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.

• Riazuddin And Another vs The State1997 MLD 2532 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
• Riazuddin alias Muna and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1751 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ullah vs The State1997 SCMR 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-12
  leave to appealidentification paradebank robberycriminal evidenceHudood lawsappreciation of evidencedelayed identification
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which affirmed the petitioner's conviction under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for his alleged involvement in a bank robbery. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence leading to the petitioner's arrest, the evidentiary value of recovering items of a general nature, and the reliability of an identification parade conducted fifteen days after the petitioner's arrest. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the identification parade occurred after the petitioner had been in custody for a significant period, providing ample opportunity for the witnesses to have seen him. The Court held that it must examine whether the conviction, based on such identification and general recoveries, aligns with established principles of criminal justice administration. The key principle laid down is that the timing and circumstances of an identification parade are critical to the reliability of identification evidence, and convictions based on delayed parades following potential exposure to witnesses require rigorous judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade conducted fifteen days after an accused's arrest, where witnesses had prior opportunity to view the accused, satisfy the requirements for reliable identification evidence?
  • Can the recovery of items of a general nature, such as a turban or handkerchief, serve as sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction for bank robbery?
  • What is the standard for evaluating the nexus between recovered general articles and the commission of a specific criminal offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ul Haq vs Selection Committee Constituted for Admission to Bolan Medical COLLEGEThrough Secretary, Principal Bolan Medical College, Quetta And 6Other1997 SCMR 1845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-23
  medical college admissiondomicile certificatereserved seatsprovisional admissionregularization of admissionequity and fair playex parte proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a decision of the Balochistan High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against the Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College, Quetta, which had rejected his application for admission to the first-year M.B.B.S. class on a seat reserved for District Mastung. The core legal questions were whether an applicant possessing a valid domicile certificate issued by the competent authority could be denied admission based on an informal verbal statement that his family did not physically reside in the district, and whether provisional admission granted by court order should be regularized when the student has completed most of the medical course. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was a bona fide resident of District Mastung entitled to admission based on his valid domicile certificate, particularly when his sisters had previously been admitted on the same basis. Relying on principles of justice, equity, and fair play, as well as precedents, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and regularized his admission since he was in his final year of studies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an admission candidate's valid domicile certificate issued by a competent authority can be rejected based on informal verbal statements regarding physical residence?
  • Whether provisional admission granted under an interim order of the Court should be regularized where the student has completed a significant portion of the academic course?
  • Can a Selection Committee deny admission to a candidate on domicile grounds when family members were previously granted admission under the same domicile status?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain And Others vs Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah And Other1997 CLC 1964 · Board of Revenue · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1312 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ali vs The State1997 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-03
  leave to appealArms Ordinanceevidentiary contradictionspossession of unlicensed weaponcriminal appealbail pending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The Trial Court had initially sentenced the petitioner to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which the High Court subsequently modified to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a reduced fine. The petitioner challenges the conviction on the grounds that the evidence presented by the prosecution contained material contradictions that were not properly appreciated by the lower courts. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish the absence of a license for the recovered weapon, specifically a Kalashnikov, relying on established precedents regarding the necessity of such proof. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the contentions raised regarding the evidentiary appraisal and the legal requirement to prove the lack of a license, granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to ask whether a petitioner possessed a license for a recovered weapon constitute a ground for leave to appeal?
  • Can a conviction under the Arms Ordinance be challenged on the basis of unappreciated contradictions in witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed and 10 others vs Messrs Journalist Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi through Chief Executive and another1997 PLC 160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-11Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed And 10 Other vs Messrs Journalist Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi Through Chief Executive And Another1997 PLC 160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-11Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Muhammad Bashir, S.I./S.H.O., Police Station Budiana,1997 MLD 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-04Read full judgment →
• Riasat Khan vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 908 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-16Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Deputy Commissioner, Kasur And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 115 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Sher Muhammad And 7 Other1997 MLD 2905 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar And Another1997 CLC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-25
  constitutional petitiondissolution of marriagekhulaFamily Court jurisdictionAzad Jammu and Kashmircitizenship actres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 arises from a judgment and decree of the Family Court at Mansehra, which dissolved a marriage on the basis of khula between subjects of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The core legal question was whether a Family Court in Pakistan has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by a subject of Azad Jammu & Kashmir who had already litigated the same matter up to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and failed, and whether the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 applied to afford them citizen status for such relief. The Peshawar High Court held that since the parties are subjects of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and not citizens of Pakistan under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and given that the matter had already been adjudicated by competent courts in Azad Kashmir, the Family Court at Mansehra lacked territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent suit. The impugned decree was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court in Pakistan has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for dissolution of marriage brought by subjects of Azad Jammu & Kashmir who are not citizens of Pakistan under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951?
  • Does a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by a Family Court lie in appeal when it is based on reasons other than those specified in clause (d) of item (viii) of section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939?
  • Can a party relitigate a suit for dissolution of marriage in Pakistan after the highest judicial forum of Azad Jammu & Kashmir has already dismissed a similar claim between the same spouses?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Shah vs Shamroz1997 SCMR 1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-06
  pre-emptionTalab-i-MuwasibatTalb-i-Ishhadwaiverleave to appealconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed his civil revision and maintained the concurrent judgments of the lower courts non-suiting him in a pre-emption suit. The suit was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner failed to make the requisite 'Talabs' under section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987, and that he had waived his right of pre-emption prior to the sale. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that the lower findings suffered from misreading of evidence and that his response to the respondent's offer to buy the land did not constitute waiver under the law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the petitioner fulfilled the requirements of Talab-i-Muwasibat and Talb-i-Ishhad on the evidence, and whether his reply to the offer constituted waiver within the contemplation of section 15 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioner on the evidence on record fulfilled the requirements of Talab-i-Muwasibat and Talb-i-Ishhad so as to entitle him to successfully pre-empt the sale?
  • Whether the petitioner's reply to the offer made by the respondent for purchasing the disputed land constitutes waiver within the contemplation of section 15 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Nazir Hussain1997 MLD 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-22
  judicial remanddischarge of accusedmagisterial jurisdictioncriminal investigationocular evidencepolice diarieswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a Magistrate's order discharging an accused in a murder case registered under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate, when considering an application for judicial remand, acts within jurisdiction by discharging an accused based on defense affidavits while ignoring incriminating ocular evidence and FIR statements. The High Court held that the Magistrate’s order was patently illegal and arbitrary. The Court found that the Magistrate failed to apply his mind to the police diaries and ocular evidence, improperly assuming the role of determining guilt or innocence at the remand stage, particularly in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The judgment establishes that while a Magistrate has the authority to grant or refuse remand, they must critically examine the material collected by the police under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. A Magistrate cannot prematurely determine innocence or guilt based on defense affidavits during the remand stage, nor should they ignore substantive evidence like FIRs and witness statements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate determine the guilt or innocence of an accused while deciding an application for judicial remand?
  • Is a Magistrate required to consider ocular evidence and FIR statements when deciding whether to discharge an accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to discharge an accused in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session based solely on defense affidavits?
  • What is the scope of a Magistrate's duty to examine police diaries under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when considering a remand application?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali And 2 Other vs Muhammad Nazir1997 MLD 1017 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Rehman Flour Mills vs WAPDA1997 CLC 1794 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Rehman Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore vs The Ito, Circle-10, Companies1997 P.C.T.L.R 210 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Rehana Mahmood And 3 Other, Karamat Ali, Muhammad Yaqub Hussain1997 MLD 2874 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
• Regnis Employees' Union, Karachi vs M/s. Regnis Pakistan Limited1997 PLC 237 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Regnis Employees Union, Karachi vs M/s. Regnis Pakistan Limited1997 PLC 237 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Islamabad vs Qazi Wali1997 PLC (C.S.) 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08
  Service of PakistanCivil ServantService Tribunal jurisdictionJudicial independenceSupreme Court employeesTerms and conditions of serviceArticle 208
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenges a Federal Service Tribunal order that reinstated a Research and Reference Officer of the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether Supreme Court employees, whose service terms are governed by rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution, qualify as "civil servants" subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that such employees are not "civil servants" under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and thus the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over their service disputes. The Court clarified that while these employees may be in the "service of Pakistan" under Article 260 of the Constitution, the definition of "civil servant" is narrower and excludes those governed by rules framed under Article 208. The ratio establishes that the independence of the judiciary necessitates that the legislature not interfere with the terms and conditions of court staff, rendering them outside the purview of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered 'civil servants' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes involving employees of the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Is the definition of 'Service of Pakistan' under Article 260 of the Constitution synonymous with the definition of 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Are rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution for Supreme Court employees subject to the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi And 2 Other vs Shafi1997 PLC (C.S.) 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-30
  civil revisiondate of birth correctionservice recordcivil court jurisdictioninterim injunctionArticle 212terms and conditions of servicelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a dispute regarding the correction of the respondent's date of birth in his service records, which he alleged was incorrectly recorded as 1936 instead of 1938. The respondent filed a civil suit, and the lower courts granted an interim injunction maintaining the status quo. The petitioners challenged this, arguing the suit was time-barred and barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, contending that service matters fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the revision, affirming the lower courts' findings. The Court held that a dispute regarding the determination or correction of a date of birth in service records does not strictly constitute a matter pertaining to the terms and conditions of service and is, therefore, cognizable by a Civil Court. Furthermore, the Court determined the suit was not time-barred, applying the six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court concluded that the lower courts exercised their jurisdiction lawfully and without material irregularity in granting the interim injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding the correction of a date of birth in a government servant's service record?
  • Is a dispute concerning the determination of a date of birth in service records considered a matter pertaining to the terms and conditions of service under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a suit for the correction of a date of birth in service records?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Karachi And 2 Others vs Sham1997 MLD 2801 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Razaq vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 892 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Rauf Baig vs Jamaluddin Alias Jameeluddin And Other1997 MLD 897 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-08Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 761 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
• Rashida Begum And 9 Others vs Chiragh Din And 2 Other1997 CLC 757 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
• Rashid vs The State And Another1997 MLD 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-15Read full judgment →
• Rashid Mehmood And Others vs Muhammad Riaz Akhtar And 8 Other1997 SCMR 1406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-08
  transfer of immovable property taxboard of revenue memorandumconstitutional jurisdictiontax collectionregistration of deedsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which exercised constitutional jurisdiction to declare a memorandum issued by the Board of Revenue on 29-10-1991 as illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question concerns whether the Board of Revenue could legally issue instructions requiring the production of receipts showing payment of the immovable property transfer tax before the registration of transfer documents, given that Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Properties) Rules, 1981 stipulates that the tax becomes due as soon as the sale deed is registered. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the prevention of tax evasion and safeguarding municipal revenue needed examination and consequently granted leave to appeal, while suspending the operation of the impugned judgment during the pendency of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Board of Revenue compel the production of tax payment receipts prior to the registration of an immovable property deed under the Punjab Local Councils (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Properties) Rules, 1981?
  • At what point does the tax on the transfer of immovable property become due under Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Properties) Rules, 1981?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Mahmood vs Administrator, District Council and others1997 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04
  public auctionhighest biddernatural justicetransparency in administrationwrit jurisdictionlocal council leasediscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a second auction for lease rights held by the Zila Council, arguing it was conducted surreptitiously after his bid in the first auction was the highest. The core legal question was whether the second auction, held shortly after the first without proper notice or formal rejection of the first bid, was legally valid, and whether the court should intervene despite the contract being substantially executed. The Court held that while the second auction violated Rule 4 of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990, regarding the mandatory fifteen-day interval between auction attempts, it declined to set aside the contract. The Court reasoned that the contract had been operational for several months, and intervention would disrupt public interest and cause administrative complications. The key principles laid down are that while a highest bidder possesses no vested right to have their bid accepted, authorities must act with transparency and propriety. Specifically, authorities are obligated to formally inform the highest bidder of the non-acceptance of their bid and provide reasons, as absolute, opaque discretion breeds arbitrariness.

  Questions settled

  • Does the highest bidder in a public auction acquire a vested right to have their bid accepted by the authority?
  • Is a local council required to provide a formal, reasoned decision when rejecting the highest bid in an auction?
  • Does the inclusion of multiple auction dates in a single proclamation violate the statutory requirement for a fifteen-day interval between auction attempts under the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990?
  • Can a court decline to exercise constitutional writ jurisdiction even if an administrative action is found to be procedurally irregular?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur1997 PLC 457 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali vs Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Lahore And 21997 PLC (C. S.) 693 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1996-10-24Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab1997 PLD Lahore 531 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Rashid Akhtar Qureshi vs Major Shabbir And 2 Other1997 MLD 3105 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Muhammad Anwar And Other1997 MLD 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Mst. Jiwan And 5 Other1997 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-20
  lis pendenstransferee pendente liteimpleadment of partyassignment of interestcivil proceduretransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from an order of the Lahore High Court declining to implead a transferee pendente lite as a respondent in a pending regular second appeal on the ground that the doctrine of lis pendens applied. The core legal question was whether the rule of lis pendens operates as a bar to prevent a pendente lite transferee from being joined as a party to ongoing judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens, as embodied in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, only protects the rights of parties from being defeated by a transfer during litigation and does not legally bar the transferee from being impleaded as a party. The Court ruled that under Order XXII, Rule 10, and section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a person who acquires an interest in the subject-matter during the pendency of proceedings is entitled to be joined as a party. The appeal was accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of lis pendens can be set up as a bar to an application by a transferee pendente lite from being impleaded as a party to pending proceedings?
  • Does section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 preclude a transferee during litigation from being made a party?
  • Are the provisions of section 146 and Order 22, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. applicable to appeals involving the devolution of interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1997 CLC 578 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-31
  rejection of plaintevacuee propertyenemy propertylocus standicause of actioncivil revisiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses three civil revision petitions challenging concurrent decisions of the lower courts to reject the plaints of the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners occupied portions of a property in Lahore originally owned by the Punjab National Bank Ltd., which was purchased by the National Bank of Pakistan in 1963. The core legal questions involved whether the property was evacuee or enemy property, whether it vested in the Custodian, and whether the plaints disclosed a cause of action for a declaratory suit and permanent injunction. The Lahore High Court held that the property never formed part of the evacuee pool or enemy property, the statutory authorities had long recognized the National Bank of Pakistan's ownership, and the petitioners lacked locus standi and a cause of action. The court ruled that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. are not exhaustive and allow the court to examine authentic documents to terminate still-born suits at their inception. Consequently, the revision petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court look into authentic documents alongside the plaint when deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether property belonging to a joint stock company with its head office in India was excluded from the definition of evacuee property under Ordinance XV of 1949?
  • Do occupants of a property lacking any prospective legal right or ownership have the locus standi to challenge a registered sale deed executed in favour of a banking company?
  • Whether the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are exhaustive for the termination of meritless litigation at its inception?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad Khokhar And 2 Others vs Sana Ullah And Another1997 CLC 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-03
  specific performancerejection of plaintagreement to sellprivity of contractcivil revisionlegal estatevoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an order dismissing an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought the rejection of a plaint for specific performance. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell confers upon the vendee a right to further alienate the property, and whether such a sub-agreement creates privity of contract between the original owner and a subsequent purchaser. The Court held that an agreement to sell does not create any right, title, or interest in the property, as the legal estate passes only upon the completion of the sale. Consequently, a vendee cannot legally delegate the power to sell property they do not own. The Court ruled that any contractual clause purporting to authorize such further sale is void ab initio and against the law. As no privity of contract exists between the original owner and a second vendee, the suit for specific performance by the latter is not maintainable. The Court set aside the trial court's order and rejected the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell create any right, title, or interest in the property forming the subject matter of the agreement?
  • Can a vendee under an agreement to sell further sell or agree to sell the property to a third party?
  • Does a clause in an agreement to sell authorizing a vendee to further sell the property create privity of contract between the original owner and a subsequent purchaser?
  • Is a suit for specific performance maintainable by a second vendee against the original owner where no privity of contract exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary Education, Lahore And 2 Other1997 CLC 43 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-21
  constitutional petitiongrace marksLL.B. examinationbeneficial constructiondiscriminatory provisionuniversity regulationsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court by a petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent-University to award him four grace marks in Paper VI of the LL.B. Examination, which would enable him to pass. The core legal question involved the validity of the third proviso to amended Regulation No. 4 of the University Calendar, which denied the benefit of grace marks to candidates who appeared in the examination in parts. The court held that the third proviso, to the extent that it denies the benefit of five grace marks to candidates appearing in parts, is discriminatory, in direct conflict with the first proviso, and invalid. The court laid down that beneficial construction and equitable considerations must be applied in interpreting statutory regulations, ensuring that beneficial provisions are construed to avoid harsh and discriminatory results against candidates who have otherwise secured high marks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the third proviso to amended Regulation No. 4 of the University Calendar denying grace marks to candidates appearing in parts is discriminatory and invalid?
  • Can a university lawfully refuse the benefit of grace marks to candidates who have appeared in an examination in parts?
  • How should a proviso to a regulation be interpreted under the principles of beneficial construction and statutory interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Sanaullah Khan vs Muhammad Ismail And 2 Other1997 MLD 609 · Election Tribunal · 1996-09-25Read full judgment →
• Rana Riaz Ahmad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 803 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-19Read full judgment →
• Rana Rehmatullah vs S.H.O.1997 MLD 2492 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
• Rana Khalid Mahmood and 6 others vs General Manager, Pakistan1997 PLC (C.S.) 232 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
• Rana Khalid Mahmood And 6 Other vs General Manager, Pakistan1997 PLC (C.S.) 232 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
• Rana Iftikhar Ahmad vs Munir Khan And Another1997 MLD 2541 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Rana Bhagwan Das vs Government of Sindh And 8 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 760 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1997-03-22Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Welfare Trust vs WAPDA1997 PLD Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-19
  constitutional petitionkite flyingBasantload sheddingtrichotomy of powersfundamental rightsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 sought directions to the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to enforce overnight electricity load shedding across the province during the 'Basant' festival, along with an oral prayer to ban kite flying. The petitioner asserted that kite flying during Basant caused public nuisance, electrical breakdowns, injuries, and fatalities. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could ban kite flying or compel WAPDA to enforce load shedding to prevent citizens from engaging in an activity not prohibited by statute. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that its jurisdiction under Article 199 is restricted to compelling performance of statutory duties or restraining unlawful actions. In the absence of a prohibitory law, preventing people from flying kites would violate Article 4 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that under the constitutional trichotomy of powers and Article 175, judicial law-making or directions based purely on moral grounds are impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution issue directions to ban an activity that is not prohibited by any law?
  • Does ordering power load shedding to prevent citizens from flying kites violate Article 4 of the Constitution?
  • Can the High Court perform legislative functions or issue prohibitory directions purely on moral or social grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Alias Jani vs The State1997 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-21
  criminal appealmurdersubstitution of accusedocular evidencemedical evidence contradictionbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering his death sentence to life imprisonment for the murder of Amanat. The core legal question involves the sustainability of a conviction based on delayed substitution of the accused in the First Information Report, discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, and an unproven motive. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to unexplained omission of the appellant's name in the initial report, material contradictions between the testimony of interested witnesses and medical evidence showing multiple injuries and independent shots, and the substitution of the accused long after the incident. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the murder charge, laying down the principle that substitution of accused persons after delay, coupled with medical inconsistencies and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses, renders a capital conviction unsafe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when the accused was not named in the initial First Information Report and was substituted later?
  • Does a material conflict between ocular testimony regarding the number of shots fired and medical evidence showing multiple independent wounds weaken the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding the maker of the First Information Report and material eye-witnesses during trial?
  • Can a capital sentence be maintained on the basis of an extra-judicial confession and testimony from interested witnesses lacking independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramesh Narain Saxena and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 540 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-04-22Read full judgment →
• Raja vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1286 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• Raja Shah Zaman And Others vs Zamindaran Birgal Through Representatives1997 MLD 745 · Northern Areas Chief Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Raja Rustam Ali Khan vs Muhammad Hanif And 6 Other1997 SCMR 2008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-04
  constitutional jurisdictionmala fidepolice investigationjudicial reviewanti-corruptionwrit petitionroving inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court in a constitutional petition. The respondents had filed a writ petition alleging that the registration of an FIR and subsequent investigation by the Anti-Corruption Establishment were mala fide and motivated by political rivalry. The High Court, in its interim order, had summoned official investigation files and records from the Anti-Corruption Department to determine the veracity of these mala fide allegations. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court possesses constitutional jurisdiction to examine allegations of mala fide, it cannot engage in a roving inquiry or assume the role of an investigator. Citing established precedents, the Court reaffirmed that the judiciary should not interfere with the police's statutory duty to investigate. Furthermore, the Court held that allegations of mala fide must be pleaded with particularity and proven by the party asserting them; they cannot be used as a basis to launch a fishing expedition into government files. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order summoning the investigation records and directed the High Court to decide the writ petition on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court summon investigation files to conduct a roving inquiry into allegations of mala fide?
  • Is the judiciary permitted to interfere with the police's statutory power to register and investigate criminal cases?
  • What is the standard of proof required when alleging mala fide against official acts?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to assume the role of an investigator under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Siddique vs Abdur Rahman1997 CLC 1819 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-02
  pre-emptiontalb-i-muwathibatexchange of landrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for possession through pre-emption regarding a land transaction executed through exchange. The core legal questions involve whether the transaction constituted a sale subject to pre-emption or a legitimate exchange, and whether the petitioner fulfilled the mandatory statutory and Islamic requirements of making proper demands (talbs). The Lahore High Court held that the transaction was a genuine exchange rather than a sale disguised to defeat pre-emption, and that the petitioner failed to prove the essential particulars and proper procedure of Talb-i-Muwathibat as required by law. The court affirmed that defeating a right of pre-emption through a legitimate exchange is lawful, and no material irregularity or misreading of evidence warranted interference under revisional jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that failure to state precise particulars of Talb-i-Muwathibat is fatal to a pre-emption suit, and parties may lawfully employ devices such as exchange of property to defeat pre-emption claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transaction executed through the exchange of land can be treated as a sale subject to pre-emption?
  • Is the failure to mention specific particulars and the exact time or place of Talb-i-Muwathibat fatal to a pre-emption suit?
  • Can a right of pre-emption be lawfully defeated through a legitimate device or transaction of exchange?
  • When can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding talbs in revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Niaz and 3 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 786 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ashraf vs Excise and Taxation Officer and others1997 P Cr. L J 845 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-16Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ashraf Khan Kayani vs Azad Government of the State1997 PLC (C. S.) 376 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-06-17Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan vs Ch. Muhammad Yusuf And 5 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 560 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-21Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Anwar vs Ibrahim Patel, Managing Director, Karachi1997 PLC 416 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-05Read full judgment →
• Raja Jawaid and 4 others vs Collector, Land Acquisition, Khanpur Dam, Haripur1997 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-01-18Read full judgment →
• Raja D. V. Seetharamayya Bahadur and others vs Sixth Wealth Tax1997 PTD 871 · Madras High CourtRead full judgment →
• Raja Bashir Ahmed Khan vs President, Azad Jammu & KASHMIRThrough1997 CLC 380 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
• Raja Bashir Ahmad Khan vs Azad J&K Council Through Secretary And 2 Other1997 CLC 832 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-28Read full judgment →
• Raja Ali Gohar And 7 Others vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Muzaffarabad And 8 Other1997 CLC 490 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdul Majeed vs The State and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-18
  Superdiginamainherent jurisdictioninterim custody of vehiclesubrogationsecond revisionappraisement of evidencemiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging concurrent orders passed by the A.C.M.-I and the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East, regarding the interim custody (Superdiginama) of a recovered stolen vehicle. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts regarding the entitlement to possession of a vehicle claimed by both the applicant and an insurance company (respondent No. 2) via subrogation. The Court held that the application was meritless, noting that the lower courts had properly appraised the evidence, including forensic reports, to determine the vehicle's identity. The Court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. are not intended to substitute the High Court's appraisement of evidence for that of lower courts, nor to circumvent the bar on second revisions. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will only interfere under Section 561-A when there is a gross miscarriage of justice or abuse of court process, not for mere irregularity or to re-evaluate evidence already settled by lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to entertain a second revision against an order passed by a Sessions Judge in revision?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court interfere with the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the interim custody of a vehicle?
  • Does the exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. permit the High Court to substitute its own appraisement of evidence for that of the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Rais Dil Murad Khan vs Ali Nawaz And Other1997 MLD 1309 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-15
  revisional jurisdictionland revenuecancellation of grantbar of jurisdictionmala fidedeclaration of titleprivate property
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two civil revision applications under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against a consolidated appellate judgment setting aside the trial court's decree. The case originated from a dispute over land granted to the applicant by a Deputy Collector for commercial use, which was challenged by a private party claiming ancestral private ownership. The Commissioner and Board of Revenue set aside the grant, holding the land to be private property and finding that the Deputy Collector lacked authority under the Sindh Land Revenue Code 1879 to dispose of State land. The applicant filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction, while the private owner sued for possession. The High Court upheld the first appellate court's dismissal of the applicant's suit and decreeing of the owner's suit. The High Court held that although statutory bars to civil court jurisdiction do not apply to void or mala fide administrative orders, the applicant failed to plead or prove mala fides. The administrative orders revoking the void grant were lawful.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy Collector have inherent statutory power under the Sindh Land Revenue Code 1879 to grant or dispose of State land without authorization as a Collector?
  • Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging revenue orders when statutory provisions bar civil court jurisdiction?
  • What level of pleading and proof is required to sustain an allegation of mala fides to bypass a statutory bar of civil court jurisdiction?
  • Is a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act maintainable by a person whose land grant was void ab initio and legally revoked?
  Read full judgment →
• Rainbow Dyestuff Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax1997 PTD 846 · Gujarat High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
• Rai Arif Hussain vs Returning Officer and others1997 PLD Lahore 162 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-04Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausemurdercommon intentioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case involving murder charges under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of holding the deceased while co-accused committed the murder, argued that his case warranted bail on the grounds of further inquiry, citing the lack of direct injury attribution and the fact that co-accused had been granted bail. The Court examined whether the case fell within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that bail under the 'further inquiry' provision is only applicable when there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence. Finding that the prosecution had sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the crime—specifically noting the motive involving the petitioner's wife—the Court concluded that reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner committed the offence. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail application, affirming that 'further inquiry' cannot be invoked merely on hypothetical possibilities without a nexus to the accused's potential innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possibility of further inquiry in a criminal case automatically entitle an accused to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted under the 'further inquiry' provision if the Court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
  • Is the 'further inquiry' provision of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when the prosecution has established a prima facie case connecting the accused to the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh And Another vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore And 10 Other1997 MLD 2607 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• Rahat Saeed Bukhari vs Aisha Hameed Qadri And Another1997 MLD 218 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
• Rahat Hussain Siddiqi And Other vs Board of Secondary Education1997 PLC (C.S.) 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-14Read full judgment →
• Rafique alias Rafiqa vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1484 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ahmad Chaudhry vs Ahmad Nawaz Malik and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-21
  petition for leave to appealtransfer orderinterim suspensionwrit petitionservice matterjurisdiction of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court suspending the transfer order of the petitioner while admitting a writ petition. The core legal question raised is whether the High Court was justified in suspending the transfer order in a writ petition, particularly in light of the jurisdictional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 relating to matters concerning terms and conditions of civil servants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition raised substantial questions meriting consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal, while also suspending the operation of the impugned interim order of the High Court pending the final disposal of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that interim suspension of administrative transfer orders by the High Court in service matters warrants close scrutiny by the apex court, especially regarding constitutional competency and the propriety of interim relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in suspending an administrative transfer order in a writ petition?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 bar the maintainability of a writ petition against a transfer order of a civil servant?
  • Is it a fit case to grant leave to appeal against an interim order suspending a transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ahmad Chaudhry vs Ahmad Nawaz Malik And Other1997 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -
  leave to appealwrit jurisdictionservice mattertransfer orderinterim reliefconstitutional barArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which suspended a transfer order of the petitioner while admitting a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerns the competency of the High Court to entertain a writ petition regarding a transfer order in light of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the High Court was justified in suspending the transfer order pending the adjudication of the writ petition. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the potential lack of jurisdiction and the impropriety of the interim relief granted, granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned order of the High Court suspending the transfer was suspended until the final disposal of the appeal. The case establishes that the propriety of granting interim relief, such as the suspension of a transfer order, in matters potentially barred by Article 212, requires rigorous judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition challenging a transfer order competent before the High Court in view of Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Is the High Court justified in suspending a transfer order while admitting a writ petition in a service matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue1997 MLD 2571 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan Muhammad vs The State And 2 Other1997 MLD 1646 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan And Others vs Samar Ali Shah And Other1997 CLC 349 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-03
  civil revisionright of wayeasementpublic thoroughfareres judicatarevenue recordlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Bannu, which set aside the trial court's judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's declaratory suit and perpetual injunction concerning a right of passage through certain Khasra numbers. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had established a continuous, uninterrupted right of way or easement over the disputed property and whether the land constituted a public thoroughfare or a private path. The Peshawar High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous, open enjoyment of the path or that the land was a public thoroughfare, noting that current revenue records contradicted the claim and prior litigation rendered the matter res judicata. The court laid down the principles distinguishing between a public thoroughfare (Shamilat) and a private path, affirming that an owner of a private path retains rights of use and conversion, and that claims based on easement require strict proof of continuous enjoyment within the period prescribed by limitation law.

  Questions settled

  • What is the distinction between a public thoroughfare and a private path in revenue records?
  • Whether a plaintiff claiming a right of way based on easement must prove continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment for the statutory period?
  • Does a previous withdrawn suit affect the limitation period for a fresh suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether entries in the current Jamabandi unchallenged in the plaint are presumed to be correct?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabia Bibi vs Muhammad Malik And 3 Other1997 MLD 67 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Rabbani Gul vs Government of N.-W.F.P. And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
• Qutab Din vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1519 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
• Qureshi Sher Muhammad and 4 others vs Syed Zawar Hussain Shah1997 PLC 521 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-12-14Read full judgment →
• Quraishi Sher Muhammad And 4 Other vs Syed Zawar Hussain Shah1997 PLC 521 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-12-14Read full judgment →
• Qazi-Ur-Rehman vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1612 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Ayaz vs Ghulam Mustafa And 4 Other1997 MLD 1148 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-14Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Ariq vs Muhammad Jan And 6 Other1997 MLD 3062 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Ali and anothers vs Muhammad Ayub Fazlani and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 999 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
• Qazi Fazal Ahmad Through Legal Heirs vs Riaz Ur Rahim And Other1997 CLC 322 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Qazi Dost Muhammad vs Malik Dost Muhammad And 4 Other1997 CLC 546 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-10-14
  special damagesgeneral damagesillegal dispossessiontortious actmental agony and defamationrule of thumbjoint and several liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a suit filed by the appellant seeking special and general damages totaling Rs. 300,000 against police officials and school management for his unlawful dispossession from a residential property, demolition of the superstructure, and harassment of his family during night hours while a civil suit for possession was pending. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court dismissed it on technical grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties. The High Court, with the consent of all parties, heard the matter on its merits. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondents acted unlawfully by taking the law into their own hands instead of awaiting judicial determination. In assessing damages, the High Court held that special damages require strict proof for each claimed item, while general damages for defamation, mental torture, and disgrace are assessed under the 'Rule of Thumb' based on judicial discretion and attending circumstances. The appellant was awarded Rs. 60,498 in special damages and Rs. 150,000 in general damages against respondents jointly and severally.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to claim special damages in a civil tort action?
  • How are general damages for mental torture, agony, and defamation calculated by a court?
  • Can defendants be held jointly and severally liable for damages when they take the law into their own hands to dispossess an occupant while a civil ejectment suit is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Abdul Nasir vs The State1997 MLD 2452 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Nawaz Khan and another vs The Regional Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Dera Ismail Khan and 4 others1997 PLD Peshawar 72 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-20
  banking recoveryjurisdiction of civil courtreturn of plaintexclusive jurisdictiondefamation claimbanking tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two cross-appeals arising from a single order passed by a Civil Judge regarding a dispute over loan recovery and a subsequent claim for damages for defamation. The appellants filed a declaratory suit against the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, seeking to invalidate a recovery notice and claiming damages for mental torture and defamation. The trial court returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 ousted the civil court's jurisdiction regarding the loan recovery, but it retained jurisdiction over the defamation claim, ordering the plaint to be amended. The High Court held that the trial court correctly identified the lack of jurisdiction over the loan recovery matter, which falls exclusively under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. Furthermore, the Court held that the claim for damages for defamation, being an off-shoot of the main loan dispute, could not be severed to maintain civil court jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire plaint must be returned for presentation before the proper forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages for defamation if the claim arises from a loan recovery dispute subject to the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a trial court return a plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for part of the suit while retaining jurisdiction over another part?
  • Does the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters related to loan recovery by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaumi Foundation vs Asad Anees Ansari1997 CLC 33 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-28
  personal needejectmentlandlord and tenantbona fide requirementresidential premisesconversion of useparental maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering the eviction of the appellants (a foundation) from a residential property on the ground of the landlord's personal need. The core legal questions were whether a landlord gainfully employed abroad can seek eviction for personal use, whether the need of a landlord's parent qualifies as the landlord's own need, and whether a residential property let for non-residential purposes can be recovered for residential use. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a landlord's foreign employment does not negate the bona fide nature of a requirement to return and reside in their own property. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the term 'for his own occupation' includes the need to accommodate and maintain one's parents, consistent with Islamic injunctions. The Court also ruled that a tenant cannot unilaterally change the character of a building to defeat a landlord's right to recover possession for residential purposes. The principle established is that the landlord's bona fide personal need, including the support of parents, constitutes a valid ground for eviction, regardless of the tenant's unauthorized conversion of the premises' use.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord who is gainfully employed in a foreign country maintain an ejectment application on the ground of personal need?
  • Does the phrase 'for his own occupation' in rent law include the need to accommodate and maintain the landlord's parents?
  • Can a landlord seek eviction for residential purposes if the tenant has converted a residential building to non-residential use without permission?
  • Is an ejectment application maintainable against a foundation without joining all legal heirs of the original individual tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Zaman And Others vs Ejazi Begum And Other1997 MLD 2408 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-07
  constitutional petitioncivil revisionlachesjurisdiction of civil courtevacuee propertyrejection of plaintland settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a civil revision and two constitutional petitions arising from a dispute over land forming part of Khasra numbers 220 and 224 in Rawalpindi, which the petitioners claimed was part of an industrial brick kiln allotted to their predecessor, while respondents claimed it was agricultural land transferred under evacuee laws and later purchased by them. The core legal questions involved whether constitutional petitions challenging decades-old settlement transfers were barred by laches, whether a civil suit regarding such property transfers was barred under specific statutory provisions, and whether the rejection of the plaint was justified. The Lahore High Court held that the constitutional petitions suffered from gross laches, delay, and acquiescence since the respondents had purchased the land for valuable consideration and constructed houses over it many years prior. Furthermore, the Court held that the civil suit was barred by the ouster of jurisdiction under the relevant land settlement legislation. Consequently, all matters were dismissed, affirming that civil courts lack jurisdiction to question property transfers made under the evacuee settlement laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional petitions challenging property transfers made by settlement authorities are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of gross laches and delay?
  • Does the jurisdiction of the civil court stand ousted to examine questions regarding the proper transfer of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  • Can a civil suit be maintained when the plaintiff has made prior admissions in litigation stating the disputed property does not belong to them?
  • Whether the rejection of a plaint is justified when the suit is barred by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Hussain Bhatti vs Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad1997 PLC (C. S.) 99 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-03-21Read full judgment →
• Qamar Din vs Capt. Shafique Ahmad Khan And 3 Other1997 CLC 774 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
• Qalb E Abbas Alias Nahola vs The State1997 SCMR 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-16
  murderunlawful assemblyconstructive liabilityinterested witnessescorroborationmotiveacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 302/149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased, which the High Court maintained despite acquitting his four co-accused. The core legal question was whether motive could corroborate the testimony of interested eye-witnesses and whether constructive liability under Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, could be sustained following the acquittal of all other alleged members of the unlawful assembly. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. It reaffirmed that motive is neither substantive nor corroborative evidence, but merely a circumstance that can be a double-edged weapon. Consequently, it cannot bridge the evidentiary gap left by interested witnesses. Furthermore, the Court ruled that once all co-accused are acquitted, the charge of unlawful assembly under Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, necessarily fails. As the prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration for the interested eye-witnesses and the constructive liability charge was legally untenable, the appellant's conviction was set aside, and he was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can motive serve as sufficient corroboration for the testimony of interested witnesses in a criminal case?
  • Is a conviction under Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sustainable when all other co-accused have been acquitted?
  • Does the existence of motive or enmity constitute substantive or direct evidence for a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Qalandro Alias Nazro vs The State1997 MLD 1632 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-13
  unrepresented accusedduty of courtcross-examinationburden of proofarms ordinanceprocedural illegalitystation diaryspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance recorded by the Special Court, Dadu. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Court held that where an accused is unrepresented by counsel, the trial judge has a positive duty to actively cross-examine prosecution witnesses and assist in discovering the truth, as scanty or absent cross-examination by an unrepresented layman cannot be construed as an admission of prosecution facts. Furthermore, the trial was vitiated by severe procedural irregularities, including the failure to produce the police station daily diary entry regarding the departure of the police party, the failure to frame a proper charge after transfer of the case, and non-compliance with mandatory certification provisions under section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the trial court misconstrued the burden of proof; under section 8 of the Special Courts Act 1975, the statutory presumption and shifting of the burden of proof do not arise until the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was thus unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a trial judge to cross-examine witnesses on behalf of an unrepresented accused violates the principles of a fair trial and the provisions of section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a scanty or absent cross-examination by an unrepresented accused permit the court to presume that unrebutted prosecution testimonies are correct statements of fact?
  • Does the failure to comply with the mandatory certification requirement under section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • At what stage does the burden of proof shift to the accused under section 8 of the Special Courts Act 1975?
  • What is the effect of the non-production of the police station daily diary entry showing the departure of the police party on the reliability of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Ahmad vs Ghulam Murtaza And Another1997 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-13
  murderacquittalocular evidencedelay in FIRSupreme Court appealcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, was filed by the complainant Qadeer Ahmed against the acquittal of respondent Ghulam Murtaza, who had been initially convicted by the trial court under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Naseer Ahmed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and acquitting the respondent based on the unreliability of ocular evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., and inconsistencies regarding the presence of eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal by the High Court was based on cogent and valid grounds, noting that the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the scene was highly doubtful and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal order unless the grounds are arbitrary or perverse, which was not the case here.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court's judgment of acquittal warrants interference by the Supreme Court when based on cogent and valid grounds?
  • Does the unexplained absence of alleged eye-witnesses taking the injured to the hospital cast serious doubt on their presence at the scene?
  • Whether a delay in lodging the first information report without plausible explanation undermines the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →