Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Razzak Baba vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1530 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-11Read full judgment →
- Razz Khan vs Muhammad Mushtaq and another1996 SCMR 984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to cancel the post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Sessions Judge, Attock, in a case registered under Section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner contended that the respondent was not entitled to bail because the abductee had leveled allegations of Zina-bil-Jabr in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the respondent was not named in the First Information Report, was not found in possession of the abductee, and the abductee's statement under Section 164 was recorded after a considerable delay during which she remained with her parents. The Court reiterated the principle that the considerations for granting bail and cancelling it are distinct, and once bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation.
Questions settled- Whether the considerations for the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail are different?
- Can bail once granted by a court of competent jurisdiction be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
- Does a delay in recording an abductee's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, during which she remained with her parents, affect the case for cancellation of bail?
- Raza Hussain vs Haji Qaisar Iqbal and 7 others1996 MLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
- Raza Hussain vs Haji Qaisar Iqbal And 7 Other1996 MLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
- Ravindra Singh vs Phool Singh1996 P.C.T.L.R. 544 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
- Raujee vs Abdul Razzak KhatriK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 484 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bakhsh vs The State and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
- Rashid Khan and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 741 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 612 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-27Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad vs Ibrahim and another1996 P Cr. L J 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge allowing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought to recall a prosecution witness, who had already been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, for further questioning regarding discrepancies between his trial testimony and his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the court could exercise its discretionary power under Section 540 to recall a witness simply because counsel failed to confront the witness with a prior statement during the initial cross-examination. The Lahore High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that Section 540 cannot be invoked to fill lacunas in the prosecution's case or to allow a party to re-examine a witness merely because of an oversight in cross-examination. The Court established that allowing such a practice would undermine the finality of witness testimony and could be misused to favor one party, emphasizing that the power to recall witnesses must be exercised in accordance with established principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Can Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to recall a witness to fill lacunas in the evidence?
- Is it permissible to recall a witness for further cross-examination solely because counsel failed to confront the witness with a prior statement during the initial cross-examination?
- Does the power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the indefinite recall of witnesses?
- Rashid Ahmad and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 314 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
- Rasheed Ahmed Soomro vs Government of Sindh through the Chief1996 PLC (C.S.) 452 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- Rasheed Ahmed Alias Papu Master vs The State1996 MLD 777 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
- Rao. Muhammad Jameel Khan vs The State1996 MLD 1368 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
- Rao Muhammad Jamil Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 423 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
- Rao Muhammad Jameel Khan vs The State1996 MLD 1368 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
- Ranjho and others vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 313 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
- Rana Vakil Ahmad vs Government of Punjab through the Secretary1996 PLC 382 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
- Rana Tahir vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-02Read full judgment →
- Rana Saeed Ahmad vs The Controller of Examination, Bahauddin1996 SCMR 792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal, challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition against the amendment of a university regulation. The core legal question was whether a student has a vested right to be governed by university regulations as they stood at the time of initial admission, particularly regarding the number of chances allowed to clear an examination. The Supreme Court held that students have no vested right to be governed by original regulations throughout their academic career and that universities possess complete autonomy to amend regulations to improve educational standards. The key principle laid down is that university regulations governing examinations can be validly amended, and such amendments apply to enrolled students provided they have notice before undertaking further attempts, as amendments are necessary for maintaining academic excellence and managing institutional resources.
Questions settled- Whether a student has a vested right to be governed by university regulations as they originally stood at the time of admission?
- Can a university amend its regulations to withdraw additional chances for clearing an examination?
- Do universities enjoy autonomy in regulating the conduct of examinations and amending related regulations?
- Does an amendment to university regulations affecting examination attempts operate retrospectively if it comes into force before a student makes a subsequent attempt?
- Rana Naveed vs Special Judge, under Suppression of Terrorist1996 P Cr. L J 1068 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Sohail vs Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Sga&I Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 4 others1996 MLD 123 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-13Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Sohail vs Government of the Punjab Through Additional Chief Secretary, Sga&I Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore And 4 Other1996 MLD 123 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-13Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Shaft and anothers vs A.C., Pattoki and 7 others1996 MLD 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Shaft And Another vs A.C., Pattoki And 7 Other1996 MLD 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Asif vs The Secretary to Government of Punjab(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 148) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Ashiq and 6 others vs The State1996 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by seven petitioners challenging an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined their application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite their statutory appeal not having been disposed of within two years. The core legal question was whether the High Court was legally bound to record reasons when refusing the statutory concession of bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the grant or refusal of bail under the provision is a matter of judicial discretion, the appellate court is mandatorily required to assign reasons for declining bail. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order for lacking reasons, converted the petition into an appeal, suspended the sentence, and granted bail to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that declining the statutory benefit of bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires explicit reasons by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Does a convicted person become ordinarily entitled to bail if their appeal is not decided within the statutory period under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an appellate court required to assign reasons when declining bail under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the effect of an appellate court's failure to give reasons while refusing statutory bail pending appeal?
- Rana Mubashar Ahmed and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1378 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
- Rana Anwar Muhammad vs Lahore Development Authority through the Director-General, LDA, Lahore1996 PLC (C.S.) 69 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
- Rana Anwar Muhammad vs Lahore Development Authority through Director-General, L.D.A., Lahore1996 PLC (C.S.) 572 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- Ramzan vs The State1996 SCMR 1665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had convicted the petitioner, Ramzan, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court correctly characterized the incident as a 'free fight' and whether the subsequent conviction under Section 302 was legally sound based on that characterization. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the validity of the reasoning employed by the High Court in reaching its conclusion regarding the nature of the occurrence and the resulting conviction. By granting leave, the Court intends to scrutinize the evidentiary basis and the legal interpretation applied by the High Court to determine if the finding of a 'free fight' was justified under the circumstances of the case, thereby necessitating a review of the conviction itself.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the incident is characterized as a free fight?
- What are the legal criteria for determining if an incident constitutes a free fight in criminal law?
- Ramzan vs Awam-UN-NasK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 528 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
- Ramzan Sugar Mills Limited and others vs Habib Bank Limited and others1996 PLD Lahore 199 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
- Ramzan and another vs The State1996 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a High Court judgment concerning convictions for murder and attempted murder following a violent clash between two parties over a land dispute. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused and the complainant party's greater number of injuries necessitated acquittal, and whether the High Court correctly re-evaluated the evidence to find a 'free fight' rather than a planned attack. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings that the incident constituted a 'free fight' where vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could not be established, thus holding individuals liable only for their specific acts. The Court affirmed the principle that whether the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused creates reasonable doubt depends on the entire gamut of the case, not a single element in isolation, and that the mere fact of one party suffering more injuries does not prove they were the initial aggressors.
Questions settled- Does the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused person automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Does the fact that the complainant party suffered a greater number of injuries prove that they were the initial aggressors?
- Can vicarious liability be imposed when the evidence suggests a free fight rather than a planned attack by an unlawful assembly?
- Ramzan Alias Ramoon vs The State1996 MLD 95 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Riaz and others vs Deputy Director (Personnel-I), Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and another1996 PLC 107 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Rashid Khan vs Inspector-General of Police, Azad1996 PLC (C.S.) 597 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Munir and 22 others vs M/s. Omega Forging Limited,1996 PLC 160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Miskeen vs Utility Store Corporation of Pakistan1996 PLC 142 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-08-03Read full judgment →
- Raja Ishtiaq Ahmad vs Utility Stores Corporation through Managing1996 PLC 10 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
- Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through General Manager vs Central Board1996 MLD 980 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
- Raja Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager vs Central Board1996 MLD 980 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
- Raja Haroonrashid vs M/s. Utility Stores Cooperative Housing Society1996 SCMR 1110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement regarding the sale of land, recovery of the balance sale price, and permanent injunction against the respondent society. The respondent filed an application for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing insufficient court-fee, time-bar, and violation of agreement terms. The trial court rejected this application, ruling that the court-fee was sufficient and that other objections required evidence. The High Court, however, allowed the respondent's revision petition, holding that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action and was bad for multifariousness. Upon appeal, the petitioner contended that the suit did not suffer from multifariousness and that the trial court's initial decision was legally sound and not subject to interference in revisional proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the plaint was correctly rejected for multifariousness and whether the High Court's intervention in the trial court's order was justified under the circumstances.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of multifariousness?
- Is a trial court's refusal to reject a plaint based on factual disputes subject to interference in revisional proceedings?
- Does a suit seeking specific performance, recovery of price, and permanent injunction necessarily suffer from multifariousness of causes of action?
- Raja Fidaurrehman and 4 others vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Chairman1996 MLD 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- Raja Fida Ur Rehman And 4 Others vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad Through Chairman1996 MLD 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- Raja Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Ghaffar and 2 others1996 CLC 503 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
- Raies Muhammad Masood Sadiq vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 12 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1112 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
- Rahimyarkhan College of Education vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur1996 CLC 64 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of six connected constitutional petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by educational institutions challenging orders passed by the Islamia University, Bahawalpur, refusing to extend their provisional affiliation. The petitioners argued that seeking education and teaching is a fundamental right, that there is no statutory concept of provisional affiliation, and that affiliation once granted cannot be withdrawn. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that under Section 20 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, the power to pass a final order includes the power to pass interim or provisional orders. It further held that under Sections 25(2)(n) and 34 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975, the University is legally mandated to enforce prescribed statutory standards before granting affiliation. The Court established that although citizens have a right to establish an educational institution, such right does not confer an automatic right to affiliation or recognition without fulfilling the requisite statutory standards.
Questions settled- Does the statutory power to grant final affiliation include the authority to grant provisional or interim affiliation under Section 20 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act?
- Does the fundamental right to establish an educational institution carry an inherent right to obtain affiliation or recognition from a university?
- Can a university lawfully refuse to extend provisional affiliation to a college that fails to meet statutory conditions prescribed under Section 34 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act 1975?
- Does an order refusing university affiliation require interference under Article 199 of the Constitution when passed by a competent authority through a speaking order based on inspection reports?
- Rahimyar Khan College of Education through Principal and anothers vs Islamia University of Bahawalpur through Vice-Chancellor and 3 others1996 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal concerning the refusal of Islamia University, Bahawalpur, to extend or grant permanent affiliation to various educational institutions due to their failure to rectify deficiencies. The core legal questions relate to whether the termination of provisional affiliation violated natural justice principles and whether the University acted within its lawful discretionary authority. The Supreme Court held that the institutions were given adequate opportunities to explain their positions and remedy defects, and that the University's Affiliation Committee and Syndicate acted properly within their statutory powers. The Court ruled that affiliation is not a matter of right but a discretionary privilege, and private institutions must strictly satisfy prescribed educational standards and statutory requirements. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether an educational institution can claim affiliation with a university as a matter of right?
- Does the refusal of a university to grant or extend affiliation without fulfilling required conditions violate the principles of natural justice?
- Are the superior courts empowered to interfere in the discretionary exercise of a university's power to grant or withhold affiliation under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Raham Khan vs Mian Yousaf Shah1996 MLD 338 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
- Rafiq Ahmad vs Judge Family Court, Khanewal and another1996 CLC 1820 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Family Court, Khanewal, which decreed the respondent-plaintiff's suit for jactitation and dissolution of marriage. The core legal questions involved whether the Family Court at Khanewal lacked territorial jurisdiction under the relevant rules and whether the plaintiff validly exercised her right of option of puberty to repudiate the marriage. The Lahore High Court held that the Family Court possessed proper territorial jurisdiction, interpreting the expression 'ordinarily resides' under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, to mean a place where a female chooses to stay of her own accord for her convenience, without requiring long duration or permanent residency. Furthermore, the court held that the un-rebutted statements of the plaintiff and her father sufficiently proved the repudiation of the marriage upon attaining puberty, especially since the marriage was unconsummated. The petition was consequently dismissed in limine, establishing principles regarding territorial jurisdiction for suits filed by females in family courts and the exercise of the option of puberty.
Questions settled- What is the legal meaning of the expression 'ordinarily resides' under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 in suits filed by a female?
- Does the territorial jurisdiction of a Family Court require long-term residency or permanent property ownership by a female plaintiff?
- Can a marriage be validly repudiated through the exercise of the option of puberty when the marriage has not been consummated and the testimony remains unrebutted?
- Rafiq Ahmad Jilani vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 263 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Radhey Shyam Khemka And Another vs State of Bihar1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1100 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
- Rabia Bibi vs Muhammad Malik And OtherK.L.R 1996 Civil Cases 489 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz vs S.H.O, And 18 OtherK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 414 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz and another vs The State1996 SCMR 1929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Shaukat Abbas. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with guns, fired upon the deceased due to a motive involving illicit relations. The defense contended that the incident was a single-handed act committed by one accused under sudden provocation upon discovering his sister with the deceased, arguing that the number of injuries was inconsistent with multiple assailants. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence, which revealed six distinct injuries with varying trajectories and distances, contradicting the defense's claim of a single shooter. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of corroborating evidence for the defense version, such as blood at the alleged site or injuries to the sister, and highlighted the recovery of multiple crime empties at the scene. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence was consistent and reliable, while the defense version was unsupported and improbable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's conviction.
Questions settled- Whether a defense plea of sudden provocation can be accepted when unsupported by circumstantial or direct evidence?
- Does the presence of multiple distinct injuries and crime empties at a crime scene negate a defense claim of a single-handed shooting?
- Is a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when medical evidence contradicts the defense version of events?
- Qurban Khan and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2063 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
- Qurban Alias Dabboo And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 275 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-06Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali vs Abdul Hayee and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 1004 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali Khan vs Mst. Sufia Khan1996 MLD 1516 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-08Read full judgment →
- Qudrat Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 735 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
- Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd vs Collector of Central Excise, U.P.1996 P.C.T.L.R. 570 · Supreme Court of India · 1994-12-09Read full judgment →
- Qhulam Haider through Legal Heirs vs Niaz Muhammad through Legal1996 SCMR 1393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a civil suit concerning the inheritance of land allotted to Mst. Rehmat Bibi in Pakistan in lieu of property abandoned in India. The appellants, claiming as legal heirs of the husband of the deceased allottee, sought a declaration of ownership, contending that the deceased held the property as a limited owner under customary law, thereby restricting her rights and necessitating devolution to the husband's heirs. The core legal question was whether the appellants sufficiently pleaded and proved that the deceased held a limited estate in India, thereby triggering the application of the principle that such land does not become the absolute property of the allottee. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to plead or lead evidence to establish that the deceased held a limited estate in India. The Court affirmed that in the absence of such proof, the property could not be treated as a limited estate, and the appellants' claim to inheritance was unsubstantiated. The principle laid down is that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of a limited estate to establish the nature of the original holding in India through pleadings and evidence.
Questions settled- Does a widow who receives land in Pakistan in lieu of property held in India automatically hold it as a limited owner?
- Is a party required to plead and prove the nature of the estate held in India to claim inheritance rights based on the status of a limited owner?
- Can a court grant relief based on the status of a limited owner if the issue was not raised in the pleadings?
- Qazi Muhammad Shehryar vs Salah-Ud-Din and 11 others1996 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Regular First Appeal before the Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, which reversed a Senior Civil Judge's decision dismissing a suit for declaration and partition. The High Court had granted a preliminary decree for partition regarding certain suit houses, basing its decision on an alleged concession by counsel that the houses were the legacy of a common ancestor. The petitioner appeared in person and contended before the Supreme Court that no such concession was made, supporting his contention with an affidavit from his appellate advocate, and arguing that the High Court's findings were based on a misreading of the record and pleadings. Upon examining the record, the Supreme Court noted that the contentions were not without substance, as no such admission appeared in the pleadings or evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court's judgment and preliminary decree were supported by the evidence and material on record.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court judgment based on an alleged concession by counsel can be sustained when the record and pleadings contain no such admission?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted where a decree of partition is passed without supporting evidence or material on record?
- Qazi Muhammad Shahabuddin vs Muhammad Qasim1996 CLC 480 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner to pre-empt a sale of immovable property situated within the limits of Town Committee, Dajal. The sale occurred on 4-11-1993, while the pre-emption suit was instituted on 16-2-1994. The respondent-vendee filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint, contending that on the date of sale, the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 did not extend pre-emption rights to urban immovable property. The trial court rejected the plaint, and the appellate court affirmed the decision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that a pre-emptor must possess a valid, superior right of pre-emption on three crucial dates: the date of sale, the date of the suit's institution, and the date of the final decree. Because the sale occurred on 4-11-1993 before urban properties became subject to pre-emption on 31-12-1993, no right of pre-emption existed on the date of sale, rendering the suit non-maintainable.
Questions settled- Must a pre-emptor possess a superior right of pre-emption on the date of sale, the date of institution of the suit, and the date of the decree?
- Can a pre-emption suit be maintained for an urban property sold before the law extended pre-emption rights to urban areas?
- Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if no right of pre-emption existed on the date the sale took place?
- Qazi Muhammad Amin through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Ismail through Legal Heirs1996 PLD Karachi 335 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
- Qazi Gran vs Muhammad Jan and another1996 PLD Supreme Court 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from an application filed by the appellant under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) alleging apprehension of a breach of peace and seeking to prevent his forcible dispossession from a plot of land. The respondent contended that the plot was state property allotted to him, that he was in lawful possession, and that no apprehension of a breach of peace existed. The Sessions Judge accepted the respondent's revision petition and dismissed the application, a decision upheld by the High Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the jurisdiction of a criminal court under Section 145, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked unless there is an imminent danger of a breach of peace. The Court laid down the principle that the primary object of Section 145, Cr.P.C. is the prevention of breaches of public peace, and where no such imminent danger exists, a Magistrate is not required to determine the factum of actual physical possession, as the settlement of property disputes falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts.
Questions settled- Can a criminal court invoke jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. in the absence of an imminent danger of a breach of peace?
- Is a Magistrate required to determine the factum of actual physical possession under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. if there is no likelihood of a breach of public peace?
- Which forum has exclusive jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to immovable property when there is no apprehension of a breach of peace?
- Qazi Fazal Ahmad (Deceased) Rep By Lrs. Etc vs Riaz-Ur-Rahim EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 406 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
- Qazi Ashiq Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Qasim and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 108 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-16Read full judgment →
- Qasim And Another vs The State1996 MLD 108 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Qarshi Industries (Pvt) Ltd vs Government of Sindh and others1996 CLC 705 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-31Read full judgment →
- Qari Shaukat Ali, Excise and Taxation Inspector, Faisalabad vs Excise1996 PLC (C.S.) 477 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
- Qari Shaukat Ali vs Excise & Taxation Officer, Sheikhupura and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 461 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
- Qari Ghulam Mustafa vs Muhammad Yunus And Other1996 MLD 604 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
- Qamarullah vs Selection Committee Bolan Medical College, Quetta1996 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court decision regarding admission to Bolan Medical College, Quetta. The core legal question was whether the Prospectus requirement for candidates to pass Matriculation and Intermediate examinations from Balochistan (Paragraph 29) is independent of the merit-ranking criteria (Paragraph 40), and whether the High Court could interfere with the Selection Committee's rejection of a candidate. The Supreme Court held that Paragraph 29 is an independent condition not controlled by Paragraph 40. The Court ruled that the High Court erred in interfering with the Selection Committee’s decision, as judicial review is limited to determining if the Committee's assessment of 'cogent reasons' for exemption was perverse. The Selection Committee holds the authority to evaluate whether a candidate's reasons for studying outside the province are justifiable. The key principle established is that admission criteria in a prospectus are binding, and courts should not substitute their discretion for that of the Selection Committee unless the decision-making process is found to be legally flawed or perverse.
Questions settled- Is the requirement to pass Matriculation and Intermediate examinations from Balochistan under the Prospectus independent of the merit-ranking criteria?
- Can a High Court interfere with the Selection Committee's decision regarding admission criteria unless the decision is perverse?
- What constitutes a 'cogent reason' for an exemption from the requirement to study within the province for medical college admission?
- Qamar Zaman Shinwari vs S. Nadir Shah Gillani, Advocate, Kohat1996 MLD 513 · Bar Council Tribunal · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
- Qamar Shahid Alias Shahid Mayo vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 467 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
- Qaiser Mehmood vs The State1996 MLD 157 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who had been incarcerated for over two years without the conclusion of his trial, invoking the statutory right under clause (b) of the 3rd proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the period of delay occasioned by adjournments sought by the accused's counsel should be deducted from the mandatory two-year statutory period, thereby depriving the accused of the statutory right to bail. The Lahore High Court held that an accused person cannot be penalized or deprived of a statutory right due to adjournments genuinely requested or obtained by their counsel, as the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of choice is a fundamental constitutional right. The Court ruled that routine adjournments sought by counsel do not constitute an act or omission of the accused under the proviso to defeat the statutory period, and consequently granted bail to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Whether the period of delay occasioned by adjournments sought by an accused person's counsel can be deducted from the statutory period of two years under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an accused person can be penalized or denied the benefit of the statutory proviso to bail on account of an act or omission of a legal practitioner acting on their behalf?
- Does the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of choice under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect the computation of statutory delay for bail purposes?
- Qaisar Abbas vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
- Qadus Ahmad vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth1996 PTD 634 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
- Punjab Province through Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and others vs M_s. Husnain Construction Company Limited1996 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute between the Punjab Province and a construction company regarding the appointment of arbitrators. The core legal question is whether individuals who have retired from their positions as Superintending Engineers remain qualified to serve as arbitrators under an arbitration agreement that specifically mandates the appointment of Superintending Engineers. The petitioners challenged the appointment of two arbitrators, arguing that their appointment was invalid because they had already retired from service at the time of their second appointment by the Senior Civil Judge. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the matter requires a definitive determination on whether the qualification of being a 'Superintending Engineer' is a condition precedent that must be satisfied at the time of appointment, even if the appointees had previously held such positions. The principle established is that where an arbitration agreement prescribes specific professional qualifications for arbitrators, the court must ensure that the appointees meet those criteria at the time of their appointment to maintain the validity of the arbitral process.
Questions settled- Can an individual who has retired from the position of Superintending Engineer be appointed as an arbitrator when the arbitration agreement specifically requires the appointment of Superintending Engineers?
- Does the qualification requirement for an arbitrator under an agreement apply at the time of the appointment by the court?
- Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore vs Muhammad Mussadiq and others1996 CLC 898 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
- Punjab Footwear Limited, Jalandhar vs Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1132 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Punjab Bar Council vs Board of Revenue, Punjab and 5 others1996 CLC 661 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
- Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation through Managing Director vs Shukar Ullah and others1996 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
- Punhal vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
- Public Health Engineering Circle-I, Gujranwala vs Government of the Punjab1996 PLC (C.S.) 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two appeals by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan were directed against an interim order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which suspended the operation of a transfer order during the pendency of an appeal. The respondent, a Superintending Engineer, had been transferred and posted as Managing Director of WASA, Rawalpindi, but challenged the transfer on the grounds that the post was unsanctioned, leading to non-payment of his salary, and that he was forced into deputation. The Supreme Court first addressed whether the Service Tribunal possesses the power to issue temporary injunctions. It held that under Section 5(2) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, the Tribunal is deemed to be a Civil Court and possesses the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, including the power to grant temporary injunctions. However, on the merits of the interim order, the Court ruled that the Tribunal failed to apply the settled principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. Under Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, a civil servant is liable to serve anywhere, and administrative transfers should not ordinarily be stayed unless compelling reasons exist. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the interim stay order.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction and power to grant interim relief or a temporary injunction during the pendency of an appeal?
- What legal principles govern the grant or refusal of temporary injunctions in service matters involving the transfer of civil servants?
- Can a civil servant legally object to a transfer and posting under Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 if the terms and conditions of service are not varied to their disadvantage?
- Rehmat Bibi vs Amanat Ali and 4 others1996 P Cr. L J 262 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-18Read full judgment →
- Prudential Investment Bank Limited vs National Motors Limited and others1996 MLD 1937 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
- Prudential Investment Bank Limited vs Mestrs National Motors Limited1996 MLD 1937 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-04Read full judgment →
- Province of Sindh through Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 6 others vs M_s. Royal Contractors1996 CLC 1205 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the III Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, in a suit filed by a partnership firm against the provincial government for declaration, injunction, and recovery of damages relating to breached building construction contracts. The core legal question is whether an unregistered partnership firm can institute a suit to enforce contract rights, and whether subsequent registration during the pendency of the suit or appeal cures the initial defect. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act are mandatory, requiring a firm to be registered at the time of instituting the suit as a condition precedent to its maintainability, and that subsequent registration cannot validate an ab initio defective and barred suit. The court laid down the principle that the bar under Section 69 goes to the root of jurisdiction, cannot be waived by consent or inaction of parties, and renders any suit by an unregistered firm incompetent and liable to dismissal.
Questions settled- Whether a suit instituted by an unregistered partnership firm to enforce a right arising from a contract is maintainable under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932?
- Does the subsequent registration of a partnership firm during the pendency of a suit cure the initial defect of non-registration at the time of institution?
- Can the objection regarding the non-registration of a partnership firm under Section 69 be raised for the first time during appeal?
- Is the requirement of firm registration under Section 69 mandatory in character or can it be waived by the defendant?
- Province of Sindh through Secretary, Communication and Works1996 PLD Karachi 506 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur and 4 others vs Mst.1996 SCMR 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against an allotment of land in favor of the respondents. The core legal question is whether land occupied by the Punjab Forest School under the Forest Department for a public purpose was available for allotment, and whether allotments made after 27-2-1965 violate the prohibitory order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions and related questions, ordering the stay order to continue. The key principle established is that allotments of land made in contravention of prohibitory orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and land dedicated to public purposes require detailed judicial consideration by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Whether land occupied by a government department for a public purpose is available for allotment?
- Is an allotment of land made after 27-2-1965 sustainable in violation of the prohibitory order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Province of Punjab and others vs Rana & Sons1996 CLC 69 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute between a firm and the Province of Punjab regarding a construction contract for a hospital in Khanewal. The respondent-firm filed an application under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in a Lahore Civil Court seeking the appointment of an arbitrator after the appellants failed to do so. The appellants challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore court, arguing the contract was executed and the work performed in Khanewal. The core legal question was whether the failure to appoint an arbitrator, which occurred at the appellant's office, constituted a part of the cause of action sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Lahore court. The Court held that because the service of notice and the subsequent failure to appoint an arbitrator are statutory prerequisites for filing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, this failure constitutes a material fact and part of the cause of action. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Lahore court possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a party to appoint an arbitrator after receiving notice constitute a part of the cause of action for an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Can a Civil Court exercise jurisdiction over an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940, based on the location where the failure to appoint an arbitrator occurred?
- Are the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding residence and business applicable to the Government in the context of determining territorial jurisdiction?
- Province of Punjab and others vs Haji Muhammad Hussain and others1996 SCMR 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against the dismissal of its appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the Senior Civil Judge's enhancement of land compensation. Land measuring 31 Canals and 1 Marla owned by the respondents was acquired for a general bus stand under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed compensation at Rs. 420 per Marla, which the respondents challenged, leading to a reference where the Senior Civil Judge raised the rate to Rs. 800 per Marla. The Supreme Court considered whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding market value were sustainable and whether the High Court erred in refusing additional evidence. The Court held that the concurrent findings on market value were free of infirmity and that the High Court was justified in rejecting the additional sale-deeds as they were not produced earlier and lacked proximity to the disputed land. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the market value of acquired land can be interfered with when supported by evidence?
- Is a party entitled to produce additional evidence in the High Court when it failed to show why such evidence was not produced before the trial court?
- Do sale-deeds relating to land outside the immediate vicinity of the disputed land advance the case for determining market value?
- Province of Punjab and others vs Government Employees Cooperative1996 SCMR 1682 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a writ petition assailing an ex parte order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies removing the respondent from his position as Secretary of the Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the constitutional petition in light of an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and whether the Deputy Registrar acted as a judge in his own cause given his prior electoral contest against the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly entertained the writ petition because the Deputy Commissioner had no role under the Act and the petitioner's prior electoral rivalry compromised his impartiality. The Court affirmed that an alternative remedy does not bar constitutional relief where special circumstances exist, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's declaration that the removal order was without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 is available?
- Does a Deputy Registrar act as a judge in his own cause when passing an adverse order against an official of a cooperative society after previously contesting elections against him?
- Can the Deputy Commissioner direct the removal of a society's secretary under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
- Province of Punjab And 2 Others vs Mirza Muhammad Latif1996 MLD 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →