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.

• Rahmat Ullah alias Kori and 2 otherss vs Mitha Khan and another1998 CLC 1325 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
• Rahimullah vs Maqbool Ahmad and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 513 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux and others vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 118 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-16
  robberytheftdeadly weaponscriminal appealsentencingstatutory interpretationpreparation for theft
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conviction under Section 392 read with Section 398 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where appellants were sentenced for robbery while armed. The core legal question was whether the facts constituted robbery or a lesser offense, and whether Section 398 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was applicable to a completed theft. The Court held that because the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants caused or attempted to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint during the theft, the offense did not meet the definition of robbery under Section 390 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Instead, the Court found the appellants guilty under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as they had made preparation for causing harm. The Court clarified that Section 398 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not create a substantive offense but serves as a sentencing guideline for attempts, and is inapplicable to completed robberies. Consequently, the conviction was modified, and the sentence reduced accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 398 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 create a substantive offense or merely provide a sentencing restraint?
  • Is Section 398 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable to a case where the robbery has been completed?
  • What constitutes the offense of theft after preparation for causing death, hurt, or restraint under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for robbery under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if there is no evidence of actual force or fear applied to the victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh through Legal Heirs vs Assistant1998 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-15
  leave to appealproduce index unitscancellation of landinformer allotmentfraudconstitutional petitionsettlement department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' constitutional petition concerning the cancellation of land produce index units. The core legal question involves whether excess land units could be cancelled and subsequently allotted to an informer without notice or established fraud on the part of the original allottee. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed by the High Court, noting that precedents dictate an informer is only entitled to excess area under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 if the original allotment was obtained by fraud or was bogus, rather than through mere miscalculation by the field staff. The Court ordered that status quo shall continue pending final disposal of the case, thereby establishing that cancellation and subsequent transfer of land without proper consideration of fraud versus miscalculation warrants a thorough review on appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an informer is entitled to the transfer of excess land units under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 when the excess was caused by a miscalculation of the field staff rather than fraud?
  • Whether an order cancelling land units can be sustained if passed without notice to the affected parties?
  • Whether a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of settlement units and subsequent transfer via mutation is liable to dismissal under the circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim alias RAHMAKand anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 821 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-30
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaypresumption of innocencecriminal recordtrial delaybail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Rahim alias Rahmak and Muhammad Shareef alias Ketcho, who were charged under Sections 324, 353, 332, 427, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged police encounter. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay, given that over a year had passed since their arrest without the commencement of the trial or the examination of any prosecution witnesses. The State opposed the application, citing the accused's criminal history and the pendency of multiple other cases. The Sindh High Court held that the accused were entitled to bail. The Court established the principle that the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused, without any prior convictions, does not constitute a valid ground for withholding bail, particularly when there is a significant statutory delay in the trial process. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused, without conviction, justify the refusal of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no prosecution witnesses have been examined after a significant period of incarceration?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahdar vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 695 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-06Read full judgment →
• Rafiullah vs Muhammad Ismail and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 832 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
• Rafi Ullah vs The State and anothers1998 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-12
  bail cancellationmurderpolice investigationleave to appealfurther inquirydiscretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner, Rafi Ullah, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting pre-trial or post-arrest bail to an accused charged with murder based primarily on successive police investigations finding the accused innocent, notwithstanding direct eyewitness accounts and specific attribution of a fatal shot. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in recalling the bail order, noting that the occurrence took place in broad daylight, was witnessed by competent witnesses, and the trial court's reliance solely on police exoneration in the face of prompt reporting and specific allegations resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The key principle laid down is that bail granted in disregard of direct incriminating evidence and prominent eyewitness accounts merely on the basis of police findings of innocence may be properly set aside to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted to an accused charged with murder can be cancelled when the trial court relied on police findings of innocence despite direct eyewitness testimony?
  • Does a broad daylight occurrence with prompt reporting and specific attribution of a fatal shot constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offense?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with the High Court's discretion in cancelling bail when the trial court's bail order demonstrates a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafi Ullah Khan vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others1998 SCMR 84 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-12
  evacuee propertyinformer claimleave to appealsettlement lawsprecedent conflictwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the transfer of evacuee property to an informer. The dispute arose from competing claims over a building, where the High Court set aside the Settlement Commissioner's order in favor of the petitioner, declaring the property available for disposal. The core legal questions concern the impact of the amendment to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act on the rights of informers whose claims were pending when the relevant Press Note was withdrawn on 13-1-1962. Specifically, the Court must determine whether the precedent in Major J.H. Naqvi governs the matter or if subsequent conflicting judgments apply. Furthermore, the Court addresses whether the High Court, having found the respondents ineligible for transfer, was legally justified in allowing the writ petition to treat the property as available. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve these conflicting precedents and the procedural propriety of the High Court's order, while maintaining the status quo of the property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ratio decidendi of the judgment in Major J.H. Naqvi v. The Director, Enforcement Directorate is applicable to the case or the ratio of subsequent conflicting judgments?
  • Whether the High Court, after holding that the respondents were not entitled to the transfer of the building, was justified in allowing the writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali vs Government of the Punjab through Punjab Highway1998 PLD Lahore 441 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-31
  withdrawal of suitintra-court appealconstitutional petitionvested rightsalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal sought to challenge an order of a learned Single Judge disposing of a writ petition by directing the parties to avail of the alternate remedy of arbitration provided under their agreement. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel sought to unconditionally withdraw both the Intra-Court Appeal and the underlying writ petition without permission to file a fresh constitutional petition, noting that a civil suit for rendition of accounts had already been filed. The respondent strongly opposed the withdrawal, arguing that valuable rights had accrued under the impugned order. The Court held that a plaintiff or appellant possesses an indefeasible, unconditional right to withdraw a suit or proceedings under Order XXIII Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, subject only to established limitations such as the bar on fresh proceedings or the existence of a preliminary decree creating vested rights. Finding that no such rights had accrued to the respondent under the interlocutory disposal of the writ petition, the Court allowed the unconditional withdrawal of both the appeal and the constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaintiff have an unconditional right to withdraw a suit or appeal?
  • At what point is a party precluded from withdrawing a suit or legal proceeding?
  • Whether the unconditional withdrawal of a constitutional petition bars a separate pending suit before a court of plenary jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali and another vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 277 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
• Raees Ahmad alias Guddo and 3 others vs The State1998 SCMR 1369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 37) · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-04Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Khan and 6 others vs Azim Khan and 35 others1998 SCMR 2727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-02
  res judicataconstructive res judicatacivil revisionpossession of landfinality of litigationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for possession of land measuring 86 Kanals, 5 Marlas. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The Peshawar High Court subsequently dismissed the defendants' revision petition, holding that the defendants were barred from re-agitating their claim of possession based on exchange, as this issue had been conclusively settled in previous litigation. The core legal question was whether the principle of res judicata, specifically Explanation (iv) to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, precluded the petitioners from re-litigating a claim for possession that had been rejected in prior proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding that the petitioners were indeed barred from raising the plea again. The Court affirmed that matters previously adjudicated or which ought to have been raised in former litigation cannot be re-agitated, thereby upholding the finality of judicial proceedings and the application of constructive res judicata.

  Questions settled

  • Does Explanation (iv) to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a party from re-agitating a claim for possession that was rejected in previous litigation?
  • Can a party re-litigate a plea concerning land ownership if that specific plea was previously adjudicated or could have been raised in earlier proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and others vs Noor Muhammad and others1998 SCMR 2330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-03
  leave to appealdeclaratory decreeconsequential reliefsuit for possessionamendment of plaintprocedural technicalitymaintainability of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court in civil revision proceedings. The petitioners challenge the High Court's decision to non-suit them on the basis that they failed to seek the consequential relief of possession alongside a declaratory decree. The core legal questions are whether a plaintiff who pleads ownership and possession can be non-suited for failing to explicitly pray for possession, and whether such an omission constitutes a mere technical error curable by amendment of the plaint, particularly when no objection regarding the maintainability of the suit under the Specific Relief Act was raised before the trial or appellate courts. The Supreme Court, finding these contentions require further examination, granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court erred in its strict application of procedural requirements regarding consequential relief in declaratory suits. The principle at issue involves the extent to which procedural technicalities regarding the form of a suit can defeat substantive claims where the underlying facts are admitted or established.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff be non-suited for failing to seek the consequential relief of possession in a declaratory suit if they have pleaded ownership and possession?
  • Is the omission to ask for the relief of possession in a suit a technical error that can be cured by amendment of the plaint?
  • Does the failure to raise an objection regarding the maintainability of a suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act before the trial or appellate courts preclude a High Court from dismissing the suit on that ground in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• R.G. Agrawal & Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2161 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Qutabuddin alias Qutaba and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 204 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Qutab vs State1998 MLD 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
• Qureshi Industries vs Central Board of Revenue and others1998 PTD 2776 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain Shah and 7 others vs Masjid Hanfia Maqbooza Ahle-1998 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-30
  juristic personmosque propertyadverse possessionlimitation periodleave to appealsuit for possession
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, successors-in-interest of Qurban Hussain Shah, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which decreed a suit for possession filed by respondent Masjid Hanfia Maqbooza Ahle-Islam. The respondent mosque had instituted the suit claiming that the disputed property was granted for mosque purposes and that the petitioners' predecessor, initially permitted to reside there as a khadim, had no ownership rights. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, holding that the mosque was not a legal person, that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 144 of the Limitation Act, and that the defendants had acquired title by adverse possession. However, the High Court reversed this decision, concluding that a mosque is a juristic person competent to sue in a representative capacity, that the suit was within time, and that the defendants failed to prove adverse possession. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, holding that a mosque is property of God against which limitation does not run, and consequently declined leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a mosque is a juristic person competent to file a suit in a representative capacity?
  • Does limitation run against a mosque for property dedicated to it?
  • Can long-standing permissive possession of property belonging to a mosque mature into ownership through adverse possession?
  • What are the evidentiary requirements to establish adverse possession against a mosque?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 315 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Qazi Nisar Ahmed and others vs President of Pakistan and others1998 SCMR 2344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-15
  general electionscensusseat allocationextra-judicial killingsconstitutional petitionpublic importancefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three constitutional petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, challenging the scheduled general elections of February 3, 1997. The petitioners argued that the elections would not produce representative assemblies because seat allocations were based on the 1981 census, ignoring significant population shifts and urban-rural demographic changes over the preceding sixteen years. They contended that the government's failure to conduct a census violated constitutional duties and fundamental rights, including political liberties under Article 17. Additionally, one petition raised concerns regarding extra-judicial killings in Karachi, requesting an inquiry before elections. The Supreme Court admitted the petitions for regular hearing due to the public importance of the issues. However, the Court dismissed the prayer for a stay of elections, holding that the Constitution mandates elections following the dissolution of the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b). Furthermore, the Court clarified that holding a fresh census is not a condition precedent for general elections under Article 51(3), and alleged extra-judicial killings have no legal nexus with the election schedule.

  Questions settled

  • Is the holding of a fresh census a condition precedent for the conduct of general elections under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the failure to conduct a census render the allocation of seats in the National Assembly unconstitutional?
  • Can the Supreme Court stay general elections on the grounds of pending inquiries into extra-judicial killings?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Javed vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala and 8 others1998 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18
  registration of FIRcognizable offencepreliminary inquirypolice dutyconstitutional petitionmandamusSection 154 CrPCPolice Act 1861
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking a direction against police officers to register a criminal case regarding alleged theft of articles. The petitioner had repeatedly approached the police, but the Station House Officer (SHO) conducted an informal preliminary inquiry through an Assistant Sub-Inspector and dropped the matter without registering a case, claiming the allegations were baseless. The court considered whether police can conduct a preliminary inquiry into information disclosing a cognizable offence before registering a First Information Report (FIR). The High Court held that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the police have no discretion to refuse or delay registering an FIR when information disclosing a cognizable offence is provided. Preliminary inquiries prior to FIR registration are not envisaged by law; formal registration must precede investigation. Misuse of information is guarded by Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while police officers who fail to register cognizable cases expose themselves to liability under Section 29 of the Police Act 1861. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the SHO was directed to register the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Can police officers conduct a preliminary inquiry to test the veracity of allegations before registering an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a police officer have the legal discretion to refuse registration of an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence?
  • Whether the failure or refusal of a police officer to register an FIR for a cognizable offence exposes the officer to disciplinary or legal action under Section 29 of the Police Act 1861?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Liaqat Ali Qureshi vs Hafiz Muhammad Ishaque and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 153 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-16
  Tehsil Qazi appointmentwrit petitionnon-joinder of necessary partyservice rulesacademic qualificationsmerit listsuo motu
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court order regarding the appointment of a Tehsil Qazi. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant possessed the requisite academic qualifications under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court (Qazi Branch) Service Rules, 1990, and whether the respondent's writ petition was incompetent due to the non-joinder of the Selection Committee as a necessary party. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was qualified, as the proviso requiring additional subjects applied only to specific categories of degrees, not the appellant’s degree, which was equivalent to an M.A. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Selection Committee, whose merit list was challenged, was a necessary party. Failure to implead such a body renders a writ petition incompetent. The Court emphasized that this objection regarding the non-joinder of a necessary party can be raised suo motu by the Court, even if not pleaded in the written statement. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the respondent's writ petition, upholding the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso regarding additional subjects in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court (Qazi Branch) Service Rules, 1990 apply to holders of the 'Shahadat-ul-Almiyya Fil-Uloomil Arabia Wal Islamia' degree?
  • Is a Selection Committee whose merit list is challenged in a writ petition a necessary party that must be impleaded?
  • Can a court raise the objection of non-joinder of a necessary party suo motu if it was not raised in the written statement?
  • Does the failure to attach a certified copy of an impugned order to a writ petition render the petition liable to dismissal if the facts are admitted by the opposing party?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Faiz-Ur-Rehman vs Ghulam Ahmed1998 MLD 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Nawaz Khan vs State1998 MLD 503 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali And Another vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 39) · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-19Read full judgment →
• Qarshi Industries (Private) Limited through Deputy Manager (Admn.) vs Government of N..W.F.P. through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Peshawar and 10 others1998 PLD Peshawar 26 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-23
  export taxmodel tax scheduleofficial gazette publicationlocal council powersprovincial government powersindustrial estate exemptionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner company, located in the Hattar Industrial Estate, challenged an export tax levied on its products (medicinal syrups and herbal preparations) pursuant to a Provincial Government notification under the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner contended that the Provincial Government possessed no independent power to directly impose export tax, that the items produced were not covered by the model schedule, that the notification had expired by efflux of time after three years, and that the tax proposal was never published in the official Gazette. The Peshawar High Court accepted the constitutional petition, holding that under Sections 134, 135, and 136 of the Ordinance, export tax can only be imposed by the Local Council itself, not directly by the Provincial Government. The Court further ruled that mandatory statutory provisions and rules require tax proposals and schedules to be published in the official Gazette to have the force of law. Since the impugned notification was never published in the official Gazette, it was declared null, void, and of no legal effect against the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Provincial Government directly levy and impose export tax under the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 1979, without the tax being levied by the Local Council?
  • Is publication of a taxation proposal in the official Gazette mandatory for it to have the force of law?
  • Does an unnotified or unpublished tax schedule notification carry legal effect against affected taxpayers?
  Read full judgment →
• Qari Hafiz Muhammad Ehsanullah vs Syed Ahmad Shah Mashadi, Advocate and 3 others1998 MLD 1805 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Qambar Ali and another vs Khair Ali1998 MLD 63 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
• Qamar Abbas and 2 others vs Sohail Siddique and another1998 MLD 1132 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Mahmood vs Muhammad Shafi, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 23 [Lahore] 1 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Mahmood vs Muhammad Shafi and another1998 PLD Lahore 72 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23
  quashment of FIRconstitutional jurisdictionfact-findingalternative remedyNikahnamadiscretionary reliefclean hands doctrine
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, contending that he and the complainant's relative were legally married. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to determine the validity of a marriage and quash an F.I.R. during the investigation stage. Upon examining the Nikahnama, the Court found it fundamentally defective, lacking necessary witness signatures and containing contradictory entries. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it would not engage in fact-finding exercises, such as recording evidence or examining witnesses, which are functions reserved for the investigating officer and the trial court. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and requires the petitioner to approach the court with clean hands. It also ruled that the petition was incompetent because the petitioner had adequate alternative remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Police Rules 1934, including seeking discharge before a Magistrate or acquittal during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the validity of a marriage during the investigation stage of a criminal case?
  • Is a petition for the quashment of an F.I.R. maintainable when the petitioner has adequate alternative remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the existence of alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Police Rules 1934 render a constitutional petition for quashment incompetent?
  • Can a petitioner seeking discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 succeed without demonstrating clean hands?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Khan vs The State1998 MLD 633 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
• Qaim Din vs Beero through Legal Heirs and anothers1998 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-03
  specific performanceres judicataregistered sale-deednon-partydeclaratory suitex parte decreeland ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding competing claims over land ownership. The petitioner sought specific performance of an alleged oral sale agreement with the original owner, Sakhi Walayat, obtaining an ex parte decree. Subsequently, the respondent, Beero, who had purchased the same land via a registered sale-deed prior to the petitioner's suit, filed a separate suit for a declaration that the petitioner's decree was ineffective against his rights. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court concurrently held that the respondent was not bound by the petitioner's decree as he was not a party to that suit. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of res judicata applied to a third party not involved in the prior litigation and whether the respondent's suit was maintainable. The Supreme Court held that a decree cannot bind a non-party, and thus, res judicata does not apply. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the respondent was not required to seek possession to challenge the decree's validity, ultimately dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree for specific performance be binding on a person who was not a party to the suit?
  • Does the doctrine of res judicata apply to a person who was not a party to the previous litigation?
  • Is a separate suit for declaration maintainable by a third party challenging a decree obtained by others without seeking possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 916 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-02Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs Mst. Bakhat Bhari and others1998 CLC 41 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24
  inheritancelimitationcustomary lawgift mutationMuslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Actdeclaratory suitlimited owner
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the appellant's suit for declaration regarding the inheritance of land. The core legal questions were whether the suit challenging a 1945 gift mutation was barred by limitation and whether the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, invalidated a gift made prior to 15-3-1948. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the suit was hopelessly time-barred as the gift occurred in 1945 and the plaintiff failed to challenge it within the statutory period. The Court held that transactions, including gifts and sales, made prior to 15-3-1948 are protected under Section 2-A of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, and cannot be reopened. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a declaratory suit must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, and the mere enactment of the 1962 Act does not automatically revive time-barred claims or invalidate protected historical transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit challenging a gift mutation made in 1945 barred by limitation if filed in 1966?
  • Does the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, apply to gifts made prior to 15-3-1948?
  • Can a transaction of gift or sale made prior to 15-3-1948 be set aside under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs (Mst.) Bakhat Bhari And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 272 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-20Read full judgment →
• Qadir Baichsh vs Muhammad Ashraf and others1998 SCMR 1289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-23
  pre-emptionZare Soyamconsent orderdeposit of pre-emption moneyreview jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner challenged orders requiring the deposit of the Zare Soyam (pre-emption money). The core legal question was whether the trial court acted improperly by directing the petitioner to deposit the balance of the Zare Soyam after the petitioner had previously consented to a specific valuation of the suit property. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court's order was not an impermissible review of a previous order but rather an enforcement of a consent order to which the petitioner had voluntarily agreed. The Court emphasized that when a pre-emptor agrees to a specific price determination by the trial court, they are bound by that agreement and cannot subsequently re-agitate the issue to seek extensions or challenge the calculation. The key principle laid down is that while a court has limited powers to review or alter an order for the deposit of Zare Soyam under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, such restrictions do not preclude the court from enforcing compliance with a consent order previously accepted by the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court order the deposit of the balance of Zare Soyam when the petitioner has previously consented to the valuation of the property?
  • Does the restriction on reviewing orders for the deposit of Zare Soyam under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, prevent a court from enforcing a consent order?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to raise a legal argument for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal if it was not raised in the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadar Mand vs Muhammad Amroze and 4 others1998 SCMR 496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-22
  bail cancellationappreciation of evidencemurderF.I.R.ocular evidencebail stage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the cancellation of bail granted to four respondents accused of murder in F.I.R. No. 79 of 1994. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail by prematurely appreciating evidence and relying on discrepancies in witness statements and medical reports. The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly engaged in the appreciation of evidence at the bail stage, which is impermissible. The Court clarified that the absence of specific details or witness names in an F.I.R. is not unnatural when the complainant is not an eye-witness. Upon reviewing the police record, the Court found reasonable grounds to believe the respondents were guilty of the offence, which is punishable by death or life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court set aside the bail order, converted the petition into an appeal, and ordered the cancellation of the respondents' bail, directing that they be taken into custody.

  Questions settled

  • Is it permissible for a court to appreciate evidence at the bail stage?
  • Does the omission of eye-witness names in an F.I.R. necessarily invalidate their testimony or justify the grant of bail?
  • What is the standard for cancelling bail when reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is guilty of a capital offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Q.M.R. Expert Consultants through Sole Proprietor Qutu Buddin KhanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 83 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pyramid Builders (Pvt.) Ltd vs Lahore Development Authority1998 MLD 595 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 173 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore vs J.V. Gardner and 21998 CLC 199 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-04
  fatal accidentcompensatory damagesnegligenceres ipsa loquiturquantum of compensationtort liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two cross Regular First Appeals arising from a trial court decree granting compensatory damages for the death of a passenger in a fatal bus accident. The core legal questions involved whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, and the correct determination of the quantum of compensation payable to the legal heirs. The Lahore High Court held that where a vehicle is under the sole management and control of the defendant's employee and an accident occurs in circumstances not happening without negligence, the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies, placing the burden on the defendant to disprove negligence, which the appellant failed to do. Regarding compensation, the Court held that expected bonuses cannot be included as part of salary without proof that they formed part of the terms and conditions of service, and calculated the compensation based on the deceased's salary with incremental increases over the relevant expected life span, deducting a portion for personal expenses. The appellant corporation's appeal was dismissed, and the claimant's cross-appeal was accepted to modify the compensation amount.

  Questions settled

  • Does the maxim res ipsa loquitur apply in a fatal road accident case where the vehicle is under the management and control of the defendant's employee?
  • Can expected annual bonuses be included in the calculation of future income for determining compensatory damages without proof that they form part of the deceased's terms and conditions of service?
  • Whether the transport corporation is liable to pay compensatory damages for the wrongful and negligent act of its driver resulting in a passenger's death?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Nationalised School Teachers and Headmasters' Association1998 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-28
  nationalized teachersprovincialized teachersservice benefitspensionary benefitssenioritySupreme Court Rulesservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous application was filed by the Punjab Nationalised School Teachers and Headmasters' Association seeking implementation of a prior Supreme Court judgment dated 25-6-1995. The petitioners contended that the government, while implementing the previous order regarding the counting of pre-nationalization and pre-provincialization service for seniority and promotion, had failed to extend these benefits to pension calculations. The core legal question was whether the previous judgment, which permitted the computation of prior service for seniority and selection grades, implicitly mandated the inclusion of such service for pensionary benefits. The Court noted that the Education and Finance Departments were currently deliberating the financial implications and admissibility of pensionary benefits for these teachers. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere at this stage, holding that the administrative authorities should first conclude their deliberations. The application was disposed of with a directive for the relevant departments to reach a final decision within four months, ensuring that the spirit of the previous judgments of the Court and the Service Tribunal is duly considered in their determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to issue further orders to ensure compliance with its previous judgments under the Supreme Court Rules 1980?
  • Should the Supreme Court interfere in a service matter while the relevant government departments are actively considering the administrative implementation of a court order?
  • Is the computation of pre-nationalization service for pensionary benefits a matter that must be administratively determined before judicial intervention?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Nationalised School Teachers and Headmasters Association1998 PLC (C.S.) 145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-28
  service benefitsnationalized teacherspensionary benefitspre-nationalization serviceseniorityimplementation of judgmentprovincialized cadre
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a miscellaneous application seeking the implementation of a previous Supreme Court judgment regarding the service benefits of nationalized and provincialized school teachers. The core legal question was whether the computation of service rendered by these teachers, which the Court previously held should include pre-nationalization service for seniority and monetary benefits like selection grades, also extends to pensionary benefits. The petitioners contended that the government’s subsequent notification improperly restricted these benefits by excluding pension calculations. The Court observed that the relevant government departments were currently reviewing the admissibility of pensionary benefits in light of the financial implications and the previous judgment. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere at this stage, holding that the administrative departments should finalize their decision within four months. The Court emphasized that in determining the matter, the authorities must strictly adhere to the principles established in the Court's earlier judgment dated 25-6-1995, which recognized the entitlement of these teachers to count their prior service for comparable benefits enjoyed by the General Cadre.

  Questions settled

  • Does the computation of service for nationalized and provincialized teachers for monetary benefits include pre-nationalization service?
  • Can administrative departments be directed to finalize the determination of pensionary benefits for nationalized teachers within a specific timeframe?
  • Is the inclusion of pre-nationalization service for seniority and promotion benefits applicable to pension calculations for nationalized school teachers?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Industrial Development Board through Managing Director vs Mrs. Mubashra Basharat and others1998 PLC 254 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-12-19Read full judgment →
• Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution vs Messrs Pakistan1998 PLC 93 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab, through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy1998 PLC (C.S.) 868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-24
  pension recoverycivil servantdepartmental inquirypensionary benefitsstatutory interpretationnegligence or fraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the authority of the Government to recover outstanding dues from a retired civil servant by deducting amounts from their pensionary benefits. The Punjab Service Tribunal had previously held that under Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the Government lacked the authority to withhold pension, viewing the Punjab Civil Services (Pension) Rules as nugatory. The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between 'withholding' pension—which is restricted to cases of dismissal or removal—and 'deducting' recoverable amounts due to the Government. The Court held that the Punjab Civil Services (Pension) Rules, specifically Rule 1.8(b), allow for the recovery of losses caused by a pensioner's negligence or fraud, provided such losses are established through proper judicial or departmental proceedings initiated within one year of retirement. Finding that no formal inquiry had been conducted to establish the respondent's liability, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, directing the Government to initiate a proper inquiry to determine the liability, subject to applicable limitations, while emphasizing that mere correspondence does not constitute the required formal inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Government recover outstanding dues from a retired civil servant by deducting amounts from their pension?
  • Is there a distinction between withholding pension and deducting recoverable amounts from pensionary benefits?
  • Does Rule 1.8(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Pension) Rules require a formal inquiry to establish liability for losses caused by a pensioner?
  • Can mere correspondence between the Government and a pensioner be equated to a formal departmental inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural1998 CLC 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-10
  local governmentultra viresequal protection of lawunguided discretionprinciples of policyconstitutional interpretationPanchayat systemdiscriminatory legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Intra-Court Appeals challenging a judgment that declared the Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998, ultra vires the Constitution. The core legal questions were whether the Ordinance, which introduced a nomination-based Panchayat system, violated the constitutional guarantee of equality and whether it contradicted the Principles of Policy regarding local government. The Court held that the Ordinance was unconstitutional because it granted the Government absolute, unguided, and arbitrary discretion to nominate members, rendering the law ex facie discriminatory in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Ordinance had lapsed due to the failure of the Provincial Assembly to pass it as an Act within the statutory timeframe. The Court affirmed that while Principles of Policy are not strictly enforceable, they serve as essential aids for constitutional and statutory interpretation. The key principle laid down is that legislation conferring unguided and arbitrary power upon authorities to discriminate between persons in the same class violates the fundamental right to equal protection of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a law that confers absolute and unguided discretion upon the government to nominate members to local bodies violate the right to equal protection of the law?
  • Can the judiciary rely on the Principles of Policy contained in the Constitution as an aid to statutory interpretation?
  • Does the failure of a Provincial Assembly to pass an Ordinance into an Act within the prescribed timeframe result in the repeal of said Ordinance?
  • Is legislation that is ex facie discriminatory subject to challenge even without proof of actual discriminatory treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy1998 SCMR 1326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-24
  pension recoverycivil servantdepartmental inquirywithholding pensionstatutory interpretationservice lawlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had ruled that the Government lacked authority to deduct outstanding dues from the pension of a retired civil servant, citing Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Supreme Court distinguished between the 'withholding' of pension (prohibited except in cases of dismissal or removal) and the 'recovery' of losses from pensionary benefits, which is permissible under the Punjab Civil Services (Pension) Rules. The Court held that Rule 1.8(b) of the Pension Rules allows the Government to recover losses caused by a pensioner's negligence or fraud, provided such liability is established through formal judicial or departmental proceedings initiated within one year of retirement. Because the Government failed to conduct the requisite formal inquiry to establish the respondent's liability, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order but granted the Government liberty to initiate a proper inquiry within a specified timeframe to determine the alleged liability, subject to legal limitations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Government recover losses from a retired civil servant's pension without conducting a formal departmental or judicial inquiry?
  • Is there a legal conflict between Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and Rule 1.8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Pension) Rules regarding the recovery of government dues?
  • What is the time limitation for initiating departmental proceedings to recover losses from a retired government pensioner?
  • Does the prohibition on withholding pension under Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, extend to the recovery of specific government dues owed by a pensioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Home Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore1998 SCMR 1491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-14
  Summary Military Courtforfeiture of propertyMartial Law Regulationcompensation to victimsconstitutional powers of Supreme Courtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the forfeiture of agricultural property ordered by a Summary Military Court. The core legal question was whether a Summary Military Court possessed the legal authority under Martial Law Regulations or Orders to order the forfeiture of agricultural land as part of a sentence. The Supreme Court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate any specific Martial Law Order or Regulation authorizing such forfeiture. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision setting aside the forfeiture order. Exercising its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court further directed that the fine deposited by the convicts be distributed, with 90% allocated as compensation to the female victims of the crime, citing the grave injustice and trauma suffered. The principle laid down is that punitive measures, such as the forfeiture of property, must be strictly authorized by the governing law, and in the absence of such explicit authority, such orders are unsustainable. The Court also ordered the restoration of the forfeited lands and the refund of income derived therefrom.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Summary Military Court have the inherent authority to order the forfeiture of agricultural property in the absence of an express Martial Law Regulation or Order?
  • Can the Supreme Court of Pakistan exercise its powers under Article 187 to redistribute fine amounts as compensation to victims?
  • Is a forfeiture order passed by a Summary Military Court without legal basis liable to be set aside by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore1998 PLC (C.S.) 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-20
  terms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalconstitutional petitioncivil servantpromotionbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through leave of the Court arises from an order of the Lahore High Court passed on a constitutional petition filed by respondent No. 1, challenging the holding in abeyance of his promotion as Senior Land Control Officer and the re-designation of posts. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, declaring the impugned order without lawful authority and directing that the respondent be treated as promoted from the specified date with all emoluments. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to interpret orders relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in the face of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Supreme Court held that with the promulgation of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, exclusive jurisdiction to deal with cases relating to terms and conditions of civil servants of the Punjab Government vested in the Service Tribunal, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to determine such matters. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to entertain matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Whether matters concerning the holding in abeyance of a promotion and grant of emoluments fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Does the promulgation of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, Communication and Works Department Lahore1998 SCMR 2058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-20
  service matterwrit jurisdictionconstitutional barterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunalpromotioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, a civil servant, challenged an administrative order placing his promotion in abeyance before the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the petition, declaring the administrative order without lawful authority and directing the government to treat the respondent as promoted with full emoluments. Upon appeal by the Province of Punjab, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core legal question of whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. The Court held that the High Court’s interference was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Service Tribunal regarding the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, affirming the principle that service-related disputes, including promotion and emoluments, fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal, thereby precluding the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction in such matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court in service matters?
  • Are disputes regarding the promotion and emoluments of a civil servant exclusively triable by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Imran Khan1998 PLD Lahore 491 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning, Lahore and others vs Ilam Din1998 SCMR 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-09
  arbitration awardrule of the courtrevisional jurisdictiontime-barred objectionsex parte proceedingsnon-prosecutionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Province of Punjab sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their revision petition, thereby upholding a lower court decree making an arbitrator's award a rule of the court. The dispute arose from a construction contract where an arbitrator awarded a sum to the respondent contractor. The petitioners filed time-barred objections to the award and subsequently failed to produce evidence or prosecute their objections, leading to ex parte proceedings. The trial court made the award a rule of the court and granted interest. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere in the trial court's decision given the petitioners' failure to file timely objections and their failure to prosecute their case. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts acted correctly, noting that the objections were time-barred and the petitioners failed to substantiate any misconduct by the arbitrator. The Court affirmed that where a party fails to prosecute their objections or file them within the limitation period, the court is justified in making the award a rule of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court make an arbitration award a rule of the court when the objections filed against it are time-barred?
  • Is a party entitled to relief in revisional jurisdiction when they have failed to prosecute their objections in the trial court?
  • Does the failure to produce evidence in support of objections to an arbitration award justify the dismissal of a revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department, Government1998 MLD 934 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary Forest Department, Government1998 SCMR 1342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-01
  Sales TaxProvincial ImmunityOriginal JurisdictionConstitutional DisputeFederal-Provincial RelationsInterim Relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute regarding the levy of sales tax on the supply of fuel and firewood by the Forest Department of the Government of Punjab. The Provincial Government challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Federal Government's Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, arguing that the articles in question are provincial property and therefore exempt from taxation under the Constitution. The core legal question is whether the property of a Provincial Government is immune from taxation by the Federal Government under constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the dispute, being between the Provincial Government of Punjab and the Federal Government, falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court admitted the petition for regular hearing and granted an interim order suspending the recovery of the disputed sales tax pending final adjudication. The principle established is that disputes involving the tax liability of a Provincial Government vis-à-vis the Federal Government invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan have exclusive original jurisdiction over disputes between a Provincial Government and the Federal Government?
  • Is the property of a Provincial Government exempt from taxation by the Federal Government under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Sialkot and anothers vs Muhammad Irshad Bajwa1998 SCMR 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-18
  civil revisionconcurrent findingspre-emption decreeleading evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil revision decided by the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts in favor of the respondent. The respondent had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of the suit property and standing trees through a pre-emption decree, alleging interference by the petitioners, including the Province of Punjab and the Forest Department. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunity to lead evidence and whether the Forest Department established its title and ownership over the disputed land as an allottee. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's title and the failure of the petitioners to establish their ownership or produce sufficient evidence were legally sound, and that no jurisdictional defect or illegality existed. The court established that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence will not be interfered with in civil revisions or leave petitions, and that a party failing to diligently produce evidence cannot claim denial of a fair opportunity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts can be interfered with when the party was afforded sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence?
  • Can a party claim denial of a fair opportunity to produce evidence when their evidence side was closed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to prolonged negligence?
  • Whether the Forest Department can claim ownership of land without establishing it through proper title documents or notification as evacuee property?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Rawalpindi and anothers vs Muhammad Hussain and 7 others-rs1998 SCMR 2068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-31
  forest landevacuee propertyallotment cancellationconcurrent findingsleave to appealrevenue estate
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Province of Punjab, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs, who claimed ownership and possession of the suit land measuring 43 kanals and 6 marlas. The core legal question revolved around whether a notification issued under section 30 of the Forest Act, 1927, closing the land for regeneration for twenty years, precluded the allotment of the land to displaced persons, and whether the petitioners established the cancellation or acquisition of the valid prior allotment. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appraisal of evidence, noting that the petitioners failed to produce any document showing the cancellation of the initial allotment in favor of the predecessor-in-interest or the acquisition of the property by the department. The Court laid down the principle that mere issuance of a notification under the Forest Act does not invalidate a subsisting verified allotment of evacuee land unless proper legal cancellation or acquisition is duly established by cogent documentary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a notification under section 30 of the Forest Act, 1927, precludes the lawful allotment of land to a displaced person prior to the expiry of the notification period?
  • Does the failure of a government department to produce evidence of cancellation or acquisition of an allotment defeat its claim to ownership against a private holder?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts liable to be interfered with when the petitioner fails to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Rajanpur District and 2 others vs Muhammad Akram and others1998 SCMR 2306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-20
  land acquisitioncompensation market valuecross-objectionsSupreme Court jurisdictioncomplete justiceinherent powerscondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan arises from land acquisition proceedings initiated by a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for a housing scheme in Rajanpur. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability and procedural treatment of cross-objections by respondents in the Supreme Court, and the correct determination of market value compensation for the acquired land. The Supreme Court held that while Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding cross-objections does not directly apply to proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Court possesses inherent powers under Order XXXIII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and constitutional jurisdiction under Article 187(1) to treat such cross-objections as an appeal, condone delays where justified, and grant relief to ensure complete justice. On merits, the Court held that relying mechanically on a yardstick from a prior, dissimilar acquisition was erroneous, and fixed the compensation at Rs. 3,000 per Marla based on contemporaneous evidence and capital gains tax yardsticks, while exercising discretion to disallow interest on the enhanced amount under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

  Questions settled

  • Whether provisions relating to cross-objections under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Can the Supreme Court treat a respondent's cross-objections as a petition for leave to appeal or a regular appeal?
  • Is a yardstick of a prior contemporaneous acquisition automatically applicable to determine the market value of land in subsequent acquisition proceedings without examining attending circumstances?
  • Does the Supreme Court possess inherent and constitutional powers under Article 187(1) to grant relief to a respondent who has not filed a formal appeal or petition for leave?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, District Rahimyar Khan and 21998 MLD 1672 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, District Faisalabad and another vs Abdul Hameed and 5 others1998 MLD 597 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab in Its Ministry of Communications and Works1998 MLD 589 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Registrar, Firm Nasarul Haq1998 MLD 2062 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Ghulam Jilani1998 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and anothers vs Muhammad Anwar1998 CLC 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Province of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 3 others vs Momin Khan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13
  service appealadvance incrementshigher educational qualificationstechnical training centresleave to appealvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The Province of N.-W.F.P. and others filed civil petitions for leave to appeal against judgments delivered by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had accepted the service appeals of respondents (Instructors in BPS-14 in Technical Training Centres) and directed that they be granted advance increments for possessing or acquiring higher educational qualifications. The core legal questions involved whether the Government of N.-W.F.P. letter dated 22-7-1987 created a vested right to claim advance increments for higher qualifications in any faculty, whether the Provincial Government was competent to restrict or withdraw such increments on the ground that the qualifications were not in the relevant field, and whether the said letter was covered by any statutory provision of law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these points.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Government of N.-W.F.P. Letter dated 22-7-1987 gave any vested right to the respondents to claim advance increments on possessing/acquiring higher educational qualifications in any faculty?
  • Whether the Provincial Government was competent to withdraw grant of advance increments provided in their letter dated 22-7-1987, on the ground that the respondents did not possess or acquire higher qualifications in their relevant field?
  • Whether the Government of N.-W.F.P. Letter dated 22-7-1987 is covered by any statutory provision of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Project Director, Darya Khan Bridge Project, D . I. Khan vs The Collector_Collector Land Acquisition, D.I.Khan and 205 others1998 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-20
  land acquisitionlimitation periodcondonation of delaymarket valueclassification of landcompensationgovernment appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected regular first appeals arising from a land acquisition award for the Dera-Darya Khan Bridge Project. The core legal questions involved were whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation, and whether the classification of the acquired land for compensation purposes should be determined based on the revenue record existing at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or subsequent changes. The Peshawar High Court held that the government cannot claim preferential treatment regarding limitation, and routine departmental correspondence or internal delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Furthermore, the Court held that compensation must be determined based on the market value and classification of the land as of the date of the Section 4 notification, disregarding subsequent improvements or changes. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as time-barred and devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental correspondence and internal governmental delays constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
  • Can the government claim different standards or leniency regarding the law of limitation compared to ordinary litigants?
  • Whether the market value and classification of acquired land for compensation must be determined as of the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Does a subsequent change in the revenue record regarding land classification have any bearing on the determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Progressive Methods (Pvt.) Limited vs Shaheen Air Port Services and others1998 CLC 1638 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
• Professor Mumtaz Ali Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1998 SCMR 2369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-11
  civil servicepromotionspecialist cadreleave to appealdepartmental promotion committeeseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a decision of the Service Tribunal regarding the promotion of an Associate Professor in BPS-19 to a BPS-20 post. The petitioner, who claimed to be the senior-most Associate Professor, was bypassed for promotion in favor of a junior colleague on the ground that he failed to achieve the qualifying score. The petitioner contended that as a teacher and principal, he belonged to a specialist cadre, making the instructions in Parts II and III of the Guidelines for Departmental Promotion Committee/Central Selection Board inapplicable to him. The Service Tribunal rejected this contention, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how his role as Principal of a Federal Government College placed him within the specialist cadre. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider whether Part IV of the guidelines, which explicitly excludes the application of Parts II and III to civil servants in specialist cadres such as teachers and professors, applied to the petitioner's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether civil servants in specialist cadres, such as teachers and professors, are exempt from the application of Parts II and III of the Guidelines for Departmental Promotion Committee/Central Selection Board under Part IV thereof?
  • Whether the administrative post of Principal of a Federal Government College deprives an Associate Professor of their status within a specialist cadre for promotion purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Mumtaz Ali Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-11
  service lawpromotionspecialist cadredepartmental promotion committeecivil servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Associate Professor in BPS-19, challenged the promotion of a junior colleague to a B-20 position, arguing that the Departmental Promotion Committee/Central Selection Board guidelines were misapplied to him. The Service Tribunal had previously rejected his claim, stating he failed to demonstrate that his role as a Principal of Federal Government Colleges placed him within the 'specialist cadres' exempt from Parts II and III of the guidelines. Upon appeal, the petitioner contended that Part IV of the guidelines explicitly excludes civil servants in specialist cadres—specifically including teachers and professors—from the requirements of Parts II and III when seeking promotion within their own line of specialism. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioner, as a professor, falls within the specialist cadre exemption defined in Part IV of the guidelines, thereby challenging the Tribunal's finding that he was subject to the criteria of Parts II and III.

  Questions settled

  • Does Part IV of the guidelines for the Departmental Promotion Committee/Central Selection Board exclude professors from the requirements of Parts II and III when promoting within their own line of specialism?
  • Are teachers and professors considered part of the 'specialist cadres' under the guidelines for promotion of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Ghulam Nabi Khan vs Azad Government and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 206 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Ghulam Muhammad Malik, Chairman B.I.S.E., Bahawalpur vs Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 888 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-22
  civil servicedeputationtenure postrepatriationnatural justicemala fidepunitive transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant serving on deputation as Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, challenged a notification relieving him of his duties and directing him to report to the Education Department. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, holding a tenure post, could be repatriated or removed without a show-cause notice or hearing, particularly when the government alleged he did not meet performance expectations. The Court held that while the post of Chairman is held during the pleasure of the Controlling Authority, the government's admission that the transfer was based on the petitioner failing to meet expectations transformed the repatriation into a punitive measure. Consequently, the Court ruled that the impugned notification was arbitrary and mala fide because it punished the petitioner without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing. The principle laid down is that where a transfer or repatriation is punitive in nature, even if the post is held at the pleasure of the authority, the principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing, must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repatriation of a civil servant on deputation, based on alleged poor performance, constitute a punitive action requiring a show-cause notice?
  • Can a tenure post held at the pleasure of the Controlling Authority be terminated without adherence to the principles of natural justice?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere in a repatriation order if the order is tainted by mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. (Retd.) Masoodul Hassan vs Muhammad Iqbal1998 PLD Lahore 177 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-20
  personal needlandlord and tenanteviction petitionsubsequent eventspleadings in rent proceedingsretirement of landlordmultiplicity of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a landlord's second appeal under section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the concurrent dismissal of an eviction petition filed under section 13 of the same Ordinance. The appellant sought ejectment on grounds including personal need, having initially pleaded the need of his wife and children in the application, but later testifying regarding his own requirement and his impending retirement from government service. The core legal questions involved whether a landlord is precluded from proving personal need in evidence when the application pleaded the need of family members, and whether courts can take notice of subsequent events such as the landlord's retirement during the pendency of appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the technical rules of pleadings do not apply to rent proceedings, that children's need is an extension of the landlord's personal need, and that courts are bound to take judicial notice of subsequent events like retirement to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The appeal was allowed and an eviction order was passed against the tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord who pleaded the need of his family members in the eviction application can be permitted to establish his own personal need during evidence?
  • Can a court take notice of subsequent events, such as the retirement of a landlord, occurring during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does a premature personal need at the time of filing an eviction petition mature upon the landlord's retirement during subsequent appellate proceedings?
  • Are technical rules of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure strictly applicable to rent restriction proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• Principal, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar vs Miss Sajida Parveen1998 CLC 336 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
• Principal, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 2 others vs Miss Faiqa Manzoor and anothers1998 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-05
  constitutional jurisdictionabuse of processinterim ordersmedical college admissionprospectus rulesstudent promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from orders passed by the Peshawar High Court in a writ petition filed by a medical student challenging the refusal of the Khyber Medical College to promote her and allow her to appear in examinations after failing a subject. The core legal question concerns the propriety of using interim orders and successive writ petitions to circumvent college prospectus rules and avoid adjudication on merits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in granting interim relief and permitting the withdrawal of the petition without considering that the student had abused the process of the court to achieve indirect benefits contrary to college regulations. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be exercised to assist litigants in bypassing statutory rules or academic requirements, and matters must be decided on merits rather than being disposed of through engineered interim relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can a litigant use interim orders in successive writ petitions to circumvent academic rules contained in a college prospectus?
  • Whether the High Court should permit the withdrawal of a constitutional petition after granting interim relief that effectively satisfies the main claim without adjudication on merits?
  • What is the effect of an interim order's vacation upon the dismissal of a writ petition on the ongoing academic status of a student?
  Read full judgment →
• Present: Irshad Hasan Khan. Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Ch. Muhammad Aril1998 PLC (C.S.) 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-05
  service tribunaljurisdictioncorporation employeecivil servantprocedural lawrule of consistencytermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal. The core legal question revolves around the effect of the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, via Act XVII of 1997, on the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal and the maintainability of appeals by employees of corporations such as the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation. The Supreme Court held that the amendment relates to procedure and remedy, and following the rule of consistency, the Federal Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the grievance since the appeal was filed after Section 2-A became effective. The key principle laid down is that the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, provides a retrospective procedural remedy enabling aggrieved employees of corporations controlled by the Federal Government to approach the Federal Service Tribunal, and such matters relating to procedure do not non-suit litigants who file appeals after the effective date.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973 give the Federal Service Tribunal jurisdiction over employees of corporations owned or controlled by the Federal Government?
  • Is the amendment introduced by Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 procedural in nature regarding remedies and forums?
  • Did the Federal Service Tribunal err in non-suiting an appellant who filed an appeal after Section 2-A became effective?
  Read full judgment →
• Present: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Ilahi Khan, if Mukhtar Ahmed Khan vs1998 SCMR 2049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14
  special oathleave to appealrecovery suitpro-noteconsent decreefactual findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's Regular First Appeal, thereby upholding a trial court decree. The core legal question was whether a suit for recovery, based on a pro-note, was validly decreed on the basis of a special oath taken by the respondent. The petitioner contended that he had not consented to the special oath procedure and that his signatures and thumb impressions were obtained by the trial court judge in the absence of his counsel without proper disclosure. The Supreme Court examined the trial court record, which contained two statements recorded from the petitioner on the date of the hearing—one when the oath was offered and another when it was taken—confirming his agreement to the procedure. The Court held that the factual findings of the High Court, which relied on these recorded statements, were sound. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that where the record clearly reflects a party's consent to a special oath, such proceedings are binding.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit be validly decreed based on a special oath if the record reflects the defendant's consent?
  • Is a party bound by a special oath procedure if they later claim their signatures were obtained without disclosure?
  Read full judgment →
• Prem Family (Pvt ) (Specific) Trust vs Commissioner of Income Tax1998 PTD 241 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-09Read full judgment →
• Precision Rubber Product Workers' Union vs Bashir Remani and others1998 PLC 166 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-30Read full judgment →
• Prakash Chand Surana vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax D1998 PTD 1480 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Prakash Chand Modi vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1998 PTD 2288 · Rajasthan High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Pradeep Ratanshi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1998 PTD 839 · Kerala High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Port Qasim Authority vs Al-Ghurair Group of Companies And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 891 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Piyaro vs The State1998 SCMR 1749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-24
  criminal appealmurder convictiondying declarationsifting grain from chaffmedical evidenceocular testimonyprinciple of consistencyfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the High Court's judgment upholding the appellant's conviction for murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the conviction was sustainable given the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence and whether the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court affirmed that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not have universal application; courts are empowered to sift the grain from the chaff to determine individual culpability. The Court distinguished the appellant's case from the acquitted co-accused, noting that the appellant was assigned an active role in the fatal shooting, whereas the others were not. Additionally, the Court laid down that medical evidence regarding bullet trajectories is not definitive, as projectiles often deflect upon impact with internal tissues. Finally, the Court reiterated that an FIR lodged by a victim who subsequently dies from the injuries can be treated as a dying declaration, provided it was recorded promptly and the victim was conscious.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court convict an accused based on ocular evidence even if co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Is an FIR lodged by a victim who subsequently dies admissible as a dying declaration?
  • Does the principle of falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus apply universally to criminal testimony?
  • Can medical evidence regarding bullet trajectories be used to contradict ocular testimony when the bullet's path is unpredictable?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Qureshi vs Chairman, P.O.F. Board, Wah Cantt. and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-14
  service tribunaladverse remarksannual confidential reportsupersessionpromotion boardcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The appellant, a General Manager Production in the Pakistan Ordnance Factories, was superseded by his junior after receiving adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports for 1986 and 1987. The Service Tribunal initially allowed the appellant's appeals, expunging the adverse remarks and setting aside his supersession, but this was set aside by the Supreme Court on technical grounds and remanded. On remand, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the earlier decision of the Promotion Board was free from infirmity. The Supreme Court considered whether the authorities properly failed to consider the appellant's revised ACRs during promotion consideration. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in relying on the Promotion Board's earlier report based on unexpunged ACRs, causing prejudice to the appellant. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter to the department for fresh reconsideration of the appellant's promotion case in light of his revised ACRs and in juxtaposition with the respondent, while protecting the rights of third parties who had already been promoted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Departmental Promotion Authorities are required to strictly adhere to instructions contained in ESTACODE while determining criteria for promotions?
  • Does the expungement of adverse remarks in ACRs necessitate a fresh consideration of a civil servant's promotion case by the Promotion Board?
  • Can a promotion case be decided upon an earlier report of a Promotion Board that was based on unexpunged and unrevised ACRs?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Qureshi vs Chairman, P.O.F. Board, Wah Cantt and others1998 SCMR 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-14
  service tribunaladverse remarkssupersessionpromotion boardACRdepartmental promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The appellant, a General Manager Production in the Pakistan Ordnance Factories, was superseded by his junior after receiving adverse remarks in his ACRs for the years 1986 and 1987. The Service Tribunal initially allowed the appellant's appeals, expunging the adverse remarks and declaring him senior. However, this decision was set aside by the Supreme Court on technical grounds for failure to implead necessary parties, and the case was remanded. Upon remand, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the earlier decision of the Promotion Board was valid. The core legal question was whether the authorities and the Tribunal acted properly by failing to consider the appellant's revised and expunged ACRs upon remand. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in relying on the unrevised ACR evaluation and that the appellant's case should have been re-examined by the Promotion Board in light of the revised ACRs. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the department for reconsideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Departmental Promotion Board is required to consider revised and expunged ACRs of a civil servant when evaluating a case for promotion?
  • Does a failure by the Service Tribunal to consider revised ACRs upon remand vitiate the promotion decision?
  • Can a promotion case be reconsidered in light of revised ACRs notwithstanding the retirement of the competing officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Pioneer Pakistan Seed Ltd. vs United Distributors Pakistan Ltd. And 51998 CLC 61 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23
  ex parte injunctionad interim injunctiontemporary injunctionprocedural irregularityright to noticecivil appealdistribution agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ex parte ad interim injunction granted by the Civil Judge, Lahore, which restrained the appellant from terminating a distribution agreement or appointing new distributors. The core legal questions were whether an appeal lies against an ex parte ad interim injunction and whether the trial court erred by granting such an injunction without notice to the appellant, in violation of procedural requirements. The High Court held that an appeal is maintainable against an order granting an injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Regarding the merits, the Court held that the trial judge acted in disregard of Order XXXIX, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, by failing to record reasons for dispensing with notice or demonstrating extreme urgency. The principle laid down is that courts must not grant ex parte mandatory injunctions of indefinite duration without notice unless extreme urgency is established, and such orders should not ordinarily exceed fifteen days if passed in the defendant's absence. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is an ex parte ad interim injunction order appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court grant an ex parte mandatory injunction of indefinite duration without recording reasons for dispensing with notice?
  • What is the maximum duration for an interim injunction passed in the absence of the defendant under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Pine Match (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chairman vs Central Board of Revenue1998 PTD 3490 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Pheros & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2939 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-07-12Read full judgment →
• Peshawar14 Bahadur Khan vs Ajmal Khan and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 728 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Peshawar Development Authority through Director-General and others1998 SCMR 2051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14
  leave to appealconcurrent findingscivil revisionpermanent injunctionproperty disputehistorical monumentarchaeological significance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute involving the Peshawar Development Authority and respondents who purchased a specific city wall from the Provincial Government. The respondents filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession after the petitioners refused to approve their building construction plans, claiming the wall possessed historical and archaeological significance. The trial court, the appellate court, and the Peshawar High Court in revision concurrently found that the wall was constructed in 1935 and lacked the alleged historical or archaeological importance, thereby decreeing the suit in favor of the respondents. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged these concurrent findings. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court affirmed that the respondents' purchase of the property was established and the petitioners' objection regarding the wall's historical status was factually unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the concurrent judgments of the courts below.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of a legal infirmity?
  • Does a property owner have a right to construct on purchased land if the authority's objection regarding its historical status is factually unfounded?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervez Akhtar And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 200 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Hussain and 2 others vs Mst. Safeena Bibi and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1359 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz and 2 others vs The State and others1998 SCMR 1976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-28
  criminal appealmurdercommon intentiondeath penaltyocular testimonyinterested witnessenhancement of sentencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions and sentences for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction and whether the sentences of life imprisonment imposed on two co-accused should be enhanced to death. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt through credible ocular testimony and established motive. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that where multiple assailants act in furtherance of a common intention to commit murder, they are equally liable. Finding no mitigating circumstances on record, the Court enhanced the sentences of the two co-accused from life imprisonment to death, emphasizing that the normal penalty for murder is death. The judgment affirms that uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness may be accepted if it inspires judicial confidence, and that courts should avoid unwarranted leniency in sentencing for heinous crimes to maintain the deterrent effect of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness be sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the existence of a common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant the imposition of the death penalty on all participants in a murder?
  • Is it permissible for an appellate court to enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to death in the absence of mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ali Shaikh And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 91 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-23Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmad vs Munir Ahmad and anothers1998 SCMR 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-25
  Section 540 CrPCsummoning of witnessexpert evidencediscretionary power of trial courtcriminal trialjust determination of controversy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a trial court's order allowing the examination of a Fire-arm Expert under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion to summon an expert witness to determine if an element recovered from the deceased's body was a bullet remnant or a pellet, and whether the High Court erred in interfering with this discretionary order. The Supreme Court held that Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants plenary powers to a court to summon any witness at any stage if such evidence is essential for the just determination of the controversy. The Court ruled that the trial court's decision to allow the expert testimony was appropriate for the ends of justice and did not prejudice the accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the trial court's order, and directed the prosecution to produce the witness promptly to ensure expeditious case conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a court to summon an expert witness at any stage of the proceedings?
  • Should a High Court interfere with a trial court's discretionary order to summon a witness if that evidence is essential for the just determination of the case?
  • Is the examination of a Fire-arm Expert permissible under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to clarify the nature of evidence recovered from a deceased's body?
  Read full judgment →
• Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 490 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-02-08Read full judgment →
• Percy Robinson and others vs Reverend Bashir Jiwan and others1998 PLD Karachi 189 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →