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.

• Zar Wali vs Muhammad Ilyas1996 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
• Zamindaran of Village Somal Gupis through Fateh Ali Khan and another1996 CLC 840 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
• Zamindaran Mouza Rattu through Haji Inayatullah and others vs Zamindaran Patti Kulalote through Abdull Ghani and others1996 CLC 838 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Zamin Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 924 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Zameen Gul vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 662 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain vs Masood Ahmed Ansari1996 CLC 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
• Zaibtan Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs The Assistant. Commissioner1996 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
• Zaibtan Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner1996 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1671 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Hussain vs Commandant, Central M.T. and Stores Depot, Rawalpindi and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 637 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad Abro and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1305 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1190 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 606 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah and 11 others vs Ali Khan and anothers1996 MLD 1423 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah And 11 Others vs Ali Khan And Another1996 MLD 1423 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Zahid Saleem vs Zainulabideen and another1995 P Cr. L J 955 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 512 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali vs Sheikh Abdul Hameed and another1996 P Cr. L J 586 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali vs Shaikh Abdul Hameed And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 112 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
• Zaheerurdin and others vs Mst. Khurshida Begum1996 CLC 580 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24
  civil revisionlocal commissionerremand orderdemarcation reportencroachmentcross-examinationprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision challenges an appellate order remanding a suit for the second time to the trial court. The dispute concerns a claim of encroachment by the respondents on the petitioners' land, which was subject to a demarcation report by a Local Commissioner. The appellate court remanded the case, citing that the Local Commissioner should have been examined as a court witness rather than a party witness, that the respondents were denied an opportunity to cross-examine him, and that the report should have been decided as a preliminary issue. The High Court held that the procedure for appointing and examining a Local Commissioner is governed by the special provisions of Order XXVI, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which allows parties to examine the Commissioner. Since the respondents themselves summoned the Commissioner as their witness, they had the right to cross-examine him, and the court was not required to treat him as a court witness under Order XVI, Rule 14. The Court further held that remanding a case when sufficient material exists on record is improper and prolongs litigation unnecessarily.

  Questions settled

  • Does the special procedure for examining a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 override general provisions regarding court witnesses?
  • Is a party who summons a Local Commissioner as their own witness entitled to cross-examine them?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case for a second time when sufficient evidence is already available on the record to decide the matter on its merits?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to decide the validity of a Local Commissioner's report as a separate preliminary issue before proceeding to the final judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheeruddin and another vs Mitsubishi Corporation (Incorporated in Japan with Limited Liability), Karachi and another1996 PLC 124 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad vs The State1996 MLD 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad And Other vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Etc.(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases l2) · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
• Zafrullah Khan vs Muhammad Asar Hussain and another1996 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-14
  plot allotmentcancellation of allotmentdiscretionary reliefstatutory bodymala fideKarachi Development Authorityspecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the cancellation of a plot allotment by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA). The plaintiff was allotted a plot but failed to pay the occupancy value within the stipulated time, claiming the demand notice was received late. KDA subsequently cancelled the allotment and re-allotted the plot to the appellant, Zafrullah Khan. The High Court, in revision, declared the cancellation illegal, finding KDA had acted unfairly and misrepresented facts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision to grant the discretionary relief of a declaration. The Court held that while the High Court’s reliance on specific precedents regarding the necessity of a show-cause notice was misplaced due to factual differences, the cancellation was nonetheless invalid. The Court emphasized that a statutory body must act fairly and cannot use its powers to facilitate the transfer of property to its own employees through the suppression of facts and illegal cancellation of existing allotments. The matter was left open for KDA to determine any breach of contract after proper procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a discretionary declaration under the Specific Relief Act when a statutory body has acted unfairly to cancel a property allotment?
  • Is a cancellation of a plot allotment valid if the statutory body misrepresents facts to the court regarding the status of the plot?
  • Does the failure to pay occupancy value within a stipulated time, caused by the late receipt of a demand notice, justify the immediate cancellation of a plot allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar-Ul-Hassan and 7 others vs Pakistan Telecommunication1996 PLC 31 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs Abdul Aziz and another1996 CLC 1902 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and others vs D. C. (G) and others1996 MLD 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal And Others vs A. D. C. (G) And Other1996 MLD 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal And Other vs D.I.G. Multan And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 183 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Alvi and 4 others vs Bashir Ahmad1996 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-25
  settlement of displaced personsallotment cancellationwrit jurisdictioninheritance mutationinformer's claimequitable relieffraud and misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the cancellation of land allotments originally granted to a displaced person, Niaz Din, and subsequently inherited by his heirs. The core legal question was whether the allotments, challenged by informers on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the inheritance mutation and claim transfer, were liable to be cancelled after several decades. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the respondents were not guilty of fraud, as there was no evidence they knew their predecessor was alive when the mutation was sanctioned. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in matters of settlement of displaced persons, technicalities should not override substantial justice. The Court affirmed that the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, correctly exercised its discretion to protect long-standing allotments rather than uprooting the respondents after thirty years. The key principle laid down is that courts may exercise equitable discretion in settlement cases to prevent injustice, particularly where the challenging parties are merely informers lacking superior entitlement, and where the settlement has persisted for a significant duration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction decline to cancel an allotment of land settled for decades even if there were procedural irregularities?
  • Does an informer have the locus standi to challenge an allotment of land granted to a displaced person?
  • Can an allotment be cancelled on the ground of fraud if the allottee was not aware of the facts alleged to be fraudulent at the time of the transaction?
  • Should courts prioritize substantial justice over technicalities in the settlement of displaced persons cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hussain Faridi vs The Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board1996 MLD 1265 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 151 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zafar Ali and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-12
  surety bondforfeiture of suretyabsconding accusedleave to appealmitigation of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 6-4-1993 upholding the forfeiture of surety bonds. The petitioners had stood sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each for an accused facing trial under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who absconded after being convicted and sentenced to death. The core legal question concerned whether further reduction of the forfeited surety amount was warranted. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that proper discretion had been exercised by both the trial court and the High Court in reducing the penalty from the original amount, and that no error of law called for interference. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion regarding the mitigation of surety bond penalties unless an error of law is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent reduction of a forfeited surety amount by lower courts?
  • Can a surety seek further reduction of a forfeited bond amount after the trial court and High Court have already exercised discretion to remit a portion of it?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali and another vs The State and another1996 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmed Ansari vs Auqaf Department through Chief Administrator, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1996 CLC 892 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-17
  rejection of plainttemporary injunctionscope of appealcivil procedurespecific performanceAuqaf Department
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, which not only set aside a temporary injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff but also rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction based on an agreement with the Auqaf Department regarding a lease and subsequent construction. The core legal questions concerned the permissible scope of inquiry when considering the rejection of a plaint and whether an appellate court hearing an appeal solely against an interlocutory order on a temporary injunction can legally dismiss the underlying suit. The Lahore High Court held that an appellate court must restrict its review strictly to the averments within the four corners of the plaint when evaluating a rejection under Order VII, Rule 11, without traversing into defence material or disputed documents. Furthermore, the Court held that an appellate forum reviewing a temporary injunction lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the main suit itself. The impugned judgment was set aside and the case remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can consider the defence version and materials beyond the plaint when deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does an appellate court hearing an appeal against an interlocutory order on a temporary injunction have the jurisdiction to reject the plaint and dismiss the main suit?
  • Are the averments in the plaint to be taken as true for the purpose of determining whether a cause of action is disclosed?
  Read full judgment →
• Za. Javed Raja, Administrative Officer, Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1996 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-22
  service lawpromotion eligibilityfitness for promotionstatutory rulesadministrative appointmentservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's grievance regarding the appointment of a respondent to the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) in the Federal Directorate of Education. The core legal question was whether the newly created post was governed by the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, and whether the appellant, an Administrative Officer (BPS-16), was eligible for the promotion, or if the appeal was barred under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the rules governing the appointment of Assistant Directors applied to the newly created post. The Court determined that the appellant possessed the requisite experience and qualifications, whereas the respondent did not. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a dispute regarding eligibility for promotion is distinct from a dispute regarding fitness for promotion, and therefore, the appeal was not barred by the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court directed the authorities to consider the appellant for promotion while declaring the respondent ineligible for the post.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, bar an appeal regarding eligibility for promotion?
  • Are newly created government posts governed by existing appointment and promotion rules?
  • Is a dispute regarding eligibility for promotion legally distinct from a dispute regarding fitness for promotion?
  • Can a candidate be appointed to a post if they do not meet the specific qualifications prescribed by the relevant service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Z.A. Javed Raja vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 31996 PLC (C.S.) 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-22
  service lawpromotion eligibilityfitness for promotionService Tribunals Actnewly created poststatutory rulesadministrative appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a service matter regarding the appointment to the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) in the Federal Directorate of Education. The core legal questions were whether the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, applied to a newly created post, and whether a challenge regarding eligibility for promotion falls under the bar of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the rules applied to the newly created post, and the petitioner, as an Administrative Officer with the requisite service, was eligible for consideration. The Court further held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as incompetent, distinguishing between eligibility (a legal qualification) and fitness (a merit-based assessment). The Court established that the bar under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, regarding fitness for promotion does not extend to questions of eligibility or legal qualification for a post, which remain justiciable before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, bar an appeal regarding the eligibility of a candidate for promotion?
  • Are newly created government posts subject to the existing Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973?
  • What is the legal distinction between eligibility for promotion and fitness for promotion in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Yousuf vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 1064 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Jan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1466 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Ali vs Government of the Punjab, through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 5 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 801 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12
  civil servantappointment cancellationmerit policyright accrueddisciplinary ruleswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his appointment as a PTC Teacher, which was revoked on the ground that it violated the government's merit policy. The core legal question was whether a duly appointed civil servant, who joined duty without any fraud or misconduct on his part, could have his appointment abruptly cancelled without recourse to formal disciplinary proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that once the petitioner joined his duty, a right accrued to him as a civil servant, and he could not be removed or stripped of his position except in accordance with the applicable disciplinary rules. The Court laid down the principle that an appointment order, even if issued in violation of merit criteria by the selection authorities, cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn to the detriment of a bona fide appointee who is guilty of no fraud or misconduct, without following the prescribed legal procedure for removal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointment order of a civil servant be cancelled arbitrarily on the ground of non-compliance with merit criteria by the selection committee?
  • Does a right accrue to a civil servant upon joining duty that prevents summary removal without disciplinary proceedings?
  • Whether a civil servant appointed against an existing vacancy can be removed without resorting to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Ali Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 857 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Yasser Bashir vs Farzana Tabassam and 5 others1996 MLD 1383 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Yasser Bashir vs Farzana Tabassam And 5 Other1996 MLD 1383 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Yasmin Plastic Industries vs Eastern Express Co. Ltd.1996 CLC 475 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• Yasin vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2069 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
• Yashwant Singh vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1996 PTD 676 · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-07-21Read full judgment →
• Yashwant Singh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax(PTCL 1996 FC. 140) · Rajasthan High Court · 1994-07-21Read full judgment →
• Yaran Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 984 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
• Yara vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-11Read full judgment →
• Yar Baz Khan vs Lal Nawaz1996 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-01
  general power of attorneygift deedsale deeddelivery of possessionfraudulent alienationburden of proofcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for a declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners sought to invalidate a general power of attorney, a registered gift deed in favour of the attorney's wife, and a registered sale-deed in favour of another respondent, alleging fraud, lack of consideration, and absence of delivery of possession. The core legal questions involved whether an attorney can execute a gift or sale of the principal's property in favour of his own family or third parties without explicit authority, consideration, and delivery of possession, and whether concealment of such transactions until after the principal's death vitiates them. The Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts committed material irregularity and non-reading of evidence by ignoring that gifts and sales executed by an attorney must be proved by the beneficiary, accompanied by delivery of possession, and supported by valid consideration, and that an attorney cannot gift property based on self-assumed love and affection. The revision petition was accepted and the suit decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an attorney can execute a gift of the principal's property in favour of his own wife based on love and affection?
  • Is delivery of possession a mandatory prerequisite for the validity of a gift under property law?
  • What are the essential legal requirements for a valid sale of immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Does the registration of a deed by itself constitute sufficient proof of consideration and genuine transfer when challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan vs Tahir Mehmood and 6 others1996 P Cr. L J 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan and another vs The State1996 PLD Supreme Court 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-17
  criminal reviewerror apparent on the face of the recordidentification paradeextra-judicial confessionballistic expertdeath sentencereappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal review petition arose from an order of the Supreme Court dismissing a criminal petition for leave to appeal, which had challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment confirming the death sentence of petitioner Yaqoob Khan and the life imprisonment of petitioner Zahid Munir under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the scope of review in criminal proceedings under Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, what constitutes an 'error apparent on the face of the record', and whether the petitioners' contentions regarding identification parades, delayed recovery of firearm empties, and extra-judicial confessions warranted a re-appraisal of evidence or a review of the dismissal order. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that review in criminal matters is restricted to errors apparent on the face of the record (such as an error of fact or law that is self-evident and does not require elaborate ratiocination) and cannot be used as a rehearing or an appeal to re-appraise evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record in criminal proceedings under Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980?
  • Can a review petition in a criminal case be used as a rehearing or an appeal to re-appraise evidence?
  • Does the failure of a witness to specify the role of an accused at an identification parade render their subsequent testimony in court regarding that role inadmissible?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere in review with the quantum of a legal sentence imposed or upheld after due consideration of relevant circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• XEN, Highway Division, Abbottabad and anothers vs Habiburrahman1996 CLC 279 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-18
  temporary injunctioncontract cancellationirreparable lossbalance of conveniencepublic dutiesrevision jurisdictiondiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent-plaintiff, a contractor, was awarded a contract for road construction by the Highway Division. Following the cancellation of the contract by the petitioners due to non-completion within the stipulated time, the respondent filed a suit and sought a temporary injunction to restrain the Department from re-tendering the work. While the Trial Court dismissed the injunction application, the Additional District Judge granted the relief on appeal. The petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the appellate court erred in granting the injunction. The Court reasoned that the contract was rescinded prior to the suit, and the respondent's potential loss was purely monetary, thus failing the test of irreparable loss. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that restraining a government department from performing public duties is barred under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the Trial Court's dismissal of the injunction, holding that discretionary relief cannot be granted where the balance of convenience does not favor the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a temporary injunction to restrain a government department from re-tendering a contract after the original contract has been rescinded?
  • Does the potential for monetary compensation for work done constitute irreparable loss justifying an injunction?
  • Is a court permitted to restrain a government department from performing its public duties under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Wto Circle-II, Lahore. Wto Circle, Lahore vs Mrs. Shamas-Ui-Qamar, Lahore Mrs. Shamas-Ui-Qamar, Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 762 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Workers' Union Regd., C.Ba. United Bank Limited, Vehari Zone, Vehari vs Registrar, Trade Union, Multan Region, Multan and others1996 PLC 137 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Wong Loot Keong and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Wong Loot Keong And Another vs The State1996 MLD 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Wjaid Majid vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 135 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Willayat Hussain and 40 others vs Messrs Jupiter Textile Mills Ltd., Hyderabad1996 PLC 524 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
• Wazir Zaman vs The State and anothers1996 P Cr. L J 722 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-25Read full judgment →
• Wazir vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 240 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07
  narcotics possessionchemical examiner reportsafe custody of case propertybenefit of doubtpublic place definitionindependent mashircriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the possession of Charas. The core legal questions concerned whether an 'Otaq' constitutes a public place, the necessity of independent witnesses (Mashirs), and the evidentiary impact of an unexplained delay in sending seized narcotics for chemical analysis. The Court held that an 'Otaq' is a private residential space, not a public place, and that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable case. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The Court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove the safe custody of seized narcotics; an unexplained, significant delay in submitting samples to the Chemical Examiner, without evidence of safe custody, is fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that police must make genuine efforts to secure independent and respectable Mashirs when conducting searches, and that the doctrine of benefit of doubt must be applied when prosecution evidence is inconsistent or unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Does an 'Otaq' constitute a public place under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Is an unexplained delay in sending seized narcotics to the Chemical Examiner fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Are the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to the personal search of an accused?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody of seized narcotics during the period between recovery and chemical analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore and 2 others vs Muhammad Yousaf, Test Inspector1996 PLD Supreme Court 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-12
  WAPDAdisciplinary proceedingsreduction in penaltyService Tribunal jurisdictionquantum of sentencesuspension periodtampering metermodification of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, assailing a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent, a WAPDA Test Inspector, regarding allegations of electricity theft connivance and tampering with an electric meter. The competent authority initially imposed a major penalty of reduction in rank, which the departmental appellate authority modified to stoppage of five annual increments. Before the Service Tribunal, the respondent did not contest the merits but sought leniency. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and directed the suspension period to be treated as spent on duty with consequential emoluments. The Supreme Court dismissed WAPDA's appeal, holding that the quantum of penalty is to be determined according to the circumstances of each case to meet the ends of justice. Under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, the Service Tribunal possessed wide jurisdiction to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify any departmental order appealed against, including modifying penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have statutory jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 to vary or reduce a penalty even when the delinquent employee does not dispute the merits of the allegations?
  • Can a departmental authority treat a period of suspension exceeding six months as extraordinary leave without pay in the absence of an enabling provision under the applicable Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
  • Is the Federal Service Tribunal required to record reasons when modifying or reducing a disciplinary penalty imposed by a departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman/Chief1996 PLC (C.S.) 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-26
  WAPDA employeecivil servant statusjurisdiction of Labour CourtFederal Service Tribunalspecial leave to appealreinstatementback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the reinstatement and back benefits of an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The employee, previously dismissed following a criminal conviction, sought redress through the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, eventually securing reinstatement. The core legal question is whether an employee of WAPDA, deemed a civil servant under Section 17(1-B) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, is barred from seeking relief before a Labour Court and must instead approach the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the status of the employee as a civil servant under the WAPDA Act constitutes a significant question of law rather than a mere factual dispute. The Court determined that the jurisdictional challenge regarding the appropriate forum for redress required further judicial consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued an interim order regarding the employee's reinstatement status pending the final disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority considered a civil servant under Section 17(1-B) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958?
  • Does the status of a WAPDA employee as a civil servant preclude them from seeking redress through a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Is the question of whether an employee falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal a question of law or a question of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another vs Fida Muhammad Khan1996 SCMR 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-29
  WAPDA Act 1958compulsory retirementremoval from serviceService Tribunal jurisdictionalteration of penaltyillegal gratificationdepartmental inquiryterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal converting the removal from service of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 into compulsory retirement. The respondent employee was removed from service on allegations of receiving illegal gratification without a regular departmental inquiry. The Service Tribunal partially allowed the employee's appeal, substituting the penalty of removal with compulsory retirement based on the return of the alleged bribe amount to the complainant and the employee's length of service. The Supreme Court considered whether the Service Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction and valid grounds to alter the departmental penalty. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal, in exercising its appellate jurisdiction over terms and conditions of service, has the power to modify, vary, or substitute penalties imposed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 based on valid reasons. The Court noted that resorting to summary removal without a regular inquiry deprived the employee of a proper defense. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to modify or substitute a penalty imposed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
  • Can the Service Tribunal convert an order of removal from service to compulsory retirement where an employee is removed under summary procedures without a regular inquiry?
  • Is length of service a relevant factor for the Service Tribunal to consider when determining whether to alter a disciplinary penalty under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority Lahore and anothers vs Javaid Ahmed1996 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04
  service tribunaltermination of serviceretrenchmentlimitationmala fidejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent employee's appeal, declared his termination unlawful and mala fide, and ordered his reinstatement with consequential benefits. The respondent's initial service termination during probation on grounds of retrenchment had led to prolonged litigation across labor courts, the High Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which previously held that labor forums lacked jurisdiction over WAPDA service matters. The core legal question concerned whether the Federal Service Tribunal properly addressed the issue of limitation and whether the termination of the respondent while retaining junior employees was justified. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had implicitly considered and dealt with the limitation issue and that the termination was indeed mala fide, as the previous Supreme Court judgment holding labor forums to be without jurisdiction could not be used as a smokescreen to terminate the respondent while retaining his juniors. The petition for leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is required to explicitly record a finding on limitation when the objection is raised before it?
  • Can an employer use a previous judicial pronouncement regarding lack of forum jurisdiction as a smokescreen to terminate an employee while retaining junior staff?
  • Whether the termination of a probationer employee on grounds of retrenchment while retaining juniors in the same category is lawful and free of mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority and 2 others vs Abdul Khaliq1996 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03
  service appeallimitation periodremandex parte proceedingsWAPDA employeesefficiency and discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the dismissal of the respondent—a Water and Power Development Authority employee—to a penalty of stoppage of two increments and ordered his reinstatement. The petitioner raised two primary grievances: first, that the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal in the absence of the petitioner's counsel, despite a timely application for adjournment due to professional commitments in another city; and second, that the Tribunal failed to address the critical objection regarding the limitation period, which had been raised in the written statement. The Supreme Court observed that the question of limitation was not addressed by the Tribunal, noting that courts are under a mandatory duty to determine limitation issues before proceeding to the merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the Federal Service Tribunal with directions to decide the question of limitation and dispose of the appeal afresh after hearing both parties.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court or tribunal legally obligated to determine the question of limitation before deciding a case on its merits?
  • Can a court or tribunal waive the requirement to decide a limitation objection raised by a party?
  • Does the failure of a tribunal to address a limitation objection warrant setting aside its judgment and remanding the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Wasim Dar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Wasim Ahmad Adenwalla vs Shaikh Karim Riaz1996 SCMR 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-01
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementlandlord and tenantrent controlmala fidesvacant possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the High Court against the appellant-tenant, reversing the Rent Controller's dismissal of the respondent-landlord's application. The respondent sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement, asserting he needed the premises because his current rented accommodation lease was expiring and his son required space for marriage. The appellant challenged the bona fide nature of this requirement, arguing the respondent resided in a superior locality and had failed to occupy another portion of the same premises that became vacant, instead re-letting it. The Supreme Court held that a landlord's choice to reside in their own property, even if located in a less desirable or congested area compared to their current rented residence, does not inherently establish mala fides. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the other portion of the premises was vacant; it was occupied by a legal heir following litigation and settlement. Consequently, the Court upheld the ejectment order, affirming that a landlord's personal requirement remains valid despite the availability of superior rented accommodation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's choice to move from a rented house in a superior locality to their own house in a congested area constitute mala fides?
  • Can a landlord's personal requirement be challenged on the basis that they did not occupy a portion of the premises that was subject to ongoing litigation?
  • Is a landlord's personal requirement for premises considered bona fide if they currently reside in a rented property owned by their son?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Shah vs Juzar Fakhruddin and 6 others1996 CLC 811 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Waseem Ahmed vs Messrs Azeem Textile & Garments Industries (Pvt.)1996 PLC 243 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• Waryam vs Shaukat Ali Khan and 5 others1996 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-19
  specific performanceagreement to sellleave to appealattestation of documentssecondary evidenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner’s suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the basis that the primary sale agreement was not duly proved, as the attesting witnesses were not examined, and the subsequent documents were rejected due to discrepancies. The petitioner contended that the agreement was sufficiently proved by the scribe and that, under the law, attestation of such an agreement is not a mandatory requirement. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the subsequent documents, which acknowledged receipt of payments, independently established the transaction even if the primary agreement were excluded. Finding that the contentions regarding the necessity of attesting witnesses for a sale agreement and the evidentiary value of the subsequent documents raised substantial legal questions requiring deeper examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve these issues.

  Questions settled

  • Is the examination of attesting witnesses mandatory to prove an agreement to sell?
  • Can an agreement to sell be proved by the testimony of the scribe alone?
  • Does the failure to object to the admissibility of a document at the trial stage preclude a party from challenging it later?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when substantial legal questions regarding the proof of documents are raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Waryam and others vs Waryam through Legal Heirs1996 CLC 873 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Waris Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 387 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
• Waris Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Waris Ali Alias Gull And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 76 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wareshmin Khan vs Umar Daraz Khan and others1996 PLD Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-20
  amendment of pleadingswritten statementcivil revisionsubstantial justiceadverse possessionestoppelmultiplicity of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a dispute over water irrigation rights. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit, and while the defendant's appeal was pending, the defendant sought to amend their written statement to include pleas of adverse possession and estoppel. The lower appellate court rejected this application, citing that the defendant was attempting to introduce a new case and that the pleas were inconsistent with prior pleadings. The Peshawar High Court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, examined the scope of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the power to allow amendments is discretionary but must be exercised liberally to advance substantial justice, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and preserve the rights of litigants, provided the application is not mala fide. The Court determined that the amendment should be allowed to ensure the real controversy is adjudicated, subject to the plaintiffs' right to file a replication and lead further evidence. Consequently, the revision was accepted, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party be permitted to amend their written statement at the appellate stage?
  • What are the judicial principles governing the court's discretion to allow the amendment of pleadings?
  • Should an amendment to a written statement be refused solely because it introduces a new plea of adverse possession or estoppel?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Muhammad Farid Khan1996 SCMR 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-12
  service tribunaldepartmental examinationpromotionseniority-cum-fitnessfinality of orderWAPDA employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenges the order of the Federal Service Tribunal directing WAPDA to consider the respondent employee for promotion. The core legal question was whether the passing of a departmental examination was a condition precedent for promotion to a BPS-17 post under the relevant service rules, and whether an unchalleged previous interlocutory order of the Tribunal had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that since the promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and the Tribunal's earlier finding—that passing the examination was unnecessary—had not been assailed and thus attained finality, the appeal could not succeed. The Court laid down the principle that an unchalleged finding or order regarding service rights attains finality and cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings, and that departmental examination requirements depend strictly on the applicable promotional criteria such as seniority-cum-fitness versus selection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether passing a departmental examination is a condition precedent for promotion to a BPS-17 post when promotion is based on seniority-cum-fitness?
  • Can an unchalleged previous order of the Service Tribunal be permitted to be assailed in the garb of challenging a subsequent impugned order?
  • Does a promotional requirement of passing an examination apply when an employee was illegally removed and later reinstated with all consequential benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Waliullah vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary of Education, N.-1996 PLC (C.S.) 952 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1994-09-26Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Zulqadar and 13 others1996 PLD Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 835 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Abdul Majid and 2 others1996 MLD 343 · Board of Revenue · 1979-08-23Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Abdul Majid And 2 Other1996 MLD 343 · Board of Revenue · 1979-08-23Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad Khetran vs Mian Sarfraz Ahmed and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 228 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and others vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and others1996 MLD 869 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad And Others vs Mst. Zainab Bibi And Other1996 MLD 869 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Wali Akber and 9 others vs The Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court1996 PLC 281 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-12-04Read full judgment →
• Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax1996 PTD 40 · Bombay High Court · 1993-10-07Read full judgment →
• Walayat Sarwar vs Civil Judge and others1996 PLD Lahore 154 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Wakeel Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 252 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Wajid Majeed vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 610 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-24Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bux vs General Manager Habib Arkady Ltd., Taluka Hub and 31996 PLC 202 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs Kamaletc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 136) · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs Kamal and others1996 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Waheedul Islam and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-11Read full judgment →
• Wah Cement Works vs Abdul Khalique and another1996 P Cr. L J 971 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• W.Z. Studios Ltd., Laii or f through Managing Director vs The Deputy1996 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
• Vasdev and another vs Government of Sindh through Secretary1995 PLC (C.S.) 761 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Uzin Export Import Foreign Trade Co. vs Macdonald Layton & Co. Ltd., Karachi and another1996 SCMR 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-17
  foreign arbitrationstay of suitbalance of conveniencedecree on admissionmaintainability of suitsub-contractor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two consolidated proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan: first, a petition for leave to appeal against the rejection of an application to stay a civil suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940; and second, an appeal against a High Court Division Bench judgment setting aside a summary decree passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions were whether a foreign arbitration clause necessitates a stay of domestic suit proceedings where the evidence and parties are located in Pakistan, and what criteria govern the grant of a decree on admissions. The Supreme Court held that the presence of a foreign arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction of domestic courts, and stay of proceedings may be refused if the balance of convenience, location of evidence, and potential for conflicting decisions favor a domestic trial. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 requires an unequivocal, unconditional, and clear admission of both the amount and the liability to pay, which must not be granted if there are outstanding legal objections going to the root of the suit's maintainability.

  Questions settled

  • Does a foreign arbitration clause in an agreement completely oust the jurisdiction of domestic courts to entertain a civil suit?
  • What factors must a court consider when exercising its discretion to stay a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 in the presence of a foreign arbitration clause?
  • Can a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be granted if the defendant raises legal objections that go to the root of the suit's maintainability?
  • What are the essential requirements for an admission to qualify as the basis for a summary decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →