and another1999 YLR 336 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18
  pre-emption suitZar-e-Soemdeposit of sale priceprocedural fairnessconstitutional petitiondismissal of suitact of court
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenge the dismissal of pre-emption suits by the Revisional Court, which had set aside the Trial Court's order allowing the plaintiff to deposit the Zar-e-Soem (one-third of the sale price). The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit could be dismissed under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, for failure to deposit the Zar-e-Soem when the Trial Court had failed to pass or communicate the deposit order within the statutory period. The High Court held that the Revisional Court erred in dismissing the suits. The Court ruled that the penal provisions of Section 24(2) cannot be invoked against a plaintiff when the court’s own omission or failure to communicate the deposit order prevented timely compliance. Affirming the principle that an act of the court shall prejudice no one, the Court held that a litigant cannot be penalized for the court's failure to perform its mandatory duty. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority, and the suits were restored for trial in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 if the court failed to order the deposit of Zar-e-Soem within the statutory period?
  • Does the principle that an act of the court shall prejudice no one apply to the mandatory deposit requirements in pre-emption litigation?
  • Is a plaintiff liable for the dismissal of a suit for non-compliance with a deposit order that was never communicated to them by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The State and another1999 SCMR 1324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-15
  bail cancellationservice of noticeright of audiencecondemned unheardcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the recall of bail granted to the petitioner by the trial court. The core legal question is whether the High Court could legally set aside a bail order without proper personal service of notice upon the petitioner, thereby condemning him unheard. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that service of notice upon the petitioner's brother does not constitute valid service under the law and that the petitioner was indeed condemned unheard when his bail was recalled without a proper hearing. The Court laid down the principle that an accused person must be duly and personally served with notice before any order to the petitioner's detriment, such as the cancellation of bail, can be legally passed by a superior court. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of notice upon the brother of an accused constitutes valid service of notice for the cancellation of bail?
  • Can a High Court legally recall a bail order without providing a proper hearing to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs D.S.P. and others1999 P Cr. L J 993 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-29Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad and 2 others vs Additional District Judge and 2 others1999 SCMR 1328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-22
  limitationminorityvoid giftmutationco-sharerdeclaration suitinheritancerevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a High Court order that dismissed a revision petition, thereby upholding an appellate court's decision in a suit for declaration. The respondent, Mst. Rasoolan Bibi, sought to invalidate a mutation of gift regarding land inherited from her father, alleging it was fraudulently obtained while she was a minor. The petitioners, her half-siblings, argued the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that a gift obtained from a minor is void and unlawful, conferring no rights upon the donees. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a wrong mutation does not create title, as revenue records serve fiscal purposes rather than establishing ownership. Crucially, the Court held that where a plaintiff is a co-sharer in the property, the limitation period for a suit for declaration does not commence until there is an explicit denial of the plaintiff's title. Consequently, as the respondent remained in possession as a co-sharer, the suit was not time-barred. The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' reasoning and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a gift obtained from a minor valid and capable of conferring property rights?
  • Does a mutation entry in revenue records create title to property?
  • When does the limitation period commence for a suit for declaration filed by a co-sharer against a denial of title?
  • Can a transaction involving a minor be rectified after the minor attains the age of majority?
  Read full judgment →
• Riayaz Qasim vs (M/s.) Am a (Pyt.) Ltd., KarachiK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 432 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Riayasat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 541 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali And 3 Others vs Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad Sindhhu And 2 Other1999 CLC 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-03
  revision petitionex parte decreepenal provisionsclosure of evidenceremand orderjurisdictional errorcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant revision petition challenged an appellate order that set aside a trial court's decision to close the respondents' evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondents had filed an application under Section 12(2) and Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte decree. The trial court rejected this application after closing their evidence due to repeated adjournments. The Additional District Judge, on appeal, remanded the case for a fresh decision, allowing the respondents to produce evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly invoked the penal provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and whether the appellate court's remand order was legally sound. The High Court held that penal provisions should only be invoked against contumacious conduct, not mere negligence. It found the trial court's proceedings lacked transparency regarding notice service under Section 24-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court held that revision under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is limited to jurisdictional errors and cannot be used to correct erroneous findings of fact or law, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the penal provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked against a party for mere negligence in producing evidence?
  • Does the scope of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow for the correction of erroneous findings of fact or law that do not affect the court's jurisdiction?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an appellate order remanding a case for fresh decision under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u), Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the requirement for invoking penal provisions in civil litigation regarding the conduct of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali alias Riasu and others vs The State1999 MLD 2538 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
• Reverand Catholic Bishop of Lahore through Attorney care of Roman1999 SCMR 1838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-24
  land reformsexemptioncharitable and religious institutionsrepeal of lawsaved rightsfederal land commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court partly allowing a writ petition and remanding a revision petition concerning land resumption. The core legal question was whether the exemption from land reforms granted to the appellant, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lahore, under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 64) in 1959 survived the promulgation of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (M.L.R. 115) and the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The Supreme Court held that the exemption granted on 22-6-1959 was saved under clause (b) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 32 of M.L.R. 115, as well as by section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Article 264 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and thus continued to hold the field. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment of remand.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an exemption granted under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 64) survives the promulgation of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (M.L.R. 115)?
  • Does the repeal of a land regulation affect rights, titles, or privileges acquired thereunder in view of paragraph 32(2)(b) of M.L.R. 115?
  • Are religious and charitable institutions automatically subject to paragraph 8 limits despite prior valid exemptions saved by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Resident Engineer, Civil, WAPDA, Mangla Dam and 2 others vs Najam-Ul-1999 PLC 72 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-08-11Read full judgment →
• Reliance Insurance Company Ltd. and others vs Messrs Chohan1999 YLR 2201 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Muhammad Ikram and 7 others1999 MLD 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah and 6 others vs The Commissioner of Afghan Refugees, N.-1999 PLC (C.S.) 1434 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1999-02-11Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 579 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-11Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah and another vs Mahi Khan and another1999 YLR 2288 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Sindhu and 5 others vs The State and 3 others1999 MLD 1632 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs Mst. Mauj Bibi1999 YLR 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs (Mst.) Mauj Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali Khan vs Nasim Jan And Another1999 CLC 2082 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali Jauhar vs The Engineerinchief (Mes) in C's Branch, G.H.Q.1999 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  pro forma promotionback benefitscivil servicesecondmentemolumentspay scaleretrospective promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a civil servant who challenged the denial of emoluments for a higher pay scale (BPS-18) following a retrospective pro forma promotion. The appellant, having been on secondment abroad, was granted promotion to BPS-18 effective from 22-3-1988, but the department restricted the payment of higher emoluments to the date of his actual assumption of duty in 1996. The core legal question was whether a civil servant granted pro forma promotion is entitled to salary arrears for the entire retrospective period, even while on secondment. The Supreme Court held that while pro forma promotion generally entitles a civil servant to back benefits, this right is predicated on the servant's readiness and availability to perform the duties of the higher post. Because the appellant was on voluntary secondment abroad until 6-1-1990, he could not claim emoluments for the period prior to his return. However, he was entitled to the difference in emoluments from the date of his return to the department until he began receiving the higher salary, as the departmental examination requirement was waived due to the lack of exams held for his promoted juniors.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to emoluments of a higher post during a period of voluntary secondment abroad?
  • Does the grant of pro forma promotion automatically entitle a civil servant to back benefits for the entire retrospective period?
  • Can a department deny emoluments for a higher post based on a failure to pass a departmental examination if such examinations were not held for promoted juniors?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmanuddin vs The State1999 MLD 3219 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-09Read full judgment →
• Rehmania Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited through Mian Abdul Rehman, Chief1999 PLD Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
• Rehman vs The State1999 MLD 978 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Rehana Jamal and 2 others vs Muhammad Asim1999 CLC 781 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• Rehan Saeed Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 SCMR 2855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-22
  probationary periodtermination of servicecivil servantstemporary postsshow-cause noticeservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed appeals filed by various Intelligence Bureau employees whose services were terminated during their probationary period. The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors, and Assistant Directors in 1996, had their services terminated in 1997 without stated reasons. The Tribunal upheld the terminations, citing that the posts were temporary (created for one year), appointments were made based on political recommendations rather than merit, and that probationers lacked a justiciable grievance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine several critical issues, including whether the appointments were against permanent or temporary posts, the legal effect of public notices failing to disclose the temporary nature of the posts, and whether the use of the phrase "on regular basis" in appointment notifications created vested rights. Furthermore, the Court seeks to determine if the petitioners were entitled to show-cause notices under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and if termination orders required reasons under the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court declined to grant a stay order but expedited the hearing of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of a civil servant on probation requires the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 11(1) of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Does Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897 require that termination orders for civil servants must contain the reasons for such termination?
  • What is the legal effect of using the phrase "on regular basis" in appointment notifications for posts otherwise designated as temporary?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Manager, Utility Stores, Corporation of Pakistan, Faisalabad vs Muhammad Aslam, Ex-Salesman, Sargodha1999 PLC 191 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
• Regal Theatre vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, .1999 PTD 263 · Delhi High Court · 1996-12-20Read full judgment →
• Reference Made by District and Sessions Judge, Karachi vs The State1999 PLD Karachi 96 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-27Read full judgment →
• Redco Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PLD Lahore 84 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Razzaq Ahmed and anothers vs Muhammad Sadeeq and 7 others1999 P Cr. L J 1960 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-03-13Read full judgment →
• Razzaq Ahmed And Another vs Muhammad Sadeeq And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 53 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-03-13Read full judgment →
• Razia Kausar, Shop Assistant vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 735 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
• Razi Khan vs Daud Ahmad, Manager, Shaheen Airport Services, Lahore1999 PLC 187 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Raza Mohsin Qazilbash and others vs Muhammad Usman Malik and another1999 SCMR 1794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-31
  bail cancellationmurderF.I.R.substantive evidencecriminal investigationnon-naming in F.I.R.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondent and his companions attacked the deceased after a dispute regarding reckless driving and loud music. The High Court had granted bail primarily because the respondent was not named in the F.I.R. and lacked a specific motive. The Supreme Court, however, observed that the F.I.R. was lodged while the victim was in critical condition and that the omission of names was natural under the circumstances. The Court emphasized that an F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and that investigation had linked the respondent to the crime. Holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondent committed an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and recalled the bail order, directing the respondent to be taken into custody.

  Questions settled

  • Is an F.I.R. considered a substantive piece of evidence in criminal proceedings?
  • Does the omission of an accused's name in an F.I.R. automatically entitle them to bail?
  • Can bail be cancelled if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Hussain and others vs Muhammad Khan and others1999 CLC 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-12
  specific performancepardanashin ladyadvocate and clientfiduciary relationshipburden of prooffree consentprofessional ethicsequitable discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment dismissing a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of land filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants against the heirs of the vendor, Mst. Sherbano. The deceased plaintiff, who was also the vendor's advocate, had entered into agreements to purchase land, part of which was originally purported to be sold by the vendor's grandson, subsequently ratified by the vendor herself. The trial court dismissed the specific performance claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the illiterate, elderly vendor executed the agreements with full knowledge, comprehension, and free consent, though it awarded a partial money decree. The core legal questions involved the extent of protection afforded to illiterate or pardanashin women, the fiduciary relationship and heavy onus of proof resting on an advocate contracting with a client, and whether specific performance should be denied under equitable discretion. The Sindh High Court held that the heavy onus to prove free consent and full understanding was not discharged by the advocate-plaintiff, given the unequal fiduciary relationship, and that the transaction was rightly held unenforceable. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an illiterate or vulnerable female vendor's agreement of sale requires the person taking advantage of it to prove that she acted with free consent and full understanding of its implications?
  • What is the nature of the burden of proof when an advocate enters into a property transaction or contract with their client?
  • Can specific performance of a contract be refused in the exercise of equitable discretion where a lawyer acquires an interest adverse to or deals improperly with a client?
  • Does the mere ability of an illiterate woman to understand ordinary property matters deprive her of the protective judicial norms established for vulnerable sections of society?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Hassan vs Chairman, Joint Admission Committee and others1999 MLD 1469 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-16Read full judgment →
• Raz Muhammad vs Inspectorgeneral Frontier Corps, Balochistan, Quetta and others1999 MLD 3414 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-12-31
  Customs Actconfiscated goodsillegal disposalconstitutional jurisdictionauction procedureFrontier Corpsright to be dealt with in accordance with law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking directions for the return or payment of market value for goods seized by the Pishin Scouts of Frontier Corps, exercising powers under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question concerned whether the authorities could lawfully dispose of confiscated goods during the pendency of an appeal and without adhering to mandatory statutory auction procedures. The Court held that the adjudicating and warehouse authorities acted without lawful authority in disposing of the non-perishable seized goods arbitrarily and without transparency, bypassing mandatory statutory rules and appellate outcomes that favoured the petitioner. The High Court laid down the principles that authorities clothed with statutory powers must act strictly in accordance with the law, that auction procedures and preference orders for disposing of confiscated goods must be transparently followed, and that citizens have a fundamental right under the Constitution to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to jointly arrange and return the exact seized goods to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can authorities lawfully dispose of confiscated goods during the pendency of an appeal without adhering to statutory auction procedures?
  • Whether the failure of a customs authority to provide an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation renders the subsequent proceedings illegal?
  • Is a statutory body permitted to bypass mandatory preference orders when disposing of confiscated consumer goods?
  • What relief can a High Court grant under constitutional jurisdiction when seized goods are arbitrarily sold in violation of the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Ravindra Industries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, .1999 PTD 305 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-12-09Read full judgment →
• Ravi Spinning Ltd. vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1999 CL. 710 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ravi Dutt Kapur vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Jhang And 91999 CLC 500 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
• Raunaq International vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 3851 · Delhi High Court · 1998-01-09Read full judgment →
• Rauf Akhter Farooqui vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary1999 PLC (C.S.) 1474 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-26Read full judgment →
• Rasul Bakhsh vs A.C., Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bakhsh and 4 others vs Assistant Commissioner_ Collector, Alipur and 9 others1999 YLR 320 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Rashid Hussain vs Gul Afsar Khan and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1248 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-04-13
  writ jurisdictionillegal appointmentservice lawclean hands doctrinetermination of servicepublic employmentadvertisement of posts
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that restored the respondent, Gul Afsar, to his position as a Coolie in the Public Works Department after his services were terminated. The core legal question was whether the respondent, whose initial appointment was challenged as illegal due to non-advertisement of the post, was entitled to restoration in writ jurisdiction despite procedural flaws in his termination. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that while the termination of the respondent was not conducted in accordance with law—lacking valid grounds and procedural fairness—the respondent’s initial appointment was itself illegal for failing to comply with the mandatory requirement of advertising the post under the relevant service rules. Consequently, the Court vacated the High Court's restoration order. The key principle laid down is that the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, will not restore a person to service if their initial appointment was illegal, as a petitioner seeking equitable relief must approach the Court with clean hands.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person whose initial appointment was illegal be restored to service through writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the advertisement of a government post a mandatory requirement for a valid appointment under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977?
  • Does the failure to provide a show-cause notice prior to termination render an order of termination invalid if the original appointment was itself illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 99 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Rao Tamkeen Ali Khan vs Muhammad Aslp.M and others1999 SCMR 2628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-08
  execution of decreenon-prosecutiondismissal of execution applicationcivil revisionprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the dismissal of execution applications for non-prosecution by the executing court, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the executing court acted correctly in dismissing the execution petitions for non-prosecution on a date that was not fixed for a hearing, but rather for the submission of a report by the bailiff. The Supreme Court found that the executing court erred in dismissing the petitions, as the date in question was not a hearing date, and the High Court further erred in assuming the absence of the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the courts below, converted the petitions into appeals, and remanded the matter to the executing court for disposal in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that an executing court cannot dismiss an execution application for non-prosecution on a date fixed merely for a report, as such an action is procedurally improper and constitutes a failure to exercise jurisdiction correctly.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executing court dismiss an execution application for non-prosecution on a date fixed only for the submission of a bailiff's report?
  • Is it legally permissible for an executing court to dismiss an execution petition when the date was not fixed for a hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Sakhawat Ali vs Mst. Zaheeran Begum1999 MLD 198 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Yasin Khan vs N/A1999 PLC 179 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Shafi vs The Personnel/Factory Manager, Lyallpur1999 PLC 93 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Jamil Khan vs The StateK.L.R.1999 Criminal Cases 101 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Rangeel Ahmed Butt vs Mst. Zooni and 5 others1999 MLD 2914 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
• Rana Mumtaz Ahmed Noon vs Muhammad Javed Khan1999 SCMR 1845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-05
  summary suitleave to defendOrder XXXVIIdishonoured chequesrecovery suitplausible defencecivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a summary suit for recovery of money under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on dishonoured cheques. The petitioner sought leave to defend the suit by filing an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The District Judge dismissed the application on the ground that it failed to disclose any plausible defence or specific triable issues of law or fact, and the affidavit was silent on specific grounds. The High Court affirmed the District Judge's order in civil revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether leave to appear and defend can be granted in a summary suit where the defendant's application lacks specific factual or legal defences. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, holding that in the absence of specific averments raising triable questions of law or fact, leave to defend cannot be granted under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The leave petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be granted if the application lacks specific factual or legal defences?
  • Whether the absence of specific triable issues in an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 justifies the dismissal of leave to defend.
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Safdar vs Gulzar Ali alias Papoo and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-25
  bail cancellationvicarious liabilitycommon intentionstatutory ground for bailmurdertentative assessmentperverse order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, in a case registered under sections 324, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether vicarious liability under section 34 can be examined at the bail stage, whether bail can be granted on statutory grounds before the completion of the prescribed period, and the grounds for bail cancellation. The Lahore High Court held that the question of vicarious liability can be tentatively examined at the bail stage and is not barred, that the statutory period for seeking bail in an offence punishable with death is two years, and that an order granting bail based on patently illegal and perverse reasoning warrants cancellation. The court laid down the principle that criminal courts are fully competent to assess constructive or vicarious liability tentatively at the bail stage and set aside the impugned bail order.

  Questions settled

  • Can the question of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be examined by a court at the bail stage?
  • What is the statutory period of detention required for seeking bail in a case punishable with death under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the recognized grounds for the cancellation of bail once granted to an accused?
  • Does a court of concurrent jurisdiction act improperly when entertaining a bail petition in a case already entrusted to another trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Azam vs Ghulam Muhammad1999 YLR 1871 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 531 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
• Rana Mubarak Ali, Store Helper, C.J. Link Division, WAPDA Colony, Chashma Kundian, District Mianwali vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Sargodha Division and 3 others1999 PLC 168 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1997-10-25Read full judgment →