Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Ali Akbar And 2 Other vs WAPDA Through Chairman And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 705 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-12-24Read full judgment →
- Alhamad Cotton vs Allah Ditta1997 MLD 2584 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
- Aleem vs Municipal Committee, Tando Allahyar Through Chief Municipal1997 PLC 417 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
- Alamgir and others vs Messrs Dada Bhoy Silk Mills Ltd. and others1997 PLC 13 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
- Alamgir And Other vs Messrs Dada Bhoy Silk Mills Ltd. And Others1997 PLC 13 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
- Alam Khatoon Alias Malookan And Others vs S.H.O., Qaim Pur And Other1997 MLD 1407 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
- Al Sehat (Pvt.) Ltd. Islamic Mission, Shikarpur (Sindh) vs National1997 CLC 854 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-20Read full judgment →
- Al Hamza Ship Breaking Co., Karachi vs Government of Balochistan1997 MLD 635 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-08-22Read full judgment →
- Akram Khan And 6 Others vs Fazal Khan And Another1997 CLC 1172 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
- Akmal vs The State1997 MLD 1257 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-21Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Zaman and anothers vs Bilqiaz Khan and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1957 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Sher Khan vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore1997 PLC 130 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Ali And 4 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
- Akbar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1887 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Akbar, who was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the appellant acted under grave and sudden provocation upon discovering the deceased committing Zina with his daughter, and whether his conviction warranted alteration to a lesser category of culpable homicide. The Lahore High Court held that the appellant indeed acted under grave and sudden provocation upon witnessing the illicit liaison, which severely disturbed his mental composure and led him to kill both the male deceased and his own daughter. The Court laid down that while citizens cannot be permitted to take the law into their own hands, the extreme mental torture and revulsion caused in a Muslim society by the knowledge of illicit relations or Zina involving a female family member constitute grave and sudden provocation, warranting a reduction in sentence under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code rather than severe punishment.
Questions settled- Whether the discovery of illicit relations or Zina involving a family member constitutes grave and sudden provocation to mitigate murder under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered to section 302(c) when the accused acts under sudden and grave provocation?
- Are the heirs of a deceased person involved in immoral activities entitled to compensation under the law?
- Akbar Shah vs Mehboob Safi Mayshery1997 SCMR 1971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's first rent appeal in limine, which upheld the striking off of the petitioner's defence for failure to deposit arrears of rent under an ejectment order. The respondent filed an ejectment application wherein the Rent Controller ordered the tenant-petitioner to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent pursuant to the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. The petitioner failed to deposit certain arrears within the stipulated time and filed an application for extension of time, which was initially interim-extended by the Controller but ultimately dismissed along with the subsequent striking off of the petitioner's defence under section 16(2) of the Ordinance. The core legal question concerned the Rent Controller's power and discretion to extend the time for depositing rent and the propriety of striking off defence upon default. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to show any authority under which the Controller could have extended the time without valid reasons and noted that the petitioner defaulted in depositing rent even by the extended date. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that failure to comply with a tentative rent order without lawful justification warrants striking off the tenant's defence.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller has the power to extend the time for depositing rent under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
- Does failure to deposit arrears of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller justify striking off the tenant's defence?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against an order dismissing a rent appeal where the tenant defaulted in complying with rent deposit orders?
- Akbar Ali vs Naveed Akbar1997CLC 1711 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali vs Messrs Boots Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Through Manager, Karachi1997 PLC 413 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali vs Auditor-General of Pakistan, Islamabad And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 65 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-07-28Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali and others vs Lal and others1997 PLD Lahore 709 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land allotted under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The core legal question concerned the validity of a registered agreement to sell in favor of the respondents, which was contested by the appellants based on an earlier, alleged agreement and a subsequent consent decree. The Court held that the respondents' agreement was valid and enforceable. It determined that an agreement to sell land, when coupled with the delivery of possession and payment of consideration, is not rendered void by Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The Court further held that a consent decree obtained through an agent whose power of attorney had been cancelled is void and of no legal consequence. Additionally, the Court established that a subsequent agreement to sell accompanied by the transfer of possession takes precedence over a prior agreement that lacked such delivery of possession. Consequently, the appellate decree in favor of the respondents was upheld, confirming their entitlement to specific performance.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell land coupled with possession violate Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
- Does a subsequent agreement to sell accompanied by the delivery of possession take precedence over a prior agreement without possession?
- Is a consent decree obtained through an agent whose power of attorney was previously cancelled legally valid?
- Ajmal Naseer vs A.C.E., Multan And Other1997 MLD 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
- Ajmal Mian, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui And Taj Din And Another vs Mst. Mehr1997 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
- Ajmal Khan vs Ishtiaq Ahmed And 3 Other1997 SCMR 1167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
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 service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner was selected for appointment as Senior Auditor but failed to report for duty by the stipulated deadline. Months later, he sought an extension of time, which was declined by the departmental authority. Rather than approaching the Service Tribunal within the prescribed period of thirty days, the petitioner pursued remedies before the Wafaqi Mohtasib and subsequently filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was later withdrawn. The core legal question concerned whether the time spent pursuing remedies before wrong forums, coupled with unexplained delays, constituted sufficient ground for condonation of delay under service law. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly concluded the appeal was time-barred as the petitioner's recourse to alternate forums was not bona fide and long unexplained delays barred relief. The key principle laid down is that time spent prosecuting remedies before incorrect forums at one's own risk, absent bona fides or sufficient explanation for prolonged delay, does not warrant condonation of delay before the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether time spent prosecuting a remedy before the Wafaqi Mohtasib constitutes a sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Can a candidate who fails to report for duty within the stipulated deadline claim an extension of joining time as a matter of right?
- Whether the pursuit of a writ petition in the High Court after an inordinate delay can be treated as bona fide for the purpose of condoning delay before the Service Tribunal?
- Ajmal and another vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
- Aijaz Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan Through Ministry Of Defence1997 PLC (C. S.) 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal. The petitioner, appearing in person, contended that the Tribunal erroneously assumed his appointment as DCAO in Grade-18 was not a promotion, thereby denying him consequential financial benefits. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner produced an office order dated 2-7-1991 explicitly stating he was promoted as Dy. C.A.O. in BPS-18 vice a retiring officer. He argued that based on this promotion, he was entitled to pay fixation in accordance with official instructions dated 17-11-1991. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention regarding the nature of the appointment and entitlement to pay fixation required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the merits of the petitioner's claim.
Questions settled- Whether an appointment as DCAO in Grade-18 constitutes a promotion for the purpose of service benefits?
- Is a civil servant entitled to pay fixation in accordance with instructions dated 17-11-1991 upon promotion?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in dismissing a service appeal based on the assumption that an appointment was not a promotion?
- Aien Khan Afridi vs The Deputy Commissioner_Political Agent,F.R., Peshawar And 3 Other1997 SCMR 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Aien Khan Afridi, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed his writ petition challenging the cancellation of his domicile certificate. The petitioner had been admitted to Khyber Medical College against a seat reserved for Frontier Regions, Peshawar. Following a challenge by a caveator regarding the genuineness of the petitioner's domicile, inquiries were conducted by the Deputy Commissioner and an Extra Assistant Commissioner, both of which concluded that the petitioner's father was not a permanent resident of F.R. Peshawar and that the domicile certificate had been wrongly issued and was bogus. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the certificate. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that under Rule 26 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, a domicile certificate cannot be cancelled for fraud or misrepresentation unless the person is convicted of such a charge, and contended that he was condemned unheard. The Supreme Court held that the points raised regarding the interpretation of Rule 26 and the right of hearing required consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a domicile certificate once issued can be cancelled on the ground of fraud or false representation without a prior criminal conviction under Rule 26 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952?
- Is it mandatory to provide an opportunity of hearing to a person before the cancellation of their domicile certificate?
- Can a domicile certificate be taken away arbitrarily after being accepted and acted upon?
- Aisha Hameed Qadri vs Nomination Board And 6 Other1997 CLC 1713 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-12Read full judgment →
- Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. and another1997 PTD 385 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-03-01Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Shafi vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1997 PLC 30 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Hussain And 9 Other vs Director of Schools, Federal1997 PLC (C.S.) 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions filed by Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) seeking upgradation from BPS-15 to BPS-16, claiming parity with Trained Graduate Teachers and Village Workshop Instructors who were granted such upgradation pursuant to notifications issued by the Finance Division. The petitioners' departmental representations and subsequent appeals before the Service Tribunal were dismissed, with the Tribunal holding that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Government to upgrade posts. The core legal question is whether the petitioners, serving as PTIs, could be unjustifiably discriminated against and excluded from the upgradation granted to other teachers and instructors in BPS-15. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that no apparent justification or reason was advanced by the respondents to exclude the petitioners from the upgradation benefits extended to other similarly placed teachers and instructors. The key principle laid down is that the Government cannot arbitrarily discriminate between categories of teachers performing duties in educational institutions when granting administrative upgradation of pay scales without valid and rational grounds.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to issue a direction to the Government to upgrade posts?
- Can Physical Training Instructors be discriminated against in the matter of upgradation of pay scales when other teachers and instructors in the same grade are granted such benefits?
- Ahmed Hussain And 8 Others vs Director of Schools, Federal1997 SCMR 902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from civil petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals. The petitioners, employed as Physical Training Instructors (P.T.I.) in B.P.S. 15, sought upgradation to B.P.S. 16, arguing that other categories of teachers, including untrained graduate teachers and village workshop instructors, had been upgraded to B.P.S. 16 while they were excluded. The Service Tribunal dismissed their appeals on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Government to upgrade posts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the petitioners were subjected to unlawful discrimination by being excluded from the upgradation benefits granted to other similarly situated or lower categories of teachers. The Court held that no justifiable reason was advanced by the respondents to deny the upgradation benefits to the petitioners while granting them to other teachers and instructors. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine the question of discrimination.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to address claims of discrimination regarding the upgradation of civil service posts?
- Can the Government exclude Physical Training Instructors from upgradation benefits while granting the same to other untrained graduate teachers and workshop instructors without a rational basis?
- Does the exclusion of a specific category of graduate teachers from a general upgradation policy constitute unlawful discrimination?
- Ahmed Food Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Mukhtar Hussain Bukhari1997 PLC 512 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-09-01Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Food Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through General Manager vs Ahmed1997 PLC 223 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1996-05-22Read full judgment →
- Ahmed 'Hussain and 9 others vs Director of Schools, Federal1997 PLC (C.S.) 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by Physical Training Instructors (PTI) against the dismissal of their appeals by the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioners, who were graduates holding posts in BPS-15, challenged their exclusion from a government upgradation scheme that placed Trained Graduate Teachers and untrained graduate teachers (including Technical/Village Workshop Instructors) into BPS-16 with effect from 01-06-1991. The Service Tribunal had dismissed their appeals on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Government to upgrade posts. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were arbitrarily discriminated against by being excluded from the upgradation benefits granted to other comparable or lower categories of graduate teachers. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents offered no justification for excluding the petitioners while upgrading other teachers and workshop instructors. Finding a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment requiring detailed examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the exclusion of Physical Training Instructors from a post upgradation scheme granted to other graduate teachers amounts to unjustified discrimination?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the Service Tribunal refuses to grant relief against discriminatory non-upgradation of posts without valid justification by the employer?
- Ahmad Yar And Others vs The State1997 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by lower courts in a criminal case involving multiple petitioners. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner, Ahmad Yar, was entitled to the grant of bail, particularly considering his age and the nature of the offences charged. The Court observed that petitioner Ahmad Yar was reported to be under sixteen years of age and that his case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail provision. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to Ahmad Yar subject to the execution of bail bonds with sureties. Regarding the other petitioners, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed their petitions. The key principle laid down reinforces that where an accused is a juvenile and the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the bail statute, the court may exercise its discretion to grant bail, distinguishing the case of the juvenile from co-accused who do not meet such criteria.
Questions settled- Is a juvenile accused entitled to bail if the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal for the purpose of granting bail?
- Ahmad Saeed vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 4 Other1997 MLD 167 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Khan vs The State1997 MLD 1591 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Hasan And Another vs Punjab University And Another1997 MLD 91 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Bakhsh vs Judge Family Court, Alipur And Another1997 MLD 1438 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-24Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Bakhsh And 3 Others vs Muhammad Nasir Khan And 12 Other1997 SCMR 1409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit concerning ownership and occupancy rights of land under the Punjab Tenancy Act. The respondents filed a declaratory suit alleging they were owners and the petitioners had abandoned their occupancy rights, while the petitioners contended they became owners under section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction and ordered the plaint to be returned to the Revenue Court. The High Court reversed this, holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction because the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist at the institution of the suit. The Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly determined the issue of civil court jurisdiction, but granted leave to examine whether the High Court should have remanded the case to the lower appellate court to decide the remaining question of abandonment instead of directly restoring the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to try a suit where the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist at the time of the institution of the suit?
- Can the bar of section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act be invoked when the relationship of landlord and tenant is not admitted in the plaint?
- Whether the High Court, upon upholding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, should remand the case for deciding remaining factual issues or directly restore the trial court's decree?
- Agriculture Workers' Union, Balochistan vs The Registrar of Trade1997 PLC 57 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals regarding the registration of trade unions for employees of the Agriculture Department and the Quetta Municipal Corporation. The core legal question was whether these employees, who perform manual or civic duties, fall within the definition of 'workman' or 'worker' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether their respective employers constitute an 'industry' under the same Ordinance, thereby entitling them to form a trade union. The Court held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is a beneficial statute requiring liberal construction. It determined that the definition of 'industry' includes 'service' and that municipal functions, excluding strictly sovereign/regal functions, qualify as an industry. The Court further held that the question of whether specific employees perform duties connected with the administration of the State or qualify as workmen is a question of fact that should be determined by the Registrar or relevant labour forums, not through constitutional petitions. The Court set aside the High Court's orders that had cancelled the registrations, remanding the cases for proper determination in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, include the civic services provided by a Municipal Corporation?
- Can the registration of a trade union be cancelled in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 when the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides a specific procedure for cancellation?
- Are employees performing manual duties in government departments automatically excluded from forming trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Is the determination of whether specific employees qualify as 'workmen' a question of fact to be decided by labour forums rather than in constitutional proceedings?
- Agriculture Workers' Union, Balochistan vs The Registrar of Trade1997 SCMR 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from judgments of the High Court of Balochistan concerning the registration of trade unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether employees of government departments and municipal corporations—specifically agricultural workers and municipal employees performing manual or civic duties—qualify as 'workers' or 'workmen' entitled to form trade unions, and whether a municipal corporation constitutes an 'industry' under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance is a beneficial piece of legislation and must be construed liberally. Except for strictly regal functions of the State, activities such as rendering civic services by a municipal corporation fall within the definition of 'service' under 'industry'. Furthermore, questions regarding the precise nature of duties performed by employees are questions of fact requiring evidence, which cannot be satisfactorily determined in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution when alternative statutory procedures exist. The Court laid down that civic and welfare services rendered by local bodies are covered under 'industry' and that unions cannot be summarily deregistered without proper inquiry and recourse to prescribed statutory procedures.
Questions settled- Whether employees of a municipal corporation performing civic services fall within the definition of 'worker' or 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a municipal corporation constitute an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979?
- Can the registration of a trade union be cancelled through constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution without resorting to the procedure provided under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979?
- Whether the determination of the nature of duties performed by employees for the purpose of trade union registration is a question of fact requiring evidence?
- Agriculture Workers Union, Balochistan vs The Registrar of Trade1997 PLC 57 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals challenging High Court judgments that denied trade union registration to employees of the Agricultural/Livestock Department and the Quetta Municipal Corporation. The core legal question was whether these employees qualified as 'workers' or 'workmen' and whether their employers constituted an 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly exercised constitutional jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of the employees' duties. The Court clarified that the definition of 'industry' under the Ordinance is broad and includes services; thus, municipal corporations performing civic functions are not excluded unless they are engaged in strictly 'regal' functions of the State. Emphasizing that the Industrial Relations Ordinance is beneficial legislation requiring liberal construction, the Court ruled that the nature of duties must be determined through factual inquiry rather than constitutional petition. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's orders and remanded the cases to the Registrar of Trade Unions to determine, based on evidence, whether the employees qualify as workers under the relevant labor statutes.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979 include municipal corporations performing civic services?
- Is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 appropriate for determining disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of an employee's duties?
- Are employees of government departments performing non-regal functions entitled to form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979?
- Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad Through Chairman vs Ali Gohar Abro1997 PLC 161 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
- Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others vs Muhammad Akhtar1997 PLC 611 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad And 4 Other vs Muhammad Akhtar1997 PLC 611 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan through Joint Director, Hyderabad Region and others vs Abdul Jabbar and others1997 PLC 569 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
- Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Through Joint Director, Hyderabad Region And Other vs Abdul Jabbar And Others1997 PLC 569 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
- Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan And Others vs Mst. Hamida1997 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a constitutional petition filed by the respondent against the recovery of interest on a loan by the petitioner bank was allowed, and the bank was directed to execute a redemption deed and return the title documents. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction in respect of a contractual matter and whether the relief granted was warranted by law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the impugned judgment is in consonance with law. The key principle noted is that constitutional jurisdiction is generally not to be invoked in purely contractual matters without sufficient legal justification.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in exercising constitutional jurisdiction in respect of a purely contractual matter?
- Can a writ petition be maintained to challenge the recovery of interest on a bank loan?
- Agha Haq Nawaz Khan vs Government of Sindh And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 366 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
- Agha Ghazanfar Ali vs Shaukat Ali And Other1997 SCMR 1006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's regular first appeal and upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court, which decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The core legal question was whether time was of the essence in the agreement for the sale of immovable property where the purchaser had paid a major portion of the consideration but defaulted on the final balance by the stipulated date. The Supreme Court held that time is not ordinarily of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property, and given that the purchaser had paid five-sixths of the purchase price, it would be inequitable and immoral to deprive him of the property. The Court laid down the principle that under section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, a breach of a contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by monetary compensation, and courts will generally enforce specific performance in the absence of undue benefit or intentional delay by the purchaser.
Questions settled- Whether time is ordinarily of the essence in a contract for the sale of immovable property?
- Can the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property be adequately relieved by compensation in money?
- Is the grant of specific performance of a sale agreement a discretionary and equitable relief?
- Whether a purchaser who has paid a major portion of the sale consideration should be deprived of specific performance due to a minor delay in paying the balance?
- Agha Gas Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and others1997 PTD 269 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a private limited company challenging the imposition of customs duty and sales tax on the import of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders with valves from Iran, and seeking the benefit of duty exemption under S.R.O. 367(1)/94 dated 9th May 1994 and the Petroleum Policy of 1994. The core legal questions involved whether the imported items were exempt from duties as goods not manufactured locally, whether recommendations of the Ministry of Petroleum were binding upon the Central Board of Revenue, and whether disputed questions of fact could be resolved in writ jurisdiction when an adequate alternate statutory remedy existed. The Balochistan High Court held that LPG cylinders are manufactured locally, making the exemption inapplicable, that recommendations of the Ministry of Petroleum are not binding on the Central Board of Revenue, which is the sole authority for statutory interpretation, and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve controversial questions of fact or to circumvent alternate statutory remedies available under the Customs Act 1969. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can resolve controversial questions of fact regarding local manufacture of goods under its constitutional jurisdiction pursuant to Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Are the recommendations issued by the Ministry of Petroleum binding on the Central Board of Revenue regarding the interpretation and application of customs duty and sales tax exemptions?
- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an adequate alternate remedy is provided under sections 193, 194, and 195 of the Customs Act 1969?
- Does the exemption under S.R.O. 367(1)/94 apply to imported goods that are locally manufactured?
- Agha Ba$Hir Ahmad vs Nippon Bobins (Pvt.) Ltd.1997 CLC 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
- Agha Atta Muhammad Khan vs Altaf Ali Bhayo And Other1997 MLD 2111 · Election Tribunal · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
- Afzal Khan and 4 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1416 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1997-04-08Read full judgment →
- Afzal Ali vs Azhar Iqbal1997 MLD 2262 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ali vs The State1997 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a conviction under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was subsequently modified by the Lahore High Court to a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the courts below improperly relied on the testimony of two police officials as the sole witnesses to the recovery of a stolen gun at a bus stop, and contended that the prosecution failed to establish the petitioner's knowledge that the item was stolen. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether implicit reliance should be placed on police witnesses when independent witnesses were readily available, and whether the prosecution successfully proved the requisite knowledge of the stolen nature of the property. Additionally, the Court addressed the procedural issue of the petitioner's failure to surrender after conviction, directing the petitioner to surrender before the trial court to be taken into custody before being released on bail pending the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for possession of stolen property be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials when independent witnesses were available?
- Is it a procedural requirement for a petitioner to surrender to custody before a petition for leave to appeal is entertained?
- Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving that an accused had knowledge that the property in their possession was stolen?
- Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao vs Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and others1997 PLD Peshawar 93 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns two writ petitions challenging the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly of the North-West Frontier Province by the Governor under Article 112(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The petitioners alleged that the dissolution was mala fide, lacked sufficient material, and that the Governor had not properly entered office. The core legal questions were whether the Governor’s opinion regarding the breakdown of constitutional machinery was objectively formed and whether the grounds cited, particularly "horse-trading," justified the dissolution. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the dissolution was constitutionally valid. The Court ruled that "horse-trading" is a pernicious practice that destroys the representative character of an assembly and is, by itself, a sufficient ground for dissolution. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Governor’s opinion, based on material showing corruption, nepotism, and administrative breakdown, was not subject to judicial interference regarding the adequacy of time or material, provided a nexus existed. The judgment reinforces the principle that the judiciary will not substitute its opinion for the Governor's when constitutional preconditions are met.
Questions settled- Is 'horse-trading' a sufficient ground for the dissolution of a Provincial Assembly under Article 112(2)(b) of the Constitution?
- Does a Chief Justice acting as Governor cease to be the Chief Justice, thereby requiring a fresh oath of office?
- Can the validity of a Governor's action be challenged on the basis of the time taken to form an opinion regarding the dissolution of an assembly?
- Are allegations of corruption and nepotism independently sufficient to warrant the dissolution of a Provincial Assembly?
- Afshan Naureen vs Nadeem Abbas Shah1997 MLD 197 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →
- Afaaq Anjam and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1344 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
- Aer Rianta International (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs Syed Amir1997 PLC 243 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-21Read full judgment →
- Aditanar Educational Institution vs Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax; 356, 356-a1997 PTD 2004 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-02-05Read full judgment →
- Adil Polypropylene Products Limited. vs The Federation Of Pakistan, Through Its Secretary Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad And OtherPTCL 1997 CL. 56 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Additional Commissioner II, K. Division vs Shahid Raza And Other1997 MLD 2444 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a civil suit filed by a Notified Officer seeking the cancellation of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) and a declaration regarding property ownership under the evacuee laws. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff possessed the requisite legal character and right under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 and the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 to maintain the suit, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff's jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed, the plaint failed to establish any legal character or right of the plaintiff to maintain the suit, and the declaratory reliefs sought fell outside the scope of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Consequently, the court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and rejected the plaint, laying down that a plaintiff instituting a suit for a declaratory decree must affirmatively show the existence of a status or legal character conferred by law.
Questions settled- Does a Notified Officer appointed under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 possess the legal character or right to maintain a suit for the declaration and cancellation of a Permanent Transfer Deed regarding undisposed properties?
- Whether a court is obliged to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where the plaintiff lacks the necessary legal character or right to seek a declaratory decree under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Does the principle of res judicata bar subsequent proceedings when the plaintiff was not a party to the prior litigation involving the same subject matter?
- Can a suit alleging fraud be dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 without establishing that the impugned act or order was validly passed?
- Adam Limited vs Messrs Mitsui & Co.1997 MLD 2712 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-29Read full judgment →
- Adair Dutt & Co. India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Appropriate Authority1997 PTD 1062 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-09-25Read full judgment →
- Abrar Ahmed Khan vs The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1997 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
- Abida Parveen vs Nadeem Akhtar1997 MLD 2603 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
- Abid Mahmood vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 241 Other1997 SCMR 1154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment dismissing his Constitution petition under Article 212 of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged the appointment and promotion of diploma-holders to professional engineering posts, arguing they lacked qualifications under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. The core legal question was whether a challenge to the eligibility of civil servants for promotion falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal or can be entertained by the High Court under Article 199. The Supreme Court held that while fitness or suitability for promotion is barred from the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, the question of eligibility relates to the terms and conditions of service and is squarely within its competence. Consequently, the High Court's jurisdiction is ousted by Article 212 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters of civil servants' eligibility for promotion?
- Is the question of eligibility for promotion distinguishable from fitness and suitability under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Can a civil servant challenge the promotion of unqualified persons to professional posts through a constitutional petition under Article 199?
- Abid Hussain vs Superintendent of Police, Jhang and others1997 P Cr. L J 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1180 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-25Read full judgment →
- Abdus Sattar vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 683 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, a Patwari, who was found guilty by a Special Judge under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Parliament/Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1947 for accepting illegal gratification. The core legal questions involved the legality of the trial conducted by the Special Judge whose appointment was subsequently declared invalid, the necessity of independent corroboration and hearing of conversation by a raiding party in trap cases, and the plausibility of the defence explanation regarding the recovery of tainted money. The Lahore High Court held that while prior judicial acts of the judge were protected under the de facto doctrine, the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt because the raiding party did not overhear the conversation or witness the passing of the bribe, and the accused successfully established a plausible defence explaining the receipt of money as fees for copies, which was supported by admissions made by the complainant during cross-examination. The appeal was accordingly accepted, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Are the judgments and orders passed by a judge whose appointment is subsequently declared illegal protected under the de facto doctrine?
- Whether the failure of the raiding party to overhear the conversation and witness the passing of tainted money is fatal to the prosecution case in a trap layout?
- Can the explanation offered by an accused regarding the receipt of money be sustained when supported by admissions made by the complainant in cross-examination?
- Does the mere recovery of tainted money suffice to establish a charge of corruption without proof of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt?
- Abdur Razzaq vs Muhammad Sharif and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from proceedings under section 12(2) and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, concerning the execution of a decree for possession of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a court, after finding that a warrant of possession was issued and executed in violation of mandatory statutory procedures and amounted to an abuse of process, is bound to order the immediate restitution of possession to the dispossessed party, or whether such relief can be withheld pending a reply and evidence on related applications. The Lahore High Court held that where a party is dispossessed through an illegal execution process and an act of court, the court has an inherent duty under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to undo the wrong and order immediate restitution of possession, and such relief cannot be denied as an eyewash or delayed until the adjudication of separate proceedings. The key principle laid down is that no person shall suffer prejudice by an act or mistake of the court, and courts possess inherent powers to grant restitution to rectify an abuse of process.
Questions settled- Whether a court is bound to order immediate restitution of possession when a party is dispossessed through a warrant of possession issued in violation of prescribed statutory procedures?
- Can the execution of a decree for possession of agricultural land be carried out directly by a court bailiff without intervention of the Collector?
- Does a civil court possess inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to rectify its own mistake and restore possession to a person illegally dispossessed?
- Whether withholding the restoration of possession pending the reply to an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is legally justified after finding an abuse of process?
- Abdur Razzaq and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 741 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid Qureshi, Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., Muzaffarabad vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad And 5 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 505 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid Butt vs The State and others1997 PLD Lahore 394 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahim vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1274 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on a dying declaration and a retracted judicial confession. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of these pieces of evidence in the absence of independent corroboration and the impact of doubtful identification. The Peshawar High Court held that the dying declaration was unreliable, noting the dark conditions of the occurrence, the lack of identification evidence, and the medical evidence suggesting the deceased was in shock or coma, rendering him incapable of making a coherent statement. Regarding the retracted confession, the Court held that it lacked material corroboration, and the investigating officer failed to verify the alleged motive. The Court affirmed the principle that a retracted confession requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction and that abscondence, per se, is insufficient for conviction without other strong evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, declined to confirm the death sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Is a dying declaration sufficient to sustain a conviction if there is doubt regarding the identity of the assailant and the physical condition of the deceased?
- Can a conviction be based on a retracted confession without independent corroboration in material particulars?
- Does the failure to record a memorandum under Section 364(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically invalidate a confession?
- Is the fact of abscondence sufficient, by itself, to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Abdur Rahim alias Kaka vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1617 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Shah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 910 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-02Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Jan Khan vs Saifur Rehman Khan and 6 others1997 P Cr. L J 973 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-15Read full judgment →
- Abdullah and another vs Abdur Rashid and 2 others1997 PLD Azad J&K 9 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
- Abdullah & Company vs The Banking Tribunalii, Sindh And 2 Other1997 MLD 2738 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Zubair vs The State1997 SCMR 966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the bail application of the petitioner in a case registered under sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and two co-accused were apprehended in a taxi while possessing firearms and allegedly planning a dacoity. The core legal question was whether the assembly of fewer than five persons satisfies the ingredients of sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for making preparations or assembling for dacoity. The Supreme Court held that since sections 399 and 402 require an assembly of not less than five persons and only three accused were found in the vehicle, the case against the petitioner requires further inquiry. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner, laying down the principle that an assembly of fewer than five persons fails to satisfy the essential numerical threshold required under sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Does the assembly of fewer than five persons satisfy the requirements of sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the recovery of unlicensed firearms and arrest in a vehicle containing only three persons warrants further inquiry for offences under sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Abdul Waris vs Muhammad Yousaf1997 PLD Supreme Court 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the rejection of pre-emption plaints. The core legal question was whether pre-emption suits instituted between August 1, 1986, and March 28, 1990, which remained pending and undecided, were maintainable or liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given the legislative vacuum and subsequent enactment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision to remand the suits for trial on merits. The Court held that pending pre-emption suits instituted during the interregnum period cannot be left in an inchoate state; the law must be interpreted to provide a remedy where a right exists. The Court affirmed that the mere pendency of a suit does not warrant the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the legislative intent behind the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, was to ensure the final determination of controversies rather than depriving litigants of their rights.
Questions settled- Can a plaint in a pre-emption suit be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, merely because it was pending during the legislative vacuum between 1986 and 1990?
- Does the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, apply to pre-emption suits that were pending and undecided during the interregnum period?
- Is it legally permissible to leave pre-emption proceedings pending during the interregnum period in an inchoate state?
- Abdul Wali Khan And Others vs Muhammad Saleh1997 MLD 2835 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs Syed Haji Abdul Wadood1997 SCMR 1338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, titled Abdul Wahid v. Syed Haji Abdul Wadood. An application for adjournment was submitted via telegram on behalf of the petitioner's counsel, citing serious family problems, while both the counsel and the Advocate-on-Record failed to appear at the hearing. The core legal question addressed is whether an adjournment sought through a telegram, in violation of notified practice requiring the presence of the Advocate-on-Record, warrants acceptance and whether a petition should proceed in the absence of representation. The court held that the adjournment request sent via telegram must be rejected in accordance with the cause list notification prohibiting such applications and requiring the Advocate-on-Record to be present. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution and vacated the prior stay order, establishing the principle that non-compliance with court notification regarding counsel appearance and unauthorized adjournment requests results in dismissal for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- Whether an application for adjournment sent through telegram can be entertained when the counsel and Advocate-on-Record are absent?
- What is the consequence of the non-appearance of both the counsel and the Advocate-on-Record at the hearing of a petition?
- Can a stay order be vacated upon the dismissal of a petition for non-prosecution?
- Abdul Wahid Lehri vs Arbab Mir Nawaz And 3 Other1997 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding an eviction order against the petitioner-tenant. The core legal questions concerned whether the absence of a specific family member (for whom premises were required) from the witness box was fatal to an eviction claim, and whether the lack of an approved reconstruction plan at the time of filing the eviction application invalidated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the landlord's sworn testimony regarding personal requirement, if consistent and not shaken in cross-examination, is sufficient to establish bona fide need. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that technical objections regarding the absence of a specific family member or the timing of reconstruction plan approval do not override the established bona fide personal requirement. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's assertion of personal requirement on oath is to be accepted as bona fide if it remains consistent with the eviction application and is not disproved by rebuttal evidence or shaken during cross-examination.
Questions settled- Is the non-appearance of a family member in the witness box fatal to a landlord's claim for eviction based on personal requirement?
- Can a landlord's assertion of personal requirement on oath be accepted as bona fide if it is consistent with the eviction application and not shaken in cross-examination?
- Does the approval of a reconstruction plan during the pendency of ejectment proceedings cure the defect of filing the application before such approval?
- Abdul Wahid alias Adilio and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1593 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid Aamar vs Muhammad Asif Alias Bashiree And Other1997 MLD 596 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-10-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahad Juenjo vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1808 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Abdul Wahab, who was charged with an offence under the Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following a bank robbery. The accused had been in custody since his arrest on July 11, 1994. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, despite the trial court's refusal based on the applicant's alleged status as a hardened criminal. The High Court held that the delay in the trial was not attributable to any act or omission by the accused or his representative, a fact conceded by the prosecution. The Court affirmed the principle that the mere pendency of other cases does not disentitle an accused to bail unless they have been judicially established as a hardened criminal. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that statutory delay in trial, when not caused by the accused, entitles the applicant to bail as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does the mere involvement of an accused in multiple criminal cases automatically disentitle them to the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay if the delay in the conclusion of the trial is not attributable to the accused or their representative?
- Can a court refuse bail based on the characterization of an accused as a hardened criminal without a prior judicial determination to that effect?
- Abdul Wahab vs State1997 MLD 3274 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab vs Aurangzeb And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that affirmed concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had decreed a suit for the revocation of a gift. The core legal question was whether a gift of landed property, evidenced by a registered deed, was legally complete and irrevocable despite the donor's claim that possession was never delivered to the donees. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, holding that the gift was incomplete and thus revocable. The Court reasoned that the mere recital of delivery of possession in a gift deed is not conclusive proof of such delivery when challenged. Based on evidence, including the testimony of the cultivator and a written admission by the donees, the Court determined that the donor had retained control and received the produce from the land throughout his lifetime. The key principle laid down is that a gift under Islamic law is not complete without the delivery of possession, and a declaration of gift unaccompanied by such delivery remains revocable by the donor.
Questions settled- Is a recital of delivery of possession in a registered gift deed conclusive proof that possession was transferred?
- Can a donor revoke a gift if possession of the property was never delivered to the donees?
- Does the retention of produce from land by the donor after executing a gift deed indicate that the gift was not completed?
- Abdul Shakoor vs The State1997 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife and a murderous assault on his father-in-law. The core legal question was whether the appellant's strained marital relations and the deceased's refusal to return to the matrimonial home constituted mitigating circumstances sufficient to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any earnest, reconciliatory efforts to resolve the marital dispute through legal or social channels, such as filing for restitution of conjugal rights or seeking mediation. Furthermore, the court noted the appellant's cold-blooded conduct, the severity of the injuries inflicted, and his attempt to malign the deceased's character with a false plea. Consequently, the court affirmed the conviction and the death sentence, establishing the principle that mere marital discord, absent genuine, documented efforts at reconciliation, does not mitigate the extreme penalty of death for murder.
Questions settled- Does the refusal of a wife to return to the matrimonial home constitute a mitigating circumstance justifying the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is the death penalty the normal penalty for the offence of murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused who fails to seek legal or social remedies for marital discord claim leniency in sentencing for the murder of his spouse?
- Abdul Sattar vs Water and Power Development Authority Through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a WAPDA employee, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld a penalty imposed upon him for alleged misconduct involving the creation of bogus electricity connections and fraudulent billing. The petitioner challenged the penalty on two primary grounds: first, that the Superintending Engineer lacked the authority to impose the penalty, arguing that the Chief Engineer was the competent authority; and second, that the departmental authorities acted illegally by dispensing with a formal factual enquiry, thereby denying him a fair opportunity to defend against the serious allegations of fraud and misappropriation. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's contentions regarding the competency of the authority and the necessity of a formal enquiry in cases involving disputed factual allegations raised substantial legal questions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Superintending Engineer was indeed the competent authority under the relevant delegation of powers and whether the failure to conduct a formal enquiry violated the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in the context of the disciplinary proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a formal factual enquiry mandatory in disciplinary proceedings when the allegations involve disputed facts?
- Does the Superintending Engineer possess the legal authority to impose penalties on WAPDA employees under the WAPDA Employees (Power Wing) Delegation of Powers Rules?
- Can a disciplinary authority dispense with a formal enquiry when an employee denies the charges of misconduct?
- Abdul Sattar vs Water and Power Development Authority Through Chairman, WAPDA AndAnother1997 SCMR 1177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld a disciplinary penalty imposed on a WAPDA employee. The petitioner, accused of facilitating illegal electricity connections and fraudulent billing, challenged the penalty on two primary grounds: first, that the Superintending Engineer lacked the authority to impose the penalty, contending that the Chief Engineer was the competent authority; and second, that the departmental authorities acted illegally by dispensing with a formal factual enquiry, thereby denying the petitioner a fair opportunity to defend against serious allegations of misconduct. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's contentions regarding the competency of the authority and the necessity of a formal enquiry in light of the specific allegations raised significant legal questions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Superintending Engineer was indeed the competent authority under the relevant delegation of powers and whether the failure to conduct a factual enquiry rendered the disciplinary proceedings legally flawed.
Questions settled- Is a formal factual enquiry mandatory when a WAPDA employee is charged with serious allegations of misconduct and fraudulent billing?
- Does the Superintending Engineer have the authority to impose disciplinary penalties on WAPDA employees under the WAPDA Employees (Power Wing) Delegation of Powers Rules?
- Abdul Sattar vs Shamim Akhtar And Other1997 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the trial court's order allowing the petitioner, Abdul Sattar, to be joined as a party under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for partition and possession filed by respondent Mst. Shamim Akhtar. The core legal question was whether a person whose previously asserted ownership title via a sale-deed was extinguished by a final, unchallenged judgment and decree passed on the basis of a special oath can still claim to be a necessary party in a partition suit concerning the same property. The Supreme Court held that since the sale-deed forming the basis of the petitioner's claim was declared illegal and void by a final judgment to which the petitioner consented via special oath, and because the petitioner suppressed these material facts in his joinder application, he has no subsisting interest or ownership in the property. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a person whose claim of ownership based on a sale-deed has been rejected by a final and unchallenged decree can be considered a necessary party in a subsequent partition suit regarding the same property?
- Can a party who suppressed material facts regarding previous litigation and a binding decree against him be permitted to join proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the legal effect of a judgment and decree passed on the basis of a special oath when it is not challenged in appeal or revision?
- Abdul Sattar Saleemi vs Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary1997 PLC (C.S.) 752 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Salam vs The State1997 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court confirming the death sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court for the murder of his mother. The petitioner had admitted the killing during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., and close relatives deposed against him. The Sessions Judge convicted him of Qatl-i-Amd under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code and awarded the death penalty as Qisas, which was upheld by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the proof required for Qisas under section 304 was lacking and raised questions concerning the applicability of death as Qisas versus Tazir under section 302. The Supreme Court observed that the case involved important questions regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions concerning Qatl-i-Amd, the standard of proof required under section 304, and the distinction between punishments of death as Qisas and Tazir. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to be considered by a larger Bench.
Questions settled- Where Qatl-i-Amd cannot be punished with death as Qisas under section 302(a), is there any bar in awarding punishment with death as provided by section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What is the standard of proof required by section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for proving Qatl-i-Amd liable to Qisas?
- What distinctive standard of proof would be required and guiding principles followed while awarding punishment of death as Tazir, in another case?
- Abdul Sabir Alias Sabir vs The State1997 MLD 2297 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs Mst. Tasleem Akhtar And 6 Other1997 CLC 1957 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman Khakwani And Another vs Abdul Majid Khakwani And 21997 SCMR 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Lahore High Court order passed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which had directed the custody of a minor girl to be restored to her natural parents (the respondents). The minor had been willingly handed over in infancy to her uncle and aunt (the appellants), and the aunt was subsequently appointed as the legal guardian of the minor's person by a Guardian Judge with the consent of the natural father. The natural parents later sought custody via a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 Cr.P.C., alleging neglect and an unsuitable proposed marriage. The Supreme Court held that since the appellants' custody was backed by a valid, subsisting guardianship order from a competent court, such custody could not be deemed illegal or improper. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 491 Cr.P.C. to alter custody. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored custody to the legally appointed guardians, reiterating that final custody disputes must be resolved under the Guardians and Wards Act.
Questions settled- Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Cr.P.C. to transfer custody of a minor when the current custody is held under a valid and subsisting order of a Guardian Judge?
- Whether custody of a minor with a legally appointed guardian can be deemed illegal or improper so as to attract the provisions of Section 491 of the Cr.P.C.?
- Is a High Court competent to determine the final question of custody of a minor under Section 491 of the Cr.P.C. when the Guardian Court is the final arbitrator under the Guardians and Wards Act?