Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,813 judgments in total.
- Ahbab Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Lahore vs Nazir Ahmed and 111999 SCMR 2486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 6-8-1995, which dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution during the summer vacations, and a subsequent order dated 2-9-1998 restoring the said writ petition upon an application by the respondents. The core legal question concerns the propriety of dismissing a writ petition for non-prosecution during summer vacations without the consent of the parties or their advocates, and its subsequent restoration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that civil matters during summer vacations can only be heard with the consent of the parties or their advocates, thereby upholding the restoration of the writ petition by the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle regarding the hearing of civil matters during court vacations.
Questions settled- Can civil matters be heard during summer vacations without the consent of the parties or their advocates?
- Whether a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution during summer vacations can be legally restored?
- Is a party entitled to restoration of a matter dismissed in their absence during court vacations?
- Agrofoster (Pvt.) Ltd. And 2 others vs Judge, Banking Court No.5, Karachi and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 398 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners impugned an order of the Banking Court granting them leave to defend a recovery suit filed by respondent No. 2 subject to furnishing security for the claimed amount. The core legal question was whether the Banking Court, under Section 10 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, has the power to impose a condition of furnishing security when granting leave to defend upon finding a serious and bona fide dispute. The Sindh High Court held that once a serious and bona fide dispute is raised, leave to defend must be granted without attaching any condition of furnishing security, as the statute does not provide for it at that initial stage, unlike subsequent stages under Section 13 where security can be demanded if proceedings are delayed beyond ninety days. The key principle laid down is that courts cannot add conditions to a statutory provision that the Legislature deliberately omitted, and leave to defend under Section 10 of the 1997 Act is a matter of right once the statutory threshold of a serious and bona fide dispute is met.
Questions settled- Whether the Banking Court can demand security as a condition for granting leave to defend under Section 10 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
- What constitutes a serious and bona fide dispute for the grant of leave to defend under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
- At what stage of the proceedings can a Banking Court require a defendant to furnish security under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
- Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan vs Abdul Wadood And Other1999 CLC 316 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-18Read full judgment →
- Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan through Manager vs Wali1999 CLC 1671 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-05Read full judgment →
- Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another vs Imtiaz1999 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan filed a petition against interlocutory orders passed by the Lahore High Court in a writ petition filed by a former employee who sought to withdraw his option for voluntary retirement under the Golden Handshake Scheme and sought reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of an option of voluntary retirement and consequential reinstatement of a bank employee fall within the terms and conditions of service, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution in favor of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that matters relating to the reinstatement and terms and conditions of service of bank employees, who are declared civil servants under section 2-A of the Federal Service Tribunals Act 1973, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and the High Court's jurisdiction is barred. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned interim orders and directed the High Court to determine the question of its jurisdiction first.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of an option for voluntary retirement and consequential reinstatement fall within the terms and conditions of service?
- Is the jurisdiction of the High Court barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of bank employees declared as civil servants?
- Under what circumstances does the Supreme Court interfere with interlocutory orders passed by the High Court?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over service disputes of employees of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan by virtue of section 2-A of the Federal Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Agha Salim Khurshid, Member National Industrial Relations1999 SCMR 2243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a former Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) seeking the expungement of adverse remarks made against him in a High Court judgment. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in making critical observations regarding the petitioner's judicial performance in a grievance petition, specifically concerning his procedural conduct. The petitioner had restored a dismissed grievance petition and passed a final order the following day without serving notice on the opposite party. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's observations were justified given the petitioner's haste and failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to the opposing party. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to exercise its discretion to interfere, finding no illegality in the High Court's remarks. The key principle laid down is that judicial officers are subject to scrutiny regarding their procedural conduct, and appellate courts are justified in making adverse remarks when a judicial officer acts with undue haste, violates principles of natural justice, or fails to afford parties a fair opportunity to be heard.
Questions settled- Are adverse remarks made by a High Court against a judicial officer regarding procedural conduct subject to expungement if the officer acted with undue haste?
- Does a judicial officer's failure to serve notice on an opposing party before restoring a dismissed petition justify critical judicial observations?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with High Court observations that do not suffer from illegality?
- Agha Muhammad vs The State1999 YLR 2089 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-16Read full judgment →
- Agha Muhammad Aslam vs Collector of Customs, Collectorate of Appraisement and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 751 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-10-25Read full judgment →
- Agha Khuda Bux, Advocate vs The State and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 1209 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
- Agha Kafil Barik vs Secretary, Establishment Division and 6 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 587 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Agha Daver Hussain vs Mrs. Zaibun Nisa Order accordingly.1999 MLD 3088 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
- Agha Abdul Razaque Chishti vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 575 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
- Agarwal Industries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 340 · Rajasthan High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
- Agappa Child Centre vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 1029 · Kerala High Court · 1996-08-08Read full judgment →
- Afzal Mehmood vs Sajjad Ahmad and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 2025 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
- Aftab Iqbal Khan Khichi and another vs Messrs United Distributors1999 SCMR 1326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court of Sindh judgment and decree in a suit for the recovery of Rs. 29,84,704.20, filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The petitioners, who were defendants in the original suit, were granted conditional leave to defend, requiring them to furnish security within 30 days. The petitioners failed to furnish the required security, citing the defendant's absence from the country for Hajj as the reason for the failure to communicate with their counsel. Consequently, the High Court decreed the suit against them. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' absence abroad constituted a valid ground to excuse the failure to comply with the court's conditional order for security. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were fully aware of the ongoing litigation and had an obligation to make necessary arrangements for their defense before leaving the country. The Court emphasized that the law assists the vigilant and not the indolent, refusing to absolve the petitioners of their responsibility due to their absence.
Questions settled- Does a defendant's absence from the country for religious purposes constitute a valid excuse for failing to comply with a court's conditional order to furnish security?
- Is a party to a lawsuit obligated to make arrangements for their defense before proceeding abroad?
- Can a defendant who fails to comply with the conditions for leave to defend under Order XXXVII C.P.C. seek relief from a resulting decree based on personal absence?
- Aftab Hussain vs The State1999 YLR 101 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmed vs Muhammad Shoaib and 2 others1999 PLD Karachi 455 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-20Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 136 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmed and anothers vs Dr. Aurangzeb and 6 others1999 YLR 2456 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-06-25Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmad and another vs The State1999 YLR 128 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
- Aftab Afgan alias Maboo vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1526 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
- Aftab (Private) Limited through Chairman and Chief Executive vs Central1999 MLD 122 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
- Afsar Ali and others vs The State1999 YLR 2265 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-12-29Read full judgment →
- Advocategeneral, Sindh vs Abdul Sattar1999 MLD 2046 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-24Read full judgment →
- Adil Jan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 808 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
- Adidas Salemon vs Abdullah Ismail and others1999 YLR 832 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
- Additional Advocate-General vs Additional Sessions Judgeh, Khairpur and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1947 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
- Adbul Ghani vs District Magistrate, Lahore and others1999 YLR 2038 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-11Read full judgment →
- Acme Fabrik Plast Co. vs Income-Tax Officer and others1999 PTD 917 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
- Achar and 6 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 181 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges the dismissal of an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Adam, which sought the quashment of a subsequent State case following the acquittal of the accused in a prior direct complaint arising from the same incident. The core legal question was whether trying the accused in the State case after their acquittal in the direct complaint for the same offense constitutes double jeopardy under section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Sindh High Court held that where the accused have already been tried, examined, and acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction on the same facts and charges, subjecting them to a second trial for the same offense violates the protection against double jeopardy. The Court laid down the principle that a fresh trial on the same facts and for the same offense is barred under section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once an acquittal by a competent court remains in force.
Questions settled- Whether trying an accused in a State case after their acquittal in a direct complaint for the same offense constitutes double jeopardy?
- Does section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a fresh trial when the accused has already been acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction on the same facts?
- Is a subsequent criminal trial liable to be quashed if it violates the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same offense?
- Abnamro Bank N.V. vs Land Cement Ltd.1999 YLR 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain vs The State1999 YLR 329 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain Shah and anothers vs The State and others1999 YLR 1879 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain Shah And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 88 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
- Abid Ali and others vs Syed Kaural Shah and others1999 CLC 395 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-19Read full judgment →
- Abdus Salam Butt and anothers vs Iqbal Razzaq Butt and 5 others1999 MLD 90 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the issuance of a State Subject Certificate, the subsequent acceptance of nomination papers, and the declaration of respondent No. 1 as a returned candidate for the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction in election disputes where the Election Tribunal lacked statutory power to adjudicate candidate qualifications, and whether the State Subject Certificate was issued without lawful authority and proper evidence. The High Court held that in the absence of constitutional bars or statutory provisions ousting writ jurisdiction (unlike Pakistan or India) and given the deletion of relevant clauses in the election laws denying jurisdiction to the Election Tribunal, the writ petition was fully competent. The Court further held that the State Subject Certificate was issued in flagrant disregard of rules and without supporting evidence. Consequently, the certificate, voter registration, acceptance of nomination papers, and notification declaring respondent No. 1 as the returned candidate were declared illegal, without lawful authority, and void. The key principle laid down is that the High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction in election matters is not barred unless expressly excluded by the Constitution, and orders of special tribunals based on no evidence or misreading are open to judicial review.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir can exercise writ jurisdiction in election disputes in the absence of constitutional provisions analogous to Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does an Election Tribunal have the jurisdiction to set aside an election on the ground that a returned candidate's nomination paper was illegally accepted or that the candidate lacked the requisite qualifications?
- Whether a State Subject Certificate issued by a District Magistrate without supporting evidence or in violation of mandatory rules is open to challenge in the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does the availability of an appeal under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects Act 1980 constitute an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy barring a writ petition?
- Abdur Rehman vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through Managing1999 PLC 185 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1998-03-14Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs S.H.O., Police Station Gulgasht, Multan and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 414 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-27Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Master Abdul Latif1999 CLC 573 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman and 12 others vs Muhammad Akram and 79 others1999 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld concurrent findings of lower courts granting a declaratory decree in favor of the respondent regarding the extinguishment of redemption rights in mortgaged land. The petitioners contended that, pursuant to the Supreme Court's Shariat Appellate Bench decision in Maqbool Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 2063), Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, thereby invalidating the decree. The Supreme Court held that the Shariat Appellate Bench's ruling only became operative on August 31, 1991. Since the suit was instituted in 1976 and the decree passed in 1986, the precedent was inapplicable to the present case. Furthermore, the Court rejected arguments regarding the misreading of evidence and the applicability of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, noting that the latter plea was not raised in the written statement. The Court concluded that the lower courts exercised their discretion justly and that no jurisdictional error warranted interference under revisional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the declaration of Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 as repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam apply retrospectively to decrees passed before the effective date of the judgment?
- Can a plea regarding the acknowledgement of debt under Section 20 of the Limitation Act 1908 be raised for the first time in revision if it was not pleaded in the written statement?
- Does the High Court have grounds to interfere in revisional jurisdiction where concurrent findings of fact are based on evidence and lack jurisdictional error?
- Abdur Razzaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 529 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
- Abdur Razzaq vs Inspector-General of Police, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 457 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-05-12Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rauf vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 426 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid vs Syed Zafar Yab Ali and 3 others1999 SCMR 2478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the landlord against the tenant on grounds of default and personal need. The tenant contended that the property was Waqf property and thus the landlord lacked standing to seek eviction. The Rent Controller, affirmed by the Appellate Court and the High Court, found that the tenant had defaulted on rent and that the landlord had established the requirement for personal use in good faith. The Supreme Court examined whether the disputed shop was indeed Waqf property and whether the landlord, Syed Turab Ali, was precluded from seeking eviction. The Court held that the tenant failed to produce evidence linking the disputed shop to any Waqf property or establishing that the landlord was a Mutawalli. Furthermore, the tenant had previously admitted to paying rent to the landlord, undermining his own defense. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact, noting no misreading or misconstruction of evidence, and dismissed the petition, holding that the tenant failed to substantiate the claim that the property was Waqf.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the landlord's title on the basis of the property being Waqf property without providing independent evidence linking the disputed premises to such Waqf?
- Does an admission of payment of rent to a landlord by a tenant preclude the tenant from subsequently denying the landlord's right to seek eviction?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and appellate courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or misconstruction of evidence?
- Abdur Rashid vs Arshed & Company through Proprietor Muhammad1999 MLD 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-19Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid And Another vs Muhammad Rafiq And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 141 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahim vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1305 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on a retracted confession and a dying declaration when the prosecution fails to establish identity and provide independent corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found the dying declaration unreliable, noting the deceased was in shock or coma, and the occurrence happened in darkness without established identification. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a retracted confession requires independent corroboration in material particulars to sustain a conviction, which was absent here. The Court laid down the principle that while a dying declaration can be sufficient for conviction, it must be scrutinized for the declarant's mental capacity and the absence of mistaken identity; where these are doubtful, independent corroboration is mandatory. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted confession without independent corroboration in material particulars?
- Does a failure to record a memorandum under Section 364(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically invalidate a confession?
- Is a dying declaration reliable if the declarant was in a state of shock or coma at the time of making the statement?
- Does the mere fact of absconding provide sufficient grounds to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Abdur Rahim Khan vs Sher Ali Khan1999 YLR 648 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-14Read full judgment →
- Abdullah vs The State1999 YLR 668 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
- Abdullah vs Shabbir Ahmed And 2 Other1999 CLC 2097 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Khan and another vs The State1999 MLD 683 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
- Abduljillani vs Mst. Jeenat Bi1999 MLD 3331 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul, Jabbar vs Shirin Begum and another1999 YLR 464 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Zahir vs Mir Muhammad And 10 Other1999 CLC 246 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the trial court's dismissal of his civil suit for injunction and the imposition of compensatory costs. The trial court had dismissed the suit and the application for interim injunction simultaneously. The appellant argued that the court acted suo motu without framing issues or providing notice regarding the maintainability of the suit. The High Court observed that while a court possesses the inherent power to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 at any stage—even after considering material beyond the plaint—it must adhere to procedural fairness. The Court held that the trial court erred by dismissing the suit suo motu without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard on the specific issue of the plaint's maintainability. Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal of the suit and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to frame appropriate issues and decide the legal questions after hearing the parties. The dismissal of the interim injunction application was maintained as it was not challenged.
Questions settled- Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after the filing of written statements?
- Is a court required to provide notice to parties before dismissing a suit suo motu for lack of cause of action?
- Does the power to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 limit the court to considering only the contents of the plaint?
- Must a trial court frame issues before dismissing a suit on the basis of its maintainability?
- Abdul Wajid vs Muhammad Ramzan and others1999 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the dismissal of a pre-emption suit by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether an intervenor, claiming a superior right of pre-emption, could defeat a pending pre-emption suit by relying on a subsequent sale made in their favor, if that sale occurred after the statutory limitation period for filing a pre-emption suit had expired. The Supreme Court held that an intervenor can only defeat a pre-emption suit through a subsequent sale if that sale was executed within the period of limitation prescribed by law for the intervenor to file their own pre-emption suit. In this case, the Court found that physical possession of the land had been delivered to the original vendee on 22-6-1971. Consequently, the limitation period for the intervenor to assert their right expired on 22-6-1972. Since the intervenor's notice and subsequent purchase occurred after this date, the claim was time-barred. The Court affirmed that limitation runs from the date of physical possession, not the date of mutation sanction, when possession is proven to have been delivered earlier.
Questions settled- Can an intervenor defeat a pending pre-emption suit by relying on a sale made in their favor after the statutory limitation period for filing a pre-emption suit has expired?
- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence from the date of physical possession or the date of sanction of mutation?
- Is a sale made in recognition of a superior right of pre-emption valid if it occurs after the limitation period for the pre-emptor to file a suit has passed?
- Abdul Wahid Farooq vs Chief Secretary, Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 176 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Waheed Zaman Qureshi vs The Election Authority Through Chairman, Shadman Colony, Lahore And 8Other1999 CLC 112 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against the Election Authority’s decision to cancel the appellant’s election notification. The appellant was initially declared elected, but it was later discovered that the Presiding Officer had failed to count 400 votes for respondent No. 5 due to a tabulation error. The Election Authority, exercising powers under Section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979, corrected this error, cancelled the appellant’s notification, and declared respondent No. 5 elected. The core legal question was whether the Election Authority possessed the jurisdiction to rectify such errors after issuing an initial notification. The Court held that the Election Authority is vested with plenary powers to ensure elections are conducted honestly, justly, and fairly. Correcting a clerical tabulation error is a duty of the Authority and does not constitute an "election dispute" exclusively reserved for the Election Tribunal. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Authority must rectify official negligence to prevent illegal benefits, dismissing the appeal and upholding the correction of the election result.
Questions settled- Does the Election Authority have the power under Section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 to correct a tabulation error after an initial election notification has been issued?
- Is the correction of a clerical tabulation error by the Election Authority considered an election dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal?
- Can a candidate who was declared elected due to a tabulation error invoke constitutional jurisdiction to protect the result of that error?
- Does the Election Authority have the power to rescind an election notification if it was issued based on incorrect data?
- Abdul Waheed Zaman Qureshi vs Election Authority, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 552 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Waheed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1595 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Waheed vs The Settlement Department through Settlement1999 CLC 470 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging orders passed by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, which declared certain properties as evacuee trust property and consequently cancelled the Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.Ds) previously issued to the petitioners. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of official records and trust deeds in determining the status of evacuee property, and whether the petitioners' transfers could be validated under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Chairman’s findings were based on substantial evidence, including official Gazette notifications and a registered trust deed. The Court affirmed that the Chairman possesses the final authority to determine the status of evacuee trust property. Furthermore, the Court established that transfers of such property cannot be validated under Section 10 of the 1975 Act unless the transfer occurred bona fide and the P.T.D. was issued prior to June 1968. As the petitioners’ transfers occurred after this crucial date, they were invalid. The Court also emphasized that it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by quasi-judicial authorities absent perversity.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board?
- What are the conditions required to validate the transfer of urban evacuee trust property under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975?
- Does an entry in official records regarding a religious endowment carry a presumption of truth under the relevant land revenue laws?
- Is the decision of the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board regarding the status of a property as evacuee trust property final?
- Abdul Waheed Khokhar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 412 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab vs The State1999 YLR 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab vs Naim and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Subhan And Other vs Haji Ashiq Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 182 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor vs The General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1462 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor vs Station House Officer and others1999 P Cr. L J 1865 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor vs Printing Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and 41999 PLC (CS.) 114 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor vs G.M., Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1102 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor And Others vs Dr. Wali Muhammad And Other1999 CLC 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 971 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Haji Khush,I Muhammad and others1999 SCMR 1564 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had declined to grant relief in a dispute regarding the specific performance of an agreement to excavate earth. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to specific performance after failing to act for a significant period following the execution of an agreement, and whether the respondent was justified in selling the property to third parties. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on two grounds: first, it was barred by limitation due to a one-day delay without an application for condonation; second, on merits, the Court found the High Court's order unexceptionable. The Court held that a party cannot bind another to an agreement for an indefinite period. It established the principle that where no specific limitation is fixed, a party seeking specific performance must act reasonably and initiate proceedings within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner would not suffer irreparable loss, as monetary remedies, including the recovery of paid amounts and potential damages, remained available.
Questions settled- Is a party entitled to specific performance of an agreement if they fail to act within a reasonable time?
- Can a party bind another to a contract for an indefinite period?
- Does the absence of a fixed limitation period in an agreement relieve a party from the duty to act reasonably?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable if filed beyond the limitation period without an application for condonation of delay?
- Abdul Sattar Noor Muhammad and others vs The Government of Balochistan, through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Quetta and othersPTCL 1999 CL. 252 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar Noor Muhammad & Co. and others vs Government of Pakistan and others1999 PTD 4016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the applicability of an increased rate of advance income tax on imported vessels where the bills of entry were filed prior to the effective date of the Finance Act 1995. The appellants, engaged in ship-breaking, imported vessels and filed bills of entry before July 1, 1995, paying advance income tax at the then-prevailing rate of 2%. Following an amendment increasing the rate to 4%, the customs authorities demanded the difference for subsequent installments of customs duty. The core legal question was whether the increased rate applied to imports where the initial liability had been discharged prior to the amendment. The Supreme Court held that the liability for advance income tax is determined at the time of the bill of entry. If the full advance tax was paid before the rate change, the liability was discharged, and subsequent amendments could not be applied retrospectively. The Court rejected the argument that the deferment of customs duty installments prevented the full payment of advance income tax, establishing that taxpayers may discharge their advance tax liability in full upon the initial entry, thereby insulating themselves from subsequent rate hikes.
Questions settled- Does an amendment to the rate of advance income tax apply to imports where the bill of entry was filed and the tax liability was discharged prior to the amendment's effective date?
- Does the deferment of customs duty installments under the Deferment of Import Duty (on Ships for Scrapping) Rules, 1993, prevent an importer from paying the full advance income tax liability upfront?
- Is the liability for advance income tax under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 determined by the rate prevailing at the time of the presentation of the bill of entry?
- Abdul Sattar by Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 470 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and others vs Sh. Muhammad Zaki and 4 others1999 YLR 865 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge decreeing the respondents' suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of agricultural land dated 23-2-1963. The appellants, successors-in-interest of the deceased vendor, contested the suit alleging that the document was merely executed to facilitate the formation of a garden housing society and that the property was voidly encumbered by an attachment order issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The core legal questions involved the true nature of the transaction, the enforceability of a sale agreement during an alleged prior attachment, and the applicability of Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that the transaction was indeed a valid agreement for sale and that the attachment order did not render the subsequent agreement void ab initio, as Section 64 C.P.C. only renders alienations voidable to the extent of the attaching creditor's interest, which had already been fully satisfied through a subsequent compromise and conveyance. The court laid down the principle that a sale agreement executed during an attachment is not void ab initio but merely voidable at the instance of the affected attaching creditor, and successors of a vendor cannot exploit their own wrong or a satisfied attachment to resist specific performance.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement to sell immovable property executed while the property is under attachment is void ab initio or merely voidable?
- Can the legal representatives of a vendor resist a suit for specific performance on the ground of a previous attachment when the attaching creditor's claim has already been satisfied?
- Does an attachment order take effect without actual compliance with the requirements of attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a transaction entered into under the guise of forming a housing society can override a clear written agreement for the sale of land supported by partial consideration and delivery of possession?
- Abdul Sattar And 4 Others vs Tariq Aziz And 7 Other1999 CLC 1146 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-12-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and 32 others vs Lahore Development Authority, Lahore1999 MLD 411 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and 2 others vs Muhammad Saleem and 2 others1999 YLR 2698 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar alias Abdul vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 764 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Samad vs Mst. Rashkejehan and others1999 SCMR 1353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order upholding an ejectment decree against the petitioner-tenant regarding a commercial shop. The core legal question was whether a landlord is precluded from seeking ejectment on the ground of personal need if they occupy another rented shop in the vicinity, and whether the landlord must prove the insufficiency of existing premises under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The Supreme Court held that the statutory restriction regarding the occupation of 'any other such building' applies exclusively to buildings owned by the landlord, not to rented premises. Relying on established jurisprudence regarding similar provisions in other rent laws, the Court clarified that the expression 'building' does not encompass rented property. Furthermore, the Court observed that the tenant failed to demonstrate that the landlord’s need was not bona fide or that existing premises were sufficient. Consequently, the Court found no error in the High Court’s decision, affirmed the ejectment order, and dismissed the petition, granting the tenant a period to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Does the term 'building' in Section 17(4)(b)(ii) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, include rented premises occupied by the landlord?
- Must a landlord prove the insufficiency of existing premises to succeed in an ejectment application based on personal need?
- Does the restriction against a landlord occupying 'any other such building' apply to premises owned by the landlord or rented premises?
- Abdul Samad and 19 others vs Director Excise and Taxation (Admn.), Government of Sindh and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 872 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdul Saleem and 104 others vs Managing Director, K.E.S.C., Karachi1999 PLC (C.S.) 818 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Salam vs Muhammad Yaqoob and another1999 CLC 1005 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 432 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman and 5 others vs The State1999 YLR 1766 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 847 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq vs Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad1999 PLC (C.S.) 677 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq vs Muhammad Islam and 3 others1999 SCMR 1714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, with leave of the Court, arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition against the remand of a case by the District Judge. The matter originated from a suit for specific performance of a contract, which was compromised, leading to a compromise decree upon default. A respondent filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 alleging that the compromise decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and that he never authorized a compromise. The trial Court dismissed the application summarily, but the District Judge remanded the case for decision after inquiry, a view upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where a party specifically denies authorizing a compromise or alleges fraud and misrepresentation in an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the trial Court cannot decide the matter in a summary manner without framing proper issues and allowing the parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be decided summarily without framing issues and recording evidence when fraud and lack of authorization are alleged?
- Does an advocate have the implied authority to compromise a suit on behalf of a client?
- Whether a consent decree can be challenged as the result of fraud and misrepresentation under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Abdul Razzaq Butt vs Kalsoom Bibi1999 MLD 30 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order by a Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought the option to be tried by a different court. The petitioner argued that the right to choose the trial court applies to any court holding a trial, not just magistrates. The court examined whether Section 191, Cr.P.C. applies when the judge presiding over the trial is different from the judge who originally summoned the accused, and whether special laws override this general provision. The Court held that the revision petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that the rationale behind Section 191, Cr.P.C. is to prevent bias when the same judge who summoned the accused also conducts the trial; where the summoning judge and the trial judge are different, the provision is inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that special legislation, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on specific courts, overrides the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the transfer or choice of trial courts.
Questions settled- Does Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when the judge conducting the trial is different from the judge who summoned the accused?
- Can the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the choice of trial court be invoked when a special law confers exclusive jurisdiction on a specific court?
- Is the right to choose a trial court under Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available if the accused was not summoned under Section 190(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Abdul Razzaq alias Baboo vs The State and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 320 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak Tabba and 2 others vs Jetpur Memon Relief Society1999 CLC 2077 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf vs The State1999 SCMR 2253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the petitioner's conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question concerned the credibility of the victim’s testimony and whether the conviction for rape was sustainable, given the High Court's prior observation that the victim might have been a consenting party. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The Court rejected the contention that the victim was a consenting party, emphasizing that she was a minor at the time of the incident and was subjected to rape at pistol point. Corroborated by medical evidence and witness testimony, the victim’s account was found to be confidence-inspiring. The Court affirmed that in cases involving heinous and brutal offences like rape, where the evidence is reliable, the accused deserves no leniency. The judgment reinforces the principle that consistent victim testimony, supported by medical and ocular evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of a rape victim, when corroborated by medical evidence, constitute sufficient proof of guilt?
- Is a minor capable of being a consenting party in an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a conviction for rape be sustained when the accused claims the victim was a consenting party?
- Abdul Rauf vs The President, Karachi Boat Club, Karachi and 2 others1999 PLC 406 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1999-02-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf and another vs The State1999 MLD 370 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf alias Rauf vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1109 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused facing charges under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following an FIR alleging abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established sufficient grounds to deny bail, specifically regarding the evidentiary requirements for Zina and the applicability of the prohibitory clause under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient evidence of the act of penetration, noting that the mere recovery of the prosecutrix from the accused's house is insufficient to infer Zina. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the stringent evidentiary standards for Zina, requiring four eyewitnesses or a confession, were not met. Additionally, the Court criticized the lack of scientific rigor in the investigation, particularly the failure to group semen samples. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause.
Questions settled- Is the recovery of a woman from the house of an accused sufficient to establish the offence of Zina?
- Does the absence of four eyewitnesses or a confession preclude the denial of bail in Zina cases?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to conduct scientific grouping of semen samples found on the prosecutrix?
- Does a delayed FIR without a plausible explanation constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Abdul Rasool vs The State1999 YLR 353 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs The State and others1999 YLR 1298 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, which rejected a previously submitted Local Commissioner's report regarding a site inspection in a criminal trial under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Had) Order 1979. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority to appoint a Local Commissioner for site inspection under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the court could subsequently review and recall its own interlocutory order appointing such a commissioner. The Federal Shariat Court held that the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not provide for the appointment of a Local Commissioner for site inspection; rather, Section 539-B explicitly empowers only the judge or magistrate to conduct such inspections personally. Furthermore, the Court held that the bar against reviewing judgments under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to interlocutory orders. Consequently, the trial court acted within its jurisdiction to recall its erroneous order. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the petitioner's application for a personal site inspection by the court.
Questions settled- Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a trial court to appoint a Local Commissioner for site inspection?
- Is a trial court prohibited from reviewing or recalling its own interlocutory orders under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Who is authorized to conduct a site inspection under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Abdul Rashid Khan vs Mst. Hassan Jan and 7 others1999 P Cr. L J 1321 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Khan and 8 others vs President, Services Institute P.A.F.1999 MLD 1870 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the legal representatives of a deceased lessee and subsequent licensee seeking to restrain the respondents from forcibly dispossessing them from a petrol pump-cum-service station site. The core legal question was whether a licence becomes irrevocable under section 60(b) of the Easements Act, 1882, when a permanent structure exists on the premises, and whether a licensee whose licence has expired can be evicted without a court decree. The Lahore High Court held that the statutory provisions of section 60 regarding irrevocability give way to the express or implied terms of a contract between the parties, and since the parties executed licence agreements for limited periods, the licences stood revoked upon expiry under section 62. Furthermore, the court held that upon expiration of a licence, the licensee's possession becomes unlawful, and the owner is entitled to use reasonable minimum force to expel them without needing to file a civil suit for possession. Discretionary constitutional relief was denied to unlawful occupants. The key principle laid down is that contractual stipulations regarding the duration and revocability of a licence override the statutory presumptions of irrevocability under section 60(b) of the Easements Act, 1882.
Questions settled- Does section 60(b) of the Easements Act 1882 override an express contractual agreement between the parties regarding the revocability and limited duration of a licence?
- Whether a licence granted for a limited period is deemed revoked upon the expiry of that period under the Easements Act 1882?
- Is a licensor required to obtain a court decree for possession before evicting a licensee whose licence has expired?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked by an unlawful occupant of a property to resist eviction after the expiry of a licence?