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.

• Abdul Rehman And Another vs Mst. Umar Jan And Another1997 MLD 2889 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Alias Bakhu And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs The Federation of Pakistan And Other1997 MLD 3283 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1997 MLD 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P., Peshawar And 2 Others1997 PLC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others1997 PLC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid And Others vs Muhammad Afzal And Other1997 CLC 863 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs Qurban Ali, Additional Sessions Judge Toba Tek Singh1997 MLD 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim and 2 others vs Messrs United Bank Ltd. of Pakistan1997 PLD Karachi 62 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-02
  Banking Tribunals Ordinancepre-condition of depositdirectory provisionframing of issuesinterest-based financeundue influenceunconscionable contractsinstitution of suit by companyremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment of the Sindh High Court arose from multiple first appeals filed under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 against decrees passed by the Banking Tribunal, Hyderabad, without framing issues, recording evidence, or considering the appellants' written statements. The High Court considered whether pre-conditions of deposit under Section 9(1) and Section 6(6) of the 1984 Ordinance were mandatory, whether the Tribunal was required to follow the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding issues and evidence, and the legal standards governing interest-based finances, unconscionable contracts, and corporate authorization to sue. The Court held that the pre-deposit requirement in Section 9(1) and the security requirement under Section 6(6) are directory, saving the right of appeal. The Tribunal is bound under Section 5 to follow Code of Civil Procedure 1908 procedures by framing issues and recording evidence. The Court set aside the impugned decrees and remanded the suits for fresh adjudication in accordance with the prescribed legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the pre-condition of depositing the decretal amount under the first proviso to Section 9(1) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 is mandatory or directory?
  • Can a Banking Tribunal decree a suit solely for a customer's failure to furnish a bank guarantee or deposit cash under Section 6(6) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984?
  • Is a Banking Tribunal obligated to frame issues and record evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the claim in a suit is disputed?
  • Does the Banking Tribunal under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 have jurisdiction to entertain claims based on interest or Riba?
  • When a company institutes a suit, how must the authority and competence of the person filing the plaint be established in light of its articles of association?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1515 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyoum vs District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan1997 P Cr. L J 855 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qavi Siddiqui vs District Judge, Hyderabad And 2 Other1997 MLD 1261 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadoos And 19 Others vs Abdul Aziz Khan And 6 Other1997 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-10
  ex parte decreeremand of casenotice of hearingleave to appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which allowed a revision application filed by the respondents against the appellate order setting aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question concerns whether defendants, who had previously been declared ex parte before a remand of the case, were entitled to a fresh notice of hearing following the remand, and whether the application to set aside the ex parte decree was time-barred. The Supreme Court considered the contentions regarding the absence of notice after remand and the right of parties to participate in proceedings, ultimately granting leave to appeal to examine the legality of the High Court's findings. The key principle laid down is that parties retain certain rights regarding notice and participation in judicial proceedings following a remand order, necessitating careful scrutiny of procedural compliance in ex parte matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether defendants declared ex parte before a remand are entitled to a fresh notice of hearing after the case is remanded?
  • Does the failure to issue notice after remand vitiate subsequent ex parte proceedings?
  • Whether an application for setting aside an ex parte decree was barred by limitation under the circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs S.K. Abbas Hussain and 2 others1997 PLD Karachi 566 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-04
  damages in tortpersonal injuryroad accidentvicarious liabilitygeneral damagesspecial damagesnegligenceex parte decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an ex parte civil suit for the recovery of general and special damages amounting to Rs. 5 million, instituted by the plaintiff for serious injuries sustained in a road accident on Karsaz Road, Karachi, caused by the rash and negligent driving of a car driven by defendant No. 2 and owned by defendant No. 1. The core legal questions for determination were whether the plaintiff suffered permanent disability and pain from the accident, and whether he was entitled to special and general damages, and whether the car owner could be held vicariously liable merely on the basis of friendship and vehicle ownership. The Sindh High Court held that while the driver (defendant No. 2) was directly liable in tort for his negligence causing severe fractures, pain, and suffering, defendant No. 1 could not be held vicariously liable merely as a personal friend and registered owner without an established master-servant or principal-agent relationship. The court decreed general damages of Rs. 500,000 and out-of-pocket special damages of Rs. 3,550 against defendant No. 2, dismissing the suit against defendant No. 1. The key principle laid down is that under common law tort, a defendant is liable for personal injuries resulting from a breach of the duty of care, but vicarious liability requires a proven agency or employment relationship rather than mere vehicle ownership or friendship.

  Questions settled

  • Is a vehicle owner vicariously liable for an accident caused by a friend driving the car without a master-servant or principal-agent relationship?
  • Whether an injured plaintiff in a road accident is entitled to general damages for pain, suffering, mental shock, and loss of amenities under common law tort?
  • Can a plaintiff claim special damages for medical expenses that were settled and paid by their employer rather than out of their own pocket?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir And Others vs Allah Wasaya And Other1997 CLC 311 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-14
  Civil revisionDeclaration suitLimitationPardanashin ladyBurden of proofMutationGiftRevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the appellate court's decision to decree a suit for declaration, which had sought to invalidate adverse entries in mutations from 1947. The original plaintiffs, two women, claimed ownership of suit property, asserting that their brother fraudulently transferred the land to his sons (the petitioners). The petitioners argued the suit was time-barred, the respondents were estopped, and they were not Pardanashin ladies. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, holding that the suit was within time, as the cause of action arose from the 'last attack on rights' (a prior suit filed by petitioners) under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The court found that the respondents, being illiterate villagers, could be construed as Pardanashin ladies, placing a heavier burden of proof on the petitioners to establish the validity of the mutations and alleged gift. The petitioners failed to produce sufficient evidence, such as the Halqa Patwari or Revenue Officer, to prove the mutations or gift, thus failing to discharge their onus.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'last attack on rights' principle extend the limitation period for a declaration suit under Article 120 of the Limitation Act?
  • What is the standard of proof required for transactions involving Pardanashin ladies?
  • Can illiterate villagers be considered Pardanashin ladies for the purpose of legal protection, even if they perform some outdoor tasks?
  • What is the burden of proof for establishing the validity of mutations and alleged gifts, particularly when challenged by Pardanashin or illiterate individuals?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir And Others vs Allah Daad And Other1997 CLC 48 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer Mansoori vs Mst Naseema Bano And Another1997 MLD 3244 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada And Others vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1997 SCMR 232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-12
  Eighth AmendmentBasic Structure DoctrineObjectives ResolutionConstitutional AmendmentParliamentary Form of GovernmentChecks and Balances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved several civil appeals and constitutional petitions challenging the validity of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question addressed was whether the Eighth Amendment, specifically Article 58(2)(b), could be challenged or struck down based on the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the question of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution is largely academic and lacks a definitive, final answer. The Court observed that the prominent characteristics of the Constitution are reflected in the Objectives Resolution, which became a substantive part of the Constitution via Article 2A. The Court further reasoned that the Eighth Amendment, having been in place since 1985 and having survived multiple party-based elections without legislative repeal, was ratified by implication. It held that Article 58(2)(b) serves to maintain the parliamentary form of government by providing necessary checks and balances between the President and the Prime Minister to prevent constitutional breakdown. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions and appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Is the 'basic structure' of the Constitution a justiciable concept that can be used to strike down constitutional amendments?
  • Does the Objectives Resolution constitute a substantive part of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a constitutional amendment be considered ratified by implication if it remains untouched by successive parliaments?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Moeen Chishti vs Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Bahawalpur And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 663 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1088 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Qureshi vs National Bank of Pakistan1997 PLC (C.S.) 671 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Qureshi vs National Bank of Pakistan Through President1997 PLC (C.S) 671 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Khan vs Rent Controller/Civil Judge, Gujranwala And1997C L C 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State1997 MLD 2080 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Ghulam Yaseen1997 P Cr. L J 896 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs District Judge, Mirpur And Another1997 MLD 2137 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police And Others1997 PLC (C.S:) 333 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Asif vs The State1997 PLD Peshawar 135 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Lateef and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Secretary, Senate Secretariat, Islamabad1997 PLC (C. S.) 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-29
  leave to appealrepatriationlienfundamental rulescivil serviceparent department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Khaliq against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine his writ petition challenging his non-repatriation and reversion. The petitioner, working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Law and Justice Division and previously serving in the Senate Secretariat and Ministry of Interior, sought repatriation to his parent department, claiming a confirmed status and a subsisting lien. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of fundamental rules regarding the retention and termination of a government servant's lien in their parent department and the legality of refusing repatriation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised regarding the interpretation of fundamental rules on the point of lien require further consideration. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning a government employee's lien and entitlement to repatriation under the fundamental rules necessitate a detailed examination on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has an enforceable right to be repatriated to their parent department?
  • How is a government servant's lien determined under the fundamental rules?
  • Does the refusal to repatriate an employee holding a permanent post amount to discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State1997 MLD 1363 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Asadullah And 2 Other1997 CLC 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1997 PLC 481 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-19
  Payment of Wagescompensation for delayed wagesretirement benefitsLabour Appellate Tribunalconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a claim before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, seeking unpaid retirement benefits along with ten times compensation. The Authority awarded the principal claim plus a lump sum of Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental torture and litigation delays. An appeal by the employer to the Labour Court was dismissed, but a subsequent revision petition before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the Rs.5,000 compensation award. The petitioner challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order through a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of the Authority to award lump sum compensation for mental torture and litigation delays in cases of delayed wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Authority's power to grant compensation for delayed wages is strictly restricted by statute to a maximum of ten rupees, and it has no general jurisdiction to award lump sum damages for mental torture or litigation costs. The principle laid down is that statutory authorities created by specific enactments are strictly bound by the limitations of their governing statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Are orders passed by the Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 revisable under Section 38(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 possess the jurisdiction to grant lump sum compensation for mental torture and litigation delay in cases of delayed wages?
  • What is the statutory limit of compensation that the Authority can award in the case of delayed wages under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Ali Raza And Another1997 MLD 3098 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim alias Abdalli vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Sharafat Khan1997 MLD 2813 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Government of N.W.F.P.1997 PLC (C.S.) 210 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Government of N.-W.F.P.1997 PLC (C.S.) 210 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid And Others vs The State1997 MLD 2639 · Board of Revenue · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed/ vs Suhrab through Legal Heirs1997 PLD Karachi 589 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-08
  specific performancerevisional jurisdictionburden of proofexecution of documentappreciation of evidencecivil revisionthumb impression
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which dismissed the applicant's suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence regarding the execution of the disputed sale deed. The High Court held that the revision application was devoid of merit, affirming the lower courts' findings. The court emphasized that the applicant failed to prove the execution of the agreement, as he did not examine the scribe, the Notary Public, the stamp vendor, or a handwriting expert, and failed to seek a forensic comparison of the disputed thumb impression. The court established that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, revisional jurisdiction is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors or material irregularities and does not extend to re-evaluating factual findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Consequently, the court maintained the dismissal of the suit, finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' reasoning.

  Questions settled

  • What are the permissible modes of proving the execution of a document in civil proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a party entitled to specific performance of a contract if they fail to examine the scribe, notary, or stamp vendor of the disputed agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyvicarious liabilityfurther inquiryinvestigation reportdischarge of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Abdul Hameed, who is accused of involvement in a murder case registered under sections 302, 334, 148, 149, and 440 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on arguments of further inquiry, the rule of consistency, and conflicting police investigation reports regarding his presence at the crime scene. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, finding reasonable grounds to believe he was involved in the commission of the crime. The Court distinguished the petitioner's case from a co-accused who had been granted bail, noting that the petitioner was named in the promptly lodged F.I.R. and assigned a specific role in attempting to take illegal possession of land. The Court established that an investigating officer's opinion cannot override the weight of evidence provided by witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that a Magistrate cannot discharge accused persons based solely on a police report when witnesses have implicated them.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person claim the benefit of the rule of consistency if their role is distinguishable from a co-accused who was granted bail?
  • Does an investigating officer's opinion that an accused is innocent override the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate discharge an accused person solely on the basis of a police report when prosecution witnesses have implicated them?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Mehmood And 3 Other1997 MLD 845 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Deputy Commissioner/Administrator, Zila Council,1997 CLC 540 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-25
  Cattle market auctionVoid ab initioLease cancellationLocal CouncilPublic exchequerConstitutional petitionSupervisory powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Intra-Court Appeals challenging a Single Judge’s decision to uphold the cancellation of leases for holding Cattle Markets. The appellants argued that once the lease was executed, it created a vested right, and the Chief Minister lacked authority to cancel it. The Court examined whether the auction process, which failed to adhere to the mandatory seven-day notice period required by the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990, rendered the subsequent lease void. The Court held that the auction was void ab initio due to procedural non-compliance. Consequently, the lease agreement, being a superstructure built upon a void act, was also void and lacked legal efficacy. The Court affirmed that the Provincial Government holds supervisory authority over Local Councils and is empowered to intervene to protect the public exchequer from financial loss. Furthermore, the Court ruled that constitutional petitions are maintainable in such instances, as the fundamental illegality of the auction process justified judicial intervention, notwithstanding the availability of other remedies. The appeals were dismissed, confirming the necessity of a re-auction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an auction held in violation of the mandatory notice period prescribed by the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990, render the resulting lease void ab initio?
  • Can a lease agreement based on an auction that was void ab initio be cancelled by the Provincial Government?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the cancellation of a lease when the underlying auction process was fundamentally illegal?
  • Does the Provincial Government possess the authority to intervene in the affairs of a Local Council to prevent financial loss to the public exchequer?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem Chaudhry vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Development, Lahore And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-03
  date of birthcorrection of date of birthservice tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appealdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a service appeal and a constitutional petition concerning the correction of the petitioner's date of birth. The petitioner joined service in 1955 with his date of birth recorded as 10-7-1936, but later sought correction to 3-8-1937, which the department rejected before notifying his retirement. The High Court dismissed his writ petition in limine holding it incompetent and observing the claim was an afterthought, while the Service Tribunal subsequently dismissed his appeal in limine due to the High Court's observations on merits. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction on merits based on the High Court's observations after holding the writ petition incompetent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised need consideration and that the Tribunal ought to have examined the matter on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can refuse to exercise jurisdiction on merits merely because the High Court made observations on merits while dismissing a writ petition as incompetent?
  • Does a civil servant have the right to seek correction of their date of birth in service records near the time of retirement?
  • Is a constitutional petition competent for the correction of a date of birth affecting the date of retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim And Another vs Revising Authority under Electoral Rolls1997 CLC 1988 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-06-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani And Others vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima And Other1997 CLC 2028 · Board of Revenue · 1996-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 953 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Mst. Rukhsana Bibi and 2 others1997 PLD Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor And 5 Others vs Tehsil Chishtian, District1997 CLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1997 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-12
  criminal appealreappraisal of evidenceacquittal reversalocular evidencemisreading of evidencemurder convictionwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment that reversed the appellant's acquittal by the Trial Court and convicted him for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Trial Court erred in discarding prosecution evidence—specifically ocular testimony and recovery—based on conjecture and misappreciation of facts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly reappraised the evidence, finding that the Trial Court had unjustifiably discarded the testimony of disinterested witnesses and misread the medical and ocular evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the Trial Court’s acquittal was based on extraneous grounds and surmises rather than a sound assessment of the record. The judgment reinforces the principle that an appellate court is justified in setting aside an acquittal when the trial court has misread evidence or relied on conjectures to discard credible testimony, and that minor discrepancies in terminology regarding weapons do not necessarily invalidate ocular evidence when corroborated by medical findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal if the trial court has misread or misappreciated the evidence?
  • Does a delay in recording a witness's statement automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can ocular evidence be discarded based on minor terminological discrepancies regarding the weapon used?
  • Is the testimony of a witness who was present at the scene for a routine activity considered credible?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Selection Committee Through Director Of Education1997 CLC 2030 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-06-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Rent Controller And Another1997 CLC 495 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Public in General And Other1997 CLC 657 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01
  habeas corpusvalidity of marriageoption of pubertycustody of wifeMuslim Personal Lawconsent of Waliabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the custody of Mst. Allah Moafi, involving a writ petition filed by her husband, Abdul Ghaffar, and a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by her father, Sher Muhammad, who alleged abduction and that the girl was a minor. The core legal question was whether a marriage contracted by a girl who has attained puberty, without the consent of a Wali, is valid, and whether she is entitled to choose her own custody. The Court held that under Islamic law, an adult female who has attained puberty possesses the right to contract a valid marriage of her own free will without the consent of a Wali. Given the evidence of the girl's pregnancy and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court affirmed the validity of the Nikah. Consequently, the Court allowed the husband's petition, dismissed the father's petition, and permitted the girl to join her husband, ruling that the Magistrate’s order confining her to Darul Aman was legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can an adult Muslim female contract a valid marriage without the consent of a Wali?
  • Does the attainment of puberty by a female validate her marriage under Islamic law regardless of the Child Marriages Restraint Act 1929?
  • Is a Magistrate empowered to send an adult female to Darul Aman against her will when she claims to be validly married?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar And Other vs Deputy Inspector-General, Multan And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Badshah vs Deputy Commissioner and anothers1997 PLD Peshawar 132 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-31
  Constitutional jurisdictionTribal AreasRewajFundamental rightsHigh Court jurisdictionArticle 247FATA
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a resident of the Federally Administered Tribal Area, challenged a local custom ('Rewaj') that permitted the sale of his land to satisfy a relative's debt. He sought to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973, arguing that fundamental rights should prevail over the exclusionary provisions of Article 247(7). The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute involving immovable property situated within the Tribal Area where both parties are residents of that area. The Court dismissed the petition, holding it not maintainable. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Qaum Bangash v. Qaum Tori, the Court affirmed that Article 247(7) of the Constitution of 1973 explicitly excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters 'in relation to a tribal area.' Since the property and parties were within the Tribal Area, the matter fell squarely within this exclusion. The Court clarified that the petitioner's reliance on Ch. Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan was misplaced, as that case involved distinct circumstances and the later Qaum Bangash ruling established the binding precedent regarding jurisdictional bars in Tribal Areas.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973 to adjudicate disputes concerning immovable property situated in the Tribal Areas?
  • Does Article 247(7) of the Constitution of 1973 exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the Tribal Areas where the parties are residents of such areas?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court in relation to Tribal Areas controlled by the exclusionary provisions of Article 247(7) of the Constitution of 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1997 MLD 1723 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs S.H.O., P.S. Qutabpur, Multan And 7 Other1997 MLD 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs S. P. (C.I.A.), Sargodha and 2 others1997 PLD Lahore 24 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-03
  re-investigationpolice harassmentcriminal investigationcross-caseconstitutional petitionabuse of police poweradministration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, Abdul Aziz, seeking relief against alleged harassment by the Superintendent of Police (C.I.A.), Sargodha, who was reportedly pressuring the petitioner to withdraw a cross-case filed by his son. The core legal question concerned the scope and limitations of the police's power to conduct re-investigation in criminal cases. The Lahore High Court held that while the law permits further investigation, such power is not unfettered and must not be exercised to cause harassment or to favor one party over another for ulterior motives. The Court emphasized that re-investigation should only occur when necessary to discover the truth and advance justice, rather than as a tool for political or external pressure. The holding established that police officers must record specific reasons justifying any re-investigation and must avoid mechanical exercise of this power. The Court directed the respondent to adhere to these guidelines, noting that the ultimate determination of facts should be left to the Courts of law rather than repeated police investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the police have unfettered power to conduct re-investigation in criminal cases?
  • What are the requirements for a police officer to justify the re-opening of an investigation?
  • Should re-investigation be used to resolve disputes between parties or should the matter be left to the Courts of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Munir Ahmad And Another1997 MLD 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Mst. Malika And Another1997 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-23
  dissolution of marriagefamily court jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionquality of evidencematrimonial disputediscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to interfere with a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage. The core legal question was whether the Family Court was justified in decreeing the suit for dissolution of marriage based on the respondent's solitary statement despite the petitioner's arguments regarding the lack of corroborative evidence and the failure to specifically plead Khula. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Family Court acted within its jurisdiction and that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere. The Court affirmed that the proof of allegations in a matrimonial dispute depends on the quality, rather than the quantity, of evidence. It further established that where a wife expresses an inability to live within the parameters ordained by God, and the husband's attitude is inimical, the court is not obligated to force the continuation of the marital relationship.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a single party sufficient to prove grounds for the dissolution of marriage in a Family Court?
  • Does the High Court have the discretion to refuse interference in a Family Court decree under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a court force a wife to continue a marital relationship when she expresses an inability to live within the parameters ordained by God?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Messrs Rainbow Fabrics (Pvt.). Ltd. Through Its Managing1997 MLD 952 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
• Abbasia Cooperative Bank (Now Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank1997 PLD Supreme Court 3 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-07-10
  ouster of jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionrecovery of arrears of land revenuecooperative societiesauction salebenami loanSection 9 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two civil petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a civil revision that restored the trial court's decree in favour of a borrower. The core legal questions pertained to whether statutory and executive ouster clauses—specifically Section 13 of the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance (XIV of 1966) and Paragraph 7 of Martial Law Order No. 241—completely bar civil court jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when executive authorities act in violation of statutory procedures governing recovery of arrears of land revenue. The Supreme Court held that statutory provisions ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts must be strictly construed. Ouster clauses do not bar civil court jurisdiction where an authority acts without jurisdiction, in violation of statutory procedure, mala fide, or in breach of natural justice principles. Because the recovery sale violated the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act requirements and M.L.O. 241 was inapplicable, the civil suit was maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • When does a statutory bar of jurisdiction not exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Can a person be held liable for a loan obtained by another person without an express finding by a competent forum that the loan was a benami transaction?
  • Does a borrower have a statutory right under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act to stay an auction sale or have it set aside by paying the outstanding dues within the prescribed period?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Abbad Khan vs The State1997 MLD 1408 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
• Aamil Moin Farooqui vs Mst. Aasia Khalid And Another1997 MLD 3248 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-25Read full judgment →
• A.S. Qureshi and 24 others vs Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd., Islamabad through Managing Director and 3 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 846 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• A.S. Qureshi And 24 Other vs Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd., Islamabad Through Managing Director And 3 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 846 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• A.M. Zainalabdeen Musaliar vs Commissioner of Income Tax1997 PTD 700 · Kerala High Court · 1994-11-04Read full judgment →
• A.M. Kamal Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Lahore Improvement Trust1997 CLC 121 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08
  evacuee propertydevelopment schemedamaged areaopen auctionacquisition of landlocus standitown improvement
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of three regular second appeals arising out of a single judgment and decree concerning property situated inside Shahalmi Gate, Lahore, which was included in a development scheme framed by the Lahore Improvement Trust under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1952. The core legal questions involved the legality of acquiring evacuee property by provincial authorities for a local trust development scheme, the necessity of Central Government approval, and the validity of disposing of the acquired property via open auction. The Lahore High Court held that the scheme and subsequent acquisition proceedings were lawful, duly approved by the Central Government, and that the Lahore Improvement Trust was legally competent to acquire and dispose of the property through open auction. The Court laid down that evacuee property falling within a duly sanctioned provincial development scheme ceases to form part of the compensation pool once approved by the competent authority, and local authorities are empowered to deal with such properties pursuant to statutory development frameworks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evacuee property can be legally acquired under provincial legislation for a town improvement development scheme?
  • Does a local authority have the competence to dispose of acquired property through open auction prior to the final sanction of a development scheme?
  • Whether a plaintiff who seeks to purchase property in question is estopped from challenging the title and authority of the acquiring trust?
  • Does the acquisition of evacuee property with the requisite central approval remove it from the rehabilitation compensation pool?
  Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) SH. Amjad Ali Mankee, Lahore vs The I.T.O. Circle-05, Zone-a1997 P.C.T.L.R. 205 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 1995-11-09Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Mobeen Enterprises Limited, Lahore vs Federation of Pakistan,1997 P.C.T.L.R. 126 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) Mehran Flese vs Federation of Pakistan1997 P.C.T.L.R. 41 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-21Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Khan Rice Mills, S.Pura vs The Ito, Cir-17, S.Pura1997 P.C.T.L.R. 220 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) KH. Qammar-Uz-Zaman & Sons, Multan vs I. T.O. Circle-07,1997 P.C.T.L.R. 229 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-04Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Hamid Bricks Company, Narowal. vs Ito Circle Narowal1997 P.C.T.L.R 305 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Hamayun Butt And 2 Others vs A. Cit, Circle-07, Sialkot1997 P.C.T.L.R. 134 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-08-19Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Extraction (Pakistan) Ltd. Lahore vs Deputy Commissioner of1997 P.C.T.L.R. 217 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
• Zulfiquar Ali vs Regional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1148 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State1996 MLD 916 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 620 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-10-18
  assault on womanstripping of clothespublic viewindependent witnesscriminal forcecriminal appealFederal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein they were sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court for assaulting a woman, dragging her, stripping her of her clothes, and exposing her to public view. The core legal questions involved whether the tearing of clothes during the process of dragging constitutes stripping under section 354-A, and whether an occurrence in privately-owned fields satisfies the requirement of exposure to public view. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal and held that the voluntary act of dragging which resulted in the victim's clothes being torn and her body becoming naked fulfills the ingredients of section 354-A, and that a location with free public access constitutes public view. The key principle laid down is that causing a woman's clothes to be torn off through active physical violence such as dragging constitutes the offence of stripping under section 354-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, even if the location is privately owned land to which the public has access.

  Questions settled

  • Does the tearing of a victim's clothes as a result of being dragged constitute stripping under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether an incident occurring in privately-owned fields can be considered as exposure to public view for the purposes of section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the testimony of related eye-witnesses be corroborated by a single independent witness whose presence is established in the first information report?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1996 MLD 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Alias Zafri And Another vs The State1996 MLD 617 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Alias Bhutto vs The State1996 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad vs Judge Family Court1996 MLD 1997 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-22Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Khatoon vs Administrator Union Council Uch Gillani, Tehsil1996 MLD 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Bibi vs Muhammad Jameel1996 CLC 634 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Bibi vs Amanat Ali and another1996 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-11
  bailgrave and sudden provocationhonour killingQatl-e-AmdQisasleave to appealcriminal justice administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a Judge in Chamber granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of a double murder. The complainant alleged that the respondent, motivated by the abduction of his sister, killed the deceased, Pervez Aslam, and subsequently killed his own sister, Nusrat Bibi. The respondent raised a defence of grave and sudden provocation, claiming the acts were committed in the name of family honour. The High Court, relying on precedents regarding 'Ghairat' (honour), granted bail, reasoning that the case was open to further inquiry and that the offence might not be punishable with Qisas. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that bail was granted on illegal grounds in a double murder case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the observations in the cited precedents regarding the interpretation of sections 300 and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 significantly impact the administration of criminal justice and require authoritative interpretation by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plea of grave and sudden provocation based on 'Ghairat' (honour) justify the grant of bail in a double murder case?
  • Is a murder committed on account of 'Ghairat' punishable with Qisas under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a court grant bail on the premise that an offence is not punishable with Qisas based on the defence of grave and sudden provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Begum vs Muhammad Ramzan and others1996 CLC 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
• Zonal Head, National Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad and anothers vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1996 PLD Supreme Court 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-04
  Wage Commission Awarddepartmental enquiryshow-cause noticeenquiry reportreinstatementmisappropriationbank employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the appellants' writ petition against the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision upholding the reinstatement of respondent No. 3. The respondent, a bank employee, was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry for alleged misappropriation of pension funds. The core legal question centered on the interpretation of paragraph 258(4) and (5) of the Wage Commission Award, specifically whether an 'employee's statement' under sub-paragraph (5) entitles the employee to a copy of the enquiry report and an opportunity to submit a reply thereto before a penalty is imposed. The Supreme Court held that the expression 'written explanation' in sub-paragraph (4) pertains to the initial charge-sheet stage, whereas the 'employee's statement' in sub-paragraph (5) refers to a separate, subsequent stage requiring the supply of the enquiry report for a reply to adverse findings, failing which the dismissal is illegal. However, considering the respondent's prior acquittal in parallel criminal proceedings and the protracted lapse of time, the Court declined to grant a remand for fresh proceedings and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report and an opportunity to submit a statement in response under paragraph 258(5) of the Wage Commission Award?
  • Does the 'employee's statement' referred to in paragraph 258(5) of the Wage Commission Award mean the initial written explanation submitted in reply to the charge-sheet?
  • Can a departmental dismissal order passed in violation of mandatory enquiry procedures under the Wage Commission Award be sustained?
  • Whether the Supreme Court should remand a matter for fresh departmental proceedings after setting aside an illegal dismissal when the employee has already been acquitted in criminal proceedings and subjected to prolonged litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zonal Head, National Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad and another vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1996 PLC 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-04
  disciplinary proceedingsWage Commission Awardbank employeeenquiry reportright to be hearddismissal from servicenatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of a bank employee for alleged misappropriation, which was challenged under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the disciplinary procedure prescribed in the Wage Commission Award, specifically whether the 'employee's statement' required under paragraph 258(5) constitutes the initial explanation to a charge-sheet or a subsequent response to an enquiry report. The Supreme Court held that the 'written explanation' under paragraph 258(4) and the 'employee's statement' under paragraph 258(5) are distinct procedural requirements at different stages of disciplinary proceedings. The Court affirmed that an employee must be provided with a copy of the enquiry report to enable them to submit a statement in reply, ensuring the right to be heard against adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity renders a dismissal order illegal. While the Court acknowledged that the employer could typically restart proceedings, it declined to do so here, noting the employee's prior acquittal in related criminal proceedings and the significant passage of time, rendering further litigation futile.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'employee's statement' required under paragraph 258(5) of the Wage Commission Award refer to the initial explanation to a charge-sheet or a response to the enquiry report?
  • Is an employer required to provide an employee with a copy of the enquiry report before imposing a penalty under the Wage Commission Award?
  • Can a dismissal order be declared illegal solely due to the failure to follow the procedural requirements of the Wage Commission Award?
  Read full judgment →
• Zonal Chief, Habib Bank Limited, Mingora Swat and 4 others vs Hazrat1996 PLC 25 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Zohra And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 459 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ziledar Khan and 4 others vs Assistant Commissioner/Deputy1996 CLC 236 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Zawar Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1175 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P.1996 MLD 833 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan vs Government of N.W. F. P.1996 MLD 833 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. , .1996 PLC (C.S.) 776 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• Zarghun Shah vs Surgeon-General, General Headquarter, A.-G.1996 PLC (C.S.) 988 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →