Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Sayed Zamiruddin vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary, Education1997 PLC (C.S.) 702 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
- Sayed Hassan Mehtab Jaferi vs Muhammad Qamar Shah Khan1997 MLD 842 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-05Read full judgment →
- Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 491 · Gujarat High Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
- Sasadhar Chakravarty and another vs Union of India and others1997 PTD 1282 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-11-04Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Hussain Shah vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary Of Azad Jammu And Kashmir Government, Muzaffarabad And 3 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 302 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, directed against the order of the Service Tribunal of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, arises from a service dispute concerning the promotion of a civil servant to the post of Accountant. The core legal question involves whether an appeal is competent before the Service Tribunal against an order of a departmental authority determining the fitness or unfitness of a civil servant for promotion. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the determination of fitness or suitability of a civil servant for promotion falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority and Selection Committee, and no appeal or review lies against such an assessment due to the statutory bar. The Court concluded that since the appellant was explicitly found unfit for promotion while respondent No. 4 was found fit, the Service Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal as incompetent. The key principle laid down is that while eligibility for promotion is justiciable, the subjective evaluation regarding the fitness or suitability of a civil servant for promotion is not reviewable by courts or tribunals.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal lies to the Service Tribunal against an order of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a civil servant for promotion?
- Does a civil servant possess a vested right to promotion under the civil service laws?
- What is the distinction between the question of eligibility for promotion and the question of fitness for promotion regarding the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Can a court or tribunal substitute its own view for that of the competent authority or selection committee regarding the subjective evaluation of a civil servant's fitness?
- Sarnawaz and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 949 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
- Sargodha Textile Mills vs Punjab Employees1997 PLC 4 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- Sargodha Textile Mills vs Punjab Employees , .1997 PLC 4 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Khan vs The State1997 MLD 3125 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Khan and another vs The State and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1937 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Hussain vs Sardar Bibi1997 SCMR 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the transfer of a suit for recovery of dower from Lahore to Chakwal. The parties had previously consented to the transfer of earlier matrimonial suits between them to Lahore, which suits were disposed of in 1991. The petitioner contended that his consent in those previous, concluded proceedings could not serve as a valid ground for rejecting the transfer of a subsequently filed suit where both parties permanently reside in Chakwal and no cause of action arose in Lahore. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the matter and granted leave to appeal, while also ordering a stay of proceedings in both suits.
Questions settled- Can consent given for the transfer of previous matrimonial suits preclude a party from seeking the transfer of a subsequently filed suit?
- Is previous consent in disposed of litigation a valid ground for rejecting a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Sarfraz and 2 others vs Mian Sikandar Hayat, Judge Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 852 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz alias Sappi and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-12Read full judgment →
- Sardar Rafique Haider Khan Leghari vs Election Tribunal and others1997 PLD Supreme Court 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for two constituencies by the Election Tribunal, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. The Tribunal had disqualified the petitioner on grounds that he lacked the 'sagacious' and 'righteous' character required under Article 62 of the Constitution, citing alleged misstatements regarding his educational qualifications and the valuation of his assets. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the Tribunal misread the evidence, that the alleged defects were not of a 'substantial nature' under Section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of his character. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitioner's contentions regarding the misreading of evidence and the nature of the defects appeared to have prima facie merit. The Court held that the petitioner should be allowed to contest the election pending the final outcome of the appeals, emphasizing the need to examine whether the High Court was justified in failing to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to rectify the Tribunal's potential errors.
Questions settled- Can a Returning Officer reject a nomination paper for a defect that is not of a substantial nature?
- Does a misstatement regarding educational qualifications or asset valuation automatically render a candidate not 'sagacious' or 'righteous' under Article 62 of the Constitution?
- Is the High Court justified in refusing to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction when an Election Tribunal's order is based on a misreading of evidence?
- Sardar Naseer Ahmad vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department_Chairman, Punjab Local Government, Board, Lahore and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 716 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-07-28Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Saleem Chughtai vs Azad Government of the State1997 PLC (C.S 642 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Jaffar Khan Leghari And Others vs Balochistan1997 MLD 1934 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged orders of land resumption passed under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) concerning lands situated in Tehsil and District Barkhan known as Berun-e-Burjiyat Barkhan Leghari. The core legal questions involved the effect of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 on excess lands held as Ala-Maliks, whether the disputed lands constituted a 'Jagir' under the Abolition of Jagir and Intermediary Interest Regulation, 1974, and the impact of Section 7(1)(c) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 on historical agreements with the British Government. The Balochistan High Court held that the 1976 amendment nullified prior resumption orders concerning such lands, that the lands were not a Jagir since they originated from the petitioners' ancestral proprietary rights rather than a state grant, and that historical agreements lapsed under the Indian Independence Act, 1947. The court consequently declared the resumption orders void and without lawful authority, confirming the petitioners' full proprietary rights.
Questions settled- Whether the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 nullified prior land resumption orders passed in respect of lands held under Aala Malkiyat rights?
- Does ancestral land managed through an agreement with the former British administration fall within the definition of a 'Jagir' under the Abolition of Jagir and Intermediary Interest Regulation, 1974?
- What is the effect of Section 7(1)(c) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 on treaties and agreements entered into between His Majesty's Government and persons having authority in tribal areas?
- Whether failure by land authorities to finalize proceedings before the Supreme Court's decision declaring certain land reform provisions void leaves the matters open and pending?
- Sardar M. Jamal Khan Leghari vs Sardar Zulfiqar Ali Khan Khosa1997 PLD Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the acceptance of respondent No. 3’s nomination papers for the Punjab Provincial Assembly, alleging disqualification due to the writing off of loans obtained by a company where the respondent was a director. The core legal questions were whether the respondent was disqualified under the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 despite the bar in Article 225. The Court held that the respondent was disqualified, as the company’s loan remission constituted a "write off," and the respondent's false declaration regarding this rendered him ineligible. The Court ruled that the High Court may interfere in election matters when orders are patently illegal or without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the general bar under Article 225. The judgment established that "writing off" encompasses any liquidation of liability without full payment, and that disqualification provisions regarding loan repayment are valid constitutional requirements for candidates, ensuring that candidates remain sagacious, righteous, and honest.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge an election nomination despite the bar in Article 225 of the Constitution?
- Does the remission of a loan liability constitute a 'write off' for the purpose of candidate disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Are the disqualification provisions concerning the non-repayment of loans in the Representation of the People Act, 1976, violative of Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the failure to disclose a written-off loan in a nomination paper disqualify a candidate on the grounds of not being 'Ameen' or 'righteous'?
- Sardar Khan And Another vs Muhammad Iqbal And Other1997 MLD 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
- Sardar And 3 Others vs Bahadur And 18 Other1997 SCMR 1448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that reversed concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the validity of a civil decree. The dispute arose from a 1972 application by petitioners for restitution of mortgaged land under the Punjab Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964. A Collector ordered restitution, but the mortgagees successfully challenged this in a civil suit, obtaining a decree in 1977 declaring them owners due to the expiration of the sixty-year limitation period. The petitioners did not appeal this decree but later filed a separate suit to declare it a nullity, which lower courts initially granted. The High Court reversed this, holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to determine if the mortgage was subsisting and that its decision, even if legally incorrect, was not a nullity and operated as res judicata. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that Civil Courts retain jurisdiction to determine if statutory tribunals have acted ultra vires. Because the petitioners failed to appeal the 1977 decree, it attained finality and operated as res judicata.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to determine if a statutory tribunal acted within the scope of its authority despite a provision ousting civil court jurisdiction?
- Can a decree passed by a court of general jurisdiction be treated as a nullity in a subsequent suit simply because the court may have made an error of law?
- Does a failure to appeal a civil court decree render that decree final and binding as res judicata in subsequent litigation?
- Sardar And 149 Others vs Government of N. W.F.P.Through Collector, Haripur And 3 Other1997 CLC 812 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by 150 landowners challenging the compulsory acquisition of land in Tehsil and District Haripur for a cement factory project by Best Way Cement Ltd. The core legal questions involved the validity of corrigendums to notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the invocation of emergency powers under section 17, and whether affected landowners have a right to be associated with an inquiry under section 40 of the Act. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that corrigendums do not vitiate proceedings where landowners suffered no prejudice and had actual notice, that the subjective assessment of urgency by the Commissioner under section 17 is not open to interference given the foreign investment and national economic interests involved, and that section 40 does not mandate a notice or hearing to landowners during an inquiry for a company. Furthermore, the court held that the petitioners had disentitled themselves to equitable relief through their conduct by participating in award proceedings and withdrawing compensation.
Questions settled- Whether each corrigendum to a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 requires fresh publication of the entire acquisition procedure?
- Is the subjective assessment of urgency by the Commissioner for invoking emergency powers under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 open to judicial review?
- Do landowners have a statutory right to notice and a hearing during an inquiry conducted by the Commissioner under section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Does the withdrawal of compensation and participation in award proceedings by landowners disentitle them to discretionary constitutional relief?
- Sardar Ali vs Secretary_Chairman, Ministry of Railways, (Railway Board), Islamabad AndAnother1997 PLC (C.S.) 628 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-12-24Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali vs Secretary_Chairman, Ministry of Railways, (Railway Board), Islamabad and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 628 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-12-24Read full judgment →
- Saqib Najeeb Khan vs The Deputy Commissioner1997 MLD 511 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
- Santoo Mal Alias Santosh Kumar vs Gordhan Das1997 MLD 1124 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-17Read full judgment →
- Santlal Kalyani & Co vs Commissioner of Income Tax1997 PTD 775 · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-04-08Read full judgment →
- Sanober Khan vs Muhammad Younis And Another1997 CLC 1658 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
- Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and others1997 PLD Supreme Court 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which ordered the return of a writ petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner had imported goods arriving at the Port of Karachi, where Customs Authorities assessed regulatory duty under a Federal Government notification. The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenging both the notification and the assessment order, on the grounds that the notification emanated from Islamabad and the petitioner's office and factory were in Lahore. The Supreme Court considered whether the Lahore High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Refusing leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the dominant object of the writ petition was to challenge the assessment order passed by a Customs official located at Karachi Sea Port. The Court laid down that challenging a notification's vires does not confer jurisdiction on a High Court where the primary cause of action and the performing authority are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court.
Questions settled- Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition primarily challenging a customs assessment order passed by an authority located in another province?
- Can a petitioner establish territorial jurisdiction in a High Court by challenging the vires of a Federal Government notification when the main cause of action and assessment order arose within the jurisdiction of another High Court?
- How does the 'dominant object' of a constitutional petition determine which High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution?
- Sanaullah Khan Gandapur vs Advocategeneral, N.W.F.P./Returning1997 PLD Peshawar 80 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge an order passed by the Returning Officer accepting nomination papers for the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council elections allegedly beyond the prescribed period. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, can interfere at an intermediate stage with orders passed during the process of bar council elections. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition as misconceived, holding that intermediary orders and disputes arising out of the election process are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court established the principle that all election disputes and irregularities affecting the election process must be postponed until the elections are concluded and raised subsequently through an election petition before the designated Election Tribunal, in line with constitutional provisions and established jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a Returning Officer during the process of a bar council election is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Can a dispute regarding the acceptance or rejection of nomination papers be brought before the High Court at an intermediate stage of the election process?
- Where must disputes arising out of or in connection with an election process be raised under the law?
- Sanaullah and others vs Pakistan Telecommunication and others1997 PLC 756 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah And Other vs Pakistan Telecommunication And Others1997 PLC 756 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Sana Ullah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1666 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
- Samit Ali Khan vs Dr. MRs, Zainab Irshad and 6 others1997 PLD Karachi 450 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a dispute over an amenity plot in Karachi initially allotted to respondent No. 1, subsequently cancelled under Martial Law Order No. 34 of 1977, and eventually transferred through intermediate parties to the petitioner. The core legal question concerned the validity of the cancellation under the Martial Law Order, the maintainability of arbitration proceedings under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and whether the petitioner could approbate and reprobate regarding the forum of dispute resolution. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the cancellation of an amenity plot under Martial Law Order No. 34 required both unauthorized conversion and a lack of construction to subsist concurrently, and that the existence of mala fides or lack of jurisdiction could render saved actions open to scrutiny. Furthermore, having successfully urged the withdrawal of a civil suit on the ground that the plaintiff had invoked arbitration under the Cooperative Societies Act, the petitioner was estopped from challenging those very arbitration proceedings at an interim stage. The Court emphasized that amenity plots must serve their designated public purposes rather than being tied up in prolonged private litigation.
Questions settled- Whether an automatic cancellation of an amenity plot under Martial Law Order No. 34 requires the concurrent existence of unauthorized conversion and absence of construction?
- Can an act otherwise saved under Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be subjected to judicial scrutiny if mala fides or lack of jurisdiction are established?
- Whether a party who successfully pleads the bar of jurisdiction in a civil suit due to the invocation of arbitration under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 can subsequently challenge those arbitration proceedings?
- Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised against the mere initiation or pendency of arbitration proceedings under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 before they reach their logical conclusion?
- Samir Oosman and 2 otherss vs Rex Talkies (Pvt.) Ltd and another1997 PLD Karachi 579 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Contempt of Court Act 1976, seeking action against the defendants for violating an interim injunction order dated 7-5-1995. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants resumed construction on an adjacent plot in defiance of the court's order. The defendants argued that the interim injunction had expired by operation of law under the newly inserted Rules 2-A and 2-B of Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, introduced by the Civil Law (Reform) Act 1994, which limit the duration of interim orders. The Court held that Rules 2-A and 2-B of Order 39 do not apply to the High Court, as the High Court possesses independent rule-making powers under Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and operates under the Sindh Chief Court (O.S.) Rules. Consequently, the Court ruled that the interim order remained effective. The Court emphasized that parties must obey court orders regardless of legal disputes and ordered the attachment of the project property, issuing a show-cause notice to the director for disobedience.
Questions settled- Do the provisions of Order 39, Rules 2-A and 2-B of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the High Court?
- Does the High Court have the power to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction notwithstanding the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party unilaterally decide to ignore an interim injunction on the basis that it has expired by operation of law?
- Does the use of the term 'meanwhile' in an interim order imply that the order remains operative until expressly recalled or until the matter is decided?
- Sameena Arif And Others vs Muhammad Arif Barry And Another1997 SCMR 1861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which affirmed a Single Judge's order declining an ad interim injunction in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner, a wife, sought a declaration that her husband (respondent No. 1) held a property in trust as a benamidar for her and their children, or alternatively, that she was a co-owner of the property, claiming she had contributed over one-third of the construction costs. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had properly exercised their discretion in refusing the injunction. The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the funds withdrawn from her bank accounts were utilized for the house construction, noting a significant chronological discrepancy between the dates of withdrawal and the construction period. The principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion by lower courts regarding temporary injunctions where no prima facie case has been established.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion by lower courts regarding the grant of a temporary injunction?
- Is a party entitled to a temporary injunction if they fail to establish a prima facie case regarding their financial contribution to a property?
- Does a chronological discrepancy between the withdrawal of funds and the construction period of a property defeat a claim of financial contribution for the purpose of an injunction?
- Saleem vs The State1997 MLD 2529 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
- Saleem Jahangir vs Mst. Khatm UN Nisa1997 SCMR 1601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dissolved a marriage between the parties on the basis of Khula. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in granting Khula where the wife demonstrated extreme hatred and an inability to maintain a happy matrimonial life, despite the husband's opposition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and applied established legal principles regarding Khula. The Court affirmed that where a wife has developed an intense dislike for her husband and it is impossible for the spouses to live together within the limits prescribed by God Almighty, the marriage should be dissolved. The Court emphasized that prolonged litigation and failed reconciliation efforts are significant factors supporting the conclusion that a harmonious matrimonial life is unattainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the High Court’s findings, and upheld the dissolution of the marriage subject to the return of benefits received by the wife.
Questions settled- Can a marriage be dissolved by way of Khula when the wife expresses extreme hatred for the husband?
- Does the failure of reconciliation efforts support a finding that a happy matrimonial life is impossible?
- Is a court justified in granting Khula after prolonged litigation demonstrates the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage?
- Saleem Chaudhry Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1997 SCMR 1415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the levy of taxes under the Income Tax Ordinance. The core legal question involves the validity and applicability of tax provisions under sections 80-C, 80-CC, and 80-D of the Ordinance. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine the questions of law raised, ordering that all related appeals be heard together after notice to the Attorney-General. As for the holding, the Court decided that during the pendency of the appeals, the recovery of the contested tax shall remain suspended on the condition that the appellants provide an undertaking to pay the tax as levied or leviable under sections 80-C, 80-CC, and 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, along with interest at the rate of two percent over the Bank rate, should the appeals ultimately be dismissed. The key principle laid down relates to the conditional suspension of tax recovery pending final adjudication of tax appeals.
Questions settled- Under what conditions can the recovery of tax levied under sections 80-C, 80-CC, and 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance be suspended during the pendency of an appeal?
- What rate of interest is applicable on the payable tax if the appeals regarding tax levy under the Income Tax Ordinance are dismissed?
- Saleem & Co. and others vs Central Board of Revenue and others1997 PTD 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-28Read full judgment →
- Siraj DIN/Defendant vs Mst. Jamilan and another1997 PLD Lahore 633 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning agricultural land allegedly donated via a registered gift-deed by the deceased father of the litigating parties to the appellant son. The respondents, daughters of the deceased, challenged the gift as a spurious document executed while the donor suffered from serious physical illness. The trial court dismissed the suit, prompting the appeal. The Lahore High Court examined whether a registered instrument creates a conclusive presumption of execution and truth of its contents, the scope of proof of thumb-impressions under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the validity of a preferential gift under Muslim law. The Court held that a certificate of registration only proves that registration proceedings were regularly carried out and does not establish that the document was genuinely executed by the named person or that its contents are true. Furthermore, proof of a signature or thumb-impression under Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order proves authorship but is not synonymous with proving the contents of the document, which must be independently established by the beneficiary. While a preferential gift to one heir to the exclusion of others is not void under Islamic law, it requires strict proof of its essential ingredients: offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The appellant failed to prove execution and delivery of possession by cogent evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Does a certificate of registration create a legal presumption that a document was genuinely executed by the named executant and that its contents are true?
- Is the proof of a signature or thumb-impression under Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order sufficient to prove the truth of the contents of a disputed document?
- What are the essential constituents of a valid gift under Muslim jurisprudence?
- Is a preferential gift made by a Muslim owner in favour of one legal heir to the exclusion of others void under Islamic law?
- Salamat Ali vs Deputy Commissioner And Other1997 MLD 2122 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- Salamat Ali Baig And Others vs Muhammad Asghar Chaudhry, S.O. And Other1997 SCMR 1760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the seniority and regularization of Section Officers in the Office Management Group (OMG) of the Federal Secretariat, involving a dispute between direct recruits and departmental promotees. The core legal question was whether the government could regularize "acting charge" promotees with retrospective effect, thereby impacting the seniority and quota rights of direct recruits. The Supreme Court held that while the government is empowered to regularize officers performing duties on an acting charge basis, such regularization must strictly adhere to the prescribed 2/3 (direct) and 1/3 (promotee) quota system. The Court affirmed the Federal Service Tribunal’s decision that retrospective regularization is impermissible where it lacks a factual basis regarding vacancy availability at the relevant time. The key principle laid down is that administrative regularization of civil servants cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of other cadres if it violates the statutory or rule-based quota allocations or if vacancies were not actually available on the effective date of such regularization.
Questions settled- Can the government regularize civil servants on acting charge basis with retrospective effect if it violates established quota allocations?
- Is the fixation of seniority a vested right under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does the regularization of acting charge officers require the existence of actual vacancies within the prescribed departmental quota?
- Salamat Ali Baig And Other vs Muhammad Asghar Chaudhry, S.O. And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1071 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals regarding the seniority and regularization of Section Officers within the Office Management Group of the Federal Secretariat. The core legal question was whether the government could regularize "acting charge" promotees with retrospective effect, and whether such regularization violated the statutory quota system (two-thirds direct recruitment, one-third promotion) and the seniority rights of direct recruits. The Supreme Court held that while the authorities possess the power to regularize officers performing duties on an acting charge basis, such regularization cannot be granted retrospective effect to a date where the existence of vacancies within the specific promotion quota is not established. The Court affirmed the Federal Service Tribunal's decision to delete the retrospective effect of the regularization notifications, emphasizing that adherence to the prescribed recruitment quotas is mandatory. The judgment establishes that administrative convenience cannot override statutory quota requirements, and retrospective regularization is unlawful if it encroaches upon the rights of other civil servants by filling posts that were not vacant within the relevant quota at the material time.
Questions settled- Can the government regularize civil servants on an acting charge basis with retrospective effect without establishing the availability of vacancies within the prescribed quota?
- Does the regularization of promotees in violation of the prescribed recruitment quota infringe upon the seniority rights of direct recruits?
- Is the adherence to recruitment quotas for Section Officers in the Federal Secretariat mandatory for the regularization of acting charge appointees?
- Salahud Din vs Syed Mansoor Ali Shah And Other1997 SCMR 414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's First Appeal from Order (F.A.O.) due to the failure to serve a mandatory notice under Order 43, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with the notice requirement is justified when the respondents have already entered an appearance and were represented before the High Court prior to the admission of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the primary purpose of the notice requirement under Order 43, Rule 3 is to ensure the respondent is aware of the proceedings. Since the respondents were represented by counsel and appeared before the Division Bench before the appeal was admitted to regular hearing, the object of the statutory notice was satisfied. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that an appellant cannot be non-suited on technical grounds when the underlying purpose of the procedural requirement has been effectively achieved through the respondent's actual participation.
Questions settled- Does the failure to serve notice under Order 43, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 necessitate the dismissal of an appeal if the respondent has already appeared in the proceedings?
- Can an appeal be dismissed on technical grounds when the underlying purpose of a mandatory procedural notice has been satisfied?
- Does the appearance of a respondent's counsel before the admission of an appeal satisfy the requirement of notice under Order 43, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Sakhi Rehmat Ullah vs The State1997 MLD 3114 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain vs The State1997 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Sajjad Hussain, for the murders of three women under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the visual identification of the petitioner in the dead of night, absent the seizure of the electric bulb used as a source of light, and the partial acquittal of a co-accused, rendered the conviction unsafe. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that observations in precedent regarding the non-production of a light source are confined to their specific facts and do not establish an inflexible rule of law requiring production of the light source to sustain a conviction. The Court affirmed that ocular testimony of related witnesses, corroborated by natural presence and immediate reporting, was reliable, and that partial acquittal of a co-accused does not vitiate the conviction of another where distinguishable roles are established. The key principle laid down is that the evidentiary value of visual identification in darkness depends on the quality of light and opportunity to view, and failure to produce the physical source of light does not ipso facto invalidate credible eyewitness testimony.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to seize and produce in evidence the electric bulb used as a source of light vitiates an eyewitness identification in a dark night?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on distinguishing factors preclude the conviction of the main accused on the same evidence?
- Whether observations made by the Supreme Court regarding the absence of a light source in a prior case constitute an enunciation of a binding legal principle or are confined to the merits of that case?
- Is the testimony of related eyewitnesses inherently untrustworthy when their presence at the scene of the crime is natural and fully explained?
- Sajjad Ahmed vs Muhammad Aamar And Another1997 SCMR 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the respondent was admitted to post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 solely on the ground of minority. The core legal question concerns whether minority alone constitutes a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in a capital case, notwithstanding the gravity of the allegations and the specific role attributed to the accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention raised regarding the improper exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail requires detailed examination, particularly where the accused is alleged to have played a principal role in opening fire on the deceased. The principle laid down is that while courts possess the discretion to grant bail to minors in cases punishable with death or transportation for life, such discretion must be exercised by duly considering the attendant circumstances and gravity of the crime rather than relying solely on the age of the accused.
Questions settled- Whether minority alone is a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in a case punishable with death?
- Can the attendant circumstances of a crime be ignored while exercising discretion to grant bail to a minor accused of murder?
- Does the specific role of opening fire on the deceased outweigh the ground of minority when considering a bail petition?
- Saindad vs Province of Sindh Through Deputy Commissioner, Dadu And 5 Other1997 MLD 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
- Saindad And Others vs Government of Sindh And Other1997 MLD 819 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
- Saifullah vs The State1997 MLD 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-24Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Khan And Another vs Javed Iqbal And Another1997 SCMR 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Saifullah Khan and Mst. Nizakat Afza, filed a civil suit seeking to declare a registered sale deed executed by their brother, respondent Nisar Ahmad, in favor of Javed Iqbal regarding a residential property as illegal, ineffective, and without consideration, alleging that they had not authorized the sale and that the general powers of attorney relied upon were fictitious and fraudulent. The trial court, the District Judge, and the Peshawar High Court concurrently dismissed the suit and the subsequent revision petition. Upon seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioners contended that the powers of attorney were fraudulent, attesting witnesses were not produced in violation of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, and handwriting expert examination was improperly denied. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to produce direct evidence to substantiate their claims of fraud, relying instead on hearsay through their attorney, while the written statement and evidence supported the validity of the execution. The Court consequently refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Whether the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the validity of general powers of attorney warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does the failure of plaintiffs to appear as witnesses and rely solely on hearsay evidence through an attorney invalidate their challenge to a registered sale deed?
- Whether Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order applies to general powers of attorney without proof that they compulsorily require attestation by witnesses?
- Saif Ur Rehman Khan vs The State1997 MLD 1588 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-14Read full judgment →
- Saif Ul Haq Ziay, Advocate vs Justice Mehboob Ahmad, the Honourable CH18F1997 CLC 866 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada Muhammad Saleem Chishti vs AJK Public Service Commission1997 CLC 1741 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-07Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada Ishaq Zafar vs Sardar Muhammad Abdul Qayyum Khan and 48 others1997 PLD Azad J & K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-22Read full judgment →
- Sahib Khan vs Khan Sardar And 2 Other1997 MLD 1832 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Sahib Khan vs Agricultural Development Bank of PAKISTANAnd Other1997 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal against the refusal to stay execution proceedings initiated by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. The petitioner, having suffered an ex parte money decree due to failure to apply for leave to defend, sought to stay execution proceedings. The Banking Tribunal had granted a conditional stay requiring a bank guarantee, which the petitioner failed to provide, leading to the recall of the stay. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in refusing to stay the execution proceedings despite the petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the Banking Tribunal acted within its authority in recalling the stay upon the petitioner's failure to comply with the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee. The Court affirmed that the mere pendency of a challenge to the validity of the Ordinance before a larger bench does not automatically warrant a stay of execution of a decree.
Questions settled- Is a Banking Tribunal justified in recalling a stay order if the judgment debtor fails to furnish the required bank guarantee?
- Does the mere pendency of a constitutional challenge against the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 before a larger bench constitute sufficient grounds to stay the execution of a decree passed by such a tribunal?
- Can a writ petition be used to nullify the effect of a default in complying with conditional stay orders granted by a Banking Tribunal?
- Sahab Khan And 4 Others vs The State And Other1997 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal appeals against a High Court judgment that upheld convictions for murder and attempted murder while altering the conviction of two appellants from Section 304(I) PPC to Section 302 PPC. The core legal question was whether the High Court's appellate judgment satisfied the mandatory requirements of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which necessitates that a judgment contain points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to analytically discuss the evidence or address the specific legal and factual contentions raised by the appellants, rendering the judgment legally insufficient. The Court established the principle that an appellate court must provide a reasoned, analytical evaluation of the evidence on record to satisfy the requirements of Section 367 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh hearing and decision on the merits, emphasizing that appellate courts cannot decide cases summarily without proper discussion of the evidence.
Questions settled- Does a High Court judgment in a criminal appeal satisfy the requirements of Section 367 Cr.P.C. if it fails to analytically discuss the evidence on record?
- Is an appellate court required to address specific legal and factual contentions raised by the parties in its judgment?
- Can the Supreme Court substitute its own decision on the merits of a case when the lower appellate court has failed to provide a reasoned judgment?
- What are the mandatory components of a criminal judgment under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Sahab Dino Alias Shah Dad vs The State1997 MLD 2749 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-27Read full judgment →
- Safiullah Siddiqui vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited1997 SCMR 926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a High Court order setting aside an ex parte judgment and decree passed against the respondent corporation in a suit for recovery of employment dues. The primary legal issue was whether service of court motion notice on the dealing clerk of a branch office after transfer of the suit constituted valid legal service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether an ex parte decree can be maintained under Section 24A(2) or Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. The Supreme Court held that service of court motion notice must strictly comply with the designated address for service under Order III Rule 5 and Order XXIX Rule 2 C.P.C., or at the registered office of a corporation under company law, rather than an unapproved branch location. The Court further laid down that while Section 24A(2) C.P.C. obligates parties to appear before transferee courts upon direction, failure of the court to issue proper directions and subsequent reliance on invalid service invalidates ex parte proceedings. Additionally, negligence of an advocate generally binds the client, but non-service of notice at the statutory address entitles the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree.
Questions settled- Does service of a court motion notice on a corporation at a branch office constitute valid service under Order XXIX Rule 2 C.P.C. when a registered office address is specified in the suit?
- Can an ex parte decree be sustained under Section 24A(2) C.P.C. where the transferor court fails to direct the parties to appear before the transferee court on a specified date?
- Does the negligence of an advocate in failing to appear after proper service bind the client in proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.?
- Can the proviso to Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. validate an ex parte decree where there is no evidence that the defendant had actual knowledge of the hearing date?
- Saffar Khan vs The State1997 SCMR 1983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court order that reduced the forfeited bail bond penalty from Rs.50,000 to Rs.40,000 under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, who stood surety for an accused charged under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code including Section 302, sought further reduction of the penalty on humanitarian grounds, contending that he acted purely out of benevolence without monetary gain. The core question was whether the petitioner was entitled to further leniency and remission of the forfeited surety amount upon the abscondence of the accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that excessive leniency by courts in imposing penalties under Section 514 encourages the misuse of bail and promotes abscondence. The High Court had already appropriately exercised its discretion by remitting Rs.10,000, and no justification existed for any further reduction.
Questions settled- Can a surety claim further reduction of a forfeited bail bond penalty solely on the ground of having acted out of benevolence without monetary consideration?
- Whether unwarranted leniency by courts in imposing penalties under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 promotes abscondence and misuse of bail concessions?
- Under what circumstances is an appellate or revisional court justified in refusing further remission of a forfeited surety bond?
- Safdar and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
- Safdar Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-07Read full judgment →
- Safdar Ali Shah vs The State1997 MLD 961 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
- Safdar Ali Malik vs The Estate Officer, Estate Office, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad And Other1997 SCMR 605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave of the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appellant civil servant's writ petition challenging the cancellation of the allotment of a government quarter on the ground that the matter pertained to terms and conditions of service and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether such allotment constituted a term of service, in light of a prior precedent holding otherwise. During the proceedings, it was brought to the Court's attention that the appellant had subsequently been allotted and accepted another quarter, as acknowledged by an occupation report and a subsequent letter to the Estate Officer, although the appellant contended he was forced to sign those documents and had not yet physically occupied the premises. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent allotment and acknowledgment rendered the present appeal infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous, allowing the appellant to occupy the newly allotted quarter if he had not already done so.
Questions settled- Whether the allotment of quarters by the Government to civil servants constitutes a term of service?
- What is the effect on an appeal when the grievance regarding the subject matter has been redressed through a subsequent allotment during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Saeed-Ur-Rehman alias Sheedoo and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1325 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-12-01Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmed vs Syed Rais PERVAIZOpponent1997 PLD Karachi 247 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the judgment of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions involved the determination of the correct rate of rent, whether the tenant had committed default, and whether a landlord can seek eviction for the personal requirement of joint-owner siblings who are not strictly categorized under the definition of 'family' in the Rent Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant's version of the rate of rent at Rs.800 per month was correct in the absence of documentary evidence from the landlord, but upheld the finding of default as the tenant failed to prove payment for the disputed period or valid tender under section 10 of the Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court ruled that co-owner siblings, even if not falling within the statutory definition of family, are entitled to seek eviction for their personal requirement as co-owners. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the onus to prove an increase in rent and the rate of rent lies upon the landlord?
- Can a tenant who alleges non-issuance of rent receipts by the landlord be absolved from proving payment of rent or valid tender under section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Whether co-owner siblings who are not explicitly included in the definition of 'family' under section 2(g) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 can maintain an ejectment application for their personal requirement?
- Does sending a money order for rent in advance when no rent is due constitute a valid tender of rent under the law?
- Saeed Ahmed vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi And 8 Other1997 MLD 175 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs The State1997 MLD 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-19Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs Muhammad Iqbal Lodhi, President, Fazal Vegetable1997 PLC 42 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
- Sadiq and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1552 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-24Read full judgment →
- Sadharan Bima Corporation vs Bengal Liner Ltd. And Another1997 MLD 1758 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1996-07-04Read full judgment →
- Saddar Khan vs Muhammad Jan And Other1997 CLC 361 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
- Sadaqat Interprizes vs Islamic Republic No. 61997 P.C.T.L.R. 131 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
- Sacred Heart High School vs Director, Social Security And Others1997 PLC 729 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a batch of constitutional petitions filed by several educational institutions challenging a notification issued by the Government of the Punjab under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, and subsequent notices demanding social security contributions for their teaching and non-teaching staff. The core legal questions relate to whether educational institutions and their staff fall within the definitions of 'establishment' and 'employees' under the Ordinance, and whether salaries paid to staff qualify as 'wages'. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that beneficial legislation such as the Ordinance of 1965 must be interpreted liberally to advance its remedial objectives and social justice under Article 2A of the Constitution. The Court ruled that educational institutions qualify as establishments, their staff are covered as employees, and salaries constitute wages. The key principle laid down is that statutes in pari-materia should apply consistent definitions, and welfare legislation must receive a wide construction to fulfill legislative intent.
Questions settled- Whether educational institutions fall within the definition of an establishment under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Do the salaries paid to teaching and non-teaching staff of educational institutions qualify as wages under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- How should beneficial or remedial legislation such as the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, be construed by the courts?
- Sabz Ali Khan vs Bismillah Khan And Other1997 MLD 675 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
- Sabz Ali Khan vs Bismillah Khan And Another1997 SCMR 1781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court confirming the ejectment of the petitioner from a rented shop under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, on grounds of default in payment of rent and denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The core legal questions involved whether a registered sale-deed of the premises operates as notice of transfer to the tenant, whether a statutory notice of transfer is a mandatory prerequisite under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, in the absence of a provision akin to Section 13-A of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether a tenant can withhold rent merely by setting up a title dispute through a civil suit. The Supreme Court held that the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, contains no requirement for a written notice of transfer to the tenant, that a registered sale-deed serves as public notice, and that a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title or withhold rent on a vexatious or unsubstantiated claim of ownership. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Whether service of a written notice of transfer of premises to a tenant is a mandatory prerequisite under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Does the registration of a sale-deed operate as a public notice of transfer of property to the tenant?
- Can a tenant deny the relationship of landlord and tenant and withhold rent merely by filing a civil suit claiming title based on an agreement to sell?
- How should a Rent Controller distinguish between a genuine dispute of title and a frivolous or vexatious denial raised by a tenant?
- Sabir Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain vs Muhammad Shafique Butt And 2 Other1997 MLD 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain vs Mst. Shaheen Bibi And 7 Other1997 MLD 2962 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-22Read full judgment →
- Saadat Khan vs The State1997 MLD 249 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
- S.T. Rehman vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary1997 PLC (C.S.) 1207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Grade-20 officer in Pakistan Audit and Accounts, challenged his supersession to Grade-21 before the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal as time-barred and beyond jurisdiction due to failure to challenge adverse or average Annual Confidential Reports (A.C.Rs) within the prescribed period. The petitioner then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arguing that the uncommunicated average A.C.Rs could not bar his appeal and that his representation against supersession validly raised all related grievances. The core legal questions concerned whether a representation against supersession encompasses challenges to ACR quantification, whether unconveyed ACRs affecting promotion can be challenged before the Tribunal, whether a writ petition can substitute for a departmental representation, and how limitation periods for challenging ACRs should be computed. The Supreme Court held that the legal aspects raised questions of public importance and granted leave to appeal to thoroughly examine these matters.
Questions settled- Whether or not representation of an aggrieved person against supersession includes challenge to quantification, propriety of A.C.Rs, and criteria for selection?
- Whether or not A.C.Rs, which are obviously concealed from incumbent, though may not be adverse, yet directly affect the future career and his right of further promotion can be challenged by way of appeal before Federal Service Tribunal?
- Whether writ petition challenging propriety of undisclosed A.C.Rs, can constitute notice to competent authority and be substituted for representation to approach Federal Service Tribunal?
- Whether or not question of limitation for challenging A.C.Rs, would be relatable to period when aggrieved person becomes aware about it?
- S.T. Rehman vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 3 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 1207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Grade-20 officer in the Pakistan Audit and Accounts service, challenged his supersession for promotion to Grade-21. Despite being eligible, the Selection Board recommended junior officers over him, citing 'Average' Annual Confidential Reports (A.C.Rs.) as the basis for his exclusion. The petitioner's appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed on grounds of limitation and failure to challenge the A.C.Rs. earlier. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the 'Average' A.C.Rs. were never communicated to him, thereby preventing him from challenging them earlier, and that the reporting and countersigning authorities were the same, suggesting mala fides. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying significant legal questions regarding whether a representation against supersession inherently includes a challenge to the quantification and propriety of A.C.Rs., whether undisclosed A.C.Rs. affecting career progression can be challenged before the Tribunal, and whether the limitation period for challenging such reports commences only upon the aggrieved person's awareness of them.
Questions settled- Does a representation against supersession include a challenge to the quantification, propriety of A.C.Rs., and the criteria for selection?
- Can A.C.Rs. that were concealed from an incumbent, even if not explicitly adverse, be challenged by way of appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal if they affect future promotion?
- Can a writ petition challenging the propriety of undisclosed A.C.Rs. be substituted for a formal representation to the competent authority for the purpose of approaching the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Does the limitation period for challenging A.C.Rs. commence from the date the aggrieved person becomes aware of them?
- S.M. Yaqoob And S.M. Iqbal vs Sindh Employees' Social Security1997 PLC 267 · Labour Court · 1996-08-25Read full judgment →
- S.M. Rizwan Abidi vs Shamsul Mulk, Chairman, Water and, Power1997 SCMR 1109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This contempt petition arose from the petitioner's allegation that the respondent, Chairman WAPDA, defied a Supreme Court order regarding his entitlement to a move-over to BPS-20. The core legal question was whether the respondent willfully disobeyed the Court's previous judgment, which had mandated the expunction of adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) used to deny the petitioner's promotion. The Court held that while there was no deliberate or contumacious disregard of its prior order, the respondent’s assessment of the petitioner’s eligibility was flawed. Specifically, the Court ruled that the evaluation of performance by immediate supervisors, who possess better opportunities to adjudge an employee's work and conduct, should prevail over the assessment of higher authorities when no reasons for disagreement are provided. Consequently, the Court treated the petitioner’s 1986 ACR as 'Good,' thereby satisfying the criteria for the move-over. The contempt petition was dismissed, but the Court directed the respondent to grant the petitioner the move-over to BPS-20 effective from March 1987.
Questions settled- Does the evaluation of an employee by immediate supervisors prevail over higher authorities when no reasons for disagreement are provided?
- Can a contempt petition be dismissed if the respondent's non-compliance is found to be a result of flawed assessment rather than deliberate defiance?
- Are Annual Confidential Reports without the countersignature of the designated authority valid for denying a promotion or move-over?
- S.A. Rehman & Sons vs The Ito Cir.16, Lahore.1997 P.C.T.L.R. 141 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
- S. P. Jaiswal vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 2130 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-03-06Read full judgment →
- S. Masood Ali and 4 others vs Director-General, Bureau of Emigration1997 PLC (C.S.) 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises petitions for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the promotion and seniority of civil servants. The core legal questions involve whether a second round of litigation before the Service Tribunal was barred by the principles of res judicata, limitation, and the jurisdictional restriction under Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, particularly where matters regarding promotion and seniority had already been subjected to prior adjudication by the Supreme Court. The Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised questions of public importance concerning the competency of successive service appeals, the finality of prior determinations, and the jurisdictional limits of the Service Tribunal regarding departmental seniority and promotion matters.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred by res judicata when the matters in issue have already been decided up to the Supreme Court?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal exceed its jurisdiction under Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, when determining and declaring seniority of civil servants?
- Whether a civil servant can challenge a promotion notification when their own departmental representation regarding a provisional seniority list is still pending?
- S. Masood Ali And 4 Others vs Director General, Bureau of Emigration1997 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the promotion and seniority of civil servants. The core legal questions involve whether the Tribunal erred in entertaining a subsequent appeal on the same subject matter after a prior Supreme Court decision, and whether it exceeded its jurisdiction under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal's decision was barred by the principle of res judicata, that the appeal was time-barred, and that the Tribunal lacked the authority to re-adjudicate seniority and promotion eligibility already settled by this Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these propositions of public importance. The Court aims to determine if the Tribunal acted beyond the jurisdictional restrictions contained in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and whether the principles of finality of litigation were upheld. The judgment highlights the necessity of strictly adhering to statutory limitations and the doctrine of res judicata in service matters to prevent endless litigation over seniority and promotion disputes.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred by the principle of res judicata if the underlying seniority dispute was previously adjudicated by the Supreme Court?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to determine seniority and promotion eligibility in contravention of the restrictions contained in Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Can a departmental representation and subsequent appeal be entertained by the Service Tribunal if they are filed after the dismissal of a related petition by the Supreme Court?
- S. Masood Ali And 4 Other vs Director-General, Bureau of Emigration1997 PLC (C.S.) 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning the promotion and seniority of civil servants. The respondent challenged the promotion of the petitioners to Assistant Director (B-17), claiming he was senior and that the petitioners were ineligible for promotion. In a previous round of litigation, the Supreme Court had dismissed the respondent's appeal, noting that his seniority claim was pending departmental review and that he could not claim promotion over the petitioners until his seniority was established. Subsequently, the respondent filed a new appeal before the Tribunal, which ruled in his favor, declaring the petitioners ineligible and the respondent entitled to the promotion. The petitioners challenged this, arguing the matter was res judicata, the appeal was time-barred, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under section 4(1)(b) of the Act and whether the principles of res judicata and limitation barred the respondent's subsequent challenge.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate promotion disputes where the fitness of a civil servant is involved under section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Can a matter previously decided by the Supreme Court be re-litigated before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Is a service appeal maintainable if the underlying departmental representation is time-barred?
- Rustam Ali And Another vs The Administrator, Zila Council, Sialkot1997 CLC 747 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
- Rupali Polyester Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others1997 PTD 54 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
- Rubina Ali vs Rafaqat Ali And Other1997 MLD 2066 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
- Royce Dean Wellman vs The State1997 P.C.T.L.R. 245 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-17Read full judgment →
- Royce Dean Wellman vs The State Through Collector Of Customs1997 MLD 1708 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-30Read full judgment →
- Roshan Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1342 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
- Roazi Khan And Others vs Nasir And Other1997 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts and remanded the case for fresh evidence and trial. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court rightly interfered with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C., and whether the remand of the case was justified. The Supreme Court held that the High Court overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by disturbing concurrent findings of fact without establishing any jurisdictional error, perversity, or material misreading of evidence by the lower courts. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that remanding the case was unwarranted since sufficient evidence was already available on record for a final adjudication. The key principles laid down are that revisional powers under section 115 C.P.C. are strictly curative for jurisdictional defects and cannot be used to overturn concurrent findings of fact based on a reappraisal of evidence, and that remand should not be ordered as a matter of routine when the existing record is sufficient to decide the matter.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C.?
- Under what circumstances is an appellate or revisional court justified in remanding a case to the trial court for recording fresh evidence?
- Does an arbitration award that has not been made a rule of the court affect the rights of persons who were not parties to the arbitration agreement?
- What is the proper scope of the revisional powers of the High Court under section 115 C.P.C. regarding evaluation of evidence?
- Rizwan Masood vs Haji Muhammad Rafiq And Another1997 MLD 283 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ahmed And 2 Others vs The State1997 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's order rejecting the petitioners' bail application in a criminal case. The petitioners were charged under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with Sections 436, 336, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving arson and robbery at an office. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail given that they had been incarcerated for more than two years without the charge being framed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were entitled to relief based on the duration of their pre-trial detention. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and admitted the petitioners to bail, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The key principle affirmed is that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, specifically exceeding the statutory threshold for bail, constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail, even in serious offenses, provided the statutory requirements are met.
Questions settled- Does the failure to frame a charge within two years of arrest entitle an accused to statutory bail?
- Can the Supreme Court grant bail to petitioners if the High Court failed to consider the statutory period of detention?
- Riffat Askari vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 285 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the accused, who was charged while serving as Chairman of O.G.D.C. under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and subsequently subjected to trial under the Ehtesab Ordinance 1996. The core legal questions involved whether the Ehtesab Ordinance 1996 violated Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by operating retrospectively, whether changes in forum, procedure, and bail provisions were ultra vires, and whether the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner's reference procedure was legally flawed. The Lahore High Court held that the Ehtesab Ordinance created no new offences and prescribed no greater or different penalties, thus not offending Article 12, and that procedural changes such as forum transfer do not violate fundamental rights. The court established that an accused has no vested right to a particular forum or procedure, that procedural statutes operate retrospectively, and that reasonable classification of public servants for anti-corruption measures is valid. Consequently, the application was dismissed as meritless.
Questions settled- Does the Ehtesab Ordinance 1996 violate Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by applying to acts committed prior to its promulgation?
- Does an accused person have a vested right to be tried in a specific forum or under a particular procedure existing at the time of the offence?
- Whether the transfer of trial proceedings and alteration of bail provisions under anti-corruption laws constitute a change of procedure rather than a substantive change in punishment?
- Is the classification of senior civil servants under special accountability legislation a reasonable classification that does not violate the principle of equal protection of law?