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.

• Imanullah and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Imamuddin vs Syed Atique Yousaf Bokhari1996 SCMR 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-12
  evictiondefault in rentstrikoff of defencerent controllerremanddeposit of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller struck off the petitioner's defence and ordered his eviction due to an alleged failure to demonstrate compliance with a rent deposit order. The Lahore High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal. Upon further petition to the Supreme Court, the petitioner produced a bank receipt prima facie proving that the arrears of rent had indeed been deposited within the stipulated deadline, though the document was not timely placed on record before the Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether a tenant should suffer eviction when arrears were actually deposited in time but the documentary proof was produced belatedly. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and Rent Controller, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant should not be penalized or evicted for procedural slackness in producing documents if the substantive direction to deposit rent was complied with in time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant's defence can be struck off for non-deposit of rent when the deposit was actually made in time but documentary proof was produced belatedly?
  • Can an appellate court remand an ejectment matter for fresh consideration upon the production of new documentary evidence establishing timely compliance with a rent deposit order?
  Read full judgment →
• Imam Bux vs Shadi Khan and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 933 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
• Ikhtiar Hussain Chachar vs Pakistan Water and Power Development1996 PLC (C.S.) 857 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ikhtiar Gul and 2 others vs The State1996 SCMR 1130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-18
  bail cancellationZinafalse implicationpre-trial bailcorroborative evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by the Sessions Judge, Kohat, in a case involving allegations of Zina. The petitioners, who were court employees, were accused of committing sexual intercourse with a woman found with them in a garage on court premises. While the Chemical Examiner reported positive findings of semen on the clothing of two petitioners, no such evidence was found on the third, and the complainant showed no signs of violence. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated due to a prior complaint filed against a local police officer. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court erred in cancelling the bail. The Court held that, without independent corroborating evidence at this stage, the case against the petitioners was arguable for the purpose of bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, confirmed the interim bail for one petitioner, and granted bail to the others, emphasizing that the case required further trial scrutiny rather than pre-trial detention.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of semen stains on an accused's clothing, without independent corroborating evidence, justify the cancellation of bail in a Zina case?
  • Is the High Court justified in cancelling bail granted by a Sessions Court when the case against the accused remains arguable?
  • Can a prior complaint filed by the accused against a police officer be considered as a ground for potential false implication in a subsequent criminal case for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Mehmood vs Shaikh Muhammad Jamil Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 30 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain Shah vs Liaqat Hussain and 11 Others1996 PLC 85 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain Etc vs Govt of Pakistan Etc1996 P.C.T.L.R. 350 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Baig vs Muhammad Azam and others1996 SCMR 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-05
  specific performanceextension of timestay of executionfunctus officiocomposite decreeact of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court order extending the time for respondents to deposit the balance sale consideration in a suit for specific performance. The trial court had decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, conditional on depositing the balance amount within three months, failing which the suit stood dismissed. The petitioner appealed, and the High Court suspended the execution of the decree. Later, the petitioner withdrew the appeal without notice to the respondents, and no consequential order was passed regarding the deposit timeline. The respondents subsequently sought and obtained an extension of time from the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the suspension of execution of a composite decree logically suspends the direction to deposit the balance amount. The Court laid down the principle that where an appellate court stays execution but omits to pass a consequential order extending the deposit time upon disposal of the appeal, the court retains jurisdiction to rectify its omission to prevent prejudice to a party, notwithstanding the general rule of functus officio.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order suspending the execution of a decree for specific performance also suspend the direction to deposit the balance sale consideration?
  • Can an appellate court extend the time for depositing a decretal amount after the main appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn?
  • Does the rule of functus officio prevent a court from rectifying an omission to pass a consequential order when an appeal is withdrawn without notice to the decree-holder?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs Secretary, Health Division and 3 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-12
  service tribunalrepatriationliencivil servantsenioritypromotionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal which had annulled his repatriation to the Health Division, his seniority position, and his subsequent promotion as Superintendent and grant of Selection Grade (B-17). The core legal question revolved around whether a permanent civil servant retains a valid lien on their post in the parent department upon transfer and whether such lien entitles them to subsequent absorption, seniority, and promotion upon repatriation after being declared surplus. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the proposition raised questions of public importance regarding the retention and termination of a civil servant's lien under the Fundamental Rules. The key principle laid down is that a permanent civil servant's lien cannot be terminated except upon confirmation against another permanent post, thereby securing their substantive title to the parent post.

  Questions settled

  • Can a permanent civil servant's lien in their parent department be terminated without being confirmed against another permanent post?
  • Whether a civil servant declared surplus in a transferred post is entitled to repatriation and absorption in their parent department with prior seniority and promotion benefits?
  • Does a civil servant retain a clear title to hold a substantive post in their parent department while serving on another post under a retained lien?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 959 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Ifhikhar Ahmad Chatta vs Professor BedarK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 54 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-05Read full judgment →
• Iffat Sultana vs The State(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 47) · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hussain and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1679 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• I.T.O Companies-I, Lahore vs (M/s.) Samuks (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 822 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• I.C.I.C. vs Mian Rafiq Saigol and others1996 PLD Lahore 528 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-19
  territorial jurisdictionpreliminary issuemixed question of law and factcivil revisioninterim ordersforum non convenienspiecemeal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses two connected civil revisions arising from recovery suits instituted by banking companies against the respondents. The core legal question was whether the trial court could treat the issue of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, notwithstanding an earlier final finding that the question of jurisdiction constituted a mixed question of law and facts requiring evidence on the merits. The Lahore High Court held that once an interim finding determining the nature of an issue as a mixed question of fact and law has attained finality up to the High Court, the trial court is precluded from revisiting or contradicting that finding at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. The Court laid down the principle that while strict res judicata may not apply to procedural interim orders, a substantial question once adjudicated and finalized by a superior forum cannot be re-opened, and mixed questions of law and fact intertwined with merits must not be tried piecemeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can treat an issue as a preliminary issue after it has already been finally determined by superior forums to be a mixed question of law and facts?
  • Do strict principles of res judicata apply to interim orders of a procedural nature passed during the course of a suit?
  • Can an issue of jurisdiction involving overlapping evidence on merits be decided separately as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether an order passed under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• I Muhammad Bakhsh Awan vs Chief Engineer, Irrigation Zone, Bahawalpur and 5 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-12
  service lawsenioritypromotiondepartmental examinationeligibility criteriaservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute regarding seniority and promotion within the Irrigation Department. The petitioners, who were senior to the respondents as Junior Clerks, challenged the respondents' earlier promotion to the posts of Sub-Divisional Clerks (S.D.C.) and subsequent promotion to Accounts Clerks. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, despite being senior in the lower cadre, could claim seniority over the respondents in higher posts when the respondents had qualified for promotion by passing the mandatory departmental examination earlier. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals. The Court held that promotion to the post of S.D.C. was contingent upon passing the prescribed departmental examination. Since the respondents passed the examination in 1987 while the petitioners did not pass until 1990, the respondents were rightfully promoted earlier. Consequently, the respondents became eligible for further promotion to Accounts Clerks in 1990, while the petitioners remained ineligible until they completed the requisite service as S.D.Cs. The principle established is that seniority in a lower cadre does not override the eligibility criteria, such as passing mandatory departmental examinations, for promotion to higher posts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a junior employee be promoted to a higher post before a senior employee if the junior employee has passed the mandatory departmental examination earlier?
  • Does seniority in a lower cadre automatically entitle an employee to promotion over a junior who has satisfied the eligibility requirements for the higher post?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyder Ali vs Nizam Construction & Estate Dealers1996 CLC 1040 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
• Hussain Khan vs Ibrahimjee Sulemanjee Mithaiwala And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 163 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
• Hussain Ahmad alias Madni Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 130 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-07
  post-arrest bailplea of alibioath on Holy Quranpolice investigationprohibitory clausemurdermedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by Hussain Ahmad alias Madni Shah seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Minchinabad. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, committed the murder of Ghulam Rasool. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of a belated post-mortem report showing a blunt weapon injury, a plea of alibi supported by belated affidavits, and having been declared innocent by the police following an extra-legal procedure involving oaths on the Holy Qur'an administered by strangers in a mosque. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, observing that discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence cannot be resolved at the bail stage, belated pleas of alibi carry little weight, and settling criminal investigations through oaths on the Holy Qur'an or Panchayat proceedings has no sanction in criminal law. The Court reaffirmed that oath proceedings are inapplicable to criminal cases under section 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, and dismissed the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal investigation or matter of guilt be legally settled on the oath of the Holy Qur'an administered by police during investigation?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular and medical evidence can be conclusively examined at the bail stage?
  • Does a belated plea of alibi supported by affidavits carry weight in a post-arrest bail application?
  • Is an accused prima facie connected with an offense under the prohibitory clause entitled to bail when supported by tainted police exoneration?
  Read full judgment →
• Humayun Badshah vs Habib Bank Ltd. and 3 others1996 PLC 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-07
  constitutional jurisdictionre-instatementmisappropriationconcurrent findings of factlabour courtleave to appealgrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant at Habib Bank Limited, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside his reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner had been dismissed following allegations of misappropriating funds from electricity bills. While the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal initially ruled in the petitioner's favor, finding the charge-sheet issued by an incompetent authority and the charges unproven, the High Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to reverse these findings. The High Court concluded that the lower courts ignored material evidence, specifically the branch manager's statement and the production of original electricity bills, which sufficiently proved the petitioner's guilt. The petitioner contended that the High Court improperly re-appreciated evidence and interfered with concurrent findings of fact, arguing that if evidence was overlooked, the proper course was a remand rather than a reversal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court exceeded its constitutional jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence rather than remanding the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction re-appreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact by Labour Tribunals?
  • Is it appropriate for a High Court to substitute its own findings of fact instead of remanding a case when material evidence was allegedly ignored by lower tribunals?
  • Does the production of original documents in a departmental inquiry constitute sufficient proof of guilt to justify dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Humayun Badshah vs Habib Bank Limited and 3 others1996 SCMR 1606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-17
  Constitutional jurisdictionLabor lawReinstatementBack benefitsConcurrent findings of factDisciplinary proceedingsScope of judicial reviewMisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court order that set aside the reinstatement of a bank employee dismissed for alleged misconduct. The employee had successfully challenged his dismissal before the Punjab Labor Court and the Labor Appellate Tribunal, which found the charges unproven and the dismissal procedurally flawed. The High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, re-appraised the evidence and restored the dismissal. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labor tribunals. The Court held that under Article 199 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot re-appraise evidence or substitute its own findings for those of a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, provided the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and did not misread material evidence. While the High Court correctly identified that the bank's internal rules authorized the disciplinary action, it erred in overturning the factual findings regarding the sufficiency of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Labor Appellate Tribunal's order of reinstatement without back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction re-appraise evidence and record its own findings of fact against the concurrent findings of a labor tribunal?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with a tribunal's decision merely because it disagrees with the factual conclusions reached?
  • Is a labor tribunal's decision immune from interference under Article 199 of the Constitution if the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Hudaybia Taxtile Mills Limited and 3 others vs Colony1996 PLD Lahore 219 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hudabiya Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pakistan (through Secretary1996 P.C.T.L.R. 115 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• House Building Finance Corporation Workers' Union of Pakistan1996 PLC 517 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Corporation Staff Union of Pakistan, and another vs National Industrial Relations Commission, Lahore and 11 others1996 PLC 42 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-09Read full judgment →
• Hotel Metropole (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi through its Executive Vice-President1996 PLC 632 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Income Tax Officer vs Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.1996 PTD 872 · Supreme Court of India · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Hokum Dad and 4 others vs Mst. Roqiyya Begum and 5 others1996 CLC 1920 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• Hoechst Pakistan Limited, Karachi vs Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour1996 PLC 362 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-04Read full judgment →
• Hinopak Motors Limited through General Manager, Personnel &1996 PLC 121 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Hind Wire Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax1996 PTD 562 · Supreme Court of India · 1995-01-20Read full judgment →
• Hina Qumbar vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur through ViceChancellor, and 5 others1996 CLC 557 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
• Hifza Bano Versus Israr Maqsood Etc Hifza Bano vs Israr Maqsood EtcK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 627 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah Khan vs Abdul Majid and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 1475 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Headmaster, Government Ziaulaloom High School, Raja Bazar, Rawalpindi and others vs Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board and others1996 CLC 1785 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-31
  temporary injunctionevacuee trust propertyright to educationpublic interest litigationwrit jurisdictiondisputed questions of factbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil miscellaneous application filed by a government school seeking temporary possession of rooms and latrines within a building owned by the Evacuee Trust Property Board, which had been leased to private parties for commercial development. The core legal question was whether the school established a prima facie case for interim relief, including the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable loss, despite the respondent's objection regarding the existence of disputed questions of fact. The Court held that the school demonstrated a prima facie case based on historical usage and government policy regarding the transfer of educational buildings to the Education Department. Furthermore, the Court determined that the constitutional duty of the State to provide education, under Articles 9 and 37 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, necessitates a liberal interpretation of 'irreparable loss' in favor of students. Consequently, the Court granted the temporary injunction, directing the restoration of possession to the school. The principle laid down is that constitutional petitions involving public interest, such as the right to education, are maintainable even if they involve factual controversies.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when a petition involves disputed questions of fact?
  • Does the constitutional duty of the State to provide education influence the determination of irreparable loss for the grant of temporary injunctions?
  • Are educational institutions housed in Evacuee Trust properties entitled to possession of premises historically used by them pending final adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Khan vs Amanullah Khan and others1996 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-28
  rejection of plaintnecessary partyimpleadmenttemporary injunctionremand of suitterritorial jurisdictionstage carriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a civil suit filed by a bus operator (respondent No. 1) seeking a declaration and injunctions regarding bus timings on the Karachi-Hyderabad route. The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the rejection, remanded the suit, granted a temporary injunction, and dismissed the petitioner's application to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as infructuous. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the petitioner's revision petitions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petitions into appeals and held that since the petitioner's rights would be directly affected by the decree, he was a necessary party. The Court ruled that the joinder of a party at the appellate stage under Order I Rule 10 is permissible as an appeal is a continuation of the suit. Furthermore, the Court set aside the District Judge's temporary injunction, holding that upon remanding the suit, the appellate court should have left the determination of interim relief to the Trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court that finds it lacks territorial jurisdiction to try a suit can reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 instead of returning it under Order VII Rule 10?
  • Can a necessary party be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 at the appellate stage?
  • Is an appellate court justified in granting a temporary injunction while simultaneously remanding the main suit back to the trial court for decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Bilal vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 951 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakhsh vs Ghulam Farid1996 MLD 704 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12
  recovery suitleave to appear and defendpronoteconditional leavesummary procedurecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing a recovery suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence, after the appellant failed to comply with a conditional order requiring the deposit of cash to secure leave to appear and defend. The core legal question was whether the trial Court was justified in imposing a harsh condition for granting leave to defend and in decreeing the suit without recording evidence when the defendant's application disclosed a plausible defence. The Lahore High Court held that the appellant's application did disclose a plausible cause, entitling him to unconditional leave to defend, and that decreeing the suit without evidence under such circumstances was unsustainable. The Court laid down the principle that where a defendant's application for leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 discloses a plausible defence, leave must be granted unconditionally, and suits cannot be summarily decreed without evidence upon failure to meet unwarranted conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a defendant entitled to unconditional leave to appear and defend a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the application discloses a plausible defence?
  • Can a trial Court decree a recovery suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence upon the defendant's failure to comply with a conditional order for leave to defend?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazara Punjab Coal Co. vs Director of Industries and Mineral1996 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-15
  constitutional petitionmining leasecoal prospecting licensenatural justiceaudi alteram partemspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the rejection of an application for the conversion of a coal prospecting license into a mining lease. The core legal question involved whether the rejection of the conversion application without affording a personal hearing violated principles of natural justice, and whether the authorities were justified in refusing the lease due to the licensee's failure to prove coal deposits within the statutory period. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish successful exploitation and exploration of the area within the prescribed timeframe and that no sufficient proof of coal discovery was provided to the licensing authority, rendering the refusal lawful. The Court laid down the principle that a prospecting licensee has a bounden duty to provide concrete proof of mineral discovery to the licensing authority, and failure to satisfy the statutory requirements within the allotted period justifies the refusal of a mining lease.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the refusal of an application for conversion of a coal prospecting license into a mining lease without a personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice?
  • Is a prospecting licensee required to furnish concrete proof of mineral discovery to the licensing authority to claim a mining lease as of right?
  • Whether the High Court can enter into a factual controversy regarding the actual discovery of coal within the scope of constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazara Baig vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1425 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 1996-03-28Read full judgment →
• Hassanali & Co. Cotton (Private) Limited vs Poly Coton, S.A., 2Rue, Andrien Vallin, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland and others1996 PLD Karachi 416 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
• Hassan vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 487 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-27
  statutory delaybail cancellationabductionpost-arrest bailadjournmentshardened criminal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal bail applications and notices for bail cancellation in a case concerning the alleged abduction of one Suhail Ahmed Shamsi under Section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions relate to the proper interpretation and calculation of statutory delay under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the application of exceptions regarding hardened or desperate criminals, and whether an accused can directly approach the High Court for bail on the ground of statutory delay without first moving the trial court. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court adopted an improper mathematical method for calculating statutory delay without considering the cascading effects of adjournments or assessing whether the accused fell within the exclusionary categories of dangerous criminals. Consequently, the Court recalled the bail earlier granted to certain co-accused, remanded the matter to the trial court for re-examination, and dismissed the fresh bail application of another accused for bypassing the trial court. The key principles laid down are that the calculation of statutory delay requires examining the substantive impact of adjournments rather than mere subtraction of dates, exceptions for desperate criminals must be evaluated, and applications based on statutory delay must ordinarily be raised first before the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the calculation of statutory delay for bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permits a mere mathematical subtraction of adjournment periods?
  • Must a court consider whether an accused is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal before granting bail on the ground of statutory delay?
  • Can an accused directly approach the High Court for bail on the ground of statutory delay without first applying to the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Khan vs Shaikh Aziz Ahmed and another1996 SCMR 1339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-14
  ex parte evictionservice of noticetenant and sub-letteeexecution proceedingsFirst Rent Appealconstructive notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the High Court's order dismissing in limine the appellant tenant's First Rent Appeal against an ex parte eviction order. The core legal question was whether the tenant was properly served with notice in the eviction proceedings and whether the ex parte order and subsequent execution proceedings were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the tenant had proper constructive and actual knowledge of the rent case through his servant who accepted the notice, as well as through contemporaneous litigation and written statements filed in related proceedings, and that the appeal against the ex parte order was time-barred. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant cannot disown service of notice accepted on his behalf by his employee at the disputed premises, especially when active litigation between the parties provides clear notice of pending eviction proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of an eviction notice accepted by a tenant's servant at the disputed premises constitutes valid service on the tenant?
  • Can a tenant successfully disown knowledge of pending rent proceedings when he is actively engaged in other contemporaneous litigation with the same landlord?
  • Whether an appeal against an ex parte eviction order filed after a delay of several months without sufficient explanation is time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Kamran vs Federal Public Service Commission1996 CLC 826 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Hassan Associates vs Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation1996 MLD 244 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
• Hassan Arshad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1936 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
• Hassan Arba Khan vs Principal, Government College, Lahore and others1996 CLC 1734 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-23Read full judgment →
• Hassan and another vs Hussain1996 CLC 650 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-13
  civil revisionadditional evidencemutationrevenue recordsufficient causepresumption of truth
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged the order of the Additional District Judge, Vehari, which had dismissed the petitioners' application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for recording additional evidence in a pending appeal. The respondent-plaintiff had successfully challenged the vires of a mutation in a declaratory suit. The petitioners sought to produce the Patwari Halqa, Roznamcha Waqiati, and original mutation records as additional evidence to establish their title. The High Court observed that when the validity of a mutation is directly in issue, a court cannot pronounce a just judgment without examining the disputed documents and recording the statements of those who can prove or disprove them. The Court held that the need to resolve such a controversy constitutes 'sufficient cause' under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court set aside the impugned order, accepted the application, and directed the appellate court to record the additional evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the need to prove a disputed mutation in revenue records constitutes 'sufficient cause' for allowing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an appellate court refuse to summon revenue officials and original records on the ground that copies of mutations are per se admissible when the very vires of the mutation is challenged?
  • Does the concept of a bar against filling up lacunas or gaps in evidence prevent a court from allowing additional evidence necessary for a just decision under Pakistani jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali & Co. (Pvt) Ltd vs Poly Cotton S.A. and others1996 CLC 1812 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-23
  inter-court appealrejection of plaintforeign awardarbitration agreementjurisdictioncivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This Inter-Court Appeal arises from an order of a Single Judge rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction against a foreign arbitral award. The core legal questions involve whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge a foreign arbitration agreement and award, and whether Pakistani courts possess territorial jurisdiction over an award rendered in Liverpool pursuant to an arbitration clause agreed upon by the parties. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was barred by law, specifically under the Arbitration Act 1940 and the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937, and that an arbitration agreement or award must be contested through an application rather than a regular suit. The key principle laid down is that challenges to arbitration agreements or awards cannot be brought via a civil suit where barred by statute, and foreign awards are enforceable in Pakistan in accordance with the applicable arbitration statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge the existence, effect, or validity of an arbitration agreement or award?
  • Does a Pakistani court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit arising from a foreign arbitration award rendered abroad?
  • Can an arbitration award be contested by way of a suit instead of an application under the Arbitration Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashim Khan and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1849 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Hashim Khan And Another vs The State1996 MLD 1849 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Hashim and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1681 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Hashim Ali Etc vs (Mst.) Raisa Begum Etc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 19) · Board of Revenue · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
• Hashim Ali and others vs Mst. Raisa Begum and others1996 CLC 1699 · Board of Revenue · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
• Harifullah vs Fazale Rahim and 5 others1996 MLD 1107 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
• Harifullah vs Fazale Rahim And 5 Other1996 MLD 1107 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
• Hard Mu14ammad Afzal vs Abdur Rehman1996 MLD 291 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Har Ahmed vs M. Y. Kherati And Another1996 MLD 1201 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-05Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State1996 MLD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Hanif Khokhar vs University of the Punjab and another1996 CLC 617 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Hamzo Khan vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sukkur and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 1054 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1995-03-30Read full judgment →
• Hamida Bibi, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 625 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
• Hamid Gul vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 577 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-12Read full judgment →
• Hameed Akhtar Niazi vs The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others1996 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-24
  civil servantssenioritypromotionSecretariat GroupAll Pakistan Unified Gradesservice appealremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal concerning inter se seniority and promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary in the Secretariat Group. The core legal question revolved around the proper determination of seniority after the merger of the former C.S.P. and P.S.P. cadres into the All Pakistan Unified Grades (APUG) and the creation of occupational groups, specifically whether a civil servant's seniority could be reckoned from a date earlier than regular continuous officiating and how to prevent the distortion of pre-existing seniority without violating statutory rules and Section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. By a majority view, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision in accordance with the applicable rules and provisions of the ESTACODE. The Court laid down that while pre-existing legitimate seniority of officers from erstwhile cadres must be protected upon reorganization, such protection must strictly operate within the framework of prescribed reorganization rules, and the benefit of a judgment on a common point of law should extend to similarly situated civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can be allowed to count his seniority in a post from a date earlier than the one of his actual regular continuous officiating in that post?
  • Whether the seniority of civil servants belonging to the erstwhile C.S.P. cadre could be adjusted in APUG in a manner that distorts or destroys the statutory principles of seniority under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is maintainable when it indirectly seeks the determination of fitness for promotion and an earlier promotion date?
  • Can the benefit of a judgment relating to the terms of service of a civil servant be extended to other civil servants who were not parties to the litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ahmad vs Sarfraz alias Sharfo and 4 others1996 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-04
  petition for leave to appealacquittaldelayed FIRabductionFederal Shariat Courtreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents under section 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and acquitted them of the charges of abduction. The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's conviction based on delayed reporting of the First Information Report and material contradictions in the evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the unexplained delay of over five months in lodging the First Information Report, coupled with an affidavit by a prosecution witness giving a different version and implicating the accused merely on suspicion, rendered the Federal Shariat Court's acquittal judgment unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with merely because a different view of the evidence was possible, especially where significant delays and material contradictions weaken the prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of over five months in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution's case in an abduction charge?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the Federal Shariat Court merely because a different view of the evidence is possible?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an affidavit sworn by a prosecution witness contradicting the initial version given by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ham Din vs The CrownK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-17Read full judgment →
• Haleem Shah vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 306 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-01
  revisional jurisdictionSection 169 CrPCsuppression of terrorist activitiescognizance of offencejudicial independencepolice investigationlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an order passed by a Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, which had accepted a police report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and released an accused after a challan had already been submitted and cognizance taken. The core legal question was whether a trial court, after taking cognizance of a case and framing charges, can entertain a subsequent police report under Section 169, Cr.P.C. to release an accused, and whether the High Court has revisional jurisdiction over such Special Courts. The High Court held that once a challan is submitted and the court takes cognizance, the provisions of Section 169, Cr.P.C. are no longer applicable, and the trial court cannot review its own prior orders or entertain such reports. The court further held that the High Court retains revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and supervisory powers under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 over Special Courts. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court entertain a report under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after it has already taken cognizance of the case and framed charges?
  • Does the High Court possess revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by Special Courts established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975?
  • Is a police officer or any person entitled to file a criminal revision application even if they are not the primary aggrieved party?
  • Can a trial court review its own previous order rejecting a Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 report based on subsequent executive correspondence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Sons Impex (Pvt) Ltd., Karachi vs The 1to Cos. Circle.A.3, Karachi1996 P.C.T.L.R. 894 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• Hakim Muhammad Tufail vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 401 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan vs The State1996 SCMR 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-19
  murderdeath sentencecommutation of sentencesentencing discretiontender ageleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by both the convict, Hakim Khan, and the complainant, Muhammad Akram, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment. The High Court had maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in altering the death sentence to life imprisonment based on the petitioner's tender age, the unproven motive, and the fact that only a single shot was fired. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the grounds for awarding the lesser penalty were neither flimsy nor artificial. The Court affirmed that while death is the normal penalty for murder, judicial discretion to impose a lesser sentence is justified when supported by evidence, such as the offender's age and the specific circumstances of the offense. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, declining to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion regarding sentencing. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not disturb sentencing discretion when it is grounded in valid evidentiary considerations.

  Questions settled

  • Is the death sentence the mandatory penalty for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the offender's tender age and the circumstances of the crime?
  • Does the failure to prove a motive for murder necessitate the imposition of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Hafiz Muhammad Ghaus vs Province of Punjab1996 CLC 1382 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-11
  Civil Court jurisdictionauction of propertyrecovery of loansLand Revenue Actprocedural irregularitybenami transactionMartial Law Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment upholding the auction of the petitioner's property by the Cooperative Society to recover outstanding loans. The core legal questions concern the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to review executive actions taken under Martial Law Order No. 241 and the Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1966, and the procedural validity of the auction proceedings. The Court held that while immunity exists for executive actions, Civil Courts retain jurisdiction to intervene when authorities exceed their statutory powers or act in violation of mandatory legal procedures. The Court found the auction proceedings void because the authorities failed to comply with the mandatory notice and confirmation periods prescribed under the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a father cannot be held liable for a son's debt without evidence establishing a benami transaction. The principle laid down is that executive immunity does not shield actions taken in flagrant violation of statutory requirements, and procedural mandates regarding property auctions must be strictly observed to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of property.

  Questions settled

  • Do Civil Courts have jurisdiction to review executive actions taken under Martial Law Order No. 241 when authorities exceed their statutory powers?
  • Can a father's property be auctioned for the recovery of a loan taken by his son without proof of a benami transaction?
  • Does the failure to observe the mandatory 30-day notice period for an auction under the Land Revenue Act render the sale void?
  • Can an objection regarding the non-joinder of a necessary party be raised for the first time in revision proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs Sakhi Muhammad and 16 others1996 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-01
  registered sale deedburden of prooflocus standifraudulent transferconsiderationjudicial admissiontransfer of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over agricultural land sold by the deceased owner, Jagga Khan, to the appellant via a registered sale deed. The respondents, claiming as collaterals, challenged the sale, alleging it was fraudulent, fictitious, and without consideration. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, a decision reversed by the First Appellate Court but subsequently restored by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court correctly reopened findings on consideration and to assess the legal effect of the vendor's own admissions regarding the sale. The Court held that while a stranger to a deed cannot usually challenge its consideration, they may do so if the deed is alleged to be bogus. However, the Court found that the registered sale deed, supported by the Sub-Registrar's certificate and the vendor's own judicial admission, conclusively proved the transfer of title and receipt of consideration. The Court affirmed that the intention of the parties is paramount in interpreting a sale deed, and the burden of proving a transaction fraudulent lies heavily on the challenger.

  Questions settled

  • Can a stranger to a sale deed challenge the transaction on the ground that it is fictitious and fraudulent?
  • Does the non-payment of consideration prevent the passing of title in a sale of property if the parties intended the transfer?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a Sub-Registrar's certificate regarding the acknowledgement of consideration in a registered sale deed?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie when a registered sale deed is challenged as being fictitious and without consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Hajvairy Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Tauqir Sultan Awan, Chairman &1996 MLD 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-01Read full judgment →
• Hajvairy Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. through Tauqir Sultan Awan, Chairman &1996 MLD 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-01Read full judgment →
• Hajra Begum And Other vs Aga Khan University HospitalK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 400 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Zarbadshah and 2 others vs Muhammad Nawaz Khan1996 CLC 1457 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Sultan Ahmad through Legal Heirs vs Naeem Raza and 6 others1996 SCMR 1729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-12
  pre-emptionwaiver of rightsecond appealconcurrent findings of factreappraisal of evidencemisreading of evidenceperverse appreciation of evidencecivil procedure codeevidence act
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involved three pre-emption suits filed by the appellant, Haji Sultan Ahmad, claiming a right of pre-emption over agricultural land sales. The trial court and first appellate court decreed the suits, but the Lahore High Court, in Regular Second Appeals, reversed these concurrent findings, holding that the appellant had waived his pre-emption rights. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was the scope of interference by a Second Appellate Court with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100, C.P.C., and what constitutes waiver of pre-emption rights. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reversal was unjustified as it was based on a reappraisal of evidence, not misreading, non-reading of material evidence, or perverse appreciation. It reaffirmed that a second appellate court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact, however erroneous, unless such specific errors are present. The Court also found no evidence to suggest the appellant had waived his pre-emption right, emphasizing that relinquishment requires clear and cogent evidence of intentional abandonment. The appeals were accepted, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in second appeal reverse concurrent findings of fact by lower courts based solely on a reappraisal of evidence?
  • What are the permissible grounds for a Second Appellate Court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100, C.P.C.?
  • What constitutes a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
  • Is mere presence at the time of a sale transaction sufficient to infer waiver of a pre-emption right?
  • Does an affirmation of a trial court's finding by the first appellate court, with discussion of evidence, qualify as a concurrent finding of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Hassan Khan vs Hidayatullah and another1996 SCMR 1476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-27
  inherent jurisdictioncriminal revisiondispute over possessionabuse of processSection 145 CrPCSection 561-A CrPCcivil nature of dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a dispute over the possession of a 'Baithak' (drawing room) between the appellant and respondents. The appellant initially filed a complaint under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which the Magistrate dismissed after finding the appellant was not in possession within the statutory two-month period. The Sessions Judge reversed this order in revision, but the Peshawar High Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, set aside the Sessions Judge's order and restored the Magistrate's decision. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A to interfere with a matter already decided in revision by a Sessions Judge, despite the bar in Section 439(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's inherent power remains intact and is not limited by the revision bar. The Court affirmed that the High Court may intervene to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and it upheld the High Court's decision to leave the final determination of title and possession to the Civil Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar in Section 439(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against revision of a Sessions Judge's order limit the High Court's inherent powers under Section 561-A?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even if a revision petition has already been decided by a Sessions Judge?
  • Is the High Court empowered to interfere with a lower court's order to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Salim Khan and 2 others vs Commissioner, F.C.R. Kohat Division, Kohat and 2 others1996 CLC 1702 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-16
  Tribal AreaFCRArticle 247territorial jurisdictionmaintainabilityKurram Agencywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order of the Commissioner, F.C.R. Kohat Division passed in a revision petition arising from a civil suit regarding sale mutations in Tootici, Kurram Agency. The petitioners contended that the Peshawar High Court possessed jurisdiction to review the impugned order because the Commissioner's office was located in Kohat Division, within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, even though the parties resided in and the disputed land was situated within a Tribal Area. The High Court rejected this contention and dismissed the writ petition in limine for lack of maintainability. The court held that Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 explicitly bars the High Court from exercising jurisdiction in relation to a Tribal Area. The court affirmed that the administrative location of an authority's office within a settled area does not sever the dispute's fundamental connection with the Tribal Area or displace the constitutional exclusion of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to issue writs in relation to disputes concerning property situated in a Tribal Area?
  • Does the location of an administrative authority's office in a settled area confer jurisdiction on the High Court over a dispute originating in a Tribal Area under Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Inder Lal And Another vs The State1996 MLD 464 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Musa Khan vs Mst. Bakht Mina And Other1996 MLD 1420 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Munawar Hussain Manj vs The State1996 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Mumraiz Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P.1996 MLD 1595 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Mumraiz Khan vs Government of N.W. F. P.1996 MLD 1595 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yousaf vs The State and anothers1996 MLD 1488 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yousaf vs The State And Another1996 MLD 1488 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 653 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sharif vs Haji Muhammad Yousaf and 4 others1996 MLD 1254 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sharif vs Haji Muhammad Yousaf And 4 Other1996 MLD 1254 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Qasim vs Ahmed Khan1996 MLD 794 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Qasim and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 452 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Qasim And Another vs The State1996 MLD 452 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ibrahim vs Haji Abdus Salam Bhatti1996 SCMR 1042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-05
  ejectmentdefault in rentenhanced rentwilful defaultspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioner tenant under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of default in paying rent due to an automatic 25% statutory increase under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1990. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, holding the tenant in default, and the appellate and revisional courts upheld the decision. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, contending that there was no wilful default and that the maxim 'ignorance of law is no excuse' should not apply where the landlord failed to demand the increased rent. The Supreme Court found the contentions to be of first impression requiring consideration and granted leave to appeal, subject to the petitioner continuing to deposit rent at the enhanced rate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to pay rent at the enhanced rate under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1990 constitutes wilful default?
  • Does the maxim 'ignorance of law is no excuse' apply to statutory rent increases where the landlord fails to demand the increased rate?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Boota vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 469 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Abdullah and others vs Azad Government of the State1996 MLD 1964 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Abdullah And Others vs Azad Government of the State1996 MLD 1964 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-05-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Abbas vs The State1996 SCMR 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-23
  criminal petitionbail cancellationpost-arrest bailsuppression of injuriescounter-versionfirearm injuriespolice mala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's bail application in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 324, and 337(2)/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was initially granted bail by a Magistrate on grounds of suppressed injuries, lack of medical support for the prosecution version, and the existence of a counter-version, but this bail was subsequently cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the bail cancellation after a lapse of ten months where the petitioner sustained multiple injuries, including firearm injuries, which were omitted from the first information report, and where police mala fides were alleged regarding a counter-version. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, confirming the interim bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused sustains significant injuries that are suppressed in the FIR and there is evidence of police mala fides in handling a counter-version, the cancellation of bail by an appellate court is unwarranted and the initial discretion exercised by a magistrate should be restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted by a magistrate can be lawfully cancelled after a considerable delay when the accused's injuries were suppressed in the first information report?
  • Does the existence of a counter-version and suppressed injuries justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is police mala fide regarding the non-registration of a counter-case a relevant consideration for confirming bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Abbas and others vs The State1996 SCMR 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-23
  bail cancellationcounter-versionsuppression of injuriesmala fide police conductcriminal appealpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's bail application in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the cancellation of bail, previously granted by a Magistrate, was justified given the circumstances of the case, specifically the existence of a counter-version and the suppression of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had sustained seven injuries, including two firearm injuries, which were entirely omitted from the prosecution's initial report. Furthermore, the Court noted the police's mala fide conduct, evidenced by the Station House Officer's false statement regarding the registration of a cross-case. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and confirmed the petitioner's interim bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the prosecution suppresses material facts, such as the injuries of an accused, and acts with mala fide intent, the cancellation of bail is unwarranted, and the accused is entitled to relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of an accused's injuries in the First Information Report justify the grant of bail?
  • Can bail be cancelled when the police act with mala fide intent regarding the registration of a counter-case?
  • Is the existence of a counter-version a relevant factor in determining the propriety of bail cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Mirza Iqbal Baig vs W.T.O. Cir-III, Lahore.1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1450 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →