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.

• Qalandro Alias Nazro vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 107 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-13Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Abbas vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 693 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Yar Haider Alias Qaisar Mastana vs The State1995 MLD 650 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Qaisar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1132 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Khan vs Province of Balochistan through Secretary, Department of Education, Quetta and others1995 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-05
  constitutional petitionnon-joinder of partiesadmission criteriatechnical groundseducational admissionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which held that the petition was not maintainable due to the non-joinder of a candidate (Muhammad Iqbal) who had secured fewer marks than the appellant. The appellant had sought admission to an Engineering College in Balochistan, which was denied on the ground that he had completed his education outside the province. The appellant challenged this decision, specifically targeting the admission of another candidate, Ghulam Mustafa, who had also studied outside the province but was granted admission. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition on the technical ground of non-joinder of a party against whom no relief was sought. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal on such technical grounds was improper, particularly where the appellant's case was at par with the respondent (Ghulam Mustafa) and no relief was claimed against the omitted party. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the High Court for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed solely on the ground of non-joinder of a party against whom no relief is claimed?
  • Is it necessary to implead all successful candidates in a petition challenging an admission process when the petitioner only seeks relief against a specific candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Ifraheem Saroya vs Returning Officer and 2 others1995 CLC 917 · Election Tribunal · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux Khoso vs Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and 31995 PLC (C.S.) 362 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 531 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Hussain vs The State through Advocate General1995 P Cr. L J 789 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-01-14Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Hussain vs The State through Advocate General, Azad Jammu1995 P Cr. L J 803 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-01-14
  murderdeath sentencechild witnesscompetency of witnesspurgation of witnessestazkia-tush-shahoodrelated witnessinjured witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the concurrent judgments of the Shariat Court and the Additional District Criminal Court, Pallandri, which convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of three persons and sentenced him to death, alongside convictions under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 15 of the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act. The core legal questions involved whether the failure to conduct purgation (Tazkia-Tush-Shahood) of witnesses under the Islamic Penal Laws vitiated the trial, whether minor witnesses were competent to testify without a preliminary voir dire inquiry, and whether related and injured eyewitness testimony was sufficiently corroborated. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that since the conviction was anchored under the general penal code rather than pure Qisas, purgation was not mandatory, and that child witnesses aged 12 and 14 were competent and intelligent under Article 3 of the Law of Evidence as they understood questions and gave rational answers. The court affirmed the death sentence and convictions under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while setting aside the concurrent conviction under Section 15 of the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act as legally redundant. The key principles laid down include that competency of a child witness depends on intelligence rather than a rigid age threshold, and that mere relationship does not discredit natural eyewitnesses in the absence of proven enmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to conduct purgation of witnesses under Islamic penal law renders a conviction null and void when the accused is tried and convicted under the general Penal Code?
  • Is a child witness aged twelve or fourteen legally disqualified from testifying without a preliminary voir dire inquiry by the trial court?
  • Does the mere relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable without evidence of prior enmity?
  • Whether a simultaneous conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 15 of the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act for a single murderous attempt is legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadeer alias Bodi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 44 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
• Qab Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 393 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Punjab Trading Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Simla., .1995 PTD 170964 I T R 335 · Punjab High Court · 1963-09-24Read full judgment →
• Punjab Trading Co. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Simla1995 PTD 170 · Punjab High Court · 1963-09-24Read full judgment →
• Punjab Small Industries vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 14, Companies Zone-I, Lahore ,1995 PTD 431 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Punjab Small Industries Corporation vs Province of PunjabK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 2 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Punjab Seed Corporation and 2 others vs Punjab Labour Appellate1995 PLC 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-28
  permanent workmantermination of serviceindustrial relationslabour lawfinding of factgrievance petitiontemporary appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the termination of a Field Supervisor by the Punjab Seed Corporation. The respondent, initially appointed on a temporary basis, served for over a year before his services were terminated on the grounds that they were no longer required. The respondent challenged this termination under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, asserting his status as a permanent workman entitled to procedural protections. While the Labour Court initially upheld the termination, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, finding the respondent to be a permanent workman. The Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed the Corporation's constitutional petition, affirming the Tribunal's findings. The Supreme Court, upon review, held that the determination of the respondent's status as a permanent workman was a finding of fact based on evidence of continuous service exceeding six months. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower forums, ruling that the respondent had attained the status of a permanent workman under the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee who serves for more than six months without complaint attain the status of a permanent workman under the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can a finding of fact made by a Labour Appellate Tribunal based on evidence be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a termination of service valid if the employee has attained the status of a permanent workman but was not afforded due process?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Muhammad Tufail1995 PLC 386 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation through District Manager, P.R.T.C.1995 PLC 374 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation through District Manager, Lahore1995 PLC 380 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation through District Manager, Intercity1995 PLC 571 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-20Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore vs Ghulam Abbass and others1995 PLC 734 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Board (Defunct) through District Manager, Jhang vs Muhammad Siddique1995 PLC 568 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province through District Collector, Sargodha vs Muhammad Yar1995 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-02
  petition for leave to appealsuit for possessionadverse possessionillegal possessionlimitation pleaprovincial government
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Punjab Province against three concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which had decreed the respondent's suit for possession in respect of land measuring 35 kanals and 1 marla. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner could claim adverse possession over the suit land based on entries in the Register Girdawari indicating possession by the Forest Department. The Supreme Court held that the petition was devoid of force, affirming the lower courts' findings that the petitioner had no title and its possession was illegal, as there was no material to establish the starting point of adverse possession to the knowledge of the respondent, and further noted that it does not befit the Provincial Government to expropriate a citizen's property on the plea of limitation. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Provincial Government claim adverse possession without establishing the date or year it commenced to the knowledge of the owner?
  • Whether a suit for possession can be defeated by a plea of limitation or adverse possession raised by a party with no title?
  Read full judgment →
• Punhoon vs The State1995 SCMR 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-23
  Criminal appealMurder convictionAcquittal of co-accusedDistinguishable evidenceOcular evidenceCorroborationRecovery of weaponBallistic expert reportBenefit of doubtDefence evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the High Court's decision to uphold the appellant's murder conviction under Section 302, P.P.C., while acquitting co-accused, arguing that the appellant's case was at par with those acquitted. The core legal question was whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained on evidence similar to that which led to the acquittal of co-accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's case was distinguishable from the acquitted co-accused. The court found that the First Information Report specifically attributed the first fatal shot to the appellant, and this ocular evidence was corroborated by the recovery of a gun from him, supported by the Ballistic Expert's positive report. The principles laid down affirm that a conviction can be maintained against one accused even if co-accused are acquitted, provided there is specific, corroborated evidence distinguishing their involvement, and that interested or uncorroborated defence evidence may be disregarded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained against one accused when co-accused are acquitted on similar prosecution evidence?
  • What factors can distinguish the case of one accused from co-accused for the purpose of upholding a conviction?
  • Is the evidence of a related Mashir (witness to recovery) sufficient for corroboration if supported by other evidence?
  • Can defence evidence be disregarded if it lacks corroboration or appears interested?
  • Does specific attribution in the FIR, corroborated by forensic evidence, distinguish an accused's case from others?
  Read full judgment →
• Punhal And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1642 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Public Health Engineering Employees' Union, Hyderabad through its1995 PLC 682 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-27Read full judgment →
• PRTB (Defunct through Managing Director, Lahore) and 2 others vs Habib1995 PLC 578 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-04Read full judgment →
• Provincial Urban Development Board through its Managing Director vs Mumtaz Khan and 3 others1995 CLC 1610 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Provincial Urban Development Board through its Managing Director vs Mst. Shireena and 2 others1995 CLC 1606 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Collector, Lahore and another vs Fazal1995 PLC 194 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, Etc vs Akhtar and Company, EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 398 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs F.Mstj Khursh1d Fatima And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 710 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-15Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary Education and others vs Mian1995 SCMR 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04
  ejectmentwilful defaultrent restrictionrequisition of propertylandlord and tenantlump sum paymentconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an ejectment petition filed by a landlord against the Education Department for default in rent payment and damage to the rented building. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the petition, but the Additional District Judge allowed it. The High Court subsequently upheld the ejectment order and declared the government's requisition of the premises illegal. The core legal question was whether the default in rent was 'wilful' or excused by a practice of lump-sum payments, and whether the requisition order precluded eviction. The Supreme Court held that the default was indeed wilful, as there was no evidence of a long-standing practice of accepting lump-sum payments, distinguishing the case from Mst. Inayat Begum. Furthermore, since the requisition order was declared illegal, it did not affect the ejectment proceedings. The Court affirmed the principle that where concurrent findings of fact establish wilful default in rent payment, and no evidence supports a custom of lump-sum payments, an order of eviction is legally sound and warrants no interference. The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellants four months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Does a practice of accepting lump-sum rent payments necessarily negate a finding of wilful default in an ejectment petition?
  • Can an order of requisition of property, subsequently declared illegal, affect pending ejectment proceedings?
  • Is the Supreme Court bound by concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of rent default made by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Mrs. Dr. Shahida Shah and others1995 SCMR 948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14
  consent orderlimitationcondonation of delaytransfer of government servantjudicial reviewadministrative representation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a consent order passed by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court regarding the transfer of a government employee, respondent No. 1, from her position as Additional Medical Superintendent. The High Court had directed the Provincial Government to have the Chief Minister decide the respondent's representation against her transfer within a week, with the respondent agreeing to report for her new assignment if the decision went against her. The Province of Punjab contested the High Court's use of the word 'directed' in the order, arguing it was merely a consent arrangement. The Supreme Court found the petition barred by 36 days and held that the reasons provided for condonation of delay were insufficient. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. However, the Court clarified that the High Court's direction should be interpreted as a mutual arrangement between the parties, and it remained open for the Chief Minister to decide the representation, with the respondent bound to comply with that decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it is barred by 36 days without sufficient cause for condonation?
  • Can a court order based on a consent arrangement be recharacterized as a mere arrangement rather than a mandatory direction?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab And Another vs Fazal Din and SonsK.L.R, 1995 Labour & Service Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-25Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and 2 others vs Muhammad Akhtar & Company1995 CLC 351 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Proprietor, Amreen Glass Bangles Industries, Hyderabad vs Jan1995 PLC 407 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
• Project Director, Scarp, North Rohri Noshero Feroz and another vs Malhar Khan1995 PLC 403 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• Project Director, Scarp, Khairpur and 3 others vs Muhammad Mehar1995 PLC 329 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-25Read full judgment →
• Professor Shahid Hussain vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore And Three OtherK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 99 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Prof. Muhammad Sharif vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs (Finance Division) through Secretary and another1995 PLD Karachi 545 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Prof. Muhammad Akram vs Secretary, Education1995 PLC (C.S.) 114 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Badshah Gul and others vs Prof. Dr. Shafiq Ahmad and others1995 SCMR 1859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-06
  inter se senioritycivil servicepost vs gradeamalgamation of cadresseniority listservice tribunalregular appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the determination of inter se seniority of Professors following the amalgamation of the Khyber Medical College and the Post-Graduate Medical Institute. The core legal question was whether seniority should be determined based on the date of continuous regular appointment to the post or based on the date of grant of a higher grade (BPS-21). The Supreme Court held that the merger notification explicitly mandated that seniority be determined by the date of continuous regular appointment to the respective posts. The Court clarified that 'post' and 'grade' are distinct concepts; a higher grade granted for financial purposes does not constitute a promotion to a higher post and does not override the seniority established by the date of regular appointment to the post. Consequently, the Court set aside the Service Tribunal's judgment, affirming that the government correctly rectified the seniority list to reflect the date of appointment to the post rather than the date of grade advancement, and held that the government is not estopped from correcting errors in a tentative seniority list before it attains finality.

  Questions settled

  • Is inter se seniority of civil servants determined by the date of appointment to a post or by the date of grant of a higher grade?
  • Does the grant of a higher grade to a civil servant constitute a promotion to a higher post for the purpose of seniority?
  • Can the government correct errors in a tentative seniority list after the period for filing objections has expired but before the list is finalized?
  • Are 'post' and 'grade' distinct concepts in the context of civil service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Oghi vs Mir Afzal1995 CLC 525 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-15
  civil revisionrejection of plaintjurisdiction of civil courtservice matterinterlocutory ordermaterial irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the petitioner and other education department officials. The petitioner sought the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action, was barred by the Specific Relief Act 1877, and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction over service matters. The trial court rejected the application, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the trial court possessed the jurisdiction to decide the application and had committed no illegality or material irregularity in its order. Furthermore, the Court noted that the issues raised by the petitioner were already framed as issues in the suit, and partial evidence had been recorded. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, ruling that the matter should proceed to a decision on merits after full evidence is recorded, rather than being disposed of at the interlocutory stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 confer a substantive right to a petitioner?
  • Under what conditions can the High Court interfere in a revision petition against an order of a subordinate court?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an order rejecting an application for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Prince Glass Works Limited, Karachi vs The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 88 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Presicion Rubber Products Workers Union vs Bashir Rehmani And OtherK.L.R 1997 Labour & Service Cases 174 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Present: Salem Akhtar, Zia Mehmood Mirza and Fazal Karim, Hbahadur1995 PLD Supreme Court 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-19
  retracted confessiondeath sentencemurdercorroborationcriminal appealmitigation of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the judgment of the High Court confirming his death sentence for the murder of Waris Khan, whose dead body was recovered following a dispute over the sale price of a mule. The core legal question concerned the evidentiary value and treatment of a retracted judicial confession, specifically whether it must be read as a whole and corroborated in material particulars. The Supreme Court held that a retracted confession can form the basis of a conviction if found voluntary and true, but as a rule of prudence, it requires material corroboration, and it must be considered as a whole—incorporating both inculpatory and exculpatory parts. The Court established that where a sudden altercation arises over money in a secluded place, leading to a scuffle where the deceased initiated stone-pelting, the lack of premeditation warrants mitigating the sentence from death to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis of a criminal conviction?
  • Whether a retracted confession must be read as a whole including its exculpatory parts?
  • Is material corroboration required as a rule of prudence before acting upon a retracted confession?
  • Does a sudden altercation over a financial dispute without premeditation justify converting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Premier Tobacco Industries Limited vs Deputy Registrar of Trade1995 MLD 1464 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
• Premier Cloth Mills Ltd. vs Govt of the PunjabK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 141 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
• Postmaster General Sindh, Hyderabad vs Illahi Bux Chandio1995 PLC 334 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-25Read full judgment →
• Port Services (Private) Limited vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLD Karachi 374 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-19
  constitutional petitionadministrative discretionjudicial reviewtender processnatural justicepublic contractPort Qasim Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the Port Qasim Authority's decision to negotiate an implementation agreement for a container terminal with the third respondent, alleging unfair exclusion and violation of natural justice. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority exercised its statutory discretion arbitrarily or unfairly in the tender process, thereby warranting judicial intervention under Article 199 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the selection process was transparent, based on independent expert evaluation by NESPAK, and devoid of illegality. The court affirmed that while government bodies must act fairly and are subject to judicial review regarding administrative discretion, courts cannot substitute their own discretion for that of the authority if the decision-making process is reasonable and not arbitrary. The principle established is that where a statutory authority acts in good faith, relies on expert assessment, and follows a fair procedure, the court will not interfere with the merits of the administrative decision, as the authority is mandated to exercise its discretion, not to exercise it in any specific manner.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with the exercise of statutory discretion by a public authority in awarding a contract if the process was transparent and not arbitrary?
  • Does the failure to provide a personal hearing at every stage of a tender evaluation process violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Is a government authority required to follow an advisory letter from the federal government regarding tender procedures if the authority has independent statutory discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Pooran Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Pomi vs The State1995 MLD 927 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Pirzada Noor-Ul-Habib vs Cantonment Board, Nowshera and 4 others1995 CLC 1491 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-23Read full judgment →
• Pirax vs Ghulam Rasool and 13 others1995 MLD 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
• Pirax vs Ghulam Rasool And 13 Other1995 MLD 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Younas Shah and 3 others vs Muhammad Hassan and 14 others1995 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 64 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh alias Peela vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Phassco Hardware Co. vs The Government of Pakistan and 3 othersPTCL 1995 CL. 65 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
• Peter John Sahotra vs The Returning Officer and 24 others1995 CLC 687 · Election Tribunal · 1994-11-24
  election petitionverification of pleadingsmandatory provisionselection tribunaldismissal of petitionnon-compliancerepresentation of the people
  Summary & questions settled

  This election petition challenged the return of a successful candidate in the General Election held on October 7, 1993, for a National Assembly non-Muslim seat (Christians). The contesting respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the competency of the petition, arguing that the petitioner failed to provide complete names and addresses of respondents, and that the petition, its annexures, and schedules were not properly signed and verified in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Election Tribunal examined whether the requirements of signing and verifying election petitions and annexed documents are mandatory. The Tribunal held that compliance with sections 54 and 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 is mandatory, and that failure to properly sign and verify the petition and its annexures entails the mandatory dismissal of the petition under section 63 of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the omission of proper verification and supporting affidavits rendered the petition defective and incapable of proceeding to trial, resulting in its dismissal with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions relating to the signing and verification of an election petition and its annexures under the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are mandatory or directory?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to verify an election petition and its accompanying documents in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Is an election petition liable to be dismissed under section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 for non-compliance with section 55 of the said Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Peter John Sahotra vs Returning Officer and others1995 CLC 394 · Election Tribunal · 1994-11-24
  election petitionmandatory complianceverification of pleadingsdismissal of petitionRepresentation of the People ActCode of Civil Procedureelection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This election petition challenged the result of the 1993 National Assembly election for non-Muslim seats, alleging the petitioner received more votes than the declared winner. The core legal question was whether the failure to properly sign and verify the election petition and its annexures, alongside incomplete respondent addresses, rendered the petition incompetent. The Election Tribunal held that the petition was liable for dismissal. The Tribunal established that compliance with Sections 54 and 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, regarding the signing and verification of election petitions and their annexures is mandatory. Unlike civil suits where such defects might be curable, Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, explicitly mandates dismissal for non-compliance with these provisions. The Tribunal emphasized that election petitions must be filed complete in every respect to ensure expeditious trial, preventing the "Sword of Damocles" from hanging over elected representatives. Consequently, the failure to verify documents or provide proper verification on oath as required by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, constituted a fatal breach, precluding the Tribunal from proceeding with the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure to sign and verify an election petition and its annexures a fatal defect warranting dismissal under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Are the provisions of Sections 54 and 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, regarding the contents and verification of an election petition mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to comply with the verification requirements of Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in an election petition lead to its dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Perwaiz vs The State1995 MLD 544 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Perwaiz Iqbal and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 430 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17
  bailmisappropriation of public fundsprivatizationcriminal conspiracypre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailwhite-collar crimepublic property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns consolidated bail applications, both pre-arrest and post-arrest, filed by various individuals accused of conspiring with officials of the Privatization Commission to misappropriate public property and funds. The core legal questions addressed whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite allegations of serious financial fraud, whether the dispute was merely civil in nature, and whether the medical condition of one petitioner justified relief. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, finding reasonable grounds to believe they were complicit in the illegal disposal of state-owned industrial assets at undervalued prices without proper authorization. The court established that the misappropriation of public property and trust funds constitutes a heinous offence, comparable to, or exceeding, the gravity of individual murder due to its societal impact. It further ruled that the pendency of civil litigation initiated by the accused does not preclude criminal investigation where prima facie evidence of criminal liability exists. Consequently, the court dismissed all bail applications, emphasizing that such economic crimes require strict judicial scrutiny and must be dealt with firmly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same transaction bar the registration of a criminal case for misappropriation?
  • Can an accused person claim bail as a right in cases involving the misappropriation of public property and trust funds?
  • Does the Privatization Commission have the lawful authority to sell public industrial units through private negotiation at prices lower than the initial bid?
  • Is a medical condition sufficient grounds for bail in a non-bailable offence involving serious financial fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervez Iqbal vs National Motors Limited, Karachi1995 PLC 116 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Pervez Iqbal Rana vs Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services1995 MLD 966 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-29Read full judgment →
• Pervez Iqbal Rana vs Pakistan Agricultural Storage & ServicesK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 156 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-29Read full judgment →
• Pervez Ijaz Sheikh vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government1995 PLC (C.S.) 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11
  SeniorityLimitation periodService appealGradation listCivil servantService TribunalTime-barred
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, a civil servant, sought to challenge his seniority ranking in the Secretariat Group, which had been fixed in a 1990 gradation list based on his 1984 induction date. The petitioner argued that his seniority should have been calculated from his 1983 promotion in his parent department, relying on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge a long-standing seniority list by filing a belated representation based on a new judicial precedent. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was correctly dismissed as time-barred. The Court affirmed that a civil servant cannot claim a fresh period of limitation by filing a representation against a seniority list that was not challenged when originally issued. The key principle laid down is that subsequent judicial pronouncements do not revive a cause of action for challenging seniority lists that have already attained finality due to the expiration of the limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant challenge a seniority list years after its issuance by relying on a subsequent judicial precedent?
  • Does a departmental representation filed against a long-standing seniority list extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a party claim a fresh period of limitation by filing a representation against a previously un-challenged seniority list?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervez Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 140 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Perveen Sitara and others vs Muhammad Younas1995 SCMR 1182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-28
  partition suitexecution proceedingsjudgment-debtorreimbursement claimpreliminary decreewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from execution proceedings following a preliminary decree in a partition suit, wherein the petitioners, holding a 1/4th share in the property, sought reimbursement for alleged expenses incurred on repairs and renovations. The executing Court rejected this claim, a decision subsequently upheld by the first appellate Court and the High Court in a writ petition. The core legal question was whether a judgment-debtor could claim reimbursement for property improvements during execution proceedings when such a plea was not raised during the original suit. The Supreme Court held that the claim was rightly rejected, noting that the petitioners failed to raise the plea of repair expenses in their written statement during the original suit proceedings. The Court affirmed that the executing Court cannot entertain claims that should have been adjudicated during the trial phase. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judgment-debtor claim reimbursement for property repairs during execution proceedings if the plea was not raised in the written statement during the original suit?
  • Does an executing court have the authority to adjudicate claims for property improvements that were not part of the original decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Anwar Sajjad vs Ali Muhammad Rashid Fazal Trust, Karachi1995 PLD Karachi 361 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar vs Muhammad Inayat and 4 others1995 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-11
  post-conviction bailjurisdiction of High Courtsuppression of terrorist activitiesscheduled offencesproofbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which granted post-conviction bail to respondents pending their criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 435/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as adjudicated by the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to grant bail to the respondents in light of the principles established in The State v. Syed Qaim Ali Shah (1992 SCMR 2192), which restricts such jurisdiction in specific scheduled offences. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to grant bail in this instance, as the case did not fall within any recognized exceptions. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that findings regarding the use of explosives or mineral oil, as required by the relevant schedule, could be based on material sufficient to constitute 'proof' under Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to grant bail to a convict pending an appeal against a conviction under the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities?
  • Can findings regarding the use of explosives or mineral oil be based on material that does not strictly meet the definition of evidence under the Evidence Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmad alias Paiji vs The State1995 SCMR 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-29
  murder convictionleave to appealreappraisal of evidenceinterested witnessesdeath sentence commutationpresidential amnestycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction for murder and house trespass. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 and Section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence, which was subsequently confirmed by the High Court. The prosecution alleged the petitioner entered the complainant's house, demanded the whereabouts of a woman he had previously abducted, and fatally shot the complainant's wife. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution witnesses were interested, the presence of a witness was unnatural, and identification in the dark was improbable. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower courts, noting that both courts had thoroughly analyzed the evidence and found the prosecution's case established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the mere possibility of an alternative view of the evidence upon reappraisal does not constitute sufficient grounds for granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. However, the Court exercised its discretion to commute the petitioner's death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the presidential amnesty granted in 1988.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possibility of an alternative view of evidence upon reappraisal constitute sufficient grounds for granting leave to appeal?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted by the Supreme Court based on a presidential amnesty granted after the initial sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Paul Newman vs Miss Asma Khan1995 PLD Karachi 242 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
• Paul Newman vs (Miss.) Asma KhanK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 429 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
• Pasham Khan vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1210 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
• Parvaiz Iqbal alias Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1995 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08
  leave to appealmurdermitigating circumstancessudden provocationappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, upholding the conviction of the appellant for murder. According to the prosecution, a dispute arose between the appellant and the deceased over the draining of accumulated water into a sewerage ditch, leading to a quarrel where the appellant threatened the deceased. Three days later, another altercation occurred over the same issue, prompting the appellant to fetch a gun from his house and shoot the deceased in the head, causing his death. The trial court and High Court both believed the eyewitness testimony, and the appellant admitted to the occurrence during his examination. The Supreme Court considered whether the eyewitnesses were untrustworthy and whether mitigating circumstances warranted a lesser sentence. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the appellant's guilt were sound, noting the absence of premeditation and the suddenness of the quarrel as valid mitigating factors that had already spared the appellant the death penalty. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts can be disturbed when the petitioner admits the occurrence?
  • Does the absence of premeditation and a sudden quarrel constitute mitigating circumstances against the death penalty?
  • Whether the testimony of closely related eyewitnesses should be discarded solely due to allegations of their involvement in other cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Parke Davis Employees Union, Karachi vs Messrs Parke Davis & Co. Ltd., Karachi through its Director of Human Resources1995 PLC 731 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Pardool and 3 others vs Gulzada and others1995 PLD Supreme Court 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-27
  res judicataconstructive res judicatasplitting of claimsmortgage redemptioncivil procedurefinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration of ownership regarding land originally mortgaged in 1895 and subsequently sub-mortgaged to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest. The petitioners had previously litigated their claim to ownership based on the sub-mortgage, which was dismissed up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could initiate a new suit challenging the validity of historical mutations and asserting ownership rights after their previous claims regarding the same property and cause of action had been finally adjudicated. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and the prohibition against splitting claims. The Court reasoned that because the petitioners failed to raise their current pleas in the earlier litigation, despite those pleas being available to them at the time, they were precluded from re-litigating the matter. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, emphasizing that parties cannot circumvent final judgments by initiating subsequent litigation based on grounds that should have been raised previously.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to raise available pleas in an earlier suit preclude a party from raising them in a subsequent suit under the principle of res judicata?
  • Can a party initiate a new suit regarding the same cause of action after a previous suit has been dismissed up to the Supreme Court?
  • Does Order 2, Rule 2 of the C.P. Code bar a subsequent suit if the grounds for relief were available but not asserted in the prior litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Pannu vs National Logistic Cell, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan Through, Commander And 2 Other1995 MLD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Pannu vs National Logistic Cell, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan through Commander and 2 others1995 MLD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Palas Khan vs The Occupier/Manager, Rashid Textile Mills Limited,1995 PLC 652 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary, Finance and anothers vs Kohat Cement1995 PLD Supreme Court 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  sales tax assessmentexcise dutywholesale cash priceassessable valuepost-manufacture chargesstatutory interpretationoctroi
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the assessment of sales tax on cement produced by the respondent. The core legal question was whether transportation and octroi charges could be deducted from the 'wholesale cash price' when determining the assessable value of goods under Section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The High Court had ruled that such charges were deductible if not incurred by the manufacturer. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court’s view was incorrect. The Court determined that Section 4(1) of the Act provides an exhaustive list of permissible deductions, limited strictly to the amounts of duty and sales tax then payable. Consequently, all other expenses, including post-manufacture charges like freight and octroi, must be included in the computation of the wholesale cash price for assessment purposes. The Court established that the legislative intent behind the provision is to include such elements in the assessable value, regardless of whether the manufacturer or the retailer bears the actual cost of transportation or octroi.

  Questions settled

  • Are transportation and octroi charges deductible from the wholesale cash price when calculating the assessable value of goods under Section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  • Does the phrase 'without any abatement or deduction whatever' in Section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, exclude all deductions except for duty and sales tax?
  • Is the assessable value of goods for excise duty purposes affected by whether the manufacturer or the retailer bears the cost of transportation and octroi?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary, Finance and another vs Kohat CementPTCL1995 CL. 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  sales taxexcise dutywholesale cash priceoctroi and transportation chargesassessable valuecentral excises and salt act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had allowed a writ petition filed by a state-owned cement manufacturing company against the demand for short-paid sales tax and penalty by the tax authorities. The core legal question concerned whether transportation and octroi charges could be included in the wholesale cash price for the purpose of assessing excise duty and sales tax under Section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The majority of the Supreme Court held that the wholesale cash price under Section 4(1) of the 1944 Act must be determined without any abatement or deduction except for the amounts of duty and sales tax expressly provided, and that post-manufacture charges such as transportation and octroi can be included by the department in determining the assessable value. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether transportation and octroi charges are to be included in the wholesale cash price for the assessment of sales tax and excise duty under Section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  • What constitutes the measure of excise duty and sales tax under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
  • Whether deductions beyond the amounts of duty and sales tax are permissible when computing the value of an article under Section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Military Estate Officer, Kharian Cantt. and anothers vs Abdul Hayee Khan through Legal Heirs and 5 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-26
  land acquisitionlocus standiright of appealeminent domaincompensation awardbeneficiary of acquisitionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding land acquisition for the Gujranwala Cantonment. The respondents, whose land was acquired, sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to challenge the compensation awarded by the Collector. The Senior Civil Judge enhanced the compensation, and the appellants (the Federal Government through the Military Estate Officer) challenged this decision in the Lahore High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the beneficiary of the acquisition lacked the locus standi to challenge the compensation award. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision. The Court held that the Federal Government and its departments, as beneficiaries of land acquisition, are not competent to file an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against a court's decision on a reference under Section 18. The Court reaffirmed that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and, absent express provision, beneficiaries cannot challenge compensation awards, as the Land Acquisition Act does not confer such a right upon them.

  Questions settled

  • Does the beneficiary of land acquisition have the right to file an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against a court's decision on a reference under Section 18?
  • Is the right of appeal under the Land Acquisition Act a statutory right that must be expressly conferred?
  • Can a local authority or company for whom land is acquired demand a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. and anothers vs Ghulam Haider1995 SCMR 879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21
  service lawallowanceequal pay for equal workleave to appealservice benefitsnature of work
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) against a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan. The High Court had directed PTV to pay a 20% Secretariat/Personal Allowance to its employees in Quetta, effective from 1-7-1988, based on a similar allowance granted to employees at the PTV Islamabad Centre. The core legal question is whether an allowance granted to a specific class of employees based on the nature of their work can be extended to all employees of the corporation as a matter of right, or if such differentiation is permissible. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contention regarding the nature of work and the applicability of allowances raises significant legal questions requiring determination. Pending the final appeal, the Court suspended the operation of the High Court's judgment regarding the payment of arrears from 1-7-1988 but declined to stay the payment of the allowance from the date of the High Court's judgment onwards.

  Questions settled

  • Can an allowance granted to a specific class of employees based on the nature of their work be claimed as a matter of right by other employees?
  • Does the principle of equal pay for equal work mandate the extension of specific allowances to all employees regardless of the nature of their duties?
  • Is the determination of pay and allowances dependent on the qualitative difference in work performed by employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, Etc. vs National IndustrialK.L.R. 1997 Lahour & Service 138 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Muhammad a Zhar1995 PLC 608 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, Karachi vs Nisar Ahmad Memon And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 264 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, Karachi through Deputy General1995 PLC 57 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-31
  territorial jurisdictiongrievance petitioncause of actionlabour lawrejection of plaintreturn of plaintservice termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition challenges the orders of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application seeking the rejection of a grievance petition filed by an employee. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court at Hyderabad possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition concerning the termination of an employee who worked at the Limestone Project in Makli, District Thatta. The petitioner had sought rejection of the petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing a lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that a petition cannot be rejected solely for want of territorial jurisdiction; rather, it should be returned for presentation before the competent court under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that since the cause of action, in whole or in part, accrued where the employee was serving at the time of termination, the Labour Court at Hyderabad maintained jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a grievance petition be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 solely for lack of territorial jurisdiction?
  • What is the appropriate procedure when a court lacks territorial jurisdiction to hear a petition?
  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction over a service termination dispute if the cause of action accrued within its territorial limits?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation through Deputy General Manager1995 PLC 606 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd vs Muhammad Ashique and another1995 CLC 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-15
  rejection of plaintres judicatainterim injunctioncivil revisioncommercialization of residential plots
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arises from an order passed by the trial court which dismissed the applicant's application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and granted an interim injunction to the respondents in a suit concerning commercialized residential plots, lease terms, and utility disconnections. The core legal question addressed by the Sindh High Court was whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata in light of a prior judgment passed in a constitutional petition, and whether other grounds such as non-compliance with Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. warranted the rejection of the plaint. The High Court held that the prior constitutional petition did not operate as res judicata because the specific points arising in the subsequent suit were neither heard nor finally decided upon evidence in that petition, and further held that violations of lease conditions or procedural rules like Order I, Rule 8 do not justify rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11. The court established the principle that when deciding a rejection application, the averments in the plaint must be assumed to be true, and prior constitutional judgments not addressing the specific issues do not bar ordinary civil suits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a prior judgment in a constitutional petition operates as res judicata to bar a subsequent civil suit when the specific points in the suit were not heard and finally decided on evidence?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of non-compliance with Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the conversion of residential plots into commercial plots or the non-fulfillment of lease conditions furnish valid grounds for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the standard judicial approach regarding the averments in a plaint when considering an application for its rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited, Karachi vs Haji Sultan Ahmad And 3 Other1995 MLD 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited, Karachi vs Haji Sultan Ahm.Ad and 3 others1995 MLD 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi Division, through Divisional Personnel1995 PLC 221 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways, Karachi vs Muhammad Muneer1995 PLC 360 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways, Karachi vs Liaquat Ali1995 PLC 364 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways, Karachi vs Khursheed Ali1995 PLC 331 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-23Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways through its General Manager vs Javed Iqbal1995 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-18
  leave to appealdamageschild trespasserrailway negligenceinteresttort law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Pakistan Railways, sought leave to appeal against the High Court judgment that restored a trial court decree ordering the payment of Rs.10,460 with interest to the respondent. The respondent, who was six years old at the time of the incident in 1960, suffered severe injuries resulting in the amputation of his leg after being struck by a railway engine on an unfenced railway track. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court dismissed it, before the High Court restored the decree in a regular second appeal. The core legal question concerned the duty of care owed by the railway towards a child trespasser and the award of interest. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court established negligence on the part of the railway employees regarding the unfenced track, and that the grant of interest was a competent ancillary relief in the interest of justice. The Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, concluding that no legal questions of general importance arose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the railway administration owes a duty of care to a child trespasser on an unfenced railway track?
  • Is the court competent to grant interest as an ancillary relief even if it was not specifically claimed in the plaint?
  • Do concurrent findings of negligence by the trial court and the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways through Divisional Superintendent, P.W.R., Multan1995 PLC 541 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29
  constitutional petitionpayment of wagesovertime wagespenalty and compensationdelayed wagesdeduction from wageslimitation bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an award passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act at Sahiwal, which directed Pakistan Railways to pay unpaid overtime wages to employees along with a penalty of five times the unpaid amount. The core legal question was whether the Authority was competent under section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 to award compensation exceeding the statutory penalty of Rs. 10 in cases of delayed or unquantified wages, and whether constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked despite an appeal being dismissed as time-barred. The Lahore High Court held that non-payment of unquantified overtime amounts to delayed wages rather than a deduction of wages, restricting the penalty to Rs. 10. The Court ruled that awarding five times the amount as compensation was without lawful authority and violative of section 15(3), and that the High Court could strike down an illegal order under Article 199 notwithstanding any limitation bar in lower forums. The petition was consequently allowed to the extent of setting aside the compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-payment of an amount on account of overtime amounts to a deduction out of wages or delayed wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Can the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act award compensation exceeding the statutory penalty of Rs. 10 for delayed payment of unquantified overtime wages?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to strike down an order without lawful authority even if the departmental appeal was dismissed as barred by time?
  Read full judgment →