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.

• Abdul Rashid Etc. vs (Raja) Rustam Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 94 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1999 YLR 555 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid And Others vs Nek Alam And 6 Other1999 CLC 1368 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and others vs Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenues, Islamabad and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 464 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1997-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid And Another vs Raja Rustam Ali And 2 Other1999 CLC 152 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and 5 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 879 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid alias Teddi vs The State1999 YLR 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Mst. Momina Khatoon and another1999 YLR 342 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman and 4 others vs The State1999 MLD 2246 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 93 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs The State1999 YLR 567 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Bhatti vs A.C., Sheikhupura and anothers1999 MLD 821 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 563 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum Khan vs Muhammad Said Khan and 26 others1999 YLR 594 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadoos vs Abid Hussain and others1999 MLD 1638 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-08-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State1999 MLD 2344 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Abdul Karim through Chief Secretary and 4 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 947 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-02-04
  compulsory retirementreinstatementlocus standiwrit of mandamuscivil servantpowers of prime ministerestoppel and acquiescencerevision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by leave of the court, challenges a judgment of the High Court that accepted a writ petition and directed the implementation of orders passed by the Prime Minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir reinstating respondent Abdul Karim to service as P.A. to the Advocate-General with back benefits, more than seven years after his compulsory retirement. The appellant, Abdul Qadir, who was subsequently appointed to the post, contended that he had locus standi as a permanently confirmed employee and that the Prime Minister's reinstatement order was unlawful, time-barred under revision rules, and inconsistent with prior judicial findings of the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved whether a third-party appointee has locus standi to challenge such a writ, whether the Prime Minister possessed the authority to reinstate a retired employee after a prolonged delay in violation of statutory revision periods, and whether equitable relief could be granted to a litigant whose conduct involved acquiescence and estoppel. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the appellant had locus standi, that the Prime Minister's order violated the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1991, and that equitable relief could not be extended to a respondent who had voluntarily sought retirement, received substantial pension benefits, and whose conduct barred relief. The judgment established that executive authorities cannot bypass statutory limitation periods and binding judicial pronouncements through belated, non-compliant review orders, and that subordinate officials have a statutory duty under the Rules of Business to point out illegal orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does a permanently confirmed public servant have locus standi to challenge a High Court judgment directing the reinstatement of a predecessor when such implementation displaces him from service?
  • Can the Prime Minister competently reinstate a compulsorily retired employee through a revision petition filed years beyond the mandatory limitation period prescribed under the service rules?
  • Is a writ of mandamus maintainable to compel the implementation of an executive order that violates statutory provisions, rules of business, and binding judgments of the Supreme Court?
  • Does the principle of estoppel disentitle a civil servant who voluntarily sought retirement and accepted substantial pension benefits from subsequently challenging his retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 2239 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer Khan and others vs Chairman, C.D.A. through its Chairman1999 YLR 247 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-23
  land acquisitioncapital development authoritydevelopment schemeconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsproperty rightsdiscriminatory treatmentwildlife national park
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple consolidated writ petitions filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of their lands in Banni Galla, Islamabad, by the Capital Development Authority (CDA). The core legal questions involved whether land within specified areas could be acquired without a formal scheme prepared under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and whether the acquisition and subsequent demolition of houses were lawful, bona fide, and consistent with fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court held that the CDA's acquisition was illegal, conducted in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and tainted by discriminatory treatment violating Articles 23, 24, and 25 of the Constitution. The ratio laid down is that the CDA does not possess unfettered powers to acquire land or demolish structures in specified areas without first framing a proper development scheme under Sections 11, 12, and 13, issuing valid advance notices, and strictly adhering to the statutory procedure, including the payment of market-value compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Capital Development Authority acquire land in specified areas without first framing and approving a formal development scheme under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960?
  • Does the availability of an alternate remedy under the statute bar the High Court from exercising its power of judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether private land can be subjected to permanent restrictions on use or acquisition without strict compliance with the statutory provisions and payment of compensation under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960?
  • Does selective acquisition of land in a particular locality while sparing similarly situated areas constitute a violation of the principle of equal protection of law under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manna N alias Billa vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 74 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1031 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and anothers vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 438 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and anothers vs Assistant Political Agent, Bara and 61999 MLD 2661 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 81 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The S.H.O.1999 P Cr. L J 277 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Khan and anothers vs Mst. Anwar Begum1999 MLD 2783 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and 2 others vs Waris Ali and another1999 YLR 1668 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31
  power of attorneyrevocation of authoritydoctrine of ratificationvoid ab initiorevision petitionunauthorized salepleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition concerns a dispute over the sale of agricultural land by an agent acting under a revoked power of attorney. The core legal question was whether the principal had ratified the unauthorized sale by his conduct, thereby validating the transaction. The petitioners argued that the principal’s failure to challenge other similar sales performed by the same agent amounted to ratification under the Contract Act. The Court held that the sale was void ab initio because the agent lacked authority at the time of the transaction. The Court affirmed that the doctrine of ratification requires the principal to have full knowledge of all material circumstances and cannot be applied to validate a void act. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the plea of ratification could not be entertained as it was inconsistent with the petitioners' original pleadings in the plaint, which asserted the agent's valid authority. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the appellate court's finding that the sale was unauthorized and the principal was not bound by the agent's actions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a principal be held to have ratified an unauthorized sale by an agent if the plea of ratification was not raised in the original plaint?
  • Does the doctrine of ratification apply to an act performed by an agent after the revocation of their power of attorney?
  • Can a party introduce a new case in evidence that is inconsistent with the pleadings set out in the plaint?
  • Is a sale of property made by an agent without authority, after the revocation of the power of attorney, considered void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 559 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Incharge Police Post, Ferozak.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 107 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Awan vs Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax ,1999 PTD 2910 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Anjum, and 3 others vs Regional Transport Authority.1999 YLR 1 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council and 41999 PLC (C.S.) 244 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Nasir and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Inspectorgeneral, Police and others1999 P Cr. L J 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12
  constitutional petitionpolice investigationduty of policestolen vehiclewrit of mandamusmalafide investigationstatutory dutiespolice inaction
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arose from a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by the petitioner seeking directions against police authorities for failing to properly investigate FIR No. 266 of 1997 registered under sections 457 and 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and to recover a stolen vehicle. The core legal questions examined the scope of statutory duties of police officers regarding crime investigation, the accountability of public functionaries, and the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 to intervene in police investigations marred by mala fides or inaction. The court held that while the judiciary generally does not interfere with ongoing police investigations, the High Court is fully competent under Article 199 to intervene and issue directions where an investigation is conducted mala fide, without jurisdiction, or where police functionaries fail to exercise their statutory duties. The key principles laid down emphasize that police investigation must be fair, honest, and aimed at finding the truth to protect the innocent and bring the guilty to justice, and that state functionaries are bound to act in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in a criminal investigation under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What are the statutory duties and obligations of a police officer upon receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Whether the police are legally bound to investigate impartially to discover the truth rather than merely building a case for the prosecution?
  • Does a police officer incur penal liability under Section 29 of the Police Act 1861 for willful breach or neglect of duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif And Other vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour Service Cases 61 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1300 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and 2 others vs The General Manager, Pakistan Railway, Lahore and 42 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 204 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Aassi vs The State1999 MLD 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28
  criminal trialadversarial systemcourt's power to summon evidencehandwriting expertmiscarriage of justicerevision petitionhostile witnessjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged a trial court's order directing a handwriting expert to examine disputed documents after the prosecution had closed its case and the accused’s statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, had been recorded. The petitioner contended that the criminal justice system is adversarial, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act as an investigator by filling lacunae in the prosecution's case. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court possesses the authority to call for additional evidence on its own motion to ensure a just and correct decision. The Court affirmed that criminal trials are not purely adversarial; rather, the judge has a duty to elucidate points left in obscurity to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Relying on Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, the Court ruled that the trial judge’s power to summon evidence is not restricted by the stage of the trial, provided the evidence is relevant to determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal trial court have the jurisdiction to summon additional evidence on its own motion after the prosecution has closed its case?
  • Is the criminal justice system in Pakistan strictly adversarial, or does it allow for inquisitorial powers by the trial judge to ensure justice?
  • Can a trial court order a handwriting expert to examine documents after the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been recorded?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to record explicit reasons for summoning additional evidence invalidate the order if the reasons are apparent from the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Secretary, Government of Pakistan and others1999 SCMR 1150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10
  retrospective effectservice lawleave to appealservice tribunallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal addresses the legal question of whether Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 possesses retrospective effect. The petitioner challenged an order of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal on the premise that the said provision lacked retrospective application. The Supreme Court, referencing its prior rulings in Civil Appeal No. 1513 of 1998 and connected matters, affirmed that the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is indeed retrospective in nature. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the Service Tribunal's decision in light of this established legal position. The Court also noted that the petition was filed with a two-day delay, directing that the issue of limitation be addressed during the hearing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 have retrospective effect?
  • Is the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973 applicable to cases pending or arising before its enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Rashid Ahmad1999 MLD 2156 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22
  civil revisionsuit for declarationclerical mistakemutationspecific performancejurisdictionagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a dispute over the ownership of land and property following an agreement to sell. The petitioner challenged the appellate court's decision, which had reversed the trial court's finding that a suit for declaration was not maintainable based on an agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether a suit for declaration is maintainable to rectify a clerical error in a mutation record where the sale transaction, including payment of consideration and delivery of possession, had already been fully executed and acknowledged before a Revenue Officer. The Court held that since the sale transaction was complete, the possession delivered, and the mutation sanctioned, the respondent had acquired full ownership. Consequently, a suit for declaration to rectify a subsequent clerical omission in the mutation sheet was the appropriate remedy, rather than a suit for specific performance. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, emphasizing that revision jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is limited to jurisdictional errors and cannot be invoked to challenge findings of fact or law that do not affect jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for declaration maintainable to rectify a clerical error in a mutation record after the sale transaction has been fully executed and possession delivered?
  • Can a suit for declaration be maintained where the underlying transaction was based on an agreement to sell that has already been acted upon and completed?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding findings of fact or law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Jehangir and another1999 YLR 1908 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-05-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Abandoned Properties Organization1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1376 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and another vs National Tariff Commission through Chairman and 3 others1999 PLC (S.C.) 837 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and 4 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 1558 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State1999 MLD 3236 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The Returning Officer/Ac, HubK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 601 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Revising Authority, M.D.A., Mirpur and 4 others1999 MLD 1278 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 186 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem vs Returning Officer, Quaidabad, District Khushab and 21999 MLD 3244 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem and another vs The State1999 MLD 3305 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jameel Khan vs The State1999 MLD 681 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jalil vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1811 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Secretary HealthK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hassan alias Noor Hassan alias Hanan and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1936 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 564 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs Mst. Mughlani and 10 others1999 YLR 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs General Manager (Personnel), Su Northern Gas Pipelines1999 PLC (C.S.) 565 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-01-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs Ali Akbar and others1999 SCMR 2531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-03
  redemption of mortgagelimitation actnovation of contractmortgagee rightsadverse possessionacknowledgement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the defendant-petitioner's civil revision and upheld the decrees of the courts below declaring that the respondent-mortgagors were entitled to redeem the disputed land. The core legal questions involved whether the mortgage had become time-barred, extinguishing the right of redemption, and how section 20 of the Limitation Act applies to mortgages and acknowledgements. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings regarding title and novation of the contract were correct, and that subsequent mutations and changes in mortgagee rights constituted a novation of contract, giving a fresh start to limitation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the interpretation of section 20 of the Limitation Act, holding that the receipt of produce by a mortgagee in possession constitutes an acknowledgement, rendering the Privy Council view in Muhammad Akbar Khan v. Mst. Motai no longer valid. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the receipt of rent or produce by a mortgagee in possession extends the period of limitation for redemption under section 20 of the Limitation Act?
  • Does a change in parties and mortgage charge through subsequent mutations amount to a novation of contract?
  • Can a mortgagee prescribe title to mortgaged property by time-barred mortgage when a civil court has already finally determined the title question against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Haque Nawaz1999 CLC 120 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan and 3 others vs Sardar Ghulam Ahmad Khan and 411999 YLR 2440 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed, Naib-Qasid vs Secretary, Law and Parliamentary1999 PLC (C.S.) 600 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State1999 MLD 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Muhammad Abdullah and others1999 SCMR 2589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-05
  suspension of sentenceenhancement of sentencecriminal revisionjudicial discretionbail pending appealprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined the suspension of a sentence awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner was initially convicted by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. Upon the complainant's revision petition, the Additional Sessions Judge enhanced the sentence to five years and increased the fine. The petitioner challenged this enhancement and sought suspension of the sentence before the High Court, which was refused. The Supreme Court, upon review, noted the petitioner's contention that the enhancement was made without proper notice or hearing, though the State disputed this. Without definitively resolving the procedural dispute regarding the notice for enhancement, the Supreme Court held that given the nature of the sentence and the circumstances, the High Court should have exercised its discretion to suspend the sentence. Consequently, the Court converted the petitions into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the appropriateness of exercising judicial discretion in favor of the convict in such instances.

  Questions settled

  • Should a court exercise discretion to suspend a sentence when the underlying conviction is subject to an enhancement challenge?
  • Is it appropriate for an appellate court to grant bail pending the final adjudication of a criminal revision petition involving sentence enhancement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs Haji Muhammad Javed1999 MLD 3031 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-30
  rent controllerlandlord and tenant relationshipejectment applicationstriking off defensejurisdictionsummary proceedingsSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of rent appeals arising from ejectment applications filed by the respondent against the appellants. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller, upon the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship by the alleged tenants, could summarily pass an order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, directing the deposit of rent, and subsequently strike off the defense for non-compliance, without first adjudicating the jurisdictional issue of the existence of that relationship. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned orders were nullities. The Court ruled that when the relationship of landlord and tenant is specifically denied, the Rent Controller lacks the jurisdiction to proceed with ejectment or rent deposit orders until that preliminary issue is resolved. The Court emphasized that the Rent Controller cannot decide the existence of such a relationship in a summary or arbitrary manner. Instead, the Rent Controller must afford both parties a full opportunity to lead evidence and determine the issue, preferably alongside the final disposal of the main case, rather than presuming ownership equates to landlordship.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller pass an order for the deposit of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 before determining the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship when that relationship is disputed?
  • Is a Rent Controller competent to strike off a tenant's defense for non-compliance with a rent deposit order without first deciding the jurisdictional issue of the landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Does the mere claim of ownership of a premises automatically establish a landlord-tenant relationship for the purposes of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and 3 others vs The State1999 YLR 1362 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed alias Hameed vs The State1999 MLD 752 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs The State1999 YLR 370 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haffez vs University of the Punjab through Its Vice-K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 294 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs University of the Punjab And Another1999 CLC 129 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 106 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 477 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Habib Durrani vs Toriali1999 CLC 207 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-06-30
  specific performancesale agreementtime is essenceimmovable propertyequitable reliefcontractual obligationearnest moneybreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a trial court decree for the specific performance of a sale agreement concerning a residential property. The core legal question was whether time was of the essence in the contract, thereby justifying the appellant’s forfeiture of the earnest money and refusal to complete the sale upon the respondent’s alleged delay in payment. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the appeal. It held that time was not of the essence in this contract, as the agreement lacked an express provision to that effect. The court clarified that a penalty clause for breach serves as a sanction for enforcement rather than a stipulation making time the essence. Furthermore, the respondent’s conduct did not demonstrate abandonment or waiver of the contract. The court affirmed that specific performance is an equitable remedy available unless the plaintiff’s conduct disentitles them to such relief. Consequently, the court maintained the decree for specific performance, ordering the respondent to pay the balance amount plus additional compensation for the delay, ensuring equitable resolution between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Is time considered the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property in the absence of an express provision?
  • Does a penalty clause in a sale agreement automatically render time the essence of the contract?
  • Can a court grant specific performance of a sale agreement even after the expiry of the period fixed for payment?
  • What factors determine whether a party is entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Abrar Hussain1999 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-23
  ejectment proceedingsco-ownershippersonal requirementrent defaultunpartitioned propertyDisplaced Persons Actlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves civil appeals regarding ejectment proceedings for a large, unpartitioned property transferred to fifty-nine individuals under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question concerns whether a co-owner of such unpartitioned property can maintain an ejectment application against a tenant on grounds of default and personal requirement, particularly when other co-owners oppose the action. The Supreme Court held that while a co-owner may maintain an ejectment application for default without impleading other co-owners, an application for personal requirement is incompetent until the property is partitioned by metes and bounds, especially when other co-owners contest the action. The Court established that a co-owner can file for ejectment on grounds of default, but any resulting order benefits all co-owners, not just the applicant. Conversely, personal requirement claims by a co-owner of unpartitioned joint property are unsustainable, as allowing one co-owner to claim the entire property for personal use against the wishes of others would be illogical and unreasonable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-owner of an unpartitioned property maintain an ejectment application against a tenant on the ground of default?
  • Is an ejectment application based on personal requirement competent when filed by a co-owner of an unpartitioned property against the opposition of other co-owners?
  • Does an ejectment order obtained by one co-owner for default inure to the benefit of all co-owners?
  • Does the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order (PTO) create a landlord-tenant relationship under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Farooqi vs Chairman, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council1999 PLC (C.S.) 1527 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-02-22
  civil servantup-gradation of postspay parityretrospective promotionservice tribunaldepartmental promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the claim of Treasury Accountants in the Audit and Accounts Department of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council seeking promotion and up-gradation of their pay scales with retrospective effect from 18th March, 1969, based on a historical policy notification concerning parity with West Pakistan. The appellant challenged the Accountant-General's promotion order dated 28th June, 1997, which implemented the Council's decision of 13th May, 1997, up-grading the posts to BS-16 with effect from 1st May, 1997. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the appellant failed to challenge the core administrative order of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council dated 13th May, 1997, which fixed the effective date of up-gradation as 1st May, 1997, thereby allowing that order to attain finality. The Court ruled that the Accountant-General lacked the authority to grant retrospective effect prior to the date sanctioned by the Council, and that the 1969 notification did not create an enforceable statutory right to pay parity. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can challenge a consequential promotion order without challenging the foundational administrative order fixing the effective date of up-gradation?
  • Does a general policy notification promising pay parity with another jurisdiction create an enforceable statutory right through courts of law?
  • Whether an subordinate authority like the Accountant-General has the power to grant retrospective effect to a promotion prior to the date sanctioned by the competent rule-making authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 609 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani ' vs Barkat Masih and another1999 SCMR 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-03
  civil revisionpermanent injunctioncompromiseejectmentleave to appealSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision, which had maintained the concurrent lower court decisions rejecting the petitioner's plaint in a suit for permanent injunction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could maintain a separate suit for permanent injunction regarding property that was already the subject-matter of a prior compromise in constitutional proceedings relating to his ejectment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was merely attempting to prolong his possession and defeat a lawful ejectment order after having already accepted the monetary terms of the prior compromise. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings regarding the identity of the subject-matter bar such relitigation, thereby refusing leave to appeal and dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party maintain a suit for permanent injunction regarding property that was the subject-matter of a prior compromise in constitutional proceedings?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the identity of the subject-matter in a compromise can be disturbed without substantiation from the record?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to leave to appeal when proceedings are instituted solely to prolong possession and defeat an ejectment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Mst. Amtul Saeeda1999 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-05
  eviction proceedingsdefault in rentelectricity chargesmutual agreementoral agreementrented premises ordinancelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant regarding commercial premises in Karachi. The landlord alleged default in rent payment and electricity charges. The Rent Controller found the appellant in default on both counts, a decision upheld by the High Court, which concluded that a mutual oral agreement existed requiring rent payment by the 7th of each month, and that unpaid electricity charges constituted rent. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether a period for rent payment had been fixed by mutual agreement. The Court held that the landlord's claim of a mutual agreement regarding the payment date was not challenged during cross-examination, thereby establishing the agreement's validity despite the absence of a written document. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under the relevant ordinance, unpaid electricity charges for which the tenant is responsible constitute 'rent,' and failure to pay them renders the tenant liable for ejectment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the tenant's default.

  Questions settled

  • Can an oral agreement between a landlord and tenant establish a specific date for rent payment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance?
  • Do unpaid electricity charges, for which a tenant is responsible, constitute 'rent' for the purpose of eviction proceedings?
  • Does the failure to challenge a landlord's testimony regarding a mutual agreement on rent payment during cross-examination establish the existence of such an agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Judge, Family Court and others1999 SCMR 2631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-01
  Khuladissolution of marriageconstitutional jurisdictionreappraisal of evidencereconciliationfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court in a constitutional petition relating to a family cause for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula. The Family Court had initially dismissed the wife's suit for dissolution of marriage. Upon constitutional petition, the High Court reappraised the evidence, held that the Family Court ignored material evidence showing the parties could not live within the limits prescribed by Allah Almighty, and dissolved the marriage. The petitioner argued that the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, was not competent to substitute its own findings of fact for those of the trial court. The Supreme Court acknowledged the general proposition regarding the limits of constitutional jurisdiction in reappraising evidence, but declined to interfere or remand the matter because the wife explicitly expressed deep hatred towards the husband before the court, and reconciliation efforts proved entirely unsuccessful. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal to prevent perpetuating a hateful union between the estranged spouses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction is competent to substitute its own findings of fact for those recorded by the trial court after appraising evidence?
  • Can a marriage be dissolved on the ground of Khula when the wife expresses fixed hatred towards the husband and reconciliation efforts fail?
  • Will the Supreme Court decline to interfere with a High Court judgment dissolving a marriage through Khula when an estranged union cannot be reconciled?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Inspector-General of Police, Karachi and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 668 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1998-03-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs C.B.R.1999 P.C.T.L.R. 393 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs Larkana Municipal Corporation and others1999 CLC 885 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 2726 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1739 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Alias Aphu vs The Statek.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 524 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 277 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-10
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationprohibitory clausediscretionary imprisonmentArshnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from the cancellation of bail by the Sessions Judge, Khushab, in a case involving charges under sections 337-D and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the offence under section 337-D falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby justifying the cancellation of bail. The High Court held that the offence under section 337-D, which primarily prescribes the payment of Arsh, makes the imposition of imprisonment discretionary rather than mandatory. Consequently, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court held that the cancellation of bail requires strong and exceptional grounds, as the provisions of section 497(5) are not punitive in nature. Finding that the petitioner had not misused the concession of liberty and that the lower court erred in its legal interpretation, the High Court accepted the petition and restored the bail, establishing that discretionary imprisonment does not trigger the prohibitory clause of bail statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable primarily by Arsh with discretionary imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the standard required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Are the provisions of section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 punitive in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Parveen Akhtar1999 YLR 2521 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Jamali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1482 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and 3 others vs Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala1999 MLD 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit and others vs The State1999 YLR 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari Khan vs L.D.A.1999 MLD 342 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 328 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State and anothers1999 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Lal and 2 others1999 YLR 1755 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1999-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Jamil and 7 others1999 MLD 1831 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Mst. Jantay Bibi1999 CLC 1505 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22
  gift mutationburden of proofpardanashin ladyjoint possessionrebuttal of presumptioncivil revisionfraud and misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Okara, which reversed the trial court's dismissal and decreed the respondent's suit challenging a 30-year-old gift mutation. The core legal question concerns the burden of proof regarding the validity of a gift of immovable property made by an illiterate pardanashin female donor in favor of her brother, particularly where fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of independent advice are alleged, and whether the presumption of truth attached to an old mutation can be rebutted. The Lahore High Court held that a mutation does not create title by itself, and when a donor denies the execution of a gift—especially an illiterate female whose property remained in joint possession—the burden heavily shifts to the beneficiary donee to affirmatively prove that the transaction was voluntary, genuine, and executed with full comprehension. The Court laid down that the presumption of truth attached to a thirty-year-old document stands rebutted where the plaintiff successfully establishes lack of knowledge due to joint possession, receipt of produce, and the failure of the beneficiary to enter the witness box to refute the challenge on oath.

  Questions settled

  • Does a revenue mutation by itself create title in immovable property without the beneficiary proving the underlying transaction?
  • Where an illiterate female donor challenges a gift mutation on the ground of fraud, upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the validity of the gift?
  • Can the presumption of truth attached to a thirty-year-old gift mutation be successfully rebutted by the donor through oral and circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the failure of a defendant donee to enter the witness box to rebut the assertions of the plaintiff give rise to an adverse inference?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aleem vs General Public And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 22 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aleem vs General Public And 5 Other1999 CLC 323 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Akbar Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Local1999 MLD 1498 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Abdali Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. through Hamid Khan Durrani, Managing1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1187 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →