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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Sabran Bibi vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sabir vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1941 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 90 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali vs Muhammad Mansha and others1998 MLD 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sabaz Ali Khan vs Abdul Khaliq1998 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-21
  ejectment petitionex parte orderlandlord and tenantdelaying tacticsadjournmentCantonments Rent Restriction ActCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ex parte ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, against a tenant who repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to produce evidence. The core legal question concerned whether the Rent Controller was justified in passing the ex parte order and whether the tenant was obligated to appear on adjourned dates when the presiding officer was on leave or the date was a holiday. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant's persistent failure to produce evidence and reliance on delaying tactics justified the ex parte decision. The Court affirmed that under Order 17, Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, parties are legally obligated to appear before the court or its ministerial staff to ascertain the next date of hearing when the presiding officer is absent or the court is closed. The judgment establishes that a tenant cannot evade rent obligations by citing a pending civil suit regarding title if the landlord has established prima facie ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Is a tenant entitled to withhold rent payments due to a pending civil suit regarding the landlord's title?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the authority to set aside an ex parte order under the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the obligation of a party to appear in court when the presiding officer is on leave or the date is a holiday?
  • Can a Rent Controller proceed ex parte when a party repeatedly fails to produce evidence despite being granted multiple opportunities?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadullah Khan Marri vs Federation of Pakistan and anothers1998 SCMR 1386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-02
  date of birthcivil servantservice tribunalretirementmatriculation certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his retirement from service with effect from 1-3-1994. The core legal question concerned the determination of the petitioner's correct date of birth after discrepancies appeared in gradation lists, and whether a school leaving certificate could replace a missing matriculation certificate for altering the recorded date of birth near retirement. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal rightly rejected the petitioner's belated plea for alteration of his date of birth, as he failed to produce an authentic matriculation certificate as required by the rules and his service documents consistently recorded his birth year as 1934. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant's request for the alteration of his date of birth near the end of his career, without producing authentic primary documentation such as a matriculation certificate, must be rejected as an afterthought when official service records consistently support an earlier date.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a school leaving certificate can be accepted for the alteration of a civil servant's date of birth in the absence of a matriculation certificate?
  • Can a civil servant seek the alteration of his date of birth towards the end of his career based on delayed pleas?
  • Are entries in official service documents and history cards considered reliable for determining a civil servant's date of birth?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadullah Khan Marri vs Federation of Pakistan and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-02
  civil servicedate of birthsuperannuationservice recordFederal Service Tribunalleave to appealservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the compulsory retirement of a civil servant based on his recorded date of birth. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to alter his date of birth in his service record late in his career, despite failing to produce his original Matriculation Certificate, which is the primary document for such verification. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal, finding that the petitioner failed to provide authentic documentation to substantiate his claim. The Court affirmed that departmental records, including history cards and service documents signed by the civil servant, constitute valid evidence. Furthermore, the Court upheld the principle that requests for the alteration of a date of birth made late in a civil servant's career, particularly when inconsistent with long-standing service records, must be rejected as an afterthought, especially when the civil servant has remained silent on the discrepancy for years. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant alter their date of birth in service records late in their career based on secondary evidence when the primary Matriculation Certificate is unavailable?
  • Does a School Leaving Certificate carry sufficient evidentiary weight to override long-standing departmental service records regarding a civil servant's date of birth?
  • Is a request for the alteration of a date of birth in service records liable to be rejected as an afterthought if the civil servant remained silent on the entry for years?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadullah Khan and 7 others vs Haji Mitha Khan and others1998 SCMR 1193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-05
  revisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factgift of propertydeclaratory suitleave to appealpartition of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal arising from a dispute over the ownership and partition of a bungalow in D.I. Khan. The petitioner, Saadullah Khan, filed a suit for declaration of title and possession, claiming a 3/5th share in the property based on a gift from his paternal aunts, Taj Bibi, Siraj Bibi, and Ghulab Bibi. While the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently ruled in favor of the petitioner for the entire 3/5th share, the High Court in revisional jurisdiction modified this, holding that only a 1/5th share (gifted by Ghulab Bibi) was proven, as she was the only donor to testify. The petitioner challenges the High Court's interference with concurrent findings of fact, arguing no misreading of evidence occurred. Conversely, the respondent argues the High Court ignored documentary evidence regarding a deed executed by the three ladies in favor of a predecessor-in-title. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction was justified and whether the findings regarding the gifts were supported by the evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in revisional jurisdiction interfere with concurrent findings of fact where there is no misreading of evidence?
  • Is the testimony of a single donor sufficient to prove a gift of property when multiple donors are alleged?
  • Does the failure to consider a material documentary deed on record constitute a valid ground for setting aside concurrent findings of the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadi Cement Limited and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-14
  leave to appealmoney billfiscal lawcustoms dutylegitimate expectationsSenate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition filed by Saadi Cement Limited and another against the Federation of Pakistan and others, seeking leave to appeal concerning fiscal levies and demands raised by authorities. The core legal questions involve whether amendments can be made to a fiscal law through a money bill without placing it before the Senate and the scope and effect thereof, and whether certain demands raised fall beyond the scope of Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, by invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectations. The Court held that these questions are identical to those pending in other matters, notably reported as 1994 SCMR 2123, which require authoritative consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these substantial questions of law and directed that the petitions be fixed alongside identical matters, while ordering the continuation of interim relief already granted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an amendment be made in a fiscal law through a money bill without placing it before the Senate, and what is the scope and effect of such a money bill?
  • Whether demands raised from petitioners fall beyond the scope of section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, by invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectations?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadat Ali Shah and others vs Member (Judicial III), Board of Revenue, and others1998 SCMR 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-11
  consolidation schemeconsolidation of holdingssuo motu revisional jurisdictionconstitutional petitionboard of revenueremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises out of consolidation operations in a village, which have a prolonged history including a previous remand by the Member, Board of Revenue in 1973. Following the confirmation of a fresh consolidation scheme in 1992, the petitioners filed a miscellaneous application alleging illegalities, which the Member, Board of Revenue directed to be treated as an appeal under section 11 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960. The petitioners challenged this order through a constitutional petition, which the Lahore High Court dismissed in limine, holding that the scheme could only be challenged through proper proceedings under the Ordinance rather than a miscellaneous application, and that the High Court could not compel the Board of Revenue to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction. Upon seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioners' counsel stated he would not press the petition if an early disposal was ordered. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed, directing the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons) to dispose of the remanded case at an early date.

  Questions settled

  • Can a consolidation scheme confirmation be set aside on the basis of a miscellaneous application instead of statutory proceedings?
  • Whether the High Court can issue a direction to the Board of Revenue to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction on a miscellaneous application?
  • How should a miscellaneous application alleging illegalities in a consolidation scheme be treated under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960?
  Read full judgment →
• Saad Ashraf, J.S. and Others vs Muhammad Ashraf Nadeem and others1998 SCMR 1687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-13
  civil servantssenioritySecretariat Grouplateral entryhorizontal movementFederal Service Tribunalcontinuous officiation
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses several civil appeals arising from orders of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning the determination of seniority of civil servants in the Secretariat Group, particularly officers inducted through horizontal movement by transfer and those re-inducted through lateral entry following reviews under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The core legal questions involved whether officers transferred to the Secretariat Group are entitled to seniority from the date of continuous regular officiation in Grade 19 pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Establishment Division Office Memorandum dated 12-4-1976, and how seniority should be computed for lateral entrants re-appointed after prior termination and subsequent approval by the Federal Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court held that transferred officers are entitled to reckon their seniority from the date they commenced continuous regular officiation in Grade 19 or equivalent posts, while lateral entrants must count their seniority from the date of their re-appointment following removal or reversion. The key principle laid down is that seniority for horizontal transferees in the Secretariat Group is governed by continuous regular officiation in Grade 19 under the applicable Office Memorandum, and executive endorsements inconsistent with gazetted notifications cannot alter statutory or notified seniority rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether officers transferred to the Secretariat Group through horizontal movement are entitled to count their seniority from the date of continuous regular officiation in Grade 19?
  • Whether lateral entrants who were reverted or removed from service and subsequently re-inducted can claim seniority from the date of their original appointment or from the date of their re-appointment?
  • Can an internal administrative endorsement on a departmental file override the explicit terms of a gazetted notification regarding a civil servant's seniority?
  • Does a failure to challenge past seniority lists preclude a civil servant from agitating the matter when subsequent lists maintain the same relative seniority position without furnishing a new cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• S.S. Oil Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan Oil Seed Development Board and others1998 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-14
  commercial litigationtemporary injunctionsettlement agreementundertakingcontractual disputedemurrage charges
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing an application for a temporary injunction regarding a commercial dispute over the supply of Soyabean between S.S. Oil Mills Ltd. and the Pakistan Oil Seed Development Board. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner could compel the delivery of Soyabean against advance payments despite outstanding liabilities and disputed demurrage charges. During proceedings, the parties reached a settlement wherein the petitioner offered to discharge its outstanding credit liabilities for other seeds in exchange for the delivery of Soyabean, while also agreeing to bear a portion of demurrage costs. The Supreme Court accepted this settlement, converting the petitions into an appeal and disposing of the matter in terms of the parties' mutual undertaking. The Court held that a court may facilitate the resolution of complex commercial litigation by accepting binding undertakings from parties, thereby avoiding protracted future litigation and serving the mutual interests of the parties involved, provided such terms are reasonable and enforceable.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court dispose of a petition for leave to appeal based on a mutual settlement and undertaking provided by the parties?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to accept an undertaking from a Chief Executive of a company to ensure compliance with a settlement order?
  • Can a court resolve a commercial dispute by incorporating the parties' settlement terms into a final order to prevent future litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• S.R.S. Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Labour Union through General1998 PLC 247 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-10-03Read full judgment →
• S.M. Taqi Kazmi and others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore and others1998 SCMR 2522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-22
  civil serviceseniority rightsdepartmental mergervested rightspromotion eligibilityservice rulesdiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals arising from a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment regarding the seniority and promotion rights of civil servants following the merger and subsequent disintegration of the I.R.D.P., Peoples Works Programme, and Local Government departments. The core legal question was whether the 1981 Service Rules and subsequent notifications creating separate groups and eligibility criteria for promotion to Grade-18 were discriminatory and violative of the Constitution. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that the Tribunal's decision caused injustice by failing to protect the vested seniority rights of incumbents who held regular, permanent appointments prior to the merger. The Court clarified that employees holding regular appointments at the time of the merger must be treated as senior to those who became regular appointees only as a result of the merger or the creation of new posts. The key principle established is that while the government possesses the authority to reorganize departments and frame promotion rules, such actions cannot infringe upon the vested seniority rights of existing permanent civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the government have the authority to reorganize departments and frame rules for promotion?
  • Can the reorganization of a department or the creation of new promotion rules infringe upon the vested seniority rights of existing permanent civil servants?
  • How should seniority be determined for civil servants following the merger of multiple departments and the subsequent creation of new posts?
  Read full judgment →
• S.M. Nooruddin and 9 others vs Saga Printers1998 SCMR 2119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-22
  ejectmentpersonal requirementbona fide needlandlord and tenantgood faithcommercial premisesSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal arising from ejectment proceedings initiated by the landlady against the respondent tenant for the personal bona fide need of the commercial premises to establish a photo colour laboratory. The Rent Controller and the High Court dismissed the ejectment application on grounds of lack of bona fides and technical aspects. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether sufficient material existed on record to establish the good faith and reasonableness of the requirement under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court held that the importation of machinery around the time of initiating proceedings sufficiently established the honesty of purpose, and that the landlord has a complete and unassailable option to choose from available tenements for personal requirement. Furthermore, the Court held that the mere letting out of other premises or a change of tenancy without acquiring physical possession does not defeat a landlord's claim for personal need unless proven otherwise. The appeal was consequently allowed, setting aside the lower courts' orders and granting the tenant three months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere letting out of other premises by a landlord negate a plea for personal requirement under rent laws?
  • Is a landlord entitled to a complete option to choose a specific tenement among several for personal use?
  • What constitutes good faith and reasonableness in a landlord's claim for personal requirement of commercial premises?
  • Does a change of tenancy without the landlord acquiring physical possession defeat an ejectment application?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Zafar Ejaz vs Chairman, Steel Mills Corporation , .1998 PLC (C.S.) 777 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-28
  civil servantService Tribunals Act, 1973Section 2-AworkmanArticle 212ouster of jurisdictiondeeming clauseconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of an employee of Pakistan Steel Mills Ltd., who contended that as a 'workman' under labor laws, he remained outside the definition of a 'civil servant.' The core legal question was whether the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which deems employees of certain corporations to be 'civil servants,' overrides the exclusions for 'workmen' found in the Factories Act, 1934 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, thereby ousting the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that Section 2-A is a comprehensive deeming clause creating a distinct category of 'civil servant' for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which is not subject to the exceptions contained in the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court affirmed that the legislative intent was to centralize service disputes for such employees within the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as abated, establishing that all employees holding posts in such corporations are deemed civil servants, regardless of their manual or clerical duties.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, render employees of corporations controlled by the Federal Government 'civil servants' for the purpose of the Act?
  • Are the exclusions for 'workmen' under the Factories Act, 1934 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 applicable to the definition of 'civil servant' under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain service-related grievances of employees deemed to be civil servants under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• S. T. Rehman vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1998 SCMR 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-22
  civil servicepromotionsupersessionAnnual Confidential ReportFederal Service Tribunalleave to appeallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Grade-20 civil servant holding the post of Director General (Audit), Pakistan Railways, challenged his supersession for promotion to Grade-21 by the Selection Board before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal as time-barred, noting his failure to challenge adverse or average Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) within the prescribed period, and questioned its own jurisdiction. The petitioner then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal questions involved whether a representation against supersession encompasses challenges to ACR quantification, whether unconveyed average ACRs affecting promotion can be challenged before the Service Tribunal, whether a writ petition can substitute for a departmental representation, and how limitation periods for challenging ACRs are computed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the legal aspects regarding undisclosed ACRs and limitation require thorough consideration. The principle laid down relates to the maintainability of service appeals concerning unconveyed ACRs and the scope of departmental representations against supersession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether or not representation of an aggrieved person against supersession includes challenge to quantification, propriety of ACRs and criteria for selection?
  • Whether or not ACRs which are obviously concealed from incumbent, though may not be adverse, yet directly affect the future career and his right of further promotion can be challenged by way of appeal before Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Whether writ-petition challenging propriety of undisclosed ACRs can constitute notice to competent authority and be substituted for representation to approach Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Whether or not question of limitation for challenging ACRs would be relatable to period when aggrieved person becomes aware about it?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Sajjad Hussain Abid vs The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1998 SCMR 1071 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-30
  service tribunalsenioritydeputationpermanent absorptionleave to appealdiscriminatory treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, concerning a dispute over seniority in the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The petitioner, who originally joined the Education Department of the Government of Punjab as an Assistant in 1960 and later joined the FIA as a Superintendent in 1975, challenged his assigned seniority date of 4-7-1987, which was based on his permanent absorption date, whereas similarly placed provincial employees who came on deputation were allegedly granted seniority from the date they joined as Superintendents. The core legal question is whether the petitioner was subjected to discriminatory treatment regarding his seniority in comparison to other similarly placed individuals. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the question of alleged discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner vis-a-vis private respondents, laying down the principle that similarly placed civil servants must not be discriminated against in matters of seniority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discriminatory treatment was meted out to the petitioner regarding seniority compared to similarly placed persons?
  • From which date should seniority be reckoned for employees permanently absorbed in the Federal Investigation Agency from provincial departments?
  Read full judgment →
• S. RM. M. CT. M. Tiruppani Trust vs Commisioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2644 · Supreme Court of India · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
• S. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan vs Peshawar Development Authority and anothers1998 SCMR 2745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-01
  allotment of plotsdiscretionary quotavested rightconstitutional jurisdictionPeshawar Development Authoritywrit petitionpublic scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the cancellation of a plot allotment in Hayatabad Township by the Peshawar Development Authority. The appellant, a journalist, received an allotment letter from the Chief Minister of N.-W.F.P., which was subsequently withdrawn by the Authority before any specific plot was assigned or payment made. The core legal question was whether the Chief Minister possessed the authority to make such discretionary allotments and whether the appellant acquired a vested right. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of statutory backing, the Chief Minister lacked the power to allocate plots from the Authority's reserved quota. Furthermore, because no decisive step had been taken, no vested right existed. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked to validate practices of discretionary quotas, which are contrary to constitutional principles and Islamic tenets. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's refusal to interfere with the withdrawal of the allotment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Minister have the authority to allot plots from a development authority's reserved quota without statutory backing?
  • Does an allotment letter, issued without the assignment of a specific plot or payment of cost, create a vested right for the allottee?
  • Can the High Court decline to exercise constitutional jurisdiction even if an impugned order appears prima facie illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Hashim and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1167 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Hashim and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 817 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
• S. Asghar Ali Shah vs The Government of N.-W.F.P. through the Chief1998 PLC (C.S.) 1402 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 1998-05-14
  termination of serviceprobationershow-cause noticemisconductadverse remarksACRjudicial officerservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by S. Asghar Ali Shah challenging the termination of his services as a Civil Judge through a notification dated 17-10-1994 and the uncommunicated adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1993. The core legal question was whether a probationer whose services are terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory performance is entitled to a show-cause notice and a regular inquiry when the termination is partly based on allegations of misconduct. The Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal held that while a probationer's services may be terminated simpliciter for unsatisfactory work without a show-cause notice, if the termination is grounded on unsatisfactory conduct or misconduct involving factual controversies, the employee is entitled to a fair opportunity of defense and a regular inquiry under the relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Furthermore, uncommunicated adverse ACR entries cannot be utilized to the prejudice of an employee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the termination order, ordered reinstatement, and ruled that uncommunicated adverse remarks must be ignored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a probationer civil servant is entitled to a show-cause notice prior to termination of service on grounds of unsatisfactory conduct?
  • Can uncommunicated adverse remarks in an employee's Annual Confidential Report be utilized to justify termination?
  • Does the term performance in service matters include both work and conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam Khan and 6 others vs Muhammad Nasir and 3 others1998 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-17
  pre-emptiondoctrine of sinkerrepeal and savingsfinal decreesuperior right of pre-emptionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court impugns the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellants' revision petition arising out of pre-emption suits. The core legal question concerns the interpretation and applicability of section 35 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, specifically whether pre-emption suits in which a trial court decree was passed prior to 31-7-1986 are governed by the repealed N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, or the new Act of 1987, and the consequential applicability of the doctrine of sinker. The Supreme Court held that a decree passed by the trial court before the cut-off date remains a 'final' decree for the purposes of section 35(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, notwithstanding subsequent remands or reversals by appellate forums, thereby attracting the provisions of the 1950 Act. The key principle laid down is that where a pre-emption decree has been initially rendered under the repealed enactment, subsequent proceedings and appeals continue to be regulated by the former law, including the doctrine of sinker under section 20 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption decree passed by a trial court before 31st July 1986 can be termed as final for the purpose of section 35(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, despite being subsequently set aside or remanded by higher forums?
  • Does the repeal of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 by the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 affect pending proceedings where a final decree had already been obtained under the old law?
  • Is the doctrine of sinker applicable to pre-emption cases governed by the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 when a vendee associates with himself a stranger without a preferential right?
  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Sharif, Etc. vs The Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, EtcK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 529 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-09Read full judgment →
• Royal Foreign Currency vs The Civil Aviation Authority and another1998 CLC 374 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-29
  temporary injunctionlease versus licencerevocable licenceforeign exchange boothsairport premisesspecific performancebalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking temporary injunctions to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' foreign exchange business in six booths at the Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi, allotted under agreements with the Civil Aviation Authority. The core legal question is whether the agreements constitute a lease or a revocable licence, and whether temporary injunctions can be granted to restrain the revocation of such agreements and compel specific enforcement where the contracts are revocable and the licence period has expired. The court held that the agreements are in the nature of revocable licences rather than leases, and since the licence period has expired and the contracts cannot be specifically enforced, injunctions cannot be granted under section 56(f) of the Specific Relief Act 1877; the appropriate remedy for wrongful revocation is damages, not injunctions. The key principle laid down is that a revocable licence does not create an interest in property (right in rem), and its revocation cannot be prevented by an injunction, leaving the licensee to seek damages instead.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement allotting airport booths for running a business constitutes a lease or a licence?
  • Can a temporary injunction be granted to prevent the revocation of a revocable licence?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a licensee whose licence has been revoked without reasonable notice?
  • Does section 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 bar the grant of an injunction where a contract cannot be specifically enforced?
  Read full judgment →
• Robert Axford and others vs Attock Oil Co. and others1998 SCMR 2586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-15
  transfer of civil suitsextension of timebias of judgecommercial litigationconsent ordersupreme court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple civil miscellaneous applications arising from a complex, long-standing commercial litigation involving several civil suits originally filed before the Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, and subsequently transferred by the Supreme Court to specific judicial officers for expeditious trial. The core questions concern whether to grant further extensions of time for the disposal of the pending suits, whether to transfer the suits away from the designated trial judge due to allegations of bias and subsequent transfer of the judge to Lahore, and how to manage the continuation of proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the designated trial judge, Mr. Ch. Asad Raza, should continue to hear and dispose of the remaining suits, now at Lahore where he is posted, while declining the request for transfer of the cases on the ground that allegations of bias and lack of neutrality were unsubstantiated. The Court laid down the principles that a judge specially assigned by name to a matter by the apex court should ordinarily conclude the proceedings notwithstanding administrative transfers, and that mere apprehension of bias must be supported by cogent, unquestionable material rather than speculative assertions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil suit specially assigned by name to a particular judicial officer by the Supreme Court continue to be tried by that officer upon his administrative transfer to another station?
  • Whether a trial judge should be removed and cases transferred on grounds of alleged bias arising from the employment of a relative in a company connected to a party?
  • Does the reluctance or refusal of a foreign country to permit the examination of a detained witness on commission justify indefinite extensions of time for concluding a trial in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• RM. Arunachalam vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 914 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
• Rjaz Ahmed vs The State1998 SCMR 1729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-05
  re-promulgation of ordinancesArticle 89 ConstitutionQisas and DiyatTazkiya-al-ShahoodTazir punishmentstate necessitygrave and sudden provocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the appellant's conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions concerned the constitutional validity of successive re-promulgations of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinances relating to Qisas and Diyat under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, whether a legal vacuum existed barring conviction, and whether the process of Tazkiya-al-Shahood was mandatory in cases resulting in Ta'zir punishments. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the re-promulgation of Ordinance No. XXX of 1991 was valid due to state necessity, as the Ordinances were continuously laid before Parliament without disapproval to prevent a breakdown in criminal justice. The Court further held that while Tazkiya-al-Shahood is mandatory in cases of Hadd or Qisas, it is not required where an accused is tried and sentenced under Ta'zir.

  Questions settled

  • Can the President re-promulgate an expired Ordinance under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 where it was duly laid before Parliament and state necessity demands preventing a legislative vacuum?
  • Is the inquiry of Tazkiya-al-Shahood mandatory in criminal trials where the accused is sentenced to death by way of Ta'zir rather than Qisas or Hadd?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt necessarily invalidate the testimony of eye-witnesses against the principal accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ghani vs Mst. Sahr Rizwan and another1998 CLC 625 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmad and otherss vs University of Agriculture and others1998 CLC 2045 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-01Read full judgment →
• Rifat Saeed Dar vs Ch. Muhammad Arshad Mehlu, Advocate1998 MLD 1398 · Pakistan Bar Council · 1998-04-25Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1613 · Appellate Tribunal Anti-Terrorism · 1998-02-26
  murder convictionrobberyidentification paradejudicial confessionocular evidencereasonable doubtcriminal appealforensic evidence delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the conviction of three appellants for murder and robbery under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence, the validity of identification parades, the admissibility of retracted judicial confessions, and the legality of the sentences imposed. The Appellate Tribunal found that the prosecution's case suffered from significant flaws, including the unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses, major contradictions between ocular and medical evidence regarding the trajectory of the fatal shot, and an unexplained delay in sending forensic evidence to experts. Furthermore, the court held that the identification parade was procedurally defective due to the appellants' prior exposure to witnesses while in police custody and an inadequate ratio of dummies. The judicial confessions were deemed unreliable due to improper recording procedures and the Magistrate's failure to ensure the appellants were free from police influence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the convictions, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted them of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to put incriminating forensic evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render such evidence inadmissible?
  • Can a judicial confession be relied upon if it is recorded by a clerk without the Magistrate's direct supervision and proper certification?
  • Does an identification parade held after the accused has been in police custody for several days, where witnesses have already been informed of the arrest, satisfy the requirements of a fair trial?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when there is a major, irreconcilable contradiction between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence regarding the nature of the fatal injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Multan1998 PLC (C.S.) 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-19
  service lawdisciplinary proceedingsunauthorized absencefull-fledged inquiryleave to appealdepartmental removal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his removal from service. The petitioner, appointed in 1985, ceased attending duties in November 1985 and remained absent for approximately eight years before attempting to rejoin. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, resulting in his removal from service. The core legal question was whether a full-fledged departmental inquiry was mandatory given the petitioner's claim that he had attempted to report for duty but was prevented from doing so. The Supreme Court held that while a full-fledged inquiry is generally the proper course to allow for cross-examination and evidence production, it is not strictly required where the facts are simple and undisputed. In this case, the petitioner failed to produce any credible documentary or oral evidence to substantiate his claim of reporting for duty during his eight-year absence. Consequently, the Court found the disciplinary action justified and refused leave to appeal, affirming that the absence of a formal inquiry did not vitiate the proceedings where the material facts were not in dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Is a full-fledged departmental inquiry mandatory in all disciplinary proceedings involving unauthorized absence?
  • Does the failure to conduct a full-fledged inquiry vitiate disciplinary proceedings where the facts are simple and undisputed?
  • Can an employee claim wrongful removal after an unexplained absence of eight years without providing evidence of attempts to report for duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad and 2 others vs S.H.O., Police Station City, Bahawalpur1998 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
• Resident Director, Messrs Sumiffo Plastic Industry (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs Sultan Hussain and another1998 PLC 160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Rehmdil Khan and 2 others vs Ali Safdar Khan and 2 others1998 MLD 416 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-20
  condonation of delaylimitation periodtime-barred petitionnegligent legal advicepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the High Court accepting a writ petition. The petition was barred by limitation by thirty days. The petitioners sought condonation of delay on the ground of wrong advice given by their counsel regarding the prescribed period of limitation. The core legal question was whether negligent legal advice given by a counsel regarding the limitation period constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay under the law. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that while a bona fide mistake may constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, a wrong advice given by a counsel negligently does not excuse the delay, especially when the relevant limitation period can easily be ascertained from the statute. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that the negligence or ignorance of law on the part of a counsel does not amount to sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing an appeal, leaving the aggrieved party to seek redress against the counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether wrong advice given by a counsel due to negligence constitutes sufficient cause for the condonation of delay?
  • Can a party be excused from the prescribed period of limitation based on the ignorance of law or mistake of their counsel?
  • Does a bona fide mistake differ from a negligent legal advice in matters of condoning delay under limitation laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Fazal Baqi and anothers1998 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-17
  leave to appeallandlord and tenantstatutory tenancyevictiondenial of relationshipjurisdiction of rent controllercivil court remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court in First Appeal from Order No. 6 of 1993, arising out of eviction proceedings under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondents on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement. The respondents denied the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. Although the Rent Controller ruled in favor of the petitioner establishing the landlord-tenant relationship and ordered eviction without framing issues on the merits, the High Court reversed this decision. The High Court held that the evidence presented created doubt regarding the petitioner's claim, advising the petitioner to seek a remedy in the Civil Court. The Supreme Court considered the argument that a statutory landlord-tenant relationship existed pursuant to property transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, making a civil suit for title declaration unnecessary. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine and determine these legal questions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statutory relationship of landlord and tenant arises between a transferee of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and the occupants of such property?
  • Whether an applicant under Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 must seek a title declaration from a Civil Court when the tenancy relationship is disputed by the tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah Zia vs Aziz-Ud-Din Qureshi and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 132 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-08-20
  service senioritypast and closed transactionretrospective application of rulespromotion disputelimitation periodservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns a dispute over seniority and promotion between the appellant, Rehmat Ullah Zia, and the respondent, Aziz-ud-Din Qureshi. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal could retrospectively alter the respondent's seniority and promotion status by reviving a 1975 departmental order that had remained unimplemented and unchallenged for years, thereby treating it as a 'past and closed' transaction. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the Service Tribunal acted illegally by re-opening a settled matter. The Court ruled that the respondent's seniority must be determined based on his actual date of appointment (October 30, 1975) rather than the earlier date he claimed via the unimplemented order. Furthermore, the Court established that the 1977 Service Rules could not be applied retrospectively to appointments made in 1975, which were governed by the then-applicable Kashmir Civil Service Rules. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, restored the original promotion order of December 5, 1985, and affirmed that a Service Tribunal lacks the authority to adjudicate upon matters that have attained finality through the passage of time.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal reopen a past and closed transaction that was not challenged within the limitation period?
  • Does the seniority of a civil servant depend on the date of actual appointment or a date derived from an unimplemented departmental order?
  • Can new service rules be applied retrospectively to determine seniority for appointments made under previously repealed rules?
  • Does the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal include the time taken for departmental representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs The State1998 CLC 233 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The Border Area Committee and others1998 CLC 112 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-18Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali Sher vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 241 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-22Read full judgment →
• Rehman and 5 others vs The State and another1998 MLD 198 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
• Rehman alias Rehman Ullah vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-17Read full judgment →
• Regional Commissioner of Income-Tax Corporate Region, Karachi and 2 others vs Shafi Muhammad Baloch1998 SCMR 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-07
  temporary injunctiondate of birthcivil servantsuperannuationSpecific Relief Actprima facie caseirreparable lossservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The present civil appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Sindh upholding concurrent findings of the lower courts which granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, restraining the tax department from retiring him based on his recorded date of birth. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in granting a temporary injunction and status quo ante to a civil servant seeking correction of his date of birth at the verge of his retirement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case in view of established precedents regarding belated challenges to dates of birth, that no irreparable loss would be caused as monetary compensation remains available if he succeeds, and that section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act prohibits injunctions interfering with the public duties of government departments. The key principles laid down are that a civil servant challenging his date of birth after decades of silence lacks a prima facie case for interim relief, that injunctions cannot be granted to undo a retirement order that has already taken effect, and that statutory bars under the Specific Relief Act regarding government departments must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who challenges his recorded date of birth shortly before retirement has a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction?
  • Can a temporary injunction be issued against a government department in violation of section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act?
  • Does a civil servant suffer irreparable loss if an injunction against retirement is refused, given that emoluments can be recovered if the declaratory suit succeeds?
  • Whether status quo under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. can be maintained to a point of time prior to the institution of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Region, Karachi1998 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-13
  service lawdate of birth correctionjudicial procedurejudgment deliverystatus quointerim reliefsuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil suit filed by a respondent seeking a declaration regarding the correction of his date of birth in his service gradation list. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent obtained an interim status quo order, despite the department's position that he had reached the age of superannuation based on his recorded birth date. The department's appeals against this interim relief were dismissed by the District Judge and subsequently by the High Court. The Supreme Court addressed a procedural irregularity: the High Court revision petition was heard and judgment reserved by a judge who was subsequently removed from office following the Supreme Court's decision in the 'Al-Jehad Trust' case. The judgment was later signed and announced by a different judge after the original judge had ceased to hold office. The Supreme Court held that a judgment signed and announced by a judge who is no longer in office is legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the revision petition for fresh disposal within two weeks.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judgment be validly signed and announced by a judge who has ceased to hold office after the hearing concluded?
  • What is the legal effect of a judgment announced by a judge who did not hear the case?
  • Does the removal of a judge from office invalidate a judgment reserved by them but not yet announced?
  Read full judgment →
• Referring Authority (President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) vs Khawaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim,1998 SCMR 2132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-30
  misconductdisqualification of membershipquasi-criminal proceedingsstandard of proofappellate interferenceofficial misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the Referring Authority (President of Pakistan) challenging the judgment of the Special Court, which acquitted the respondent, a former Minister of State, of charges of misconduct under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification of Membership) Order, 1977. The prosecution alleged that the respondent abused his official position by attempting to influence the Chairman of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to award a contract to a specific company, Mitsubishi, through a handwritten note. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the charges of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution's evidence was riddled with contradictions, including discrepancies regarding the respondent's location and official portfolio at the time of the alleged incident. The Court affirmed that proceedings under the 1977 Order are quasi-criminal in nature, requiring a high standard of proof. Consequently, the Court held that it would not interfere with the trial court's findings absent overwhelming proof or misreading of evidence, concluding that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case.

  Questions settled

  • What is the nature of an inquiry conducted under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification of Membership) Order, 1977?
  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with the findings of a trial court in quasi-criminal matters?
  • Does the prosecution in a disqualification reference bear the burden of proving allegations beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Mustafa vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 530 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-30
  murderocular testimonyinterested witnessessplit verdictreference to third judgemedical evidenceabscondencepromptly lodged FIRsubstitution of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a murder trial where the appellant, Raza Khan, along with absconding co-accused, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda, under section 302/34 and section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in life imprisonment and fine. The prosecution alleged that the appellant fatally shot the deceased, Hunar Khan, following a dispute and blood feud, after the complainant party deboarded a bus. Upon appeal, a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court recorded a split verdict: one judge voted to acquit the appellant due to material contradictions, weak motive, and discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, while the other judge voted to maintain the conviction based on a promptly lodged First Information Report and supporting testimony. Pursuant to section 378 and section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the matter was referred to a third judge as referee. The third judge independently evaluated the entire evidence, resolved minor discrepancies in favor of natural witness testimony corroborated by medical evidence, and upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, dismissing both the appeal and the connected revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related or interested eye-witnesses requires independent corroboration in a criminal trial?
  • What is the scope and authority of a third judge when a case is referred under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to a split verdict by a Division Bench?
  • Does a discrepancy between the entry and exit wounds in medical evidence necessarily discredit the direct ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses?
  • Can the prompt lodging of a First Information Report rule out the possibility of fabrication or false substitution of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Raz Muhammad and 6 others vs Nasrullah and 2 others1998 SCMR 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-05
  customary lawRiwajunsettled landexclusive possessiondeclaratory suitpermanent injunctionrevisional jurisdictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought a declaration of entitlement and a permanent injunction regarding a piece of unsettled state land, claiming exclusive possession based on a local custom or 'Riwaj' of 'Mahazi' land ownership. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, found that the disputed land was unsettled, that the respondents were in actual possession, and that the petitioners failed to prove the alleged custom. The suit was dismissed, and subsequent appeals to the Additional District Judge and the High Court of Balochistan were also dismissed, with the High Court affirming that the petitioners lacked exclusive rights or cultivating possession and failed to establish the existence of the claimed custom. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the evidence, including documents regarding tractor rentals, and found them insufficient to prove possession of the specific suit land. The Court held that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving the custom, as the produced 'Wajibul Arz' did not support their claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Must a custom or Riwaj be established through reliable evidence when pleaded in a civil suit?
  • Does the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow for interference with concurrent findings of fact?
  • Can a party claim exclusive rights over unsettled state land based on proximity to their own land without proving a valid custom?
  Read full judgment →
• Rayon Silk Mills vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 437 · Gujarat High Court · 1995-11-09Read full judgment →
• Rauniq Ali vs Muhammad Mansoor Butt1998 CLC 2030 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Rauf Ahmed Ghori vs Managing Director, Cholistan Development1998 CLC 1464 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-17Read full judgment →
• Ratan Chand Lodha vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 348 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-04-18Read full judgment →
• Rashik Lal & Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2001 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-12-09Read full judgment →
• Rashid Iftikhar and anothers vs Karachi Development Authority and others1998 CLC 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali, Chief Executive and Managing Director, Rafhan Maize1998 PLC 385 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
• Rashid Akhtar and anothers vs Shakil Akhtar1998 PLD Karachi 24 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Illaqa Magistrate, Ghulam Muhammad Abad Area, Faisalabad And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 579 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communication (Communication Division), Islamabad and anothers1998 SCMR 405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-05
  rejection of plaintcause of actionenemy propertycivil procedureproperty titleleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a revision petition, thereby upholding a trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner, an occupant of a flat in Lahore, had filed a suit challenging the validity of a 1963 sale deed in favor of the National Bank of Pakistan, claiming entitlement to the property under a Federal Government scheme for 'enemy property' allegedly acquired after the 1965 war. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had a valid cause of action to challenge the title of the respondent bank. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the property in question was never declared or treated as 'enemy property' by the Custodian of Enemy Properties, as it had vested in the respondent bank prior to the 1965 conflict. Furthermore, the petitioner admitted to never applying for transfer under any relevant scheme. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner lacked a cause of action, justifying the rejection of the plaint at the inception to prevent fruitless litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does an occupant of property have a cause of action to challenge a sale deed if the property was never declared 'enemy property'?
  • Is a trial court justified in rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the plaintiff lacks a valid cause of action?
  • Can a claim for transfer of property under an 'enemy property' scheme be maintained if the property was not treated as such by the Custodian of Enemy Properties?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad Khan and 10 others vs Pakistan Railways through Chairman, Railway Headquarters Office, Islamabad1998 PLC 323 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad and others vs The State1998 MLD 1207 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheedoo vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Farooq vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 275 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-19Read full judgment →
• Rana Zulfiqar Ali vs S.H.O., C.B.C. F.I.A., Multan and others1998 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-16
  writ jurisdictioncontractual obligationsFederal Investigation Agencydisputed factsregistration of criminal caseIntra-Court Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court Division Bench order which had dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal against a Single Judge's refusal to direct the registration of a criminal case against officials of the Small Business Finance Corporation. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should intervene to enforce contractual obligations or direct the registration of a criminal case when the matter involves disputed facts and an ongoing inquiry by the Federal Investigation Agency. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction, noting that the dispute involved contractual obligations and complex factual determinations unsuitable for writ proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Specific Relief Act 1877 would be rendered redundant if contractual disputes were routinely adjudicated through writ petitions. Furthermore, as the Federal Investigation Agency had already completed its inquiry into the petitioner's complaint, the Court directed the petitioner to await the outcome of those administrative proceedings rather than pursuing judicial intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations involving disputed facts?
  • Should the High Court direct the registration of a criminal case when an inquiry by the Federal Investigation Agency is already pending?
  • Does the availability of remedies under the Specific Relief Act 1877 preclude the use of writ jurisdiction for contractual disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Sohail Aziz vs Regional Transport Authority, Bahawalpur1998 CLC 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-02Read full judgment →
• Rana Naveed vs Special Judge and others1998 MLD 497 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Arshad vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division and others1998 SCMR 1462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-13
  leave to appealwrit petitionlocal government electionsnomination paper rejectionbank defaulterdiscretionary reliefconstitutional jurisdictionArticles 62 and 63dynamic interpretationpublic welfare
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had refused discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution to a candidate whose nomination paper for local government elections was rejected due to being a bank defaulter. The core legal question was whether a bank defaulter could be disqualified from contesting local government elections, even if a specific prohibitory ordinance had lapsed, by invoking constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and exercised along sound judicial lines to advance justice and foster democratic institutions free of undesirable characters. The Court held that Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, read with other constitutional principles like the Objectives Resolution and Principles of Policy, can be dynamically interpreted and applied to local government elections through Section 21(1)(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, even if related specific legislation has lapsed. The principle of 'salus populi est supremea lex' (regard for public welfare is the supreme law) was also invoked.

  Questions settled

  • Can discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution be refused if equities weigh against the petitioner, even if technical pleas are valid?
  • Whether a bank defaulter is disqualified from contesting local government elections if specific prohibitory legislation has lapsed?
  • Can Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution be applied to local government elections through cross-reference to Section 21(1)(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can constitutional mandates be given extended or dynamic interpretation to foster democratic institutions and ensure elected offices are free of undesirable characters?
  • Are the Principles of Policy in Chapter 2 of Part II of the Constitution mere embellishments or do they have substantive meaning capable of being given effect to?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Asghar Ali vs M/s. Al-Asif Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi and another1998 PLC 37 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
• Rana Arshad Fahim and another vs Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1013 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs Habib-Ur-Rehman and another1998 MLD 1324 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
• Rameshchandra Manna Lal vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1998 PTD 831 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• RAMDASApplicant vs Mst. Bernadat1998 PLD Karachi 42 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-25
  revision applicationjurisdictionFamily Courtnon-Muslimsreturn of plaintWest Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964Order VII Rule 10 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from an order of the IInd Additional District Judge, Nawabshah, rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without deciding the question of jurisdiction on merits. The suit involved family disputes between a Hindu husband and a Christian wife. The core legal question was whether the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 applies to non-Muslim parties, conferring exclusive jurisdiction over family disputes upon the Family Court rather than the District Court. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction must be determined by the court before proceeding with evidence. The Court ruled that the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 is a special procedural enactment of general applicability to all non-Muslims, regardless of their specific religion. The Act merely alters procedural forum without affecting substantive personal rights of parties. Consequently, family matters of non-Muslims fall within the ambit of the Family Courts Act 1964.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 applies to family disputes involving non-Muslim parties?
  • Is a court required to decide preliminary objections regarding its jurisdiction prior to proceeding with evidence on merits?
  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 override ordinary general laws in matters relating to family disputes of non-Muslims?
  Read full judgment →
• Ram Lal Sunaja vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax and another1998 PTD 1346 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-08-13Read full judgment →
• Rakesh Raj and Associates vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and another1998 PTD 3420 · Punjab and Haryana High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rakesh Aggarwal through Legal Heirs vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2291 · Delhi High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Rajwali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 664 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
• Rajendra Prasad vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2404 · Patna High Court · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
• Rajeev Ratan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax/Wealth Tax and another1998 PTD 2308 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-12-18Read full judgment →
• Raja Saeed Ahmad vs Water and Power Development Authority, through Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and 2 others1998 SCMR 1259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-10
  disciplinary proceedingsmisconductservice tribunalvicarious responsibilityWAPDA employeesline lossespenalty of censure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in WAPDA, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld a penalty of censure imposed upon him following disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner had been charged with misconduct for submitting a false statement of line losses for July 1984, which understated electricity losses by using incorrect figures despite having access to accurate data from the Grid Station. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be held liable for the submission of a false statement prepared by a subordinate, and whether the charge-sheet sufficiently covered the findings of the inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, as the officer in charge, bore ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of documents emanating from his office. The Court affirmed that the charge-sheet provided adequate notice of the allegations. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the penalty of censure was justified given the petitioner's failure to verify the statement before forwarding it, thereby establishing the principle of vicarious supervisory responsibility for official returns.

  Questions settled

  • Can an officer in charge be held responsible for the submission of a false statement prepared by a subordinate?
  • Does a charge-sheet sufficiently cover findings if the specific allegation of submitting a false statement is included in the statement of allegations?
  • Is an officer required to verify the accuracy of official statements before forwarding them to higher authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Qureshi, J Ardeshir Cowasjee and 11 others vs Karachi Building1998 PLD Karachi 413 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
• Raja Nek Muhammad vs District Magistrate, Abbottabad and others1998 P Cr. L J 612 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-09Read full judgment →
• Raja Nasir Khan vs Abdul Sattar Khan and another1998 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03
  earnest moneybianaoral agreementimmovable propertytime is not of the essenceaward of interestcompound interestancillary reliefrecovery suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the trial court in a suit for recovery of money and permanent injunction based on an oral agreement for the sale of commercial property, wherein the appellant had received earnest money (biana) amounting to Rs.24,00,000 but failed to secure or transfer a valid title. The core legal questions involved whether time was the essence of the oral agreement, whether earnest money could be forfeited without express terms, and whether the trial court was justified in awarding compound interest from the date of the receipt of money despite the absence of a specific claim in the plaint. The Lahore High Court held that time is not ordinarily of the essence in contracts relating to immovable property, that earnest money cannot be forfeited in the absence of explicit terms, and that under Section 34 and Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the court has discretionary power to award interest as an ancillary relief. However, the High Court modified the trial court's decree, holding that interest should run from the date of the decree rather than from the date of the receipt of the unascertained sum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time is considered the essence of a contract in oral agreements relating to immovable property?
  • Can a vendor forfeit earnest money in the absence of express terms and conditions in an agreement?
  • Is a court empowered under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to award interest even if it was not specifically prayed for in the plaint?
  • From which date should interest be awarded when the initial claim is for an unascertained sum to be determined by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Masood Raza Khan and others vs Chief Land1998 SCMR 941 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-17
  Produce Index UnitsSem and Thurland reformsremand proceedingsfinality of orderreview of orderconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition against land revenue authorities' orders regarding the resumption of excess land under land reform laws. The core legal question involves whether a party can re-agitate a finalized claim for rebate on account of Sem and Thur damaged land during remand proceedings specifically ordered for recalculation of Produce Index Units (P.I.Us.) for urban municipal land, and whether a Land Commissioner can review an earlier predecessor's order beyond the prescribed limitation. The Supreme Court held that an order granting a specific rebate which attained finality cannot be reopened in subsequent remand proceedings restricted to another issue, and that authorities lack jurisdiction to review past orders beyond the date specified in the rules. The key principle laid down is that remand proceedings are strictly confined to the scope of the remand order, and issues that have attained finality cannot be re-litigated under the guise of challenging consequential implementation orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party re-agitate an issue of Sem and Thur rebate that has attained finality during proceedings held pursuant to a remand order on a different issue?
  • Whether a Land Commissioner has the jurisdiction to review an order of a predecessor after the cutoff date specified under the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972?
  • Is an order passed by a subordinate authority strictly to implement a superior authority's remand order open to appeal or revision on unrelated past claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Hayat Khan vs Raja Shakeel Ahmad KhanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 392 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-15Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Hayat Khan vs Raja Shakeel Ahmad Khan and another1998 PLD Azad J&K 15 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-15Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Aslam Khan and anothers vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 2 others1998 CLC 595 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ashraf Khan Kayani vs Azad Government of the State1998 PLC (C.S.) 110 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-17
  service senioritynecessary partyService Tribunalcompetent authorityprocedural defectjudicial officersimpleadmentservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Service Tribunal order concerning the seniority of judicial officers. The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge, contested the seniority list determined by the High Court, alleging procedural irregularities and failure to adhere to statutory criteria. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s failure to implead the High Court—the competent authority that determined the seniority—as a respondent in the appeal before the Service Tribunal rendered the proceedings incompetent. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1976, the competent authority is a necessary party in service appeals. The Court determined that the Registrar of the High Court could not serve as a substitute for the High Court itself. Consequently, the absence of the competent authority as a respondent prevented the Service Tribunal from passing an effective, implementable order. Affirming that the defect was fatal to the proceedings, the Court dismissed the appeal as incompetent, declining to address the merits of the seniority dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Is the competent authority a necessary party in an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the failure to implead the competent authority as a respondent render an appeal before the Service Tribunal incompetent?
  • Can the Registrar of the High Court be considered a substitute for the High Court when the High Court is the competent authority in a service matter?
  • Can a legal point regarding the non-joinder of a necessary party be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ashraf and others vs Secretary Education, Government of Pakistan and others1998 PLD Supreme Court 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-23
  service lawpromotion criteriaseniority-cum-fitnessTrained Graduate Teacherstatutory interpretationservice ruleseligibility for promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the promotion criteria for Trained Graduate Teachers (B-16). The core legal question was whether the requirement of three years of service as a Trained Under Graduate Teacher (B-14) for promotion to B-16 must be acquired specifically after obtaining the professional qualification of B.Ed., or if prior service counts toward the eligibility criteria. The petitioners argued that, based on Note II of S.R.O. 53(KE)/93, experience must be counted post-qualification. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the relevant rules for promotion did not mandate that the three years of service be subsequent to acquiring the B.Ed. qualification. The Court held that any Trained Under Graduate Teacher possessing three years of service and the B.Ed. qualification is eligible for promotion based on seniority-cum-fitness. The principle laid down is that where promotion rules specify a period of service in a feeding cadre, such service is not required to be post-qualification unless explicitly stated in the rules governing promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of three years of service for promotion to Trained Graduate Teacher (B-16) necessitate that such service be acquired after obtaining the B.Ed. qualification?
  • Is the 'Note II' regarding counting experience after acquiring basic educational qualifications applicable to promotees or only to initial recruitment?
  • Does a Trained Under Graduate Teacher become eligible for promotion to Trained Graduate Teacher (B-16) upon completing three years of service and acquiring a B.Ed. degree, regardless of the order in which they were obtained?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Mehboob Elahi vs UBL of Pakistan through Manager and anothers1998 SCMR 2341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-08
  ex parte decreeguarantor liabilityrecovery of loansappellate procedurebanking lawnon-compliance with undertaking
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a suit for recovery of money filed by a bank against a borrower and a guarantor under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. Following an ex parte decree and the subsequent dismissal of an application to set it aside, the judgment-debtors filed a regular first appeal in the High Court. The High Court initially passed an interim order allowing the borrower to deposit a specific sum and approach the bank for interest remission. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the borrower failed to comply with the undertaking to deposit the specified amount. The petitioner, the guarantor, challenged this dismissal, arguing that the default of the borrower should not prejudice the guarantor's appeal, particularly when the requirements under Section 12(5) of the Ordinance had been satisfied. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court erred in dismissing the guarantor's appeal based on the borrower's non-compliance with the interim order, specifically addressing the legal implications of such joint liability in appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal filed by a guarantor be dismissed solely due to the borrower's failure to comply with an interim deposit order?
  • Does the non-compliance of a borrower with an undertaking to deposit money justify the dismissal of a joint appeal filed by the borrower and the guarantor?
  • What is the effect of Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 on the maintainability of an appeal where a guarantor has complied with statutory requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Industries Limited vs Malik Iftikhar Ahmed1998 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-05
  petition for leave to appealpersonal requirementejectmentconcurrent findings of factfinality of orderrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the concurrent findings of fact regarding the personal requirement of the respondent landlord for ejectment of the petitioner tenant. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact on personal requirement could be successfully assailed and whether a subsequently discovered fact regarding the landlord's possession of another shop could be raised in the present petition without having challenged the separate order dismissing an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on that ground. The Supreme Court held that since the order dismissing the application under section 12(2) C.P.C. had attained finality due to lack of a separate appeal, the new factual plea could not be entertained in a petition directed solely against the main judgment. The Court accordingly declined leave to appeal while granting the petitioner six months to vacate the premises upon certain conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a factual plea regarding the suppression of material facts can be raised in a petition for leave to appeal when the order dismissing an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. on that ground has attained finality?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact on personal requirement be assailed without invoking additional facts that were not made the subject of a direct appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Gulzar Ahmed vs Mushtaq Ahmed And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 92 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-26Read full judgment →
• Raja Gulzar Ahmed vs Mushtaq Ahmed and 7 others1998 PLD Lahore 111 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08
  second FIRcounter versioncognizable offenceconstitutional petitionpolice dutymandatory registrationcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the registration of a first information report (F.I.R.) regarding a cognizable offence involving house trespass, assault, and theft, after the respondent Station House Officer (S.H.O.) refused to record his version and instead registered a case against him at the instance of the opposing parties. The core legal question was whether the registration of a second F.I.R. or a counter version is barred when an F.I.R. has already been registered in respect of the same incident. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are imperative, and a police officer cannot refuse to record information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence simply because a prior F.I.R. exists. The ratio established is that the registration of a second F.I.R. embodying a counter version or different grievance arising from the same incident is not legally barred, and the police are bound to investigate the counter version impartially.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the registration of a second F.I.R. is barred under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an F.I.R. has already been registered in respect of the same incident?
  • Does a police officer have the discretion to refuse the registration of an F.I.R. upon receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • What is the correct legal procedure for the police when a party presents a counter version or different grievance arising out of an already reported incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Fakhar Abbas and another vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, Autonomous Corporate Body through Adminsitrator1998 CLC 1547 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Atta Ullah vs Shabbir Ahmad Chughtai and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-12
  service tribunalpromotionacademic qualificationPakistan Engineering Councilcivil servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed respondent No. 1's appeal and declared his promotion as Superintending Engineer (BS-19) in the LG & RD Department regular, holding the subsequent withdrawal notification to be illegal and void ab initio, while granting all back benefits. The core legal question revolved around whether respondent No. 1 possessed the requisite academic qualifications for promotion under the relevant rules and the applicability of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal committed no legal infirmity in finding the promotion regular and noted that it is within the domain of the Government to decide the sufficiency of academic qualifications for promotion, whereas the Pakistan Engineering Council regulates professional engineers rather than government departmental qualifications. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Pakistan Engineering Council has the power to regulate qualifications or promotions of engineers in Government or semi-Government departments?
  • Is it within the domain of the Government to decide whether a particular academic qualification of a civil servant is sufficient for promotion to a higher grade?
  • Whether a promotion made on the recommendations of the competent selection board and approved by the competent authority can be arbitrarily withdrawn without legal justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Ajaib Khan vs Soofi Allah Ditta and 4 others1998 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-13
  handwriting expertspecimen signaturescomparison of signaturescivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the trial court's order regarding the comparison of handwriting. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted with material irregularity in refusing to summon an old judicial file for specimen signatures and instead sending a proved power of attorney (Exh.D.2) to the handwriting expert for comparison with the disputed agreement to sell. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's exercise of discretion was unexceptionable, in aid of justice, and free from any material irregularity. The key principle laid down is that undisputed or proved contemporaneous documents on record are legally preferable and competent for handwriting comparison over unproven signatures from remote judicial files that were never confronted to the maker.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial court exercises its discretion lawfully when sending a proved document for comparison to a handwriting expert instead of summoning an older judicial file?
  • Can unproven signatures from a previous judicial file, which were never confronted to the maker, be legally used as a basis for signature comparison?
  • Does the refusal to summon a judicial file for handwriting comparison constitute a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Raj Muhammad Khan and others vs Muhammad Farooq Khan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-14
  service tribunalretrospective seniorityannual confidential reportsjudicial independencesupervisory jurisdictionseparation of powersremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five consolidated appeals against the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal's judgment, which had granted a judicial officer retrospective seniority and expunged adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). The core legal questions involved whether the Tribunal could decide the appeal without addressing the limitation period, whether retrospective seniority was permissible, and whether the Executive had the authority to modify ACRs recorded by the High Court. The Supreme Court, with the consent of the parties, set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the case to the Peshawar High Court for fresh consideration. Crucially, the Court held that under Article 203 and Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the High Court possesses exclusive supervisory and control authority over subordinate courts. Consequently, the Executive lacks the power to record, modify, or review ACRs of judicial officers, as such authority vests solely in the High Court. The Court also expunged derogatory remarks made by the Tribunal against a former Chief Justice, noting the Tribunal's biased approach.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Executive have the authority to record or modify Annual Confidential Reports of subordinate judicial officers?
  • Does the High Court possess exclusive supervisory and control authority over subordinate courts under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the separation of the judiciary from the executive a constitutional mandate that precludes executive interference in the internal administration of subordinate courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Rais Khuda Bakhsh vs Admn. Municipal CommitteeK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Raichand Kothari (Huf) vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3411 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-08-22Read full judgment →
• Rai Willayat Khan vs Zafar Wattoo, ASI, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 165 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →