Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Sajjad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 497 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-20Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Haider and 5 others vs Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Peshawar and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 762 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Bashir vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged an order of the Lahore High Court that recalled the appellant's post-conviction bail without notice. The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. While his criminal appeal against conviction was pending and admitted for regular hearing, bail had been granted to him due to prolonged detention. The complainant subsequently filed a criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence, which was ordered to be heard alongside the appeal. However, the revision petition was later taken up in isolation, and the High Court recalled the bail order without issuing notice or hearing the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in recalling the bail granted in the appeal while hearing the revision in isolation and without serving a show-cause notice on the appellant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's cancellation order, and restored the appellant's bail.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can recall a bail order granted in a criminal appeal while hearing a revision petition for enhancement of sentence in isolation of the appeal?
- Whether an order granting bail can be recalled or cancelled without issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused?
- Sajjad and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-16Read full judgment →
- Sajjad alias Sohni (Police also described his alias as Akram) vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 679 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
- Saira Hashim vs Mian Shamsul Haq and 11 others1995 SCMR 1081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal which is stated to be barred by 213 days. The core legal question concerns whether leave to appeal should be granted despite a significant delay in filing when leave has already been granted in a connected petition arising from the same impugned judgment of the Peshawar High Court. The court held that leave is to be granted in the present case while explicitly leaving the question of limitation open for consideration and final decision at the hearing of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that where leave has already been granted in a connected petition challenging the same judgment, leave may also be granted in a time-barred petition with the limitation issue deferred to the final hearing stage.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal can be granted in a time-barred petition when leave has already been granted in a connected petition?
- Can the question of limitation be left open for consideration at the final hearing of an appeal?
- Saira and anothers vs Zonal Municipal Corporation1995 MLD 113 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-10Read full judgment →
- Saira And Another vs Zonal Municipal Corporation1995 MLD 113 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-10Read full judgment →
- Sain vs Baz and 5 others1995 CLC 550 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
- Saifur Rehman Khan vs Shahab Ud Din1995 MLD 1485 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Khan and others vs Collector, Bahawalpur District and others1995 MLD 1083 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Khan And Others vs Collector, Bahawalpur District And Other1995 MLD 1083 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Alias Bhola vs The State1995 MLD 946 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
- Saifuddin vs Zainuddin and another1995 CLC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil proceedings before the Sindh High Court, involving applications for cross-examination of a deponent and for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased appellant on record. The core legal questions concerned whether a deponent should be called for cross-examination regarding a dispute over the gender of admitted legal heirs, and whether an application for joining the legal representatives of a deceased appellant filed beyond the ninety-day limitation period is barred, as well as the procedural effect of such delay. The Court held that since the status of the persons as legal heirs was not disputed, cross-examination was unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court held that the application for bringing legal representatives on record, having been filed after the expiration of the ninety-idat limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, was time-barred; however, pursuant to Order XXII Rule 3(2) and Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal does not abate, but rather continues in the name of the deceased appellant, and the defaulting legal representatives are debarred from participating in the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that failure to apply for bringing legal representatives on record within the statutory limitation period results in the continuation of the suit or appeal in the name of the deceased party without abatement.
Questions settled- Whether a deponent must be called for cross-examination when the identity of the persons as legal heirs is not disputed?
- What is the limitation period for filing an application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased appellant on record under the Limitation Act?
- Does an appeal stand abated if an application to bring legal representatives on record is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation?
- What are the procedural consequences under the Code of Civil Procedure when legal representatives fail to apply for substitution within the time allowed by law?
- Saif Nadeem Electro Limited through its Chairman vs Collector of Customs and Central Excise_Commissioner Sales Tax, Peshawar and 3 others1995 PTD 1424 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
- Said Farooqi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 212 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
- Said Badshah vs Government of N.W.F.P.1995 PLD Peshawar 164 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-27Read full judgment →
- Said Bacha vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1005 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-15Read full judgment →
- Said Amir vs Manzqor Ellahi and 3 others1995 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed his revision petition, thereby affirming concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding a disputed gift of land. The respondents challenged the validity of a mutation of gift, alleging that the donor, Mst. Bhag Bhari, was suffering from a terminal illness and hospitalized at the time of the alleged transaction, and that the mutation was procured through fraud, forgery, and impersonation. The trial court, affirmed by the appellate court and the High Court, found the transaction to be a sham, noting the lack of evidence regarding the donor's presence before the revenue authorities and the absence of independent advice for the illiterate donor. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction. The Court held that where lower courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, and no misreading or non-reading of evidence is demonstrated, the High Court correctly declined to interfere. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, as the findings of fraud and impersonation remained undisturbed.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere in revisional jurisdiction when there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?
- Does the burden of proof lie on the beneficiary of a gift made by an illiterate woman to establish that the transaction was genuine and that independent advice was available?
- Is a gift transaction valid if it is proven to be a sham procured through impersonation?
- Sahib Khan vs Khan Sardar and 2 others1997 MLD 1832 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Safiullah Siddiqui vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited1995 SCMR 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which set aside an ex parte decree passed against the respondent, Karachi Electric Supply Corporation. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of dues, which was subsequently transferred to another court. While the trial court served notice on the respondent directly, it failed to serve the respondent's counsel. The trial court proceeded ex parte, decreeing the suit in favor of the petitioner. The High Court, however, set aside this decree, reasoning that service of notice should have been effected upon the counsel under Order III, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and suggesting that the failure to do so was an attempt to keep the respondent uninformed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the petitioner's contentions regarding the validity of the service and the interpretation of the High Court's findings constitute substantial questions of law requiring further consideration. The Court stayed the trial court proceedings pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Is service of notice on a party valid when the party is represented by counsel but the counsel was not served?
- Does the failure to serve notice on a party's counsel constitute sufficient grounds to set aside an ex parte decree?
- Can a court proceed ex parte if notice was served on the party directly but not on their counsel?
- Safdar And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 382 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
- Safdar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 141 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
- Safdar Ali vs Ghulam Mustafa And Another1995 MLD 595 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Safdar Ali through his Legal Heirs and 3 others vs Muhammad Malik and 41995 CLC 1751 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a District Judge's order remanding a suit for specific performance of sale agreements. The appellants sought enforcement of agreements executed in 1957 and 1958, which the respondents contested. The District Judge had set aside the trial court's decree, citing the minority of one promisee and limitation issues. The High Court held that while a point of law not raised in pleadings may be agitated in appeal if based on admitted facts, the agreements in question were void under Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872, as they involved reciprocal obligations with a minor. Furthermore, the Court ruled that specific performance could not be granted partially for the remaining major promisees because the consideration was a lump sum, rendering the contract indivisible. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that unless shares and consideration are explicitly apportioned, a contract must be performed as a whole or not at all. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the unenforceability of the agreements.
Questions settled- Can a point of law be raised for the first time in appeal if it is based on admitted facts?
- Is an agreement involving a minor and reciprocal obligations void?
- Can a contract for the sale of land be specifically enforced in part if the consideration is a lump sum and not apportioned?
- Does the benefit of Section 7 of the Limitation Act 1908 extend to major co-promisees in a joint agreement?
- Safdar Ali Randhawa vs Secretary, Agriculture Department, Lahore1995 PLC (C.S.) 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal as withdrawn. The petitioner, a civil servant, had been retired after completing 25 years of service under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Following the dismissal of his initial departmental appeal, the petitioner filed a second, unauthorized appeal to the Secretary of the Agriculture Department, subsequently approaching the Service Tribunal only after that second appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable. The Court held that the petitioner's appeal was time-barred because the filing of a second, unauthorized departmental appeal did not justify the delay in approaching the Service Tribunal. The Court further noted that even if the withdrawal of the appeal before the Tribunal were contested, the delay in filing the initial appeal to the Tribunal rendered the matter non-maintainable. Additionally, the Court clarified that decisions rendered under Shariat jurisdiction regarding retirement provisions do not have retrospective effect. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an unauthorized second departmental appeal extend the limitation period for approaching the Service Tribunal?
- Do judgments rendered under Shariat jurisdiction declaring retirement provisions un-Islamic have retrospective effect?
- Is a service appeal maintainable before the Tribunal if the petitioner fails to approach the Tribunal within the statutory period after the first departmental appeal?
- Safdar Ali Malik vs The Estate Officer, Estate Office, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others1995 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the cancellation of his government accommodation allotment. The petitioner, a civil servant, had his allotment of a government quarter cancelled and re-allotted to another party. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the matter concerned the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, thereby falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged this finding, relying on precedent to argue that the allotment of government housing does not constitute a term or condition of service. The Supreme Court found that the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the nature of government accommodation allotments in relation to service matters required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether such disputes are excluded from the jurisdiction of Service Tribunals and remain amenable to writ jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Questions settled- Does the allotment of government accommodation to a civil servant constitute a term and condition of service?
- Is a dispute regarding the cancellation of government housing allotment within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Can a civil servant challenge the cancellation of government accommodation through a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Saeeda Bano and others vs Mian Muhammad Amin1995 MLD 187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- Saeeda Bang And Others vs Mian Muhammad Amin1995 MLD 187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- Saeed Wasif Ali vs Haseeb Rashid And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 453 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- Saeed Wasif Ali vs Haseeb Rashid and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1575 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- Saeed Wasif Ali vs D.I.G., Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
- Saeed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1203 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
- Saeed Iqbal Wahlah vs The Prime Minister of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 294 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
- Saeed And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 230 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-23Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmed vs The State1995 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail application by the High Court. The petitioner, a retired police department cashier, was accused of misappropriating funds by failing to remit deductions to the District Police Welfare Punjab, leading to an F.I.R. under sections 406, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with section 409 subsequently added. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the alleged mala fide addition of a non-bailable offence. The Supreme Court observed that the case rested entirely on documentary evidence already in the prosecution's possession, rendering the risk of tampering negligible. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the potential merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the strategic addition of section 409 to invoke the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted bail, holding that where evidence is documentary and secured, and the addition of a non-bailable offence appears questionable, bail should be granted.
Questions settled- Does the existence of purely documentary evidence in the possession of the prosecution justify the grant of bail?
- Can the addition of a non-bailable offence to an F.I.R. be scrutinized for mala fide intent during bail proceedings?
- Is bail appropriate when there is no reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence?
- Saeed Ahmed vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 8 others1997 MLD 175 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmed Khan vs The Inspecting. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Survey), Hyderabad Range And Another1995 MLD 155 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-22Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 534 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad & Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-05Read full judgment →
- Saee Muhammad and 7 others vs Superintendent of Police, Mandi1995 P Cr. L J 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Masih vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 708 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Hussain vs Lahore Development Authority, Lahore through DirectorGeneral and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 339 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves several writ petitions challenging the Lahore Development Authority's (LDA) unilateral decision to withdraw plot allocations previously granted to an exemptee owner following compulsory land acquisition. The core legal question was whether the LDA possessed the authority to cancel these vested rights without providing notice or an opportunity of hearing to the exemptee or third-party transferees. The Court held that the impugned orders were illegal, inoperative, and without lawful authority. The ratio of the decision is that once an allocation order has been carried into effect and rights have vested, the authority cannot rescind the order under the principle of locus poenitentiae, as this power is only available before a decisive step is taken. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that administrative actions affecting vested rights must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice, requiring notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court condemned the LDA's mechanical cancellation of rights without a preliminary probe as a violation of law and bureaucratic apathy.
Questions settled- Can an administrative authority unilaterally cancel a plot allocation after it has been carried into effect and rights have vested?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae permit the withdrawal of an order once a decisive step has been taken?
- Is an administrative order passed without notice to the affected parties violative of the principles of natural justice?
- Sadiq Hussain And 3 Others vs Jamal And Another1995 MLD 1159 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Ali Khan and another vs Abdur Rehman and 4 others1995 CLC 977 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
- Sadiq A. Futehally vs Collector of Customs, Bombay1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1187 · Delhi High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Sadia Kfianum vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur through its Chairman and another1995 CLC 282 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
- Sadbar Khan vs Amir Hussain and another1995 PLD Peshawar 14 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a first appeal filed under section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, against the order of the Guardian Judge, Chitral, appointing a respondent as the guardian of the person and property of a lunatic. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court in view of an amendment routing such appeals to the District Court, and whether the Guardians and Wards Act applies to the appointment of a guardian for a lunatic over fifty years of age. The Peshawar High Court held that since the amendment altering appellate jurisdiction had not been extended to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) pursuant to Article 247(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the appeal was competent before the High Court. On the merits, the Court held that the Guardians and Wards Act applies strictly to minors, whereas the appointment of a guardian and manager for the estate and person of a lunatic falls under section 71 of the Lunacy Act, 1912. The impugned order of the Guardian Judge was consequently set aside as without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does an amendment to a federal statute apply to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas without a specific notification under Article 247(3) of the Constitution?
- Can a Guardian Judge appoint a guardian for a lunatic under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
- Which court has the jurisdiction to appoint a manager and guardian for the estate and person of a lunatic under the Lunacy Act, 1912?
- Sabz Ali vs The State1995 MLD 526 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Sabir Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 622 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
- Sabir Ali vs Maroofan Bibi Etc.K.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 18 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
- Saadullah Khan Marri vs Federation of Pakistan_Prime Minister of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 1094 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
- Saadat Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 316 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
- S.M. Yousuf and anothers vs Settlement Commissioner (Sindh) and others1995 SCMR 826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a dispute regarding the transfer of a urban plot under settlement laws, where the appellants claimed entitlement based on possession and permanent construction, while the contesting respondents claimed rights as auction-purchasers. The core legal question concerned the locus standi of the auction-purchaser's successors to challenge the subsequent transfer of the property to the appellants, and whether earlier judgments of the superior courts had already foreclosed the matter. The Supreme Court observed that the contentions raised by the appellants had not been duly considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment. Consequently, with the consent of both parties, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether an auction-purchaser whose auction was set aside has the locus standi to challenge the subsequent transfer of property by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Does a remand order by the Supreme Court confine the lower forums to determine entitlement strictly in terms of the specified instructions and notifications?
- Whether the High Court can alter rights accrued to a party under an earlier final judgment of the superior court?
- S.M. Imamul Islam vs Messrs Pakistan Steel, Karachi1995 PLC 326 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-06Read full judgment →
- S.B. Industries Pakistan Ltd vs Sui Notheren GasK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 387 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- S. Sikandar Ali Etc vs Azhar EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 290 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-12Read full judgment →
- S. N. Namasivayam Chettiar vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.1995 PTD 154 960 ITR 579 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- S. Mukhopadhyay vs T.D. Karamchandani1997 P.C.T,L.R. 286 · Calcutta High Court · 1994-12-02Read full judgment →
- S. Muhammad Saeed through Legal Heirs vs M/s. Glamour Properties1995 CLC 315 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the Rent Controller's ex parte ejectment order and the subsequent dismissal of an application to set aside that order. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in passing an ex parte order when the statutory requirements for service of summons were not strictly followed. The High Court set aside the ex parte ejectment order and the order refusing to set it aside, remanding the case for a fresh decision on merits. The court held that substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires the court to be satisfied that the defendant is avoiding service. Furthermore, strict compliance with procedural requirements—such as sending notices by Registered Post A.D. as mandated by Order 5, Rule 10-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and ensuring bailiff endorsements are witnessed as per Order 5, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908—is mandatory. Failure to adhere to these procedural safeguards renders ex parte proceedings legally unsustainable, as the Rent Controller must verify compliance with all ordered modes of service before proceeding.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller required to verify compliance with all ordered modes of service before passing an ex parte order?
- Does the failure to send notice by Registered Post A.D. as required by Order 5, Rule 10-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 invalidate subsequent ex parte proceedings?
- Can a bailiff's endorsement of service be considered valid if it is not witnessed as required by Order 5, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Must a court be satisfied that a defendant is intentionally avoiding service before ordering substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- S. Masood H. Zaidi and another vs Abul Hassan1995 PLC 67 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
- S. Ghulam Dastgir and Sons vs Union Insurance Company of Pakistan1995 PLD Lahore 290 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for the winding up of an insurance company filed before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain a winding-up petition under the Insurance Act, 1938, given that the Act defines 'Court' specifically as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district or a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The Court held that the Lahore High Court lacks ordinary original civil jurisdiction and, therefore, is not the competent forum for such petitions under the Insurance Act, 1938. The Court determined that the special provisions regarding jurisdiction contained within the Insurance Act, 1938, prevail over the general provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition must be filed before the District Court, which serves as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. The petition was ordered to be returned to the petitioner for presentation before the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Does the Lahore High Court have the jurisdiction to entertain a winding-up petition for an insurance company under the Insurance Act, 1938?
- Which court is defined as the 'Court' competent to order the winding up of an insurance company under the Insurance Act, 1938?
- Do the special jurisdictional provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938, prevail over the general provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, regarding winding-up petitions?
- S. B. Industries Pak. Ltd. vs Sui Notheren Gas1995 PLD Lahore 117 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- S H Er Zada vs Zowar Din and others1995 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition against the dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The petitioner had filed a suit for possession by pre-emption, and the trial court ordered the deposit of pre-emption money. Following the vendee's written statement disclosing a higher sale consideration, the trial court ordered the petitioner to deposit additional funds. The petitioner failed to comply fully with the court's order regarding the deposit of cash and security, resulting in the dismissal of the suit by the trial court. This dismissal was upheld through various appellate and revisional forums and eventually by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's failure to comply with the trial court's order for the deposit of the pre-emption amount justified the dismissal of the suit. The Court affirmed that the forums below correctly exercised their jurisdiction in dismissing the suit for non-compliance, and found no merit in the contention that the High Court erred in its reasoning regarding the absence of 'Talabs'.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a pre-emptor to comply with a court order regarding the deposit of pre-emption money justify the dismissal of the suit?
- Can a court dismiss a pre-emption suit for non-compliance with an order to deposit additional security after the sale consideration is disclosed in the written statement?
- Rukhsana Yasmin vs General Manager (Welfare), Fauji Foundation, Rawalpindi and another1995 PLC 237 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
- Rubina Shahzadi vs Managing Director, Piac, Karachi and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 822 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1991-02-14Read full judgment →
- Rubina Gul vs Hashim Raza Khan1995 PLD Lahore 283 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
- Rozal vs The State1995 MLD 942 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ross Masud vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 21995 PLC (C.S.) 930 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
- Roshan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1388 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Roshan and anothers vs The State and another1995 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed an application for restoration and re-hearing of a constitutional petition as non-maintainable due to a delay of five years after the main petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question involved the sufficiency of the explanation for the five-year delay in seeking restoration and whether a belated plea regarding minority at the time of the trial could be raised. The Supreme Court held that the explanation provided for the delay was vague, contradictory, and factually incorrect, and that the plea of minority under the Sindh Children Act could not be permitted to be raised for the first time at such a belated stage when it was not specifically urged in the memorandum of the constitutional petition before the High Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as having no merits.
Questions settled- Whether an application for restoration of a constitutional petition dismissed for non-prosecution can be maintained after an unexplained delay of five years?
- Can a plea of minority under the Sindh Children Act be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not specifically urged in the constitutional petition before the High Court?
- Rohtaz Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 379 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
- Road Transport Board, N.anothersW.F.P. and others vs Mst. Gul Zarina1995 CLC 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for damages filed by the legal heirs of a deceased victim against the Road Transport Board following a fatal bus accident. The core legal questions were whether the accident, caused by a bus running over the deceased, constituted an 'Act of God' and whether the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied to establish negligence. The Court held that the defendants failed to prove the accident was an 'Act of God' or that the bus was driven with due caution. Applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court inferred negligence from the circumstances of the accident. The Court clarified that damages in tort cases are pecuniary recompense for immediate dependents, not an inheritance, and thus restricted the award to the deceased's wife and minor daughters. The key principles laid down are that a road accident involving a public vehicle is not an 'Act of God' but a matter of negligence, and that the rule of res ipsa loquitur allows for an inference of negligence where the cause is unknown.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to road accidents where the specific cause of the incident is not directly proven?
- Can a fatal road accident involving a public transport vehicle be legally classified as an 'Act of God'?
- Are damages awarded in a tortious fatal accident claim considered an inheritance or pecuniary recompense for dependents?
- Is the burden of proof on the defendant to rebut the presumption of negligence once an accident is proven?
- Rizwan Shafqat vs Muhammad Farooq1995 P Cr. L J 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Masood vs Haji Muhammad Rafiq and anothers1997 MLD 283 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-01Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Anwar vs The State1995 SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 13-2-1993, whereby the petitioner's conviction under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was maintained, but the sentence of death was reduced to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of the conviction based on direct eyewitness testimony, motive, and absconsion, notwithstanding the acquittal of a co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the petitioner based on credible eyewitness accounts and proved absconsion warranted no interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing the principle that differing judicial outcomes between co-accused are legally sound where distinct roles, specific overt acts, and evidence of absconsion are established against the convicted party.
Questions settled- Whether conviction can be sustained on the same set of evidence upon which a co-accused was acquitted when a specific overt role is attributed to the convicted person?
- Does the failure to produce warrant documents on file vitiate the proof of absconsion when police testimony confirms proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding eyewitness testimony be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Riffat Hayat vs Judge Speical Court for Suppression of Terrorist1995 SCMR 1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition seeking leave to appeal concerning the jurisdiction and procedure of the Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The central legal issue raised was whether, in light of the special provisions embodied in Section 5 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 regulating the conditions for taking cognizance of an offence, a private complaint could be validly entertained by the Special Court after a police report (challan) had already been submitted in the matter naming all the accused persons, including those placed in column No. 2. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine and determine this substantial question of law regarding the interplay between police challans and private complaints under the special enactment. Furthermore, the Court directed that the interim relief granted on 12-02-1994 shall continue to remain operative pending the final decision of the petition.
Questions settled- Can a Special Court entertain a private complaint under Section 5 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 after a police challan has already been submitted in the same case?
- Whether the inclusion of accused persons in column No. 2 of a police challan permits the filing and entertainment of a subsequent private complaint before a Special Court?
- Does Section 5 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 bar cognizance via a private complaint when all accused persons are already named in a police report?
- Riazuddin And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 502 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
- Riaz vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 959 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
- Riaz Masih alias Mithoo vs The State1995 SCMR 1730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Shamoon. The core legal question was whether the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution’s eye-witnesses, alongside the recovery of a blood-stained knife, provided a sufficient basis for conviction. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The Court found the ocular evidence unreliable, noting that one witness was omitted from the FIR despite being present, and the other witness had been detained as a suspect by the police, rendering his testimony unsafe. Furthermore, the Court determined the recovery of the weapon was doubtful, as it occurred while the appellant was in police custody, lacked independent witnesses, and appeared suspicious. The Court laid down the principle that for the safe administration of criminal justice, if reasonable doubt exists regarding a witness's presence or impartiality, their testimony must be excluded. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that recovery evidence alone is insufficient for a murder conviction.
Questions settled- Is the uncorroborated testimony of a witness who was previously detained as a suspect sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
- Does the omission of an eye-witness from the FIR, despite their alleged presence, create sufficient grounds to discard their testimony?
- Is a recovery of a weapon effected solely by police officials, without independent witnesses, sufficient to support a conviction for murder?
- Riaz Hussain Shah vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which set aside the withdrawal of a criminal case against the petitioner and ordered it to be deemed pending before the Special Court. The petitioner faced criminal cases under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, in connection with which the District Magistrate had ordered the withdrawal of prosecution. The High Court, taking suo motu notice during the hearing of another appeal involving the same police officials, set aside the withdrawal order. The core legal questions involve the applicability of section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, the finality of orders passed by the Special Court, and the scope of the High Court's suo motu jurisdiction in light of ouster clauses. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider these contentions, issued notice to the Attorney-General, and stayed the operation of the impugned order subject to the petitioner furnishing surety bonds.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 remain intact and applicable after the promulgation of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975?
- Does Section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to take suo motu notice of an order withdrawing a case?
- Whether an order of withdrawal of a case passed by a Special Court attains finality precluding interference by the High Court?
- Can the provisions of section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be invoked exclusively for the purpose of bail and not for other matters?
- Riaz Alias Riaz Ahmad vs The State1995 MLD 229 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-02Read full judgment →
- Riaz alias Riaja and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 79 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
- Riaz Alias Riaja And Another vs The State1995 MLD 79 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad, Patwari vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1144 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs The Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 14 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Customs1995 PLC (C.S.) 435 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad And 2 Other vs SHO, P.S. City BahawalnagarK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 279 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
- Reiimat Ali alias Rehma vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah vs The State1997 MLD 1877 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 380 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Shah and 2 others vs Amir Gul and 3 others1995 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional writ petition challenging their ejectment from a commercial shop. The landlords sought ejectment on grounds of personal requirement, default, and subletting. The petitioners contested the action, arguing that the fresh ejectment petition was barred by res judicata under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 due to the dismissal of prior ejectment applications on similar grounds. The Rent Controller and Additional District Judge concurrently held that a fresh cause of action existed because the landlord had retired, remained jobless, and required the premises for his family, which findings were upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a withdrawal with permission to file a fresh petition based on a subsequent, genuine cause of action prevents the bar under Section 14, and concurrent findings of fact on personal requirement cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 bar a fresh ejectment petition if a previous petition was withdrawn with permission to file afresh on a new cause of action?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's personal requirement be interfered with by the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Rehmat Noor and 3 others vs Ghulam Muhammad and another1995 CLC 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Noor and 3 Other vs Ghulam Muhammad and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 291 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
- Rehmat alias Rehma Masih vs The State1995 SCMR 733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302/34, P.P.C., with a sentence of imprisonment for life and fine. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence relied upon by the courts below was sufficient to sustain the conviction, particularly when a co-accused facing the same evidence had already been acquitted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene was chancy and unnatural, and the evidence on record was insufficient to warrant a conviction in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice. Finding the appellant's case indistinguishable from that of the acquitted co-convict, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate acquittal and release of the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused are implicated on identical and insufficient evidence, the benefit of acquittal extended to one must be applied to the others.
Questions settled- Whether ocular evidence of witnesses whose presence at the scene of occurrence is chancy and unnatural can form the basis of a conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does an acquittal granted to a co-accused on the basis of insufficient ocular evidence extend to another co-convict whose case is indistinguishable?
- Rehmat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 441 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
- Rehman Flour Mills vs WAPDAK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 205 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →