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.

• Ch. Muhammad Rafiq vs Abdul Hameed And Another1997 MLD 1023 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Mahmood vs Aurangzeb And 6 Other1997 CLC 1708 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-12-14
  writ petitiondisputed questions of factplot allotmentmisreading of recordconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant, who challenged the allotment of a plot to respondent No. 1. The core legal question was whether the subsequently numbered plot allotted to the respondent occupied the same physical location as the appellant's previously allotted, paid-for, and possessed plot, and whether the High Court could resolve such disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court grossly misread the record and ignored vital certified documentary evidence establishing identity of the plots. The Court ruled that where no other adequate remedy is available, it is the duty of the constitutional court to resolve disputed questions of fact if possible through affidavits and documentary evidence. The appeal was accordingly accepted, declaring the subsequent allotment without lawful authority, while leaving room for the municipal corporation to accommodate the respondent with an alternate plot.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional court resolve disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction when no other adequate remedy is available?
  • Whether an allotment of a plot already validly allotted to another person is without lawful authority?
  • Is documentary evidence consisting of certified part plans sufficient to establish the identity and location of a disputed plot?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Latif vs Province of Punjab1997 CLC 262 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-23
  date of birth correctionrevisional jurisdictionmisreading of evidencelimitation periodUniversity of the Punjabdeclaratory suitconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for a declaration to correct his date of birth in his Matriculation certificate. The core legal questions concerned whether the suit was barred by statutory immunity under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, whether the claim was time-barred, and whether the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the petitioner's age. The High Court held that the University’s refusal to correct a date of birth is subject to judicial review if the refusal lacks good faith, and that the cause of action for such a suit arises upon the final rejection of the application by the University. Furthermore, the Court determined that the lower courts erred by ignoring unrebutted evidence from the petitioner’s family members, which established a consistent age difference with his elder brother. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' findings, accepted the revision petition, and decreed the suit, affirming that revisional jurisdiction allows interference when findings are based on a misreading of material evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court entertain a suit for the correction of a date of birth despite the finality clause in the University of the Punjab Act, 1973?
  • When does the limitation period begin for a suit seeking the correction of a date of birth in a university certificate?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Irshad Javed vs Tariq Mehmood Malik And Other1997 MLD 1810 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Hussan vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1047 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-12
  service appeallimitation periodcondonation of delayService Tribunalcomputation of timebona fide mistakedepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the appellant's service appeal as time-barred. The core legal questions were whether the appeal was filed within the statutory limitation period and whether the delay, if any, warranted condonation following a change in judicial precedent regarding the filing of appeals after departmental exhaustion. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was filed within the limitation period, as the date of communication of the appellate order must be excluded from the computation of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act. Additionally, the Court ruled that even if the appeal had been technically time-barred, the delay was excusable. The appellant had acted in good faith, relying on a long-standing practice that existed prior to the Court’s dictum in Shabir Ahmad v. Azad Government. Consequently, the Court set aside the departmental penalty, noting the inquiry was procedurally defective, while allowing the authority to initiate a fresh inquiry in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the date of communication of an order excluded when computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
  • Can a delay in filing an appeal be condoned if the litigant relied on a long-standing practice that was subsequently altered by a judicial decision?
  • Does the dictum of a Supreme Court judgment regarding limitation periods apply retrospectively to cases already decided or pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Azam Cheema vs Province of Punjab And Other1997 CLC' 970 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Arif And Another vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar1997 MLD 1675 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Abdullah Virk vs Rana Nazir Ahmad And 2 Other1997 CLC 1599 · Election Tribunal · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mazhar Ali Gill vs The District Magistrate, Faisalabad And Other1997 CLC 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-03Read full judgment →
• Ch. Fayyaz Ahmad vs Mst. Hidayat Begum And 21 Other1997 SCMR 1393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-11
  Intra-Court Appeallimitationcondonation of delayjudicial discretionsummer vacationstime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) as time-barred. The petitioner had challenged a Single Judge's order that quashed an F.I.R. registered under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and imposed costs. The ICA was filed with a delay of 26 days. The petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, arguing that the limitation period did not run during the High Court's summer vacations. The Supreme Court examined whether the delay was excusable. The Court held that since the Multan Bench of the High Court remained functional during the summer vacations and the appeal could have been filed during that period, the petitioner's plea lacked substance. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, noting that the condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, and no illegality was demonstrated in the High Court's exercise of that discretion. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the limitation period for filing an appeal be extended on the ground that the High Court was closed for summer vacations if the court remained functional for filing matters?
  • Is the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 a matter of judicial discretion that warrants interference only upon proof of illegality?
  • Does the fact that a High Court bench remains functional during summer vacations preclude a litigant from claiming the benefit of the vacation period for the purpose of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Fateh Jang vs Punjab Election Commissioner H'1997 CLC 1350 · Election Tribunal · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ch. Asghar Ali and others vs Province of Punjab and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 211 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Ch. Asghar Ali And Other vs Province of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 211 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Ch. Arshad Ali Anjum vs Registrar of Trade Unions, North Zone, Lahore Region, Lahore And 3 Others1997 PLC 425 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Khaliq, Chairman, Welfare Society, Hamidpur Colony, Mirpur1997 CLC 442 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Department vs AssesseePTCL 1997 CL. 438 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-24Read full judgment →
• Carona Sahu Co. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax1997 PTD 932 · Bombay High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi Through Its Executive Officer And Another vs Ghulam Habib Rana And 12 Other1997 CLC 374 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi And Another vs Ghulam Habib Rana And Other1997 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-06
  Cantonment Boardvariation of constitutionjudicial reviewsatisfaction of Central Governmentlocal governmentelected representativesconstitutional principlesadministrative nexus
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves petitions concerning the validity of notifications issued under section 14(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, which varied the constitution of the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, by replacing elected members with a three-member nominated body. The core legal question was whether the Central Government's satisfaction under section 14(1) for varying the Board's constitution is subject to judicial review and requires objective grounds with a nexus to the administration of the cantonment. The Supreme Court held that the satisfaction of the Central Government is not absolute or unfettered; it is subject to judicial review to determine whether relevant grounds existed and had a nexus with the statutory objects, particularly in light of constitutional principles encouraging local government institutions comprising elected representatives. The Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the High Court's decisions that the notifications were issued without lawful authority, while modifying a deadline for the ratification of decisions made by the interim board.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the satisfaction of the Central Government under section 14(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, to vary the constitution of a Cantonment Board is open to judicial review?
  • Can elected members of a Cantonment Board be removed under section 14 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, on grounds lacking a direct nexus with the smooth functioning of the administration?
  • Does the definition of 'State' under Article 7 of the Constitution encompass Cantonment Boards that are empowered by law to impose taxes or cesses?
  • How do the principles of policy and constitutional provisions encouraging local government institutions affect the interpretation of statutory powers to supersede elected local bodies?
  Read full judgment →
• Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs Commissioner of Income-1997 PTD 371 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Bushra Qasim Khan vs Dr. Abdul Rasheed and others1997 PLD Lahore 484 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
• Bushra Begum vs Chairman, Lahore Development Authority And Other1997 CLC 1315 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-30Read full judgment →
• Brig. (Retd.) Aslam Hayat Qureshi vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1814 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Bostan Khan vs Abdul Khalid And Another1997 MLD 2352 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman vs Bashir Ahmad Khan1997 PLD Supreme Court 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-21
  civil review petitionerror apparent on the face of the recordcorrection of date of birthmatriculation certificatescope of review jurisdictionfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Civil Review Petition filed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, seeking review of a Supreme Court judgment that had previously dismissed the Board's petition for leave to appeal against a High Court decision. The underlying dispute involved a respondent who obtained a civil court decree declaring his date of birth as 10-10-1942, contrary to the date of 10-10-1940 recorded in his Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner argued that the High Court's judgment ignored the Board's regulations regarding birth date corrections and relied on inconsistent evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record, as required by law. The Court reaffirmed that a review petition cannot be used as an appeal to re-argue the case or to seek a different view on evidence already considered. The principle established is that the power of review is limited to rectifying manifest errors or addressing newly discovered material, not for re-evaluating settled facts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a review petition maintainable solely on the ground that a different view on a question of law or evidence is possible?
  • What are the specific grounds required for the Supreme Court to exercise its power of review under the Supreme Court Rules 1980?
  • Does the existence of a material irregularity that does not cause substantial injustice warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction?
  • Is it mandatory for a party to exhaust administrative remedies with an educational board before invoking the jurisdiction of a Civil Court for the correction of a date of birth?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Governors, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad vs M/s. Forte1997 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-17
  territorial jurisdictionarbitration agreementex parte orderleave to appealstay of proceedingscontractual disputeservice of summons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an ex parte order passed by the Sindh High Court in a dispute arising from a construction contract awarded by the Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad to a private limited company. The core legal questions involve whether the Sindh High Court possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940, given that the contract was executed and the subject matter was located in Abbottabad, and whether the petitioner received sufficient notice to defend the proceedings. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the petitioner, found that the grounds raised regarding lack of jurisdiction and procedural unfairness had substance. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner. As an interim measure, the Supreme Court stayed all further proceedings before the Sindh High Court. The judgment affirms the principle that territorial jurisdiction is a fundamental prerequisite for the maintainability of legal proceedings and that ex parte orders passed without proper service or jurisdiction are subject to judicial review and stay by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940, when the contract was executed and the subject matter is located outside its jurisdiction?
  • Can an ex parte order be stayed by the Supreme Court pending the final adjudication of a leave to appeal petition?
  • Is a party entitled to challenge proceedings on the grounds of insufficient notice and lack of territorial jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Khan vs Kamaluddin and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1745 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-07Read full judgment →
• Bismillah & Co. vs Secretary, Finance, Government of Pakistan and 41997 PTD 747 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-04
  advance taxincome taxlease contractoctroi collectionconstitutional petitiontax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions challenging the deduction of advance income tax under section 50(7-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, on leases obtained for the collection of taxes, octroi, and other levies from local councils in the Punjab. The core legal questions involved whether obtaining a lease for collecting local taxes amounts to a 'sale of property' under section 50(7-A) and whether advance tax can be levied on the entire lease contract value. The Court held that by virtue of the explanation added by the Finance Ordinance, 1984, the term 'sale of property' explicitly includes the awarding of any lease for the right to collect octroi duties, tolls, fees, or other levies. Furthermore, the Court held that advance tax under this provision is merely a mode of recovery in anticipation of regular assessment and is subject to subsequent adjustment, refund, or recovery. Consequently, the constitutional petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the granting of a lease for the collection of octroi duties, tolls, or fees constitute a sale of property under section 50(7-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can advance income tax be collected on the entire value of a lease contract for tax collection even if the gross amount may not entirely constitute income?
  • Is the deduction of advance tax under section 50(7-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, subject to subsequent adjustment and refund upon final assessment?
  Read full judgment →
• Bikram Singh and others vs Land Acquisition Collector and others1997 PTD 2018 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-09-12Read full judgment →
• Begum Saida Qazi Isa and 2 others vs Quetta Municipal Corporation1997 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-07-11Read full judgment →
• Begum Bushra Hyder vs Raja Ghulam Hyder and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 152 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-07Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad vs The State1997 SCMR 1523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-20
  criminal leave to petitionmurderous assaultArshquantum of compensationQisas and Diyat Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta, which dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner and maintained his conviction and sentence under Section 324/337-F(i)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for making a murderous assault and causing injuries resulting in paralysis. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the amount of Arsh awarded against the petitioner was properly calculated in accordance with the statutory provisions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal restricted solely to the question of the proper calculation and quantification of the Arsh amount under the relevant provisions of the law. The key principle laid down is that the assessment and calculation of compensation such as Arsh must strictly adhere to the prescribed statutory framework and computation rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amount of Arsh was properly calculated in accordance with the provisions of the law?
  • Can a conviction under Section 324/337-F(i)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be maintained while granting leave only on the quantum of Arsh?
  Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad vs Chairman, Balochistan Labour Appellate Tribunal, Quetta And Others1997 PLC 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad and others vs Mst. Zelekha and others1997 PLD Supreme Court 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-15
  Section 12(2) CPCex parte decreefraud and misrepresentationjurisdiction of trial courtleave to appealfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Balochistan High Court order that directed the trial court to proceed with applications filed by the respondents under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondents sought to recall an ex parte decree on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioners argued that because the original suit had been litigated up to the Supreme Court, where leave to appeal was refused, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Section 12(2) application. They contended that such an application must be filed before the court that finally decided the matter. The Supreme Court, referencing Mubarik Ali v. Fazal Muhammad, noted the complexity regarding the definition of final judgments and the appropriate forum for challenging decrees obtained by fraud. Finding that the petitioners' contention regarding the trial court's lack of jurisdiction required further examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns the proper forum for challenging a decree under Section 12(2) CPC when the matter has previously reached the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court render a judgment final for the purposes of filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a trial court entertain an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a decree if the matter has previously been adjudicated by the Supreme Court?
  • Which court possesses the jurisdiction to hear a challenge against a decree on grounds of fraud when the litigation has concluded at the Supreme Court level?
  Read full judgment →
• Bayer Pharma Employees' Union Registered C.B.A. through General1997 PLC 574 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-08-08Read full judgment →
• Bayer Pharma Employees Union Registered C.B.A. Through General1997 PLC 575 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-08-08Read full judgment →
• Bassar vs Mst. Hawa and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 325 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1771 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Bashir Akhtar Shahi vs Government of Punjab, and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 216 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Akhtar Shahi vs Government of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 216 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Surgeon-General, Medical, GHQ, Rawalpindi And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 68 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Bhatti and another vs Gulzar Ahmad and 11 others1997 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-11Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Sh. Abdul Aziz And 2 Other1997 MLD 2382 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs S.H.O. And Other1997 MLD 1071 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1997 PLD Supreme Court 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-18
  proprietary rightstemporary cultivation schemesubsistence holdinginterpretation of statutescolonization of government landrevenue department
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant, who sought the conferment of proprietary rights over land held under temporary cultivation schemes. The core legal question was whether a lessee holding land across multiple schemes could have their grants clubbed together to acquire proprietary rights up to the limit of a subsistence holding, notwithstanding the bar contained in sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of the Temporary Cultivation Scheme of 1979. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that clauses (3), (4), (5), and (8) of the Scheme must be read harmoniously rather than in isolation. The Court ruled that sub-clause (b) of clause (4) does not bar a lessee from clubbing land held under different schemes to attain the ceiling of a subsistence holding as provided under clause (3). The key principle laid down is that statutory provisions and administrative schemes must be interpreted as a whole to avoid repugnancy or absurdity, ensuring that different clauses are reconciled to achieve the manifest intention of the rule-makers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a lessee holding land under multiple schemes can club their holdings together to claim proprietary rights up to a subsistence holding under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme?
  • Does sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of the Temporary Cultivation Scheme operate as an absolute bar to granting proprietary rights to a lessee who holds land under more than one government scheme?
  • How should different clauses of an administrative scheme or statute be construed to avoid internal inconsistency or repugnancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs General Manager, Coordination And Others1997 PLC 246 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-11
  workmanretrenchmentstore officersupervisory dutieslabor appellate tribunalconstitutional petitionstanding orders ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected constitutional petitions challenging orders of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside decisions of the Labour Court in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner, initially a junior clerk and storekeeper, was promoted to Store Officer and subsequently had his services terminated due to the abolition of his post. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labor legislation and whether the procedure for retrenchment under Standing Order 13 applied to him. The court held that the petitioner, whose primary duties were supervisory—managing helpers and clerks—and who served as the General Secretary of the Officers' Association, was not a 'workman' but a supervisory employee, thereby excluding him from the protection of the standing orders regarding retrenchment. Consequently, the constitutional petitions were dismissed, establishing that the nature of duties and supervisory control determine whether an employee falls outside the definition of a workman.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee promoted as a Store Officer supervising helpers and clerks qualifies as a workman under the Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does holding the position of General Secretary in an Officers' Association negate an employee's status as a workman?
  • Can the procedure for retrenchment under Standing Order 13 of the Ordinance be invoked by an employee who is not classified as a workman?
  • What is the primary test for determining whether an employee is a workman or employed in a supervisory capacity?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Khan vs Pakistan1997 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-16
  Evacuee Trust PropertySuo Motu JurisdictionLimitation PeriodPermanent Transfer DeedVested RightsWrit JurisdictionAdministrative Lethargy
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Federal Government regarding the validation of property transfers under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. The core legal questions were whether the Federal Government’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 17 was exercised within the statutory limitation period and whether the requirement for a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) to be issued before 30-6-1968 to validate a transfer is legally sustainable when the full price was paid prior to that date. The Court held that the proceedings initiated upon a private complaint were not suo motu and were time-barred under the proviso to Section 17. Furthermore, the Court established that where a purchaser has paid the full transfer price, the government department’s failure to issue a PTD due to its own administrative lethargy cannot defeat the purchaser's vested rights. The Court affirmed that title matures upon the payment of the full price, and the issuance of a PTD is merely an executive act that cannot be used to prejudice the rights of a bona fide purchaser.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, based on a private complaint?
  • Does the failure of a government department to issue a Permanent Transfer Deed due to administrative delay defeat the rights of a purchaser who has paid the full transfer price?
  • Is a remand order by the Federal Government subject to judicial review if it directs the subordinate authority to apply an incorrect legal standard?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And Another Mst. Saeeda Begum vs Model Town1997 SCMR 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-08
  cooperative societyallotment cancellationvoid vs voidablelimitation periodcivil suitcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of civil suits regarding the cancellation of plot allotments by a Cooperative Housing Society. The petitioners were allotted plots in 1968, but possession was never delivered. Years later, the Society cancelled these allotments due to the petitioners' failure to construct, subsequently re-allotting the plots to third parties. The petitioners filed suits, which were dismissed as time-barred under the Limitation Act 1908, a decision upheld by the lower appellate court and the High Court in revision. The core legal question is whether the Society's cancellation of allotments without notice rendered the orders void or merely voidable, thereby affecting the applicable limitation period. The Court held that such orders are voidable, not void, as the Society possessed the authority to cancel allotments. Consequently, the suits were governed by the limitation period prescribed for challenging voidable orders. The Court granted leave to appeal, primarily to address the issue of limitation regarding the filing of the petitions themselves, noting that the petitioners failed to adequately explain the delay in filing.

  Questions settled

  • Are orders of a Cooperative Society cancelling an allotment without notice void or voidable?
  • Does the limitation period for challenging a voidable order of a Cooperative Society fall under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a suit challenging the cancellation of a plot allotment be maintained if the cancellation order has not been formally set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Basheer Ahmed vs The State1997 MLD 1373 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-05
  departmental inquirymisconductdispensing with inquirycivil servantnatural justicefair hearingback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which partly allowed an appeal against the appellant's dismissal from service for alleged temporary embezzlement of public funds by substituting the penalty with removal from service. The core legal question was whether the department was justified in dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry and resorting to a summary procedure based on a show-cause notice when the civil servant emphatically denied the serious charges of misconduct. The Supreme Court held that where charges of misconduct involving disputed questions of fact are vehemently denied by the accused employee, a regular inquiry involving the recording of evidence and the right of cross-examination cannot be dispensed with, as summary proceedings under such circumstances violate the principles of natural justice and fair hearing. The ratio decidendi is that while the competent authority has discretion under disciplinary rules to dispense with a regular inquiry, that discretion must be exercised reasonably and cannot be invoked in cases where factual controversies require evidentiary proof. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Tribunal and the department, and ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with back benefits subject to a verification of gainful employment.

  Questions settled

  • When can a department dispense with a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Whether serious charges of embezzlement denied by an accused civil servant can be resolved through a summary show-cause procedure without recording evidence?
  • Does the right to a fair hearing in departmental proceedings include the right to cross-examine witnesses and produce evidence in rebuttal?
  • What is the effect of recording findings of fact without a regular inquiry in cases involving disputed questions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Isani vs The State Opponent1997 MLD 253 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
• Barat Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1228 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
• Barak Ullah vs The State1997 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptionappellate powersabsence of counseldecision on meritscriminal appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner, a veterinary hospital incharge, under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for accepting illegal gratification. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which was subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court after dismissing his appeal on merits in the absence of his counsel. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an appellate court can lawfully decide a criminal appeal on merits under section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of the appellant or his pleader, provided the record is perused and the public prosecutor is heard. The Supreme Court held that the presence of the appellant or his pleader is not mandatory for the disposal of a criminal appeal, and the appellate court is fully empowered and duty-bound to decide the appeal on merits after perusing the record and hearing the public prosecutor if the appellant or his pleader fails to appear. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court lawfully dispose of a criminal appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant or his pleader?
  • Is the presence of the appellant or his pleader mandatory for the dismissal of a criminal appeal under section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal duty of an appellate court when the appellant's counsel repeatedly fails to appear for the hearing of a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Baqir Ali And Others vs The State And Another1997 MLD 1615 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Banaras Khan And Another vs Mst. Yasmeen Begum1997 MLD 1830 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Ballimal Naval Kishore and another vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 1944 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-01-10Read full judgment →
• Bakht Rawan vs Messrs Sandoz (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi Through Managing Director1997 PLC 523 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-08-19Read full judgment →
• Bakht Modin vs The State1997 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
• Bakhshi Ram Agarwal vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1997 PTD 963 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1996-07-17Read full judgment →
• Bakhshal Shah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 921 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-21Read full judgment →
• Bakhsha Through Legal Heirs And 2 Others vs Mst. Salahan Bibi And Another1997 SCMR 1439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-18
  gift deedagricultural landleave to appealregular second appealmental capacitydelivery of possessionmedical evidenceconfession of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court, which allowed the respondents' regular second appeal and set aside the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts that had decreed the petitioners' suit challenging a gift of agricultural land. The petitioners, nephews of the deceased donor, contested the gift made to his daughter on grounds of mental incapacity due to illness and non-delivery of possession. The core questions were whether the donor possessed valid legal capacity at the time of making the gift and whether possession was delivered to complete the transaction. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners failed to produce medical evidence showing that the donor lacked mental capacity or that his tuberculosis had reached an advanced stage inducing death expectation. Furthermore, the donor had personally appeared in court to support the gift, and no evidence disproved the donee's possession. Finding no merit in the challenge, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does suffering from tuberculosis, without medical evidence of mental impairment, invalidate a gift of property made by a donor?
  • Whether an assertion of non-delivery of possession to invalidate a gift can succeed when no evidence is adduced to rebut the donor's admission of the donee's possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhatzada vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 871 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Bahishti Khan vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1316 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Bahauddin Sirhandi vs Mst. Tanvir Amna1997 MLD 1826 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Bahadar And 5 Others vs The State1997 SCMR 1183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-07
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction baildelayed appealmandatory bailappellate court discretionlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal to suspend the sentences of six petitioners convicted under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, sentenced to life imprisonment, had filed an appeal in the High Court which remained pending for over three years. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail under the statutory provisions governing delayed appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court held that under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a convict sentenced to life imprisonment is ordinarily entitled to bail if their appeal remains undecided for more than two years post-conviction. The Court emphasized that if an appellate court denies this statutory benefit, it is mandatory to record specific reasons for such denial. Finding that the High Court failed to record reasons for refusing bail, the Supreme Court granted the petition, converted it into an appeal, and directed the petitioners' release on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict sentenced to life imprisonment entitled to bail if their appeal is not decided within two years of conviction?
  • Must an appellate court record reasons when denying bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant bail to petitioners if the High Court fails to provide reasons for denying suspension of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Badruddin And 2 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1737 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-15Read full judgment →
• Baby-Own vs Income Tax Officer1997 PTD 47 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05
  Income Tax OrdinanceSelf-Assessment Schemereopening of assessmentshow-cause noticedefective noticeconstitutional petitiontax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the validity of notices issued by the Income Tax Officer under Sections 61 and 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 regarding the assessment year 1991. The petitioner, previously assessed as an individual and a member of an Association of Persons (A.O.P.), had his return accepted under the Self-Assessment Scheme pursuant to Section 59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. Subsequently, the tax authorities issued notices seeking to reopen the assessment. The core legal question was whether the notice issued under Section 65 was legally valid despite failing to specify the grounds or subsection under which the assessment was being reopened. The Court held that the notice was defective and illegal ab initio because it failed to state the specific reasons for reopening the assessment. The Court emphasized that reopening an assessment is a quasi-penal action requiring the assessing officer to apply their mind cautiously and clearly inform the assessee of the specific grounds for the action. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the defective notice were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Is a notice for reopening an income tax assessment valid if it fails to specify the grounds or subsection under which it is issued?
  • Does the reopening of an income tax assessment constitute a penal action requiring the assessing officer to provide specific reasons?
  • Can proceedings initiated on the basis of a defective and illegal notice under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 be sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• B.S. Magnetic (Private) Limited, Karachi vs Sindh Labour Court No. 51997 PLC 556 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
• Babar Khan and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1297 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1996-11-24Read full judgment →
• B.S. Magnetic (Private) Limited, Karachi vs Shahenshah Hussain For Petitioner1997 PLC 556 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
• B.C. Gupta & Sons Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 1257 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-05-31Read full judgment →
• A/A ) Millat Hides & Skins Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs I.T.O. Companies-21,1997 P.C.T.L.R. 25 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 1996-10-05Read full judgment →
• Azra Khalid vs S.H.O. And Other1997 MLD 2234 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-14Read full judgment →
• Azizur Rehman vs Pervaiz Shah And Other1997 SCMR 1819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-02
  ejectmentPagribona fide personal requirementreconstruction of buildingrent restrictiontenancyconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority directing the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised hotel premises. The primary legal questions were whether the alleged payment of 'Pagri' (advance money) rendered eviction proceedings non-maintainable and whether the grounds of reconstruction and personal bona fide requirement are mutually destructive. The Supreme Court held that the payment of 'Pagri', even if proven, does not constitute a valid defense against eviction proceedings as it is contrary to public policy and does not negate the tenancy. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a landlord is entitled to seek possession for both reconstruction and personal use, as these grounds are not mutually destructive. The Court affirmed that once a landlord establishes a genuine intention to reconstruct, supported by necessary sanctions, the tenant cannot resist eviction based on the existing condition of the building. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, maintaining the concurrent findings of the lower forums.

  Questions settled

  • Does the payment of 'Pagri' render eviction proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 non-maintainable?
  • Are the grounds of reconstruction of a building and personal bona fide requirement mutually destructive in an eviction petition?
  • Is the bona fide intention of a landlord to reconstruct a building dependent on the current dilapidated condition of the premises?
  • Under what circumstances can concurrent findings of fact by rent forums be disturbed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Baig Mirza vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation Through Administrator And 2 Other1997 MLD 2031 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
• Aziz Khan vs The STATEsPLD-1997 Peshawar 13 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-28Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1997 PLC (C.S.) 356 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-29
  constitutional petitionpublic appointmentsmerit listfundamental rightsfreedom of trade and professionlocus poenitentiaeviolation of recruitment policyboard of intermediate and secondary education
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions challenging the validity of appointments made by the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala, to various posts ranging from BS-1 to BS-15. The core legal question involved whether appointments made in blatant disregard of recruitment policies, merit lists, and statutory procedures at the behest of external influences or unauthorized committees can be sustained in law. The Lahore High Court held that appointments made in favor of candidates who neither applied nor appeared for tests and interviews, and which bypassed the legally constituted recruitment committee, are illegal, void, and violative of fundamental rights. The Court laid down the principle that public appointments must strictly adhere to statutory provisions, merit, and due process, and that illegal appointment orders create no vested rights and cannot be protected under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae. Furthermore, entering a profession or public service in accordance with law is a guaranteed fundamental right under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appointments made to public bodies in violation of prescribed recruitment policies and merit lists are sustainable in law?
  • Can an illegal appointment order create a permanent vested right protecting the appointee from termination?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to rescind unlawful and void orders of appointment?
  • Is the right to enter a profession or public service protected as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Azim Khan And Others vs Government of N. W.F.P. And Other1997 SCMR 1620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-29
  civil revisionproprietary rightsstate propertyterritorial jurisdictionconfiscation of propertyfindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision against the appellate judgment of the District Judge, which had reversed the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff-petitioners. The petitioners had instituted a suit seeking a declaration of proprietary title and annulment of a government notification declaring the disputed land to be State property, following its historical confiscation in 1937 by the ex-Nawab of Dir. The core legal question concerned whether the disputed land was situated within the Malakand Agency and thus outside the territorial jurisdiction of the ex-Nawab of Dir, and whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property location under revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the District Judge's finding regarding the location and confiscation of the land was based on proper material and that the High Court rightly examined the evidence given the varying findings of the courts below. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can interfere with a finding of fact under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the courts below have rendered conflicting findings?
  • Whether the ex-Nawab of Dir had the territorial jurisdiction to confiscate land situated within the limits of the Malakand Agency?
  • Whether a suit for declaration and annulment of a government notification regarding confiscated property is barred by limitation and res judicata?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Iqbal vs The State1997 MLD 1486 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Azhar Iqbal and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1500 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-24
  sodomyunnatural offencemedical corroborationdelay in FIRabductionfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sodomy, while acquitting them of the charge under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the victim's testimony corroborated by a delayed medical examination, the impact of minor discrepancies and contradictions in witness statements, and whether a short movement of the victim over a few yards constitutes abduction under the Hudood laws. The Federal Shariat Court held that medical evidence conclusively established the unnatural offence, minor contradictions do not destroy the entire prosecution case under the principle of sifting chaff from grain, the delay in reporting was naturally explained by socio-ethnic factors and compromise efforts, and the very short distance of removal did not satisfy the ingredients of abduction. The court upheld the convictions and sentences, dismissing both the appeal for acquittal and the appeal for enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delayed medical examination and chemical examiner reports can reliably corroborate a charge of sodomy after several days?
  • Does a minor contradiction in a witness statement regarding peripheral facts warrant the total rejection of the prosecution case under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  • Can a very short movement of a victim over a distance of a few yards constitute the offence of abduction under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • How does socio-ethnic pressure and community mediation for compromise affect the evaluation of delay in reporting sexual offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain vs Secretary, WAPDA And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 538 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali Khan vs Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi Through Administrator1997 CLC 1486 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Azad Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14
  service tribunalpromotion quotadirect recruitmentroster systemleave to appealcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the advertising of a vacancy for the post of Data Control Officer through the press for direct recruitment. The core legal question was whether the subject vacancy ought to have been filled by promotion or by initial appointment in accordance with the prescribed quota and roster system. The Supreme Court held that given there are only three sanctioned posts of Data Control Officer, the 50 percent promotion and 50 percent direct recruitment formula could not be strictly applied, and in accordance with the Establishment Division's instructions requiring vacancies to be filled by maintaining a roster where the last vacancy was filled by promotion, the current vacancy must be filled through direct recruitment. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's view.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a 50 percent promotion and 50 percent direct recruitment quota can be mathematically applied when only three sanctioned posts exist?
  • How are vacancies in government posts required to be filled when a roster system is mandated by the Establishment Division instructions?
  • Does the dismissal of an appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the mode of filling a vacancy warrant interference under leave to appeal when based on a correct application of the roster system?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council through Secretary, Islamabad vs Abdul Rashid and 9 others1997 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 17 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary vs Sarfraz Alam And Another1997 MLD 383 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-16Read full judgment →
• Ayyaz Anjum vs Government of Punjab, Housing and Physicial1997 SCMR 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-24
  civil servanttransfer and postingservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitionbar of jurisdictioninterim order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court in a service dispute concerning the inter se transfers and postings of two civil servants serving in the Public Health Engineering Department. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain constitutional petitions and issue interim orders in matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants. The Supreme Court held that matters relating to the posting and transfer of a civil servant pertain to the terms and conditions of his service, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate Service Tribunal, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212(2) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned interim order, and directed the High Court to first determine the question of its jurisdiction before making any further interim orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to the posting and transfer of civil servants?
  • Do disputes regarding the transfer of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212(2) of the Constitution?
  • Must the High Court determine the question of its jurisdiction before making any interim order in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayyaz Anjum vs Government of Punjab, Housing and Physicial1997 PLC (C.S.) 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-24
  civil servanttransfer and postingservice tribunaljurisdiction of High Courtterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute regarding the inter se transfers of two civil servants serving in the Public Health Engineering Department. Both parties alleged the use of political influence to secure favorable postings. Respondent No. 3 challenged the legality of a transfer order dated 13-3-1996 by filing a Constitutional petition before the High Court, which subsequently suspended the impugned order. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against this interim order before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding the posting and transfer of a civil servant. The Supreme Court held that matters relating to the posting and transfer of civil servants pertain to the terms and conditions of service, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate Service Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court's jurisdiction is barred by Article 212(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim order, directing that the question of jurisdiction must be determined before any interim relief is granted in such service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning the posting and transfer of a civil servant?
  • Do disputes regarding the transfer of a civil servant fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal?
  • Must the High Court determine its own jurisdiction before granting interim orders in service-related matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Ijaz vs S. H. O.1997 MLD 641 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ali Shah vs The State1997 SCMR 1296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-25
  murderinterested witnessesabscondencecorroborationcriminal appealF.I.R. delayocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the affirmation of the petitioner's conviction for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the testimony of eye-witnesses who were closely related to the deceased could be relied upon without corroboration, and whether the petitioner's prolonged abscondence constituted sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court held that while the testimony of interested witnesses requires careful scrutiny, it need not be discarded if it is otherwise credible and supported by corroborating circumstances. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the petitioner's unexplained abscondence for over three years, combined with consistent medical evidence and the lack of established animus for false implication, provided sufficient corroboration. The Court further held that a delay in lodging an F.I.R. is only material if it casts doubt on the identity of the culprit, which was not the case here given the daylight occurrence. The petition was dismissed, upholding the sentence of life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of interested witnesses be relied upon to sustain a conviction if corroborated by other evidence?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused for a significant period serve as sufficient corroboration for the testimony of interested witnesses?
  • Is a delay in lodging an F.I.R. fatal to the prosecution's case if there is no doubt regarding the identity of the culprit?
  • Does the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ahmed vs Sher Muhammad And 3 Other1997 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-28
  pre-emptionplaint rejectionZarooratZararpleading requirementsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a dispute involving the law of pre-emption. The core legal question presented for the Court's consideration is whether a plaint in a pre-emption suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, specifically due to the plaintiff's failure to explicitly aver the requirements of 'Zaroorat' (necessity) or the avoidance of 'Zarar' (injury) as mandated by the statutory provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine this procedural and substantive issue regarding the sufficiency of pleadings in pre-emption litigation. The judgment serves to address the strictness of pleading requirements in pre-emption suits and whether the omission of specific statutory grounds constitutes a fatal defect necessitating the rejection of the plaint. The Court's ultimate determination on this issue will clarify the threshold for maintaining such suits under the prevailing pre-emption regime in Punjab.

  Questions settled

  • Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it fails to aver 'Zaroorat' or the avoidance of 'Zarar' as required by section 6(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan and 8 others vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, Finance Division, Islamabad and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 767 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan And 8 Other vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, Finance Division,Islamabad And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 767 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb And Another vs Arif Mehboob And Another1997CLC 1815 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Attaur Rehman vs The State and others1997 P Cr. L J 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-13Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
• Atlas Tyres Limited, Sheikhupura Through Managing Director vs Atlas1997 PLC 355 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-12-21Read full judgment →
• Atlas Khan vs Arsala Khan And Other1997 CLC 431 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
• Atiqur Rehman vs Muhammad Abdul Rehman1997 PLD Karachi 161 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Athar Shahzad Papoo vs The State1997 MLD 1335 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs Bashir Ahmad And Other1997 MLD 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-29Read full judgment →