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.

• Muhammad Arab vs The State1999 MLD 366 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ar1f Patwari vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqeel vs Fayaz Hussain and 2 others1999 MLD 1506 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar, Subinspector, Railway Police, Lahore vs Station1999 PLD Lahore 50 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-24
  second FIRcounter versioncognizable offenceregistration of casewrit petitionpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition sought a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case based on an application detailing the murder of an Assistant Sub-Inspector and serious injuries sustained by a constable within a police post during an alleged attack by a mob. The core legal question was whether a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) can be registered regarding the same incident when an F.I.R. has already been recorded by the opposite party. The Lahore High Court held that while ordinarily a second F.I.R. for the same incident is not recorded, an exception applies where a counter-version discloses a distinct and separate cognizable offence with diametrically opposed details that constitute a substantive grievance rather than a mere defense. The Court ruled that refusing to register a counter-F.I.R. in such circumstances would cause a miscarriage of justice. The key principle laid down is that when two distinct, conflicting versions of an incident disclose independent cognizable offences, separate F.I.R.s must be registered and investigated so that both versions can be placed before the trial court for proper adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second F.I.R. can be registered in respect of the same incident when a previous F.I.R. has already been recorded?
  • Does a counter-version disclosing a distinct and separate cognizable offence warrant the registration of a separate F.I.R.?
  • Can the police refuse to register a case on the ground that they consider the presented version to be false?
  • Is it incumbent upon the investigating agency to place conflicting versions of an incident before the trial court for proper adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan vs Mumtaz-Ul-Hassan and 8 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 159 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 197 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Javed vs Muhammad Sarwar1999 YLR 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and anothers vs The State1999 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-26
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular and medical conflictreappraisal of evidencecontradictions in testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentences of the appellants for the double murder of Shaukat Ali and Mst. Irshad Bibi under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question involves the appraisal of evidence regarding glaring contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, as well as the overall reliability of the prosecution case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material discrepancies, lack of independent corroboration for crucial events like the alleged marriages, unexplained sharp-edged weapon injuries on the bodies not mentioned in the FIR, and inherent improbabilities in the prosecution narrative. The key principle laid down is that where ocular account is in direct conflict with medical evidence and the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in mystery, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution case becomes doubtful when the ocular account of strangulation is directly contradicted by medical evidence showing sharp-edged weapon injuries?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when crucial assertions regarding compromises and marriages lack independent supporting evidence?
  • Whether material discrepancies and improbable circumstances surrounding the genesis of an occurrence warrant setting aside a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ansar And Others vs Administrator Town Committee1999 P.C.T.L.R.1189 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ansar and 2 others vs Administrator, Town Committee, I_Abirwala, District Khanewal and 4 others1999 YLR 950 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anis vs Pervez Muzammil Khan and others1999 P Cr. L J 828 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anes Khan And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 567 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anees Khan and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State1999 MLD 2023 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir Khan vs Ialik Salahuddin and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1354 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir and anothers vs Province of Punjab through Collector, District Khushab and 2 others1999 MLD 2612 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Syed Muhammad Aslam Shah and another1999 SCMR 2061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-22
  enhancement of sentencedeath sentencelife imprisonmentPresidential amnestycommutation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had enhanced the appellant's sentence from life imprisonment to death in a revision petition. The appellant had been convicted under Sections 302 and 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court on May 25, 1988, prior to the Presidential amnesty of December 6, 1988. The core legal question was whether a death sentence enhanced or awarded by the High Court after December 6, 1988, is appropriate when the trial court had concluded the trial and awarded life imprisonment before that date. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedent, held that since convicts sentenced to death before December 6, 1988, were eligible for commutation to life imprisonment under the Presidential amnesty, it is inappropriate for appellate courts to subsequently award or enhance sentences to death in cases disposed of by the trial court prior to that date. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a death sentence enhanced by the High Court after December 6, 1988, is sustainable if the trial court concluded the trial and awarded life imprisonment before that date?
  • Does the Presidential amnesty of December 6, 1988, affect the propriety of appellate courts subsequently awarding or enhancing sentences to death for trials concluded prior to the amnesty date?
  • Can an accused be deprived of the benefit of a Presidential amnesty merely because the trial court elected to impose life imprisonment instead of death prior to the amnesty date?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Lakhani vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary1999 YLR 1944 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Butt vs Abdul Razzak1999 YLR 2022 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali, Project Assistant vs Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Multan Division, Multan and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 595 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1998-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1350 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Abdul Jabbar alias Jabbar Langra and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1243 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Tauqir vs Rafiq Ahmad1999 CLC 795 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-10
  tentative rent orderdefault in rent depositwilful defaultejectmentcantonments rent restrictionextension of time
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, challenging an order passed by the Additional Controller of Rents directing the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises for failing to comply with a tentative rent order. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant committed a wilful default in depositing arrears of rent and subsequent monthly rent within the stipulated timelines under section 17 of the Act, and whether such delay is condonable. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant committed clear default in depositing the full arrears and the subsequent monthly rent within the prescribed deadlines, and that the Rent Controller possesses no power to extend time or condone delays in rent deposits. The court established the principle that even a single day's delay in depositing rent constitutes a default under section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, unless proven to be unavoidable and beyond the tenant's control. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to deposit rent within the timeline specified in a tentative rent order constitutes a wilful default under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the power to extend time or condone a delay in depositing rent under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Does even a single day's delay in depositing rent amount to a default under section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs The State and others1999 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-19
  murderself-defenseappreciation of evidenceinjured witnesscommon intentioncriminal appealbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for murder and murderous assault, while altering convictions from section 149 to section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the First Information Report, the appreciation of ocular evidence vis-a-vis medical evidence, and the evaluation of the plea of self-defense. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the primary appellants beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony of an injured witness, corroborative medical evidence, and strong motive, while the plea of self-defense raised by the accused was improbable and unsupported by physical evidence. The key legal principles laid down include that the primary burden of proof rests on the prosecution, that the uncorroborated plea of self-defense must be weighed in juxtaposition with the prosecution evidence and rejected when contrary to the physical features of the crime scene, and that the solitary testimony of an injured witness, if reliable, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the solitary statement of an injured witness, when found reliable, is sufficient to bring home the guilt of an accused?
  • Does the failure of an accused to substantiate a plea of self-defense entitle the prosecution to shift its primary burden of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can the sanctity attached to a First Information Report be extended when it is treated merely as a statement made by an eye-witness to the investigating officer?
  • Whether an accused raising a plea of self-defense must establish the probability of such a defense when the physical features of the crime scene contradict it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 196 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and another vs The State1999 SCMR 2781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-08
  death sentencemitigating circumstancesleave to appealmurdercriminal liabilityage of accusedcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a High Court judgment maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, aged twenty at the time of the offense, was entitled to a reduction of the death sentence based on his age and the alleged influence of his brother. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the death sentence. The court held that age alone, specifically at twenty years, does not constitute an extenuating circumstance warranting a lesser sentence in the absence of other mitigating factors, such as acting to avenge family honor. Furthermore, the court emphasized that pleas regarding mitigating circumstances must be supported by the record or evidence. Concluding that the murder was cold-blooded and the petitioner had attained sufficient maturity, the court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the capital punishment imposed by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the age of twenty years, by itself, constitute a sufficient mitigating factor to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can a plea of mitigating circumstances be entertained by the appellate court if it was not raised or supported by evidence during the trial?
  • Is a convict entitled to a reduction in sentence based on the alleged influence of a co-accused who has been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali alias Mamand vs The State1999 MLD 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Zaidi vs Water and Power Development Authority1999 PLD Supreme Court 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-24
  service lawmove-overWAPDAqualifying servicepension benefitsabsorptionBPS-19
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns the denial of a 'move-over' from BPS-18 to BPS-19 for an employee absorbed into the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) from the Punjab Government. The core legal question was whether the appellant's previous service under the Punjab Government, which WAPDA had already recognized as qualifying service for pension and earned leave purposes upon his absorption, should also be counted toward the length of service requirement for the 'move-over' to BPS-19 under the relevant Office Memoranda. The Court held that since the Authority had explicitly recognized the previous service for other significant benefits, there was no logical basis to exclude it for the purpose of calculating the length of service for move-over. Applying the formula provided in the Office Memorandum dated 13-7-1986, the Court found that the appellant's total qualifying service exceeded the 12-year threshold required for the move-over. Consequently, the Court set aside the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal and directed that the appellant be granted the move-over.

  Questions settled

  • Can previous government service, recognized for pension and leave purposes upon absorption into a statutory authority, be excluded from the calculation of length of service for 'move-over' benefits?
  • Does the Office Memorandum dated 13-7-1986 allow for the counting of service in BPS-16 or below as service in BPS-17 for the purpose of computing length of service for move-over to BPS-19?
  • Is an employee entitled to count previous government service toward the length of service requirement for promotion or move-over if the authority has already accepted that service for other service benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 496 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State and others1999 P Cr. L J 1725 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Sikandar Hayat and others1999 SCMR 2282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-29
  cancellation of bailfurther inquirypolice investigationjudicial discretiondouble murderleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to cancel the bail granted to the respondents by the Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, in a double murder case registered under Section 302/34/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the bail was granted in disregard of established legal principles given the brutal nature of the offense. Upon review, the High Court determined that the initial First Information Report was not based on the petitioner's personal knowledge and that multiple police investigations, including those by two Station House Officers and a Deputy Superintendent of Police, had found the respondents innocent. Consequently, the High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and that the bail had been validly granted. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning sound, noting that the order was a valid exercise of judicial discretion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the lower court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is the finding of innocence by multiple police officers a relevant factor in determining whether a case calls for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted against an order refusing to cancel bail where the lower court exercised its discretion based on the police record?
  • Does a First Information Report not based on the complainant's personal knowledge constitute sufficient grounds to warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Muhammad Latif alias Papu and others1999 SCMR 2818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-31
  right of private defenceexceeding right of self-defenceculpable homicide not amounting to murdermurderleave to appealsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning an incident of firing resulting in one death and injuries. A dispute over the plucking of tomatoes led to a scuffle and subsequent exchange of fire between the parties. The trial court convicted one respondent for murder under exceeding the right of self-defence, sentencing him to imprisonment for life, and another for a murderous assault under section 307. On appeal, the High Court converted the murder conviction to one under section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing the sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment, while upholding the other convictions and dismissing the complainant's appeal and state revision. The Supreme Court reviewed the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the cross-versions and the right of private defence, finding no legal infirmity or glaring defect in the appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had adequately considered all aspects of sentencing, and therefore dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who exceeds the right of private defence is liable to be convicted under section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than section 302?
  • Does the right of private defence continue to exist as long as the apprehension of hurt or grievous hurt persists?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding cross-versions and the right of self-defence warrant interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of a glaring legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Mst. Raheela Aslam and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-17
  Family Courtinterlocutory orderappealabilitydecisiondecreeejusdem generisdefence struck off
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises out of a pending family suit under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, wherein the petitioner's defence was struck off by the Family Court and an appeal against the said interlocutory order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on the ground of non-maintainability. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court amounts to a 'decision' under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and is consequently appealable. The Court held that the word 'decision' in Section 14 must be read ejusdem generis with the word 'decree' and is restricted to final orders, thereby rendering an appeal against an interlocutory order incompetent. The key principle laid down is that interlocutory orders of Family Courts are not independently appealable under Section 14, but any interim order can be challenged in an appeal filed against the final decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court is appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the word 'decision' in Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 cover interim orders?
  • Can an interlocutory order of a Family Court be challenged in an appeal filed against the final decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs (Mst.) Raheela Aslam And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Tahir vs Secretary Education, Government of Punjab, LahoreK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases l2 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Siddiqui vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 554 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Butt And Another vs National Bank of Pakistan1999 CLC 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Others vs S.H.O., And Other1999 CLC 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Other vs Habib Ullah Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 465 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 218 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 33 others vs Government of Pakistan and 21999 CLC 745 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-16
  judicial reviewpublic tenderstate largessepublic policyabuse of discretioncontractual obligationsairport management
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, owners of vehicles and fork-lifters operating at the Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, challenged the decision of the Civil Aviation Authority (respondent No. 2) to award exclusive licensing contracts for entry permits to a private company (respondent No. 3) without inviting public tenders. The core legal question was whether a public body, in awarding commercial contracts, can bypass the requirement of public bidding through private negotiation, and whether such action constitutes an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the award of these contracts, which granted long-term exclusive rights, was not a genuine experimental arrangement but an arbitrary exercise of power. The Court ruled that the contracts were against public policy and public interest because they lacked transparency and fairness. The key principle laid down is that public authorities must exercise their power to award contracts honestly, fairly, and in the public interest, and that the departure from the rule of inviting public offers is subject to judicial review, particularly when such decisions appear to be an arbitrary distribution of state largesse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public authority can award commercial contracts through private negotiation without inviting public tenders?
  • Is the exercise of power by a public body in awarding contracts subject to judicial review?
  • Does the award of long-term exclusive contracts without public bidding constitute an abuse of discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 975 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 others vs Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha and 2 others1999 MLD 2572 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram alias Ladq vs The Statel.1999 YLR 1613 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1999 YLR 1774 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Hussain alias Akhtari and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 313 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar and others vs The State1999 YLR 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs WAPDA Through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore1999 CLC 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-06
  electricity disconnectionstatutory depositspecial law vs general lawWAPDAremand ordercivil revisionElectricity Act 1910
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a dispute regarding the disconnection of an electricity tube-well connection by WAPDA due to alleged outstanding dues. The petitioner challenged the demands and the subsequent order of the Advisory Board, which had overturned an Electric Inspector's finding in his favor. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court remanded the case, conditioning the remand on the petitioner depositing the disputed amount. The core legal question was whether the First Appellate Court could lawfully impose a condition requiring the deposit of disputed electricity charges as a prerequisite for the suit's continuation. The Court held that under the Electricity Act, 1910, specifically Section 54-C, a plaintiff is statutorily required to deposit the assessed amount to prevent the disconnection of energy supply. The Court affirmed the principle that special laws exclude general laws. Consequently, the Court upheld the requirement to deposit the disputed amount but modified the order to mandate that the funds be deposited in the trial court rather than directly with the respondent, ensuring the petitioner retains entitlement to any accrued profits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Electricity Act 1910 require a plaintiff to deposit disputed electricity charges in court to maintain a suit against a licensee?
  • Can an appellate court impose a condition of depositing disputed amounts as a prerequisite for remanding a suit for trial on merits?
  • Does the principle that special law excludes general law apply to disputes arising under the Electricity Act 1910?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Mst. Fehmida Kishwar1999 CLC 707 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Anjuman-E-Ghulaman RasoolK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed vs Assistant General Manager and anothers1999 MLD 2778 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal, Etc. vs Abdul Sattar Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 91 · Board of Revenue · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 498 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State and another1999 SCMR 2284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  consolidation of casescomplaint casechallan casecriminal trialprocedural lawjoint trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the trial court's refusal to consolidate a complaint case and a challan case arising from the same F.I.R. The core legal question concerned the procedural propriety of trying a complaint case and a challan case separately when both stem from the same incident. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court noted the consensus among the petitioner, the respondent, and the State that both cases should be consolidated and tried together. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and modified the impugned order to allow for the consolidation of the proceedings. The Court further directed that the petitioner be supplied with the necessary documents as required by law prior to the commencement of the trial. The judgment reinforces the principle that where multiple proceedings arise from the same criminal transaction, consolidation is appropriate to ensure a unified and efficient trial process, provided statutory procedural requirements regarding document supply are met.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complaint case and a challan case arising from the same F.I.R. be consolidated for trial?
  • Is the accused entitled to the supply of documents under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the commencement of a consolidated trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Tariq Mehmood and others1999 MLD 3430 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Niaz Ahmad and anothers1999 MLD 1744 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and 2 others1999 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-31
  service tribunalchange of forumretrospective operationprocedural lawjurisdictiontermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal on the ground that section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, was effective prospectively from 10-6-1997, and thus lacked jurisdiction since the cause of action arose prior to that date. The core legal question was whether the incorporation of section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, involving a change of forum, applies retrospectively to pending or prior causes of action. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a change of forum is a procedural matter and a statute purporting to transfer jurisdiction over causes of action operates retroactively to promote justice, provided no vested rights are impaired. The Court concluded that the Tribunal had jurisdiction when the appeal was presented and was not justified in non-suiting the appellant on procedural grounds. The key principle laid down is that procedural statutes, including those effecting a change of forum, operate retrospectively unless they affect existing rights or cause injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the incorporation of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, is retrospective in nature?
  • Does a change of forum by a law constitute a matter of procedure?
  • Can a statute transferring jurisdiction over causes of action operate retroactively?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs D.I.G. Police, Dera Ghazi Khan and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Aslam and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 799 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs S.H.O. and others1999 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-01
  Anti-Terrorism Actjurisdiction of Special Courtscheduled offencenexus with terrorismconstitutional petitionabductionmens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged the jurisdiction of a Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to take cognizance of a criminal case registered under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged abduction of a married woman. The core legal question was whether an ordinary penal offence merely listed in the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, becomes exclusively triable by a Special Court without establishing a nexus with the objects of terrorism as defined under sections 6, 7, and 8 of the said Act. The Court held that an offence falling under ordinary penal laws cannot be treated as a terrorist act unless it is coupled with the specific intent, mens rea, and objectives envisaged under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan. The key principle laid down is that a clear distinction must be maintained between a run-of-the-mill crime and a terrorist act, and unless an alleged offence strictly falls within the letter and spirit of the special anti-terrorism legislation, special forums lack the jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof.

  Questions settled

  • Does a penal offence merely because of finding mention in the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, become a scheduled offence triable exclusively by a Special Court?
  • Is it necessary for an offence under ordinary penal law to have a nexus with the objects enumerated in sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to constitute a terrorist act?
  • Can a vague allegation regarding the display of a firearm convert an ordinary case of abduction into a terrorist act?
  • Whether a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, has the lawful authority to take cognizance of a run-of-the-mill crime lacking terrorist intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs Mushtarka Mulazmin Action1999 PLC (C.S.) 1116 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-11-19
  civil servantsright to strikecompensatory allowancediscriminationequal protection of lawpublic interest litigationindustrial relationsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the legality of strikes by provincial government employees and their entitlement to a 40% Compensatory Allowance granted to employees in other districts but denied to those in Quetta District. The core legal questions were whether civil servants have a right to strike and whether the exclusion of Quetta-based employees from the allowance constituted unconstitutional discrimination. The Court held that while civil servants possess the right to form associations under Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, they have no legitimate right to strike, go-slow, or lock-out, as such actions violate service discipline and the Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1992. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the government’s denial of the Compensatory Allowance to Quetta employees lacked a rational basis, violating the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that while the state may classify employees for benefits, such classification must be based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the legislation; arbitrary exclusion constitutes discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Do provincial civil servants have a constitutional right to resort to strike, go-slow, or lock-out to press for their demands?
  • Is the denial of a compensatory allowance to government employees in one district, while granting it to those in others, a violation of the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to declare a strike illegal in a public interest litigation?
  • Does the definition of 'misconduct' under the Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1992, prohibit civil servants from resorting to strikes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and another vs Muhammad Amin and 6 others1999 YLR 2593 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Another vs Abdul Sattar And Another1999 CLC 1538 · Board of Revenue · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and 3 others vs The State1999 SCMR 1991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-04
  murderocular testimonyinjured witnessesmedical evidencedeath penaltyleave to appealappreciation of evidenceunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the convictions and death sentences of the petitioners for the murder of four individuals and causing injuries to three others. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular testimony of related, injured witnesses was reliable despite alleged contradictions with medical evidence, and whether the death penalty was appropriate given the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the presence of injured witnesses at the scene was established beyond doubt, and their testimony was credible and corroborated by medical reports. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence do not invalidate testimony, particularly when the ocular account is otherwise confidence-inspiring. Furthermore, the Court ruled that mere relationship of witnesses does not render them unreliable absent evidence of enmity. Regarding sentencing, the Court found the brutal, unprovoked nature of the multiple murders justified the death penalty, rejecting pleas for leniency based on youth or lack of premeditation. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, confirming the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of a witness to the complainant party render their testimony unreliable?
  • Do minor discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness generally considered reliable in criminal proceedings?
  • Does the death penalty remain appropriate for multiple murders committed without provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and 21 others vs The Chairman, Board of Intermediate1999 YLR 752 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal alias Seema vs The State1999 SCMR 2283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-04
  leave to appealminor offenderTa'zirDiyatindefinite imprisonmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the offence. The petitioner was tried under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and convicted under Sections 306 and 308, receiving a sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment as Ta'zir along with payment of Diyat. The High Court subsequently directed that the petitioner be arrested and imprisoned for the non-payment of the Diyat amount. The core legal question concerns the legality of imprisoning a convict for an indefinite period until the payment of Diyat money. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question regarding the application of the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, particularly concerning indefinite imprisonment for non-payment of Diyat.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a minor convict can be imprisoned in jail for an indefinite period till the payment of Diyat money under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal be condoned in cases involving minor offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aftab vs K.B.C.A.1999 YLR 529 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-14
  dangerous buildingdemolition noticeinjunctionstatutory interpretationdelegated legislationbuilding controlprocedural safeguards
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court resolves two applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, concerning an ad interim injunction and a challenge to demolition notices issued by the Karachi Building Control Authority. The plaintiff, claiming ownership and possessory rights over certain premises, challenged notices issued under section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Authority Ordinance 1979 declaring the building dangerous and threatening demolition. The core legal question centered on whether the Karachi Building Control Authority possessed the statutory power to demolish dangerous buildings under section 14 of the 1979 Ordinance, and whether the procedure adopted complied with the law. The Court held that section 14 in its amended form (substituted by Sindh Ordinance No. 3 of 1982) does not confer power upon the Authority to carry out demolition directly when it forms an opinion that a building requires demolition; rather, it only empowers the Authority to require vacation and ejectment, while demolition is restricted to instances of failure to carry out required repairs. The key principle laid down is that delegated legislation cannot enlarge the scope of a statute, and the specific, restrictive procedure and constraints regarding dangerous buildings under section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Authority Ordinance 1979 must be strictly followed to prevent arbitrary action.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Authority Ordinance 1979 empower the Authority to directly demolish a building upon forming an opinion that it requires demolition?
  • Can delegated legislation or regulations enlarge the scope of powers conferred by the parent statute?
  • What is the correct statutory procedure to be followed by the Karachi Building Control Authority under section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Authority Ordinance 1979 regarding dangerous buildings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Crimianl Cases 366 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mubassar Hussain Cheema vs Nasrullah Khan and others1999 MLD 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-16Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Ali and others vs Major Engineer Garrison Engineer (Army1999 PLC 272 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir alias Khan vs The State1999 MLD 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1999 YLR 220 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Ahmed alias Bashari vs The State1999 MLD 649 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ali Akhtar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 680 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali vs Feroze Din And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 343 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali vs Feroze Din and 2 others1999 MLD 2297 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muahammad Ahmed vs Government of Sindh and another1999 SCMR 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-12
  service appealpensionary benefitstemporary employeesuperannuationcivil servantlimitationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the termination of service and pensionary rights of the appellant, who served as a Surveyor under the Government of Sindh from 1956 until his superannuation in 1993. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having served for decades on a temporary or contract basis, was entitled to retirement and pensionary benefits, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing his service appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, having attained the age of superannuation, had no grievance against the cessation of his duties on that date, but ruled that he was a regular government employee entitled to pensionary and retirement benefits under Regulation 371-A of the Civil Services Regulations, notwithstanding his temporary or contract designation. The Court laid down that long-serving temporary government employees are entitled to pensionary benefits upon superannuation, and that technical bars like limitation should be condoned in appropriate circumstances to do substantial justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government employee appointed on a temporary basis who serves for decades is entitled to pensionary benefits upon reaching superannuation?
  • Does describing a government employee as a contract employee in a termination letter make them a contract employee if their actual appointment and service history indicate otherwise?
  • Are temporary government servants covered under Regulation 371-A of the Civil Services Regulations for the purpose of counting temporary service towards pension?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing a service appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the merits of the case under peculiar circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda through her Son and General Attorney vs Muhammad Nadir1999 MLD 3011 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-18
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needlandlord and tenantfixed tenure tenancyrent appealbusiness dislocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlady seeking to evict the respondent-tenant from a commercial shop for the personal bona fide use and occupation of her son. The core legal question was whether the landlady's requirement of the premises for establishing her son's business was in good faith and bona fide, and whether the tenant's potential business dislocation and financial hardship constituted valid grounds to deny eviction. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the landlady successfully established her personal and bona fide requirement, that the tenant's dislocation is a natural consequence not warranting a compassionate approach under the law, and that a landlord is not legally required to prove pre-existing financial resources or business preparation. The key principles laid down are that a landlord's absolute right to rehabilitate their family member through personal use of property cannot be defeated merely by the tenant's business inconvenience, and sufficient statutory safeguards under rent laws neutralize apprehensions of wrongful re-letting.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide use need to establish prior financial resources or business preparation for setting up the business?
  • Can a tenant resist an eviction application solely on the ground of financial loss, inconvenience, or dislocation of business?
  • Does the expiration of a fixed-term tenancy coupled with a contractual notice clause entitle the landlord to seek ejectment for personal use?
  • What statutory remedy is available to a tenant if a landlord fails to use the premises for the personal purpose for which eviction was obtained?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda through General Attorney vs Faqir Muhammad1999 YLR 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda Naz vs Asif Rashid Minhas and anothers1999 PLD Quetta 29 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-10-12
  guardians and wardscustody of minorforum of appealfamily courtjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court assailing an appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, which set aside a trial court order regarding the custody of a minor and remanded the case to be decided in accordance with Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an order passed under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act by a Civil Judge acting as a Family Judge lies to the High Court or to the District Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that pursuant to section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and binding pronouncements of the Supreme Court, an appeal against the order of a Family Judge who is not a District Judge or Additional District Judge lies to the District Court. The principle laid down is that section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 overrides conflicting provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 regarding forum of appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against an order passed by a Family Judge under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act lies to the High Court or to the District Court?
  • Does section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 override the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 regarding the forum of appeal?
  • What is the effect of a Supreme Court declaration of law under Article 189 of the Constitution upon a statutory amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda Begum vs Muhammad Zaheer1999 CLC 917 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-11
  ejectment petitiontentative rent assessmentdefault in payment of rentstriking off defenceRent ControllerPunjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinanceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an order by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, which set aside an ejectment order and remanded the case to the Rent Controller. The core legal question concerns whether a Rent Controller must conduct a detailed inquiry or record evidence before directing a tenant to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether such an order is invalid if passed concurrently with the framing of issues. The High Court held that the Rent Controller is not required to conduct a detailed inquiry or record evidence for a tentative rent assessment, as such determination is provisional and subject to final adjudication. The Court established that the Rent Controller must make a tentative assessment based on available material, and the tenant is bound to comply to avoid penal consequences. Furthermore, the timing of the rent deposit order relative to the framing of issues does not vitiate the order. Consequently, the appellate order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller required to conduct a detailed inquiry or record evidence before passing an order for the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does the simultaneous passing of an order for the deposit of rent and the framing of issues vitiate the Rent Controller's order?
  • Is a tentative determination of rent by a Rent Controller subject to final adjudication at the conclusion of the proceedings?
  • Can a tenant challenge an order for the deposit of rent solely on the grounds that the amount of arrears or the rate of rent is excessive?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Khanum vs Muhammad Irshad Hussain and 2 others1999 YLR 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida A. Sattar and others vs Karachi Building Control1999 SCMR 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-16
  unauthorized constructioninterim orderutility disconnectionwrit jurisdictionsuo motubuilding controlnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three connected appeals against interim orders passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh. The High Court, acting upon a fax message registered as a Constitution Petition, directed various utility agencies to disconnect water, electricity, and gas supplies to buildings in Karachi alleged to have been constructed in violation of building rules. The appellants, claiming to be occupants of several such buildings, challenged these orders, contending they were condemned unheard and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to pass such sweeping interim orders under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that a report by the High Court's Nazir indicated the buildings were unoccupied at the relevant time, creating a factual dispute regarding possession. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interlocutory orders, noting that the appellants should instead approach the High Court with appropriate applications to contest the factual findings. The Court reaffirmed that unauthorized high-rise construction in violation of approved plans is a practice to be strongly deprecated.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court where the underlying factual position regarding possession is disputed?
  • Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant relief against utility disconnection when the appellant has not first sought remedy through a miscellaneous application in the pending High Court petition?
  • Does the unauthorized construction of multi-storeyed buildings in violation of approved plans warrant judicial deprecation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida A. Sattar and others vs K.B.C.A. and others1999 SCMR 2550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-29
  writ jurisdictionnatural justiceinterim orderutility servicesright to be heardconstitutional petitionillegal construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against an interim order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh. The High Court had converted a fax message into a constitutional petition regarding illegal building constructions and subsequently issued an omnibus order directing utility agencies to disconnect water, gas, and electricity services to various buildings without providing the affected occupants or allottees an opportunity to be heard. The core legal question was whether the High Court could, under its writ jurisdiction, order the disconnection of essential utility services at an interim stage without hearing the parties directly affected by such deprivation. The Supreme Court held that such an omnibus order, which deprived occupants of long-standing utility services without prior notice or hearing, was unsustainable at the interim stage. The Court granted leave to appeal and suspended the High Court's order regarding the disconnection of utility services, directing their immediate restoration for the subject buildings, while allowing the main proceedings before the High Court to continue.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution, pass an interim order directing the disconnection of utility services to buildings without hearing the affected occupants?
  • Is it permissible for a court to pass an omnibus order affecting third-party rights at the initial stage of a constitutional petition without notice to those parties?
  • Does the principle of natural justice require that occupants of buildings be heard before an order is passed that deprives them of essential utility services?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zojan through her Legal Heirs and others vs Muhammad Hassan and others1999 MLD 2096 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-08-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra vs The State1999 MLD 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeenat Begum vs Muhammad Hussain1999 MLD 230 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina Kausar vs Deputy District Education Officer (W), Sahiwal1999 PLC (C.S.) 800 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Begum vs District Magistrate, Charsadda and others1999 P Cr. L J 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Begum through Legal Heirs vs Niaz Ahmad1999 MLD 3156 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-27
  Irrevocable power of attorneyAgency coupled with interestSpecific performanceMoulding of reliefContractual agencyDeclaration suitMultiplicity of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for declaration filed by the respondent. The respondent sought to establish the subsistence of an irrevocable general power of attorney executed by the petitioner, arguing it was granted for consideration and created a beneficial interest in the subject property. The petitioner contended that the power of attorney was revocable and the suit was not maintainable in its present form. The Court held that under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, an agency coupled with an interest in the property forming the subject matter of the agency cannot be terminated to the prejudice of the agent. Since the evidence established that the respondent had a beneficial interest, the power of attorney was irrevocable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it possesses the discretion to mould relief according to changed circumstances to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the respondent was granted additional relief of specific performance, subject to the payment of requisite court fees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a principal unilaterally revoke a power of attorney when the agent has a beneficial interest in the subject matter of the agency?
  • Does Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 preclude the revocation of an agency where the agent has an interest in the property?
  • Does a court have the authority to mould relief based on changed circumstances to avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
  • Is a suit for declaration maintainable where the plaintiff seeks to establish the subsistence of an irrevocable power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainib Bi and 4 others vs Mst. Alif Noor alias Alif Bibi and 21 others1999 YLR 1265 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 238 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Mufti vs Commissioner, Bahawalpur, and anothers1999 MLD 2872 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zabaida Begum vs Rehmatullah and 11 others1999 MLD 155 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Walayat Begum vs Revising Authority, M.D.A. through Chairman, Mirpur, Azad Kashmir and 3 others1999 MLD 1549 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-05-22
  plot allotmentMirpur Development AuthorityRevising Authorityjurisdiction of Chairmanwrit jurisdictionpublic utility landdelegation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals arose from a consolidated judgment of the High Court dismissing writ petitions filed against the cancellation of plot allotments by the Revising Authority. The plots in question were allotted to the appellants by the Chairman of the Mirpur Development Authority (M.D.A.) in an area reserved for public utility, specifically near a main water tank and proposed public park. The core legal questions involved whether the Chairman M.D.A. possessed the jurisdiction to make such allotments, whether the Revising Authority was competent to scrutinise and cancel them, and whether constitutional writ jurisdiction could be invoked to protect an illegal order. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the Chairman M.D.A. had no independent power of allotment under Section 48 of the Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance 1974, as allotment powers vested exclusively in the Allotment Committee or its sub-committees, and therefore the Revising Authority acted within its lawful competence in cancelling the illegal allotments. The Court established the principle that extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to perpetuate an illegality or protect ill-gotten gains.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman of the Mirpur Development Authority is vested with the jurisdiction to make plot allotments under the Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance 1974?
  • Can the Allotment Committee delegate its allotment powers to the Chairman under the Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance 1974?
  • Whether the Revising Authority has the legal competence to scrutinise and cancel allotments made by the Chairman of the Mirpur Development Authority?
  • Can the High Court exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction to protect or perpetuate an illegal order or allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. UN Ay Kalsoom vs Superintendent of Police.Vehari and 6 others1999 YLR 2520 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umtul Jamil alias Fakhra vs District Magistrate/Deputy1999 MLD 2280 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →