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.

• Haji Mazar Khan vs Member (Judicial), Central_Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others1996 SCMR 1709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-26
  Customs Actconfiscation of gold coinsshow-cause noticeburden of proofleave to appealsmugglingforeign origin
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition against the confiscation of foreign gold coins and a car used in their transport. The Customs Mobile Squad had seized the gold coins and vehicle, leading to adjudication proceedings where the coins were confiscated and a personal penalty was imposed upon the petitioner, Haji Mazar Khan. The petitioner's departmental appeal and subsequent constitutional petition were dismissed, leading to the present proceedings. The core legal questions involve whether the seized items were duly established as gold without a Mint Assayer's report, whether mandatory notice requirements under the Customs Act were met, and whether the disposal of the case complied with established judicial standards. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised substantial questions of public importance regarding statutory compliance and the burden of proof in customs adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it has been established before the adjudicating authority that the coins were of gold particularly when the report of Assayer of Pakistan Mint had not been made available to the petitioner?
  • Whether the notice under section 180 of the Customs Act had been served upon the petitioner, and if not, whether statutory extension of time envisaged by section 168 thereof had been granted with reasons therefor?
  • Whether the disposal of the case of the petitioner was violative of the law laid down by this Court in the cited precedents?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Mazar Khan vs Member (Judicial), Central Board Of Revenue, Islamabad And 2 Other(PTCL 1996 CL. 579) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-26
  customs seizureconfiscation of goodsshow-cause noticeadjudication proceedingsburden of proofforeign origin goodsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging the confiscation of gold coins and a vehicle by customs authorities. The core legal questions involve whether the adjudicating authority established the nature of the seized items as gold without a formal report from the Pakistan Mint Assayer, whether a mandatory show-cause notice under the Customs Act was served within the statutory timeframe, and whether the adjudication proceedings violated established judicial precedents regarding the application of mind and procedural fairness. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that these issues involve questions of public importance requiring further examination. The Court identified that the petitioner's primary grievances centered on the lack of expert verification of the seized items, the alleged absence of proper notice under Section 180 of the Customs Act, and the failure of the lower courts to address these substantive legal arguments. The Court's decision to grant leave signifies that the procedural and evidentiary challenges raised by the petitioner warrant a detailed review of the adjudication process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the adjudicating authority must establish the nature of seized items as gold through a report from the Pakistan Mint Assayer?
  • Whether the failure to serve a show-cause notice under Section 180 of the Customs Act 1969 within the statutory period vitiates adjudication proceedings?
  • Whether the statutory extension of time envisaged by Section 168 of the Customs Act 1969 requires the recording of specific reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji M USA Khan vs Mst. Bakht Mina and others1996 MLD 1420 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Karam Dad vs The State1996 SCMR 1081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-14
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencymurderous assaultleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's post-arrest bail application in a criminal case. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on his omission from the First Information Report, findings of innocence by investigating officers, the applicability of the rule of consistency, and his advanced age of 75 years. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit regarding the role attributed to the petitioner as the master-mind who inflicted an injury on a vital part of the victim, distinguishing his case from a co-accused who received bail. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the bail application but left it open for the petitioner to approach the trial Court for bail specifically on the ground of age. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency does not apply where co-accused persons have distinctly different roles attributed to them in the commission of the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused persons have distinctly different roles attributed to them in the crime?
  • Does the omission of an accused person's name from the First Information Report automatically entitle them to bail?
  • Can an accused person file a fresh bail application before the trial court on the ground of age after the dismissal of a leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Jumma and others vs Abdur Rasheed and others1996 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-07
  route permittransport authoritynatural justiceright of hearingstage carriagecontract carriageleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of a bus route permit to the respondent, Abdur Rasheed. The petitioners, who already held route permits for the Quetta City-Cantonment route, alleged that the Transport Authority granted the respondent's permit without proper publication, publicity, or providing the petitioners an opportunity for a hearing. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the permit was issued through a drawing of lots, which they argued violated the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. They also challenged the High Court's interpretation of the terms 'stage carriage' and 'contract carriage'. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the points raised by the petitioners regarding the procedural fairness of the permit grant and the statutory interpretation of the relevant transport laws required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these legal questions in depth.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of a route permit by a Transport Authority without a hearing violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Is the granting of a route permit by drawing lots a violation of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965?
  • What is the correct legal interpretation of 'stage carriage' and 'contract carriage' under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Imam Bakhsh and others vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar, Lodhran1996 P Cr. L J 1879 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Sarwar vs Syeda Roohi Begum and 19 other1996 CLC 172 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-30
  necessary partiesland acquisitionremandcivil procedurecompetency of suitadversary hearingspecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several Regular First Appeals concerning a dispute over agricultural land in Bahawalpur, where multiple claimants asserted ownership based on various alleged sales and a 1967 court decree. The core legal question was whether the suits were maintainable given that the land had been partially acquired by the Province of Punjab for public use and subsequently sold by the claimants to numerous third-party vendees, none of whom were impleaded as parties. The Court held that the suits were incompetent because the Province of Punjab and the third-party vendees were necessary parties in whose absence no effective decree could be passed. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment and remanded the cases with directions to implead all necessary parties and conduct a fresh trial. The key principle laid down is that a suit is legally defective and cannot proceed if necessary parties are not joined, as the system of justice requires an adversary hearing involving all stakeholders whose rights are directly affected by the litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Are third-party vendees of disputed land necessary parties in a suit for declaration of ownership?
  • Is a suit maintainable if the government department in possession of the disputed land is not impleaded as a party?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case to the trial court to implead necessary parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Fazal Ahmed vs Anjuman Jamia Masjid Haqqani, Burmmee Muslim1996 MLD 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Faiz Bakhsh through Legal Heirs vs Zafarulhaque1996 CLC 1823 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Baqar Ali And Others vs Azad Government Through Its Chief1996 MLD 682 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-07-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Ayub vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 1843 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Arbab Ali vs Depuity Director, Saso and 3 others1996 CLC 245 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-25
  Constitutional petitionsuppression of material factsunclean handsequitable reliefstatutory bodyres judicatarecovery of duesland revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recovery of fertilizer dues by the Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization (SASO) as arrears of land revenue, arguing that a government notification suspended such recoveries. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner suppressed material facts regarding prior litigation and whether the suspension notification applied to SASO. The Court dismissed the petition on multiple grounds. First, it held that the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing information about previously filed and withdrawn constitutional petitions, violating the principle that equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 requires absolute candor. Second, on the merits, the Court held that the suspension notification did not apply to SASO, as it is a statutory body constituted under the Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization Act 1973, not a mere government department. Furthermore, the Court noted that the matter was barred by res judicata due to prior litigation and that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of unsettled accounts. The judgment affirms that equitable relief is denied to those who engage in inequitable conduct or misrepresent facts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a government notification suspending the recovery of provincial government dues automatically apply to statutory bodies functioning within the province?
  • Can a petitioner be denied constitutional relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for suppressing material facts regarding prior litigation?
  • Is the recovery of dues by a statutory body as arrears of land revenue permissible when the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any attempt to settle disputed accounts with the agency?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Alias Peeran vs The State1996 MLD 2029 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Akbar and others vs Gul Baran and 7 others1996 SCMR 1703 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-11
  substituted servicenewspaper publicationcivil law special provisions ordinanceex parte proceedingsnatural justiceservice of summons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal with leave arises from a High Court judgment dismissing a Constitution Petition filed against orders passed under the Civil Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The respondents had filed a civil suit against the appellant for declaration and possession, wherein the appellant was shown as a resident of Afghanistan. Without attempting personal service or postal service, the Assistant Commissioner ordered substituted service via newspaper publication, which contained a differing address, and proceeded ex parte, ultimately leading to a decreed suit and subsequent property transfers. The core legal question was whether the substituted service effected through newspaper publication without attempting personal or postal service constituted due service according to law. The Supreme Court held that while the Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are formally excluded, quasi-judicial authorities must exercise discretion judiciously and ensure proper notice and opportunity of hearing are given to parties, rendering straightaway publication without prior attempts at personal or postal service illegal, and further that the Tribunal failed to issue mandatory notice. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the case was remanded to a court of competent jurisdiction for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether substituted service by publication in a newspaper is valid without first attempting personal or postal service?
  • Are quasi-judicial tribunals acting under the Civil Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 bound to follow principles of natural justice regarding notice to parties?
  • Whether the Tribunal is bound to issue a notice to the defendant before commencing proceedings and submitting its report?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmed vs M. Y. Kherati and anothers1996 MLD 1201 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-05Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmed and 5 others vs Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, Unit ' C' through General Manager, Karachi1996 PLC 239 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Adam Ali Agaria vs Asif Hussain and 2 others1996 MLD 322 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Adam Ali Agaria vs Asif Hussain And 2 Other1996 MLD 322 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Jalil vs Anjuman Jame Masjid HAQUANIs1996 MLD 818 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Jalil vs Anjuman Jame Masjid Haquani1996 MLD 818 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Ghafoor vs Abdul Qayyum and 3 others1996 SCMR 1524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-08
  compromise decreefraudsection 12(2) cpcexecution of decreebanking courtreview applicationinterlocutory orderleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two separate matters arising from petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The first matter relates to proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, where a compromise decree was recalled by the Trial Court upon an allegation of fraud without framing proper issues or allowing the parties an opportunity to lead evidence despite a direct denial on oath by the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether an application under Section 12(2) can be decided without framing issues and recording evidence when material assertions are contested on oath. The second matter involves execution proceedings under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, where a Special Banking Court appointed a Local Commissioner without notice to the decree-holder and subsequently dismissed a review application. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether Section 6(1)(a) of the Ordinance, which confers powers of a Civil Court on a Special Banking Court, permits the review of an interim order passed during execution proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be decided without framing proper issues and recording evidence when the allegation of fraud is denied on oath?
  • Whether section 6(1)(a) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 empowers a Special Banking Court to review an interim order passed during execution proceedings?
  • Is an appeal competent against an interlocutory order of a Special Banking Court that does not dispose of the entire case under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Ghafoor And 2 Others vs Muhammad Ibrahim1996 MLD 138 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
• Haider Zaman vs Suleman and 2 others1996 SCMR 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-19
  leave to appealappreciation of evidenceplea of alibicommon intentioninterested witnessescriminal convictionsafe dispensation of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several connected criminal petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court. The High Court had maintained convictions for murder and attempted murder against certain accused while acquitting others, and in a cross-appeal, had reversed the acquittal of other parties, convicting them for various offences. The petitioners challenged these findings, raising issues regarding the evidentiary value of alibi pleas, the credibility of interested eye-witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration, the impact of abscondence on establishing guilt, and the proper application of common intention under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court correctly analyzed the evidence and applied the principles governing the safe dispensation of criminal justice in reaching its conclusions. Finding that the petitions raised substantial questions regarding the appreciation of evidence and the legal conclusions drawn therefrom, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court's findings were supported by the record and consistent with established legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the plea of alibi necessarily discredit the testimony of eye-witnesses regarding other accused persons?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of interested eye-witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused person serve as evidence of a guilty conscience?
  • What are the principles governing the safe dispensation of criminal justice in the appreciation of evidence by an appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Zaman vs Pakistan Railways, Karachi through Divisional1996 PLC 534 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Haider Shah and 5 others vs Mst. Roshanaee and 9 others1996 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-10
  limited estatecustomary lawMuslim Personal Lawreversionary rightsalienation of landShariat Application Actfeeding the estoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment dismissing an appeal regarding the validity of a land sale by a widow holding a limited estate under customary law. The core legal question was whether the sale was valid to the extent of the widow's share following the termination of limited estates under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962. The Supreme Court held that the sale was valid to the extent of the widow's share. The Court distinguished this case from Said v. Fazal Hussain, clarifying that under the 1962 Act, the widow's limited interest terminated by operation of law, vesting her with full ownership of her Muslim Law share, which she could alienate. Additionally, the Court emphasized that Section 2-A of the 1962 Act rendered any decree affirming a reversioner's customary right to challenge such alienations void and inexecutable to the extent it conflicted with Muslim Personal Law. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to retain the land corresponding to the widow's share in the deceased's estate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a widow holding a limited estate under customary law alienate land to the extent of her share after the enactment of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
  • Does the termination of a limited estate by operation of law under the 1962 Act allow a widow to retain her Muslim Law share?
  • Are decrees affirming a reversioner's customary right to challenge alienations void under Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Fazalehaq vs The State and another1996 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-15
  leave to appealprohibitory clausecriminal procedurereasonable groundsbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of criminal proceedings where the petitioner challenged the relief granted to a respondent. The core legal question concerns whether the material on record is sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent committed an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the respondent to examine the sufficiency of grounds for his release or protection under the statutory provisions governing bail and criminal procedure. The key principle laid down is that the grant of relief in offences falling within the prohibitory clause requires careful examination of the incriminating material available on the record to satisfy the threshold of reasonable grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the material available on the record is sufficient to show the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Ashiq Hussain vs Mst. Abida Begum1996 MLD 588 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12
  execution proceedingsdowercivil revisionfamily court decreeexecuting court jurisdictionNikah Nama
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from execution proceedings concerning a family court decree for the recovery of dower. The core legal question was whether an Executing Court possesses the jurisdiction to look behind a final appellate court's decree and re-interpret the underlying evidence, specifically the Nikah Nama, to determine the quantum of dower. The trial court had decreed both cash and a house as dower, but the appellate court's judgment specifically affirmed the recovery of only the cash amount of Rs. 25,000. The High Court held that the Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-examining the Nikah Nama and attempting to modify the final appellate decree. The Court established the principle that an Executing Court is strictly bound by the terms of the decree as it stands and lacks the authority to go behind the decree to interpret evidence or alter the final determination of the appellate court. Consequently, the revision was accepted, and the Executing Court was directed to limit recovery to the cash amount specified in the final appellate judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Executing Court go behind the decree to interpret underlying evidence like a Nikah Nama?
  • Does an Executing Court have the authority to modify the quantum of dower established by a final appellate court judgment?
  • Is an Executing Court permitted to re-examine the merits of a decree during execution proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Afzal vs Abdur Rehman1996 MLD 291 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Khalil vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1183 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-17
  adulterated drugDrugs Act 1976criminal liability of company directorsGovernment Analyst reportDrug Inspector authoritystatutory interpretationsubstandard drugs
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants, who were directors and managers of a pharmaceutical company, under section 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976, for selling substandard drugs. The core legal questions were whether the presence of particles and fibers in an injection constitutes 'adulteration' under the Act, whether the Government Analyst's report was admissible without proper notification of appointment, whether the Drug Inspector had the authority to inspect the premises, and whether company officials could be convicted without the company itself being impleaded as an accused. The Court held that the presence of particles and fibers, without evidence of being injurious to health or fitting the statutory definition of adulteration, does not constitute an offence. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's case fatally flawed due to the lack of official notifications appointing the Government Analyst and the Drug Inspector. Crucially, the Court held that under section 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976, employees of a company cannot be held criminally liable unless the company itself is impleaded as an accused. The convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of particles and fibers in a drug injection constitute 'adulteration' under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Can employees of a company be held criminally liable under the Drugs Act, 1976, if the company itself is not impleaded as an accused?
  • Is a Government Analyst's report admissible in evidence if no notification of their appointment has been issued under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Does a Drug Inspector have the authority to inspect premises if no notification defining their jurisdiction has been issued under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Faiz Ahmad and 24 others vs Mst. Ghulam Zohran and 14 others1996 SCMR 1207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-10
  dismissal for want of instructionsadverse remarksnatural justiceright to be heardlegal representationexpunction of remarks
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed an appeal for want of instructions from the petitioners' advocate and included adverse remarks against the petitioners. The core legal questions were whether the court was obligated to issue notice to the petitioners before dismissing the appeal when their counsel reported no instructions, and whether the court was justified in making adverse remarks against the petitioners without providing them an opportunity to explain their conduct. The Supreme Court held that when an advocate reports no instructions, the court is justified in dismissing the appeal without issuing further notice, as the report signifies a lack of interest in prosecution. However, the Court held that adverse remarks against a party should not be recorded without first affording that party an opportunity to explain their conduct. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused regarding the dismissal of the appeal but granted specifically to consider whether the adverse remarks were justified and whether they should be expunged from the record.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court required to issue notice to a party when their advocate reports no instructions in an appeal?
  • Can a court record adverse remarks against a party without providing them an opportunity to explain their conduct?
  • Does an advocate reporting 'no instructions' justify the immediate dismissal of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah Baig through his Legal Heirs and others vs Mrs. Naheed Jalil1996 CLC 663 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Hafeezuddin vs K.M.C. through Mayor/Administrator, Karachi and 7 others1996 PLD Karachi 499 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Hafeez-Ul-Islam vs Superintendent, Post Offices, District, Lahore1996 PLC (C.S.) 749 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 870 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Rent Controller, Peshawar and 11 others1996 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-01
  ejectmentrent defaultsublettingpartnership businessfirst date of hearinglandlord and tenantspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a landlord, sought the ejectment of tenants from a shop on grounds of default in rent payment and unauthorized subletting. The Rent Controller initially ordered ejectment, finding the tenants in default and guilty of subletting. However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling that the tenants were not in default because they admitted liability for rent, invoking the proviso to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Regarding subletting, the court held that entering into a partnership did not constitute subletting. This decision was upheld by the High Court. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the lower courts correctly applied the proviso regarding the 'first date of hearing' for rent admission and whether the formation of a partnership business by the tenant constituted subletting under the Ordinance. The Court's grant of leave focuses on the interpretation of statutory provisions governing rent default procedures and the legal definition of subletting in the context of partnership agreements.

  Questions settled

  • Does the formation of a partnership business by a tenant constitute subletting under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • What constitutes the 'first date of hearing' for the purpose of admitting liability to pay rent under the proviso to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ur-Rehman vs Maula Bakhsh and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 1615 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-06
  criminal revisiondismissal of complaintOffence of Zinafraudulent marriagemaintenance decreemala fide complaintpreliminary inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's criminal complaint under Section 5 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Sections 419, 420, 467, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner alleged that his former wife had concealed a prior subsisting marriage at the time of their 1981 Nikah. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court was not bound to order a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 before dismissing a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if, upon considering the complainant's statement, no sufficient ground for proceeding was found. The Court found the complaint to be a mala fide counterblast to a maintenance decree passed in favor of the children born from the wedlock and noted that the long delay and cohabitation precluded any presumption of Zina. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory before dismissing a complaint under Section 203?
  • Can a criminal complaint alleging Zina and fraud be sustained when filed long after the dissolution of marriage and as a counterblast to a maintenance decree?
  • Is a revisional court empowered to interfere with the dismissal of a complaint where the trial court's order is neither perverse nor arbitrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah Khan and others vs Malik Bahadur and others1996 SCMR 1921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-18
  remand of caseres judicatapre-emptioncivil revisioncourt-feejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court arising from a civil litigation over land ownership and pre-emption rights in District Dir. The dispute originated in 1970 through revenue forums, leading to multiple rounds of proceedings before administrative authorities, revenue officers, a writ petition before the High Court, and eventually a civil suit resulting in conflicting judgments between the trial court and the District Judge regarding res judicata. The Peshawar High Court allowed the respondents' revision petition, set aside the lower appellate court's dismissal, and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in remanding the case for a fresh trial instead of deciding the matter on the existing record. The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not attracted due to the absence of a proper prior adjudication on merits, and that the High Court rightly remanded the matter to prevent prejudice and afford parties an opportunity to lead evidence on substantial issues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principle of res judicata applies when earlier proceedings were dismissed for non-compliance with procedural orders rather than adjudicated on merits?
  • Is a High Court justified in remanding a civil case for fresh trial when material issues require judicial determination and full evidence?
  • Whether an administrative authority is competent to restore a dismissed order without complying with appellate remand directions?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Sultan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 853 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. and anothers vs Government of Sindh and others1996 SCMR 1409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-22
  leave to appealinter-provincial tradeexport taxexport dutyconstitutional petitiontaxation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Habib Sugar Mills Limited and Balochistan Particle Board Limited, sought leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Sindh High Court dismissing their constitutional petitions challenging the levy and collection of export tax/duty on the movement of sugar, bagasse, and methanol from the Province of Sindh to other provinces. The core legal question was whether the levy of export tax on goods moved inter-provincially infringes Article 151 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, especially given conflicting views of the High Court and prior pronouncements of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition raised a point of public importance involving conflicting High Court views and prior Supreme Court endorsements, thus warranting deeper consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the maintenance of records for exported material, restrained authorities from charging the export tax in the interim, and stipulated that tax along with mark-up would be payable if the appeals were ultimately dismissed. The key principle laid down is that inter-provincial trade restrictions and taxation issues presenting conflicting High Court interpretations require authoritative examination by the apex court under Article 151.

  Questions settled

  • Does the levy and collection of export tax on goods moved from one province to another infringe Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether conflicting views of the High Court regarding inter-provincial export taxation warrant the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Subhant Chaudhry vs Chairman, Admission Board for Medical1996 MLD 849 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
• Habib Insurance Company Limited vs National Shipping Corporation1996 CLC 638 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Insurance Company Limited vs National Shipping Corporation1996 P.C.T.L.R. 82 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Pakistan Industrial Promoters1996 PLD Karachi 218 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10
  Wafaqi Mohtasibmaladministrationbanking negligenceforged chequesbar of jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib and the President of Pakistan under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983, directing a commercial bank to reverse debit entries and remit mark-up on amounts fraudulently withdrawn from a customer's account through forged cheques and requisition slips. The core legal questions involved whether the Mohtasib had jurisdiction to investigate banking negligence amounting to maladministration when criminal proceedings were pending, and whether the High Court could interfere with findings of fact under its constitutional jurisdiction in light of the ouster of jurisdiction clauses in the Ombudsman's Order. The Sindh High Court held that the bank's gross negligence in honoring forged instruments constituted maladministration within the statutory definition, that pending criminal proceedings regarding individual criminal liability did not oust the Mohtasib's jurisdiction over civil/administrative grievances, and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with findings arrived at within the four corners of the special statute. The key principle laid down is that commercial banks acting as statutory agencies can be investigated by the Wafaqi Mohtasib for maladministration regarding customer accounts, and their special statutory findings confirmed by the President cannot be readily disturbed in writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have jurisdiction to investigate a bank's negligence regarding fraudulent withdrawals when a criminal case concerning the forgery is pending?
  • Can a commercial bank be considered an 'agency' subject to the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine the validity of an action taken or order made under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983?
  • Do civil liabilities arising from banking maladministration fall within the scope of the Wafaqi Mohtasib's investigative powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Hamza Board Mills and others1996 PLD Lahore 633 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11
  winding up petitioninability to pay debtscommercial insolvencycreditor's petitionCompanies Ordinance 1984debt recoverypersonal guaranteehypothecationmark-up financingblank documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerned a creditor's application for the winding up of Hamza Board Mills (respondent No. 1 Company) due to its alleged inability to pay debts. The petitioner, Habib Bank Ltd., had granted significant cash finance facilities to the company, which failed to repay the outstanding principal and mark-up despite repeated reminders and the expiry of the facility. The core legal questions revolved around the interpretation of "inability to pay debts" under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, the effect of a purported bona fide dispute over debt payability, and whether the pendency of a civil suit for recovery barred a winding-up petition. The Lahore High Court held that the company was deemed unable to pay its debts under Section 306 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, establishing commercial insolvency. It ruled that a mere assertion of a dispute or the pendency of a civil suit does not bar a winding-up petition, especially when the debt's due date is clear and the company's conduct shows an inability to pay. The Court ordered the winding up of the company, emphasizing that "inability to pay debts" is distinct from factual insolvency and includes neglect to pay a due debt after notice.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes "inability to pay debts" for the purpose of winding up a company under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit for debt recovery bar the maintainability of a winding-up petition?
  • Can a company successfully dispute the payability of a debt in a winding-up petition by claiming documents were signed blank?
  • Is a company deemed unable to pay its debts if it neglects to pay a due debt after receiving a statutory notice, even if its assets exceed its liabilities?
  • Does the availability of other remedies to a creditor, such as filing a suit for recovery, prevent the Court from ordering a company's winding up?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd vs Hamza Board Mills, Etc1996 P.C.T.L.R. 484 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Anis Ahmad and others1996 SCMR 1329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-20
  petition for leave to appealejectmentpersonal requirementadmissibility of documentsappellate stage objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which allowed the respondents' first rent appeal and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner tenant bank on the ground of personal requirement, reversing the Rent Controller's order dismissing the rent case. The core legal question was whether Photostat copies of documents, admitted and exhibited by the Rent Controller without objection from the opposing party, could be excluded from consideration as inadmissible at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court held that if an objection to the formal proof of a document is not raised at the earliest point of time, it cannot be allowed to be raised at the appellate stage. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision after considering the exhibited documents.

  Questions settled

  • Can an objection to the formal proof or admissibility of a document exhibited without objection before the trial court be raised for the first time at the appellate stage?
  • Whether an appellate court can discard exhibited documentary evidence on the ground that originals were not produced when no objection was raised at the trial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Abdul Wahid Khan1996 CLC 658 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1783 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed Qureshi vs VTH Extra Joint Civil Judge & Family Court1996 CLC 250 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• Gulzar and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 80 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
• Gulzar alias Cara and another vs The State1996 SCMR 977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-18
  reduction of sentencerigorous imprisonmentrobberysentence mitigationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a petition for leave to appeal, which was granted solely to consider the question of sentence. The appellants had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The appellants contended that the sentence awarded was excessive under the circumstances of the case, relying on relevant precedent. The Supreme Court accepted the submission, holding that a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to seven years while keeping the other sentences, including the fine and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, intact.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 can be reduced by the Supreme Court if deemed excessive under the circumstances?
  • What constitutes an appropriate and just sentence for an offence under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when mitigating circumstances are considered?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar & COMPANYs vs The Town Committee and others1996 MLD 370 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Gulshan alias Gulsho vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Gulnaz and another vs The State and 3 others1996 P Cr. L J 486 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Gulfam and 3 others vs Bibi Qudsia Begum1996 CLC 1212 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-21Read full judgment →
• Gul Usman and others vs Mst. Ahmero and others1996 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15
  pre-emptionpre-emption moneyshort depositleave to appealrevision petitioncompetency of suitexecution of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing their revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The underlying dispute arose from a pre-emption suit where the High Court had decreed the suit subject to the deposit of Rs.4,000 as pre-emption money within one month. The petitioners deposited Rs.3,999.70, falling short by thirty paisa's. Consequently, the respondents filed a separate suit for possession by partition, arguing that the pre-emption suit stood dismissed due to the short deposit. The trial court, appellate court, and the High Court all ruled in favor of the respondents, relying on precedent holding that a shortage in pre-emption money results in the dismissal of the suit. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the shortage was unintentional and that the court was competent to extend the time, highlighting a conflict of authority between the Lahore and Peshawar High Courts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether a nominal shortage of thirty paisa's justified dismissing the pre-emption suit and whether the separate suit was barred under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the shortage of deposit of merely thirty paisa's in pre-emption money justified the dismissal of the suit for pre-emption?
  • Whether the suit brought by the respondents against the petitioners was competent in view of the bar contained in section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Rehman and 11 others vs Messrs Peoples Steel Mills, Karachi and another1996 PLC 557 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Gul Qadeem and anothers vs The State1996 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-13
  post-arrest bailcross-F.I.R.leave to appealprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed the petitioners' application for bail in a criminal case registered under F.I.R. No. 212/94 at Police Station Doaba, Kohat. The petitioners were accused of firing at a vehicle, causing injuries to the complainant and a prosecution witness. The defense argued that this incident was connected to an earlier F.I.R. No. 211/94, which involved a cross-version of events where a death occurred. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the two F.I.R.s constitute counter-versions of the same occurrence. Furthermore, the Court sought to examine whether the petitioners' case falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims and whether bail should be refused in such circumstances. The Court's decision to grant leave indicates a necessity to resolve the legal implications of cross-F.I.R.s and the applicability of bail restrictions in cases involving multiple versions of a single criminal incident.

  Questions settled

  • Can a case registered under a subsequent F.I.R. be considered a counter-version to an earlier F.I.R. involving the same incident?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version of a criminal incident affect the applicability of the prohibitory clause in Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should bail be refused to petitioners when the injuries sustained by the complainants are a central factor in the criminal allegation?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawaz vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 848 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawaz vs Gul Bazar and anothers1996 MLD 1406 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawaz vs Gul Bazar And Another1996 MLD 1406 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1856 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The State and another1996 SCMR 1036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-01
  leave to appealacquittalmurderocular accountmedical evidenceinterested witnessescorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent's conviction and death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for a murder committed with a Kalashnikov were set aside and he was acquitted. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in disbelieving the eye-witnesses on the ground of interestedness, wrongly held the medical evidence to be in conflict with the ocular account, and ignored corroborative recovery evidence and motive. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent based on the appreciation of evidence on record, thereby laying down considerations for evaluating ocular testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative recoveries in criminal appeals against acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code based on discrepancies between the medical and ocular evidence?
  • Does the relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased per se render them untrustworthy?
  • What is the legal effect of a weak or unproven motive when dependable eye-witness testimony and corroborative recoveries are available?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 307 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad alias Guli vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 366 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
• Gul Hussain Shah vs Mulazim Hussain Shah1996 SCMR 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-03
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatIslamic law of pre-emptionstatutory noticeMajlisright of Shufa
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged the dismissal of a pre-emption suit by the Lahore High Court, which held that the appellant failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The core legal questions were whether the appellant's evidence sufficiently established the making of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' and whether the service of a notice under Section 31 of the Act could substitute for the performance of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat'. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove the declaration of intent to pre-empt immediately upon gaining knowledge of the sale in the required 'Majlis', as mandated by law. The Court affirmed that 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' is a substantive requirement of Islamic law of pre-emption that cannot be bypassed. Furthermore, the Court held that the statutory notice under Section 31 of the Act is distinct from the essential 'Talabs' and cannot serve as a substitute for them. Consequently, the failure to perform the necessary 'Talabs' extinguished the appellant's right of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Does the service of a notice under Section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 constitute a valid substitute for the performance of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat'?
  • Is the declaration of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' required to be made immediately upon gaining knowledge of a sale in the same 'Majlis'?
  • Does the failure to perform the necessary 'Talabs' result in the extinguishment of the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Gujar Khan and 3 others vs Government of N.W.F.P. And 16 others1996 CLC 1447 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Granada Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others1996 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-07
  interim orderbank guaranteeinsurance guaranteecustoms dutywrit petitionleave to appealmodification of order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Granada Textile Mills Ltd., challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which had declined their request to modify an interim order regarding the release of imported machinery. Initially, the petitioner had obtained the release of imported Ring Spring Frames from Customs by furnishing a Bank Guarantee. Following the disposal of the main writ petition, the petitioner sought to modify the earlier interim order to substitute the Bank Guarantee with an Insurance Guarantee, citing financial difficulties and a precedent where another petitioner was permitted to do so. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether a court should modify a fully complied-with interim order after the main petition has already been disposed of. The Court held that the request was misconceived and untenable, as the petitioner had already complied with the original condition of furnishing a Bank Guarantee to secure the release of goods, and the main writ petition had already been concluded. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's refusal to modify the interim arrangement.

  Questions settled

  • Can an interim order requiring a bank guarantee be modified to allow an insurance guarantee after the main writ petition has been disposed of?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to modification of an interim order based on the financial hardship of the petitioner?
  • Does a court have grounds to interfere with an interim order when the original condition for the release of goods has already been complied with?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore vs Adil Rashid Khan1996 PLC (C.S.) 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service lawdemotionnatural justiceopportunity of hearingabsorptionservice tribunalcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the demotion of the respondent, Adil Rashid Khan. The respondent, formerly a Personal Assistant (BPS-15) in the dissolved Punjab Livestock Dairy and Poultry Development Board, was initially absorbed as a Senior Scale Stenographer (BPS-15) in the Chief Minister's Inspection Team. Following a representation, a corrigendum was issued designating him as a Personal Assistant (BPS-15), and he was subsequently granted a selection grade (BPS-16). However, the government later cancelled this corrigendum without providing the respondent an opportunity for a hearing, effectively demoting him. The core legal question was whether the government could unilaterally cancel the respondent's designation and demote him without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. The Court affirmed that the respondent's position as a Personal Assistant had been confirmed by relevant departmental authorities, and the arbitrary cancellation of his status without a hearing was legally unsustainable, thereby reinforcing the necessity of due process in administrative service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department unilaterally demote a civil servant by cancelling a previous designation order without providing an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does the absorption of a civil servant from a dissolved statutory body into a new department entitle them to retain their previous designation and status?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh through Land Acquisition Officer and another vs Noor Muhammad and 2 others1996 CLC 412 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-02
  land acquisitionreference to courtlocus standigovernment litigationprocedural compliancecivil procedurecompensation award
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order by the Additional District Judge, Kotri, which rejected a reference filed by the Military Estate Officer under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 regarding a compensation award. The core legal questions were whether the Military Estate Officer had the locus standi to file such a reference and whether the appeal was validly instituted. The Court held that under the unamended Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, only the Provincial Government was empowered to make a direct reference to the Court, rendering the Military Estate Officer’s reference incompetent. Additionally, the Court determined that the appeal was procedurally defective because the legal counsel lacked proper authorization from the Government, violating the mandatory requirements of Order XXVII, Rule 1 and Rule 8-B of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court affirmed that statutory rights to challenge acquisition awards are strictly construed, and legal proceedings initiated by government entities must strictly adhere to procedural mandates regarding authorization and representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as both the reference and the appeal were legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Military Estate Officer have the legal standing to file a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is an appeal filed on behalf of the Government competent if the counsel lacks authorization as required by Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be filed by a party other than the Provincial Government prior to the 1992 amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh and 2 others vs Syed Shakir Ali Jafri and 6 others1996 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-13
  land acquisitioncompulsory acquisitionmarket valueadditional compensationexecution proceedingsinterest calculation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from execution proceedings following the compulsory acquisition of land in 1975 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector had initially awarded compensation in 1978, which was subsequently enhanced by the Reference Court in 1987. After multiple rounds of litigation, the Supreme Court was called upon to determine the correct basis for calculating the 15% additional compensation under Section 28-A of the Act (as amended by Sindh Ordinance XXIII of 1984) and the 6% interest under Section 28 of the Act. The Court held that the definition of 'land' under Section 3(a) of the Act includes structures and fixtures permanently attached to the earth, such as brick kilns, huts, and tube wells. Consequently, the valuation of these structures forms part of the market value of the land under Section 23(1). The Court ruled that the 15% additional compensation under Section 28-A must be computed on the total market value, including the value of such structures. Furthermore, the 6% interest under Section 28 is payable on the entire excess compensation, which comprises the market value, the compulsory acquisition charges, and the additional compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the value of structures and fixtures permanently attached to the earth forms part of the market value of 'land' for calculating compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • On what base amount should the 15% additional compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be computed?
  • Whether interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to be calculated on the total enhanced compensation, including compulsory acquisition charges and additional compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan, Secretaries, Works, Communications and Physical Planning vs Tauqir Ahmed Khan and others1996 SCMR 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-09
  land acquisitionstale acquisition proceedingsmarket value compensationmanifest injusticelapse of acquisitionPunjab Land Acquisition Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of Pakistan for the construction of residential accommodation for Central Government employees. The Collector issued an initial notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in 1979, followed by subsequent notifications and a directive under Section 17(4) of the Act. The landowners challenged the proceedings, arguing that under Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, the acquisition lapsed because no notification under Section 5 was issued within one year of the initial Section 4 notification. The High Court declared the proceedings void due to this delay. The Supreme Court, upon review, refused to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that allowing the acquisition to proceed after such an extensive delay—during which land prices had escalated manifolds—would result in manifest injustice, as the compensation would not reflect current market values. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision as consistent with the Provincial Government's instructions regarding the timely finalization of acquisition proceedings, thereby upholding the invalidation of the stale acquisition process.

  Questions settled

  • Can land acquisition proceedings be declared void if they remain pending for an inordinate period causing manifest injustice to landowners?
  • Does the failure to issue a notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act within one year of the Section 4 notification render acquisition proceedings void under the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with acquisition proceedings where the compensation offered would be disproportionate to the current market value due to administrative delays?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Communication Division, Civil Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others vs Zamir Ahmed1996 PLC (C.S.) 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-30
  disciplinary proceedingsgovernment servantsefficiency and discipline rulesauthorised officerauthorityservice tribunalstatutory interpretationremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that set aside disciplinary proceedings against a government servant. The core legal question was whether the roles of "authority" and "authorised officer" under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, could be performed by the same individual, especially following the 1978 amendment to Rule 2(3). The Tribunal had previously held that these roles must be distinct, relying on outdated case law. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred by ignoring the amendment to Rule 2(3), which expressly allows the "authority" to act as the "authorised officer" if no other officer has been designated. The Court clarified that the functions of these two roles can be combined without causing inherent prejudice to the accused, provided the statutory framework is followed. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision, directing the Tribunal to verify whether the specific officer involved was duly empowered under the relevant notification to act as the authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can the roles of "authority" and "authorised officer" under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, be performed by the same person?
  • Does the amendment to Rule 2(3) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, permit the "authority" to act as the "authorised officer" when no other officer is designated?
  • Is the combination of the roles of "authority" and "authorised officer" inherently prejudicial to a government servant facing disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Communication Division1996 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-30
  disciplinary proceedingsgovernment servantsauthorized officerauthorityservice lawstatutory interpretationefficiency and discipline rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that set aside disciplinary proceedings against a government servant on the ground that the same officer acted as both "authority" and "authorized officer," violating Rule 5(1)(iv) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether the 1978 amendment to Rule 2(3) permitted this consolidation of roles. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred by relying on superseded case law and failing to apply the amended Rule 2(3), which expressly allows the "authority" to perform the functions of an "authorized officer" if no other officer is specifically designated. The Court ruled that while the Rules generally contemplate a bifurcation of functions, the amendment provides for situations where no separate authorized officer exists. Furthermore, the Court found no inherent prejudice to the accused in such consolidation, as the authority does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the authorized officer. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, including verification of the relevant notification designating the authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can the same person simultaneously act as both 'authority' and 'authorized officer' under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Does the amendment to Rule 2(3) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, permit the consolidation of roles when no separate authorized officer is designated?
  • Does the consolidation of the functions of 'authority' and 'authorized officer' in a single person inherently cause prejudice to a government servant in disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan and 3 others vs Kamruddin Valika1996 CLC 1086 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01
  temporary injunctionspecific performanceprima facie casebalance of convenienceirreparable lossdamages in alternativelis pendens
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby an injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was granted, restraining the appellants from alienating the disputed land during the pendency of the suit for specific performance and damages. The core legal question revolved around whether the respondent had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for the grant of a temporary injunction, and whether specific performance could be sought when damages had also been claimed in the alternative. The Sindh High Court held that the correspondence between the parties did not constitute a clear, undisputed, and concluded contract of sale, and that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the Court held that claiming damages in the alternative as adequate compensation bars the grant of specific performance under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and that the balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the interim injunction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary injunction can be granted when the existence of a concluded contract of sale is disputed and based merely on fluid correspondence?
  • Does claiming damages in the alternative for breach of contract bar the enforcement of specific performance under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Whether the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 protects a plaintiff against alienation of property during the pendency of a suit, negating the necessity of an interim injunction?
  • Can a plaintiff establish irreparable loss for the grant of a temporary injunction when they have themselves computed the damages for the breach in monetary terms?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, P.W.D., Peshawar and 4 others1996 SCMR 1713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-20
  force majeureact of Godcontract agreementmeasurement bookleave to appealcivil recoveryconstruction of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a revision petition filed by the Government against the concurrent decrees in favor of a contractor for the recovery of money for work done. The respondent contractor was assigned repair work on a canal, which was interrupted by floods. The Engineer In-charge had recorded the quantum of work done in the measurement book, but the Government declined payment, relying on clause 29 of the contract agreement concerning force majeure and damage caused by acts of God. The core legal question is whether the force majeure clause absolves the Government from paying for partly completed work that was already duly measured and recorded by the departmental engineer. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts and the High Court correctly interpreted the contract documents, noting that the force majeure clause must be construed strictly and does not exempt payment for work whose measurements were already officially recorded prior to the damage. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a force majeure clause exempts the Government from paying for partly completed contractual work whose measurements have already been officially recorded by the department?
  • How should a force majeure clause in a contract agreement be construed in relation to damage caused by natural calamities?
  • Does the recording of work done in an official measurement book entitle a contractor to receive payment notwithstanding subsequent damage by floods?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Peshawar and 3 others vs Syed Shah Jehan Shah and 23 others1996 CLC 321 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through District Collector, Abbottabad and 21996 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationreference petitionlimitationpotentiality of landReferee Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed appeals filed by the Government of N.W.F.P. regarding the determination of compensation for acquired land. The core legal questions involved whether the compensation awarded for the acquired land was justified based on its market value and potentiality, and whether the respondents were barred from seeking enhanced compensation due to procedural objections regarding protest, limitation, and the application of section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly assessed the market value based on evidence of the land's potentiality and classification. The Court rejected the petitioners' procedural arguments, clarifying that section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act pertains to the initial acquisition stage and is inapplicable to subsequent objection petitions under section 18. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Referee Court's inquiry is restricted to the objections raised under section 18, and the determination of limitation is a matter for the Collector, not the Referee Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the provision of section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 apply to objection petitions filed under section 18 of the same Act?
  • Is the Referee Court empowered to decide the question of limitation regarding a reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • What is the scope of inquiry for a Referee Court under sections 20 and 21 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Collector, Bannu vs Government of N.-1996 SCMR 1659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-18
  encroachmentpublic propertylocal commissionerland disputevexatious litigationlessee rightstribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a Constitution petition filed by the Government of N.W.F.P. The dispute originated when the Government initiated proceedings under the N.W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977, alleging that respondent No. 8, a lessee of land near a Dak Bungalow, had encroached upon government property. The respondent challenged this notice before the Tribunal constituted under the Act, which, after demarcating the land, found no encroachment and declared the government's notice invalid. The High Court upheld this decision. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct an independent measurement of the disputed site. The Local Commissioner's report confirmed the absence of any encroachment. Finding no merit in the appellant's case and noting that the Government had unnecessarily dragged a citizen through multiple tiers of litigation, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs on the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that government litigation must be based on substantive grounds and not pursued vexatiously against citizens.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government notice for the removal of encroachment can be sustained when an independent local commission finds no encroachment occurred?
  • Can the Supreme Court dismiss an appeal where the appellant fails to demonstrate any fault in the findings of a court-appointed local commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and others vs Muhammad Zaman and others1996 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-08
  civil appeallimitationcross-objectionsconfiscation of treesforest lawMartial Law authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a direct appeal filed under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 70,000 and decreed the same in favour of the respondents. The core legal questions involved whether a respondent can challenge an adverse finding on limitation without filing cross-objections in the first appellate court, and whether the appellant-department could legally confiscate trees under the Hazara Forests Act, 1936 or Martial Law orders without adhering to statutory procedure. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a respondent cannot attack a finding or seek variation of a decree without filing cross-objections, and that confiscation without following the mandatory provisions of the Act or demonstrating lawful authority under Martial Law is unsustainable. The court laid down the principle that an appellate court is not called upon to reconsider a trial court's finding on limitation against a party who failed to file an appeal or cross-objection.

  Questions settled

  • Can a respondent challenge an adverse finding on limitation without filing cross-objections in the appellate court?
  • Whether the appellant-department has the power to confiscate trees without complying with the provisions of the Hazara Forests Act, 1936?
  • Is a suit for recovery barred when a trial court's finding on limitation in favor of the plaintiff has attained finality due to lack of cross-objections by the defendant?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. and others vs Mumtaz Ahmad and 12 others1996 SCMR 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08
  special leave to appealconstitutional petitionseniority and promotionmerit listpublic service commissioneducational service
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had accepted a constitutional petition filed by respondent No. 1. The respondent, an in-service C.T. teacher who had improved his qualifications by passing his B.Ed. examination, was registered on merit for appointment as a Senior English Teacher (S.E.T.). However, the petitioner-department bypassed him and appointed his juniors, defending its action on the grounds that the respondent failed to properly follow up on his application and that subsequent rules placed BPS-16 appointments under the purview of the Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court held that it was the bounden duty of the department to adhere to the registered merit list irrespective of whether candidates actively pursued their cases, and that the department could not defeat a substantial right through its own administrative lapse or subsequent rule changes. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that qualified seniors cannot be bypassed in favor of juniors due to departmental oversight.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the department is bound to follow the registered merit list for appointments irrespective of whether a candidate actively pursued their application?
  • Can a candidate be denied promotion or appointment due to an administrative oversight or omission by the department?
  • Does a subsequent requirement of appointment through the Public Service Commission affect the vested right of a candidate who was unlawfully ignored prior to such rule change?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. and another vs Gul Muhammad Khan and 51996 SCMR 1858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-13
  immovable propertyplaint descriptionremand of caseland acquisitioncivil procedureproperty identification
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the alleged unauthorized acquisition of land by the government for road widening. The respondent filed a suit for possession or compensation, which the trial court dismissed, citing a failure to properly describe the property and non-joinder of necessary parties. The High Court subsequently reversed this decision, granting a decree based on the assumption that land used beyond a specific width was not state property. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court was justified in decreeing the suit without adequate identification of the suit property. The Court held that the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of describing the immovable property in the plaint as required by law. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts and remanded the case to the trial court. The Court directed the respondent to file an amended plaint containing a full description of the suit land and ordered the trial court to recast the issues to determine the actual ownership and extent of land utilized for the road project.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaint concerning immovable property require a description sufficient to identify the property by boundaries or survey numbers?
  • Can a court grant a decree for compensation when the plaintiff has failed to provide a full description of the suit land in the plaint?
  • Is it appropriate for an appellate court to decree a suit based on assumptions regarding land ownership without proper identification of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. and 2 others vs Ali Bas Khan alias Ali Baz Khan1996 SCMR 1427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-24
  land reformsgrant of landinstallment liabilityresumption of landstatutory interpretationnatural justiceaudio alteram partem
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the resumption of land granted under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959. The respondents were granted land in 1959, which they paid for in installments until the enactment of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. Paragraph 28 of the 1972 Regulation discharged grantees from liability for remaining installments. The petitioners, however, resumed the land due to non-payment and transferred it to the Forest Department without notice. The core legal question was whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of discharge from installment liability under the 1972 Regulation, thereby rendering the resumption of land unlawful. The Supreme Court held that since the grant was subsisting on the date the 1972 Regulation came into force, the respondents were entitled to the statutory benefit of discharge. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the resumption was improper and that the respondents should have been afforded an opportunity to claim this benefit. The principle established is that a grantee of land under the 1959 Regulation, whose grant subsists at the time of the 1972 Regulation, is entitled to the discharge of installment liabilities provided therein.

  Questions settled

  • Are grantees of land under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 entitled to discharge from installment liabilities under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Does the benefit of discharge under paragraph 28 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 apply to grants subsisting on the date the Regulation came into force?
  • Is the resumption of land by the government without notice to the grantee legally sustainable when the grantee is entitled to statutory discharge of payment liabilities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1598 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Government of N.-W.F.P. vs Gohar Ali and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 757 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
• Gosar Family Trust and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1996 PTD 939 · Supreme Court of India · 1995-04-28Read full judgment →
• Gohar Zaman Khan vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 468 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Ghullam Abbas And Another vs The State1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1130 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ullah and another vs The State and another1996 SCMR 1887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-02
  murderocular evidencemedical opinionmitigating circumstancesdeath sentencecommutation of sentenceacquittalperverse judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves criminal appeals against a High Court judgment that convicted one accused of murder while acquitting another. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court was justified in acquitting an accused based on a medical opinion regarding weapon types that conflicted with otherwise credible ocular evidence, and whether the death sentence was appropriate when the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acquittal was perverse because it disregarded consistent, trustworthy eyewitness testimony in favor of an unsubstantiated medical opinion. Consequently, the Court restored the conviction of the acquitted accused. Regarding sentencing, the Court established that when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive, leaving the true cause of the murder unknown, this serves as a mitigating circumstance. Accordingly, the Court upheld the convictions but commuted the death sentences of both appellants to life imprisonment, affirming the principle that credible ocular evidence prevails over conflicting expert medical opinions and that unproven motive warrants leniency in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Does credible ocular evidence prevail over conflicting medical opinions regarding the nature of weapons used in a murder?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish an alleged motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique vs Collector Land Acquisition and others1996 MLD 1399 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique vs Collector Land Acquisition And Other1996 MLD 1399 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique and others vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1996 MLD 1430 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique And Others vs Government of N.W F,P. And Other1996 MLD 1430 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabhir vs Judge Family Court, Layyah And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 dvil Cases 338 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 740 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Muhammad Khan and 2 others1996 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1142 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar and others vs Member (Colonies) and others1996 SCMR 1379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-14
  allotment of landMueen IhataAbadkari IhataBoard of Revenueconstitutional jurisdictionlandowner rightsadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the allotment of a 'Mueen Ihata' (a plot reserved for village artisans/servants). The petitioners challenged a High Court judgment that upheld an order by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, which had cancelled the allotment of the disputed Ihata to the petitioners' predecessor, Mst. Karamat Bibi, a landowner. The core legal question was whether a landowner was entitled to an Ihata specifically reserved for Mueens when other 'Abadkari Ihatas' (plots for landowners) were available for allotment. The Supreme Court held that the allotment to the landowner was improper because the disputed plot was reserved for Mueens, and alternative plots suitable for landowners were available at the time of the original allotment. The Court further noted that the petitioners' subsequent inability to secure an alternative plot was due to their own delay in pursuing litigation rather than any legal error by the authorities. The principle established is that administrative allotments must strictly adhere to the specific purpose for which land is reserved, and landowners cannot claim plots reserved for specific classes when other appropriate land is available.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landowner entitled to the allotment of an Ihata specifically reserved for Mueens when alternative plots for landowners are available?
  • Can a petitioner claim relief for the unavailability of alternative plots if that unavailability resulted from the petitioner's own delay in litigation?
  • Does the condonation of delay by an appellate authority in a revenue matter constitute a valid exercise of discretion if the appeal was also decided on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Zafar Iqbal and another1996 P Cr. L J 276 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 303 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →