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.
- Pakistan Railways through Divisional Superintendent, P.R., Multan vs Siraj1995 PLC 377 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-31Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Pulp Paper and Board Makers Association and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 MLD 202 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Pulp Paper and Board Makers Association And Others vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1995 MLD 202 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Printing Ink Industries (Pvt) Ltd vs M/s Elite Publishers (Pvt)K.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 25 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-30Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Post Offices vs Nadeem Ahmed Khan1995 PLC 205 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Papers Ack Corporation And Others vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance & Economic Affairs Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad And Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1134 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi Airport, Karachi vs Syed Arif Raza Rizvi1995 PLC 630 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs (M/s.) Khalid BrotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 188 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-27Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd. vs Kalyal1995 CLC 1483 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the High Court's dismissal of a winding-up petition filed by the Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (PICIC) against Kalyal Kashmir Tanneries Ltd. due to the company's failure to repay substantial loan liabilities. The High Court had dismissed the petition, citing a disputed debt and insufficient evidence regarding the disappearance of the company's substratum. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court misapplied the principle regarding disputed debts, as the respondent failed to present a substantial or genuine dispute. The Court established that the test for insolvency in winding-up proceedings is commercial insolvency—the inability to meet current demands—rather than a balance sheet analysis of fixed assets. Furthermore, the Court held that where a company has remained non-operational for years and is unable to pay its debts, its substratum has effectively disappeared. Consequently, the Court found it just and equitable to order the winding up of the company, vacating the High Court's order and remanding the matter for further proceedings.
Questions settled- What is the test for determining whether a company is unable to pay its debts for the purpose of a winding-up petition?
- Does a mere assertion of a disputed debt automatically defeat a petition for the winding up of a company?
- When can it be said that the substratum of a company has disappeared, justifying a winding-up order on just and equitable grounds?
- Is a company considered commercially insolvent if it cannot meet current liabilities, even if its fixed assets might theoretically exceed its debts?
- Pakistan Herald Workers Union through its General Secretary vs Sindh1995 PLC 554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses the competence of a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) to file a petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on behalf of workers regarding the short payment of bonuses. The appellants, a workers' union, challenged the lower courts' dismissal of their petition, which had been rejected on the grounds that a CBA lacked the standing to initiate such proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 25-A, specifically subsections (1) through (4), which delineate the procedure for redressing individual grievances. The Court held that the statute explicitly empowers a CBA to represent workers in grievance proceedings, provided the procedural requirements—such as serving a grievance notice—are satisfied. The ratio decidendi establishes that while Section 25-A and Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, serve distinct purposes, Section 25-A(4) clearly authorizes a CBA to take a worker's grievance to the Labour Court, provided the conditions precedent in Section 25-A(1) are met. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower judgments and remanded the case for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Is a Collective Bargaining Agent competent to file a petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 on behalf of workers?
- Does the right of a Collective Bargaining Agent to represent workers under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 exist independently of the procedural requirements of Section 25-A(1)?
- What is the distinction between the scope of proceedings under Section 25-A and Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 regarding a Collective Bargaining Agent's authority?
- Pakistan Engineering Council and anothers vs Afzal Anwar1995 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals by leave of the Supreme Court challenged a judgment of the Sindh High Court which had struck down Bye-Law No. 3 of the Construction and Operation of Engineering Works Bye-Laws, 1987, framed under section 25 of the Pakistan Engineering Councils Act, 1976, as ultra vires. The High Court held that the Act was intended solely to regulate professional engineers rather than contractors or engineering works, thereby rendering Bye-Law No. 3—which required constructors and operators to be licensed by the Council—beyond the scope of the Act's functions. The core legal question was whether the Pakistan Engineering Council possessed the statutory authority under the parent Act to regulate constructors and operators of engineering works through subordinate legislation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by focusing exclusively on section 8 of the Act and ignoring other vital provisions such as section 2(k), section 12, section 25, and section 27. The Supreme Court ruled that the scope of the Act encompasses not only the engineering profession but also professional engineering works, and that licensing constructors to ensure the employment of qualified engineers falls within the valid purposes of the Council. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether Bye-Law No. 3 of the Construction and Operation of Engineering Works Bye-Laws, 1987 is ultra vires the Pakistan Engineering Councils Act, 1976?
- Does the scope of the Pakistan Engineering Councils Act, 1976 extend to regulating engineering works and constructors in addition to professional engineers?
- Can the Pakistan Engineering Council require constructors and operators to obtain licences and employ registered professional engineers for carrying out engineering works?
- Pakistan Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan1995 PLD Karachi 286 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by a construction contractor against the Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, seeking the filing of an arbitration agreement and the referral of disputes arising from a naval berths refurbishment contract to arbitration. The core legal questions centered on the proper interpretation of Clause 67 of the contract, specifically whether communicating dissatisfaction with the Engineer's decision exclusively to the Engineer was mandatory and whether filing a Section 20 application within ninety days satisfied the requirements of the arbitration clause. The Sindh High Court held that an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is maintainable if filed within the stipulated ninety-day period following the Engineer's decision, even if notice was not sent directly to the Engineer or the defendant beforehand, provided a real dispute exists. The court laid down the principle that when parties do not contest the existence of an arbitration agreement, courts should readily refer disputes to the domestic tribunal rather than entangling the matter in procedural technicalities, thereby upholding the legislative intent of the Arbitration Act to ensure speedy dispute resolution.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is maintainable without giving prior notice to the defendant?
- Does the failure to communicate dissatisfaction directly to the Engineer within ninety days render the Engineer's decision final and bar a Section 20 application?
- What should be the approach of the court when there is no controversy over the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties?
- Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation vs Sube dar Major (Retd.) Abdul1995 SCMR 1219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the Additional District Judge's judgment and restored the Civil Judge's decree in favor of the respondent. The core legal matter arises from a suit for declaration filed by the respondent, Subedar Major (Retd.) Abdul Razzaq, challenging the correction of his date of birth from 1929 to 1927 by the employer. The trial court decreed in favor of the respondent based on a birth certificate, which the petitioner contended belonged to a different individual and contradicted the respondent's earlier declared age upon joining the Pakistan Army. The Supreme Court considered the contentions regarding the disputed evidentiary value of the birth certificate and the respondent's age declarations. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the evidence produced by the parties required reappraisal to accurately determine the correct date of birth. The key principle laid down is that where factual determinations regarding a disputed date of birth involve conflicting evidence and questionable documents, the matter warrants a thorough reappraisal by the appellate forum upon the grant of leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the birth date of the respondent is 16-8-1927 or 16-4-1929?
- Does a birth certificate in the name of a third party suffice to prove the date of birth of an employee?
- When is leave to appeal granted for the reappraisal of evidence in a date of birth dispute?
- Painda Khan vs Member (Judiciali), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1995 CLC 1816 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pack Art Press, Lahore vs Cit Circle 09, Companies, Lahore1997 F.C.T.L.R. 114 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-01-04Read full judgment →
- P.R., Islamabad vs Federal Service Tribunal & OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding the withdrawal of four advance increments granted upon attaining a higher educational qualification. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who was promoted from Stenotypist to Stenographer in Pakistan Railways (treated as a Division of the Federal Secretariat), was entitled to advance increments for acquiring a B.A. degree under the Finance Division's Office Memorandum dated 29.6.1991, based on the prescribed recruitment qualifications. The Supreme Court held that since the applicable Federal Government Office Memorandum dated 23.9.1969 dispensed with the higher educational requirement of Intermediate or B.A. for permanent Stenotypists being promoted as Stenographers, the appellant's base required qualification for promotion remained Matriculation. Consequently, having acquired a B.A. degree, he was entitled to four advance increments. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the appeal, establishing the principle that departmental promotion rules tied to Federal Secretariat O.M.s govern educational thresholds for advance increment entitlements.
Questions settled- Whether a permanent Stenotypist promoted as a Stenographer is required to possess the higher educational qualification prescribed for direct recruits for the purpose of claiming advance increments?
- Does the qualification prescribed by the Federal Government for the Federal Secretariat apply to Pakistan Railways as a Division of the Federal Secretariat?
- Is an employee who improves their educational qualification beyond the baseline requirement for their promotional post entitled to advance increments under the Finance Division Office Memorandum dated 29.6.1991?
- P.K. Tiwari vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1995 PTD 832207 I T R 327 · Rajasthan High Court · 1993-09-21Read full judgment →
- P vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Case 400 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
- P vs (Mst.) Tasneem AkhtarK.L.R. 1897 Civil Cases 309 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-14Read full judgment →
- Obaid Asghar vs Farhat Shaheen1995 SCMR 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from a dispute regarding the inheritance of the estate of the petitioner's deceased father, where the petitioner, a minor represented by his next friend, challenged the respondent's share, alleging she had been divorced. During the trial, the next friend offered to have the suit dismissed if the respondent's father took a special oath on the Holy Qur'an affirming the marriage subsisted. The oath was taken, and the suit was dismissed. The appellate court set aside this dismissal, arguing that the next friend required court permission under Order XXXII, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to enter into such an agreement. The High Court reversed this, holding the oath was a method of proof, not a compromise. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that an offer to abide by a special oath is a method of proof, not a compromise or agreement requiring court leave under Order XXXII, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held such an oath constitutes an evidentiary admission, binding on the minor absent fraud or gross negligence.
Questions settled- Does an offer by a next friend to have a suit decided on a special oath constitute a compromise requiring leave of the court under Order XXXII, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a statement made by a referee on a special oath considered an evidentiary admission?
- Under what circumstances is a minor bound by the actions of their next friend regarding the offer of a special oath?
- Obaid Alam Hussain Khan Chaudhry vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 46 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 616 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
- N/A vs N/A1997 P.C.T.L.R. 601 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
- Nusratullah and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1635 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
- Nusratullah And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1635 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
- Nusrat Textile Mills Ltd., Jauharabad through its Managing Director, Lahore vs Province of Punjab through Collector, District Khushab and 3 others1995 CLC 1903 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
- Not vs Not1995 PTD (Trib.) 318 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
- Nooruddin vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 518 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a bail application filed by the accused, Nooruddin, facing charges under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the ground of sickness. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to his medical condition. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant’s medical condition was not life-threatening and that he was receiving adequate care. The Court established that the discretion to grant bail on medical grounds is not automatic; it requires a judicial assessment of the nature of the offense, the severity of the punishment, the accused's conduct, and the availability of medical facilities. The Court emphasized that bail on medical grounds is only appropriate when an illness is serious, dangerous to life, or when necessary treatment facilities are unavailable in jail. Furthermore, the Court noted that an accused’s obstruction of trial proceedings and bad faith in seeking medical treatment weigh against the exercise of judicial discretion in their favor.
Questions settled- Does the mere existence of an illness entitle an accused to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court exercise its discretion to grant bail on medical grounds if the accused has intentionally obstructed the trial process?
- How does the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the court's discretion to grant bail to hardened or dangerous criminals?
- What factors must a court consider when determining whether to grant bail on the ground of sickness?
- Noor-Ud-Din Zahid Qayyum vs Shabbir Baig, Dy. Director, Reporting1995 PLC (C.S.) 316 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Noor Nabi vs Mst. Shamim AkhtarK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 152 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and others1995 CLC 952 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the extension of a fishing rights contract granted by the provincial government, arguing it bypassed the mandatory requirement of open public auction. The core legal questions concerned the validity of executive extensions of fishing leases and the procedural requirements for granting such rights under the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980. The Court held that fishing rights must be granted through open public auction, advertised in widely circulated newspapers, and restricted to local 'Muqami Mirbahars'. The Court ruled that executive extensions of such contracts are impermissible and cannot be sustained. It clarified that while the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980 and Sindh Fisheries Rules, 1983 govern these leases, fishing rights in reserved or protected forests are regulated by the Forest Act, 1927. The Court emphasized that a lease involves exclusive possession, whereas a license is a revocable permission. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, ordered a fresh auction for the disputed waters, and mandated that future auctions occur annually in May and June as prescribed by the rules.
Questions settled- Are executive extensions of fishing rights contracts permissible under the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980?
- Does a citizen have locus standi to challenge the grant of fishing rights that were not awarded through the prescribed public auction process?
- What is the legal distinction between a lease and a license under the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980?
- Are fishing rights in reserved or protected forests governed by the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980 or the Forest Act, 1927?
- Noor Muhammad vs Noor Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 347 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Noor Muhammad and 3 others1995 MLD 283 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Noor Muhammad And 3 Other1995 MLD 283 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad Yaqoob1995 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1-12-1992, which had accepted a revision petition, set aside an order of remand by the District Judge, and maintained the decree for possession through pre-emption granted in favor of the respondent by the Civil Judge. The core legal question was whether the respondent had waived his right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner failed to establish the plea of waiver, as the document relied upon only concerned the waiver of the right of tenancy and made no mention of abandoning the right of pre-emption, while the respondent's status as a collateral of the vendor was undisputed. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a document waiving a right of tenancy can be construed as an abandonment of the right of pre-emption?
- Did the petitioner successfully establish the plea of waiver against the pre-emptor?
- Is the High Court justified in setting aside an order of remand and restoring the trial court decree when the plea of waiver is not established?
- Noor Muhammad vs Member (Admin). Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1099 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs (Mst.) Bawan Bibi EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 276 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and others vs Sher Muhammad and others1995 CLC 643 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and 6 Other vs KhameesahK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 89 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad alias Noora vs The State1995 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and death sentence under sections 302, 307, and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony by natural witnesses, the rejection of the plea of private defense, and whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be claimed when a death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment through executive amnesty rather than by a judicial decision. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly appreciated the evidence and rejected the defense version. Furthermore, the Court held that the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. cannot be granted where the sentence of imprisonment is a result of executive amnesty rather than a judicial decision of the court. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be claimed when a death sentence is converted into life imprisonment through executive amnesty?
- Can ocular testimony of injured natural witnesses be relied upon in the absence of any motive or ill-will?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts when no misreading of evidence is pointed out?
- Noor Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1179 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
- Noor Elahi vs The Chairman, WAPDA and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 1103 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a retired WAPDA employee, challenged an order demanding standard rent and allied charges for unauthorized retention of official accommodation post-retirement and stopping his pension for recovery. The core legal question concerned the justification of charging standard rent when the retention occurred due to the respondent's failure to decide the appellant's son's application for transfer of accommodation and the appellant's pending appeal regarding his retirement date, alongside an objection regarding the limitation period for filing departmental appeals. The Federal Service Tribunal held that since WAPDA failed to act on the son's transfer application under the relevant allocation rules and connived in the delayed vacation, the appellant was only liable to pay normal rent rather than standard rent, which would severely slash his pension. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that where a departmental appeal is decided on merits rather than dismissed as time-barred, time runs from that date of rejection. The appeal was accordingly allowed to that extent.
Questions settled- Whether standard rent can be charged for unauthorized retention of official accommodation when the authorities failed to decide a serving family member's application for transfer of the accommodation?
- Does an appeal lie to the Service Tribunal within thirty days of the rejection of a departmental appeal on merits when the departmental appeal itself was filed after the prescribed period of limitation?
- Whether a retired employee is liable for standard rent when the department connived in the retention of the quarter without initiating ejectment proceedings?
- Noor Elahi and anothers vs Municipal Corporation, Sargodha through Mayor and 5 others1995 MLD 74 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
- Noor Elahi And Another vs Municipal Corporation, Sargodha Through Mayor And 5 Other1995 MLD 74 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
- Noor Elahi and 2 others vs Muhammad Sharif Khan Shinwari and 231995 PLD Supreme Court 609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two connected civil appeals arising from concurrent eviction orders passed against the tenants of a hotel premises under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, on the grounds of personal requirement and unauthorized subletting. The core legal questions centered on whether a lease agreement stipulation regarding the surrender of possession amounted to the mandatory two years' statutory notice required under section 17(4) before seeking ejectment for personal requirement, and whether subletting was established. The Supreme Court held that the service of a formal written two years' notice is a mandatory condition precedent (sine qua non) for an ejectment application on the ground of personal requirement concerning hotel premises, and lease terms or oral assertions cannot substitute it; consequently, the ejectment application on personal requirement was incompetent. However, the Court upheld the eviction order on the alternate ground of unauthorized subletting, as the tenants failed to prove written consent from the landlord. The key principle laid down is that statutory notice requirements for special commercial categories under rent restriction laws are mandatory and strict compliance is required to maintain an eviction action.
Questions settled- Whether the service of a two years' statutory notice under the third proviso to section 17(4) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is mandatory before seeking eviction of a tenant from a hotel on the ground of personal requirement?
- Does a stipulation in a lease agreement prohibiting extension and requiring surrender of possession amount to a valid statutory notice under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Can an ejectment application filed without complying with mandatory statutory notice requirements be maintained?
- Whether an appellate court can consider a ground of appeal not specifically mentioned in the leave-granting order if it is necessary for complete justice?
- Noor Begum vs Muhammad Boota and 3 others1995 PLD Lahore 344 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents to challenge a registered sale-deed. The petitioner-vendee filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation and failure to make the requisite Talabs under Personal Law. The trial court dismissed the application twice, prompting the petitioner to approach the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions involved whether a pre-emption suit filed during the interregnum period when no statutory law was in force was barred by limitation under Personal Law, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected due to defective performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision petition, setting aside the trial court's orders and rejecting the plaint. The court held that during the period when no statutory pre-emption law was in force, suits were governed by Personal Law, requiring suits to be filed promptly within four months, and that failure to make Talb-i-Muwathibat instantly upon knowledge of the sale extinguished the right of pre-emption. The key principle laid down is that Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. is not exhaustive, and plaints in incompetent or time-barred pre-emption suits disclosing fatal flaws on their face should be rejected at the inception.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit filed during the period when no statutory law of pre-emption was in force is governed by Personal Law and subject to a limitation period of four months?
- Is Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exhaustive regarding the grounds for the rejection of a plaint?
- Does the failure to perform Talb-i-Muwathibat instantly upon gaining knowledge of the sale extinguish the right of pre-emption?
- Can a plaint be rejected at the inception when the averments therein demonstrate that the suit is barred by limitation and the mandatory Talabs were not legally performed?
- Noor Begum vs Banaras KhanK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 182 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-14Read full judgment →
- Noor Badshah vs Dr. Rana Arif Ali1995 CLC 1830 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three civil revision petitions challenging the dismissal of appeals by the appellate court on the grounds of limitation. The trial court judgments were delivered on 23-2-1993, and the limitation period for filing appeals expired on 25-3-1993. Due to public holidays and the closure of courts and offices from 23-3-1993 to 27-3-1993, the petitioner could not apply for certified copies until the courts reopened on 28-3-1993, filing the appeals the following day. The appellate court held the appeals time-barred, prompting these revisions. The core legal question was whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal is extended when the court and offices are closed during the limitation period, preventing the filing of both the application for copies and the appeal itself. The High Court held that the appeals were within time, ruling that when the limitation period expires during court closures, the act may be performed on the next opening day. The court affirmed that a litigant should not be prejudiced by the closure of courts or offices beyond their control, applying Section 4 of the Limitation Act and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.
Questions settled- Does the closure of courts and offices during the limitation period entitle a litigant to file an appeal on the next opening day?
- Can the period requisite for obtaining certified copies be excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the application is filed on the first opening day after court holidays?
- Does Section 10 of the General Clauses Act 1897 provide a broader protection than Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding acts performed in courts or offices during holidays?
- Noor Ali vs Saleem1995 MLD 852 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →
- Noor Ali Khan vs The Secre Cary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1995 SCMR 874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal regarding the seniority of a civil servant within the District Management Group. The petitioner, appointed in 1982, challenged his placement in the 1993 seniority list, arguing that his position was incorrectly downgraded. The Federal Service Tribunal had previously dismissed his appeal, reasoning that because the petitioner had failed to clear his departmental examination and his promotion was deferred, he could not claim seniority over colleagues who had cleared the examination and were promoted earlier. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the legal validity of the Tribunal's finding. The core legal question is whether the deferment of a candidate's promotion due to the failure to clear a departmental examination justifies a permanent loss of seniority, or if the candidate is entitled to retain their original seniority position upon subsequently qualifying the examination. The Court indicated that the deferment of promotion on such grounds should not necessarily disturb the inter se seniority of the candidate, which ought to be retained after the examination is cleared.
Questions settled- Does the deferment of a civil servant's promotion due to failure to clear a departmental examination justify a permanent loss of seniority?
- Is a civil servant entitled to retain their original inter se seniority after subsequently qualifying the required departmental examination?
- Noor Alam vs M/s. Halima Enterprises, Karachi1995 PLC 164 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad and 2 others vs Muhammad Sharif and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1725 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
- Nishat Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 PLC 700 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
- Nishat Mills Limited Nishatabad, Faisalabad vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Labour, Manpower And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 162 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nisar Hussain vs Mst. Zareena Begum and 2 others1995 CLC 1945 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-06-24Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmed and Another vs (Mst.) Uroos Fatima and AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 92 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 255 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-27Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad Sheikh, Superintending Engineer (Awaiting Porting), Communication & Works Department Lahore vs Province of Punjab, Through Secretary, Communication & Works Department, LahoreK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 166 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad Sheikh vs Province of Punjab1995 PLC (C.S.) 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Nighat Latif vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 383 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
- Niaz Khalil vs Sh. Muhammad Shafiq1995 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963. The core legal question was whether an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller under Section 17(8) of the Act, directing a tenant to deposit arrears of rent, is appealable. The Supreme Court held that such an order is of a provisional and incidental character, not deciding the main controversy in the lis. Consequently, it is not appealable unless the relevant statute explicitly provides for such an appeal. The Court reaffirmed that allowing appeals against interlocutory orders leads to fragmentary adjudication, causing inordinate delay and negating the administration of justice. The Court rejected the argument that differences between the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 and the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 rendered the established principle of non-appealability inapplicable. The key principle laid down is that interlocutory orders of a provisional nature, which do not resolve the main dispute, are not subject to appeal unless specifically provided for by law, to prevent the clogging of judicial mechanisms.
Questions settled- Is an interlocutory order directing the deposit of rent under Section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 appealable?
- Does the absence of a provision in the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 explicitly requiring the final determination of rent due make an interlocutory rent deposit order appealable?
- Should the term 'an order' in a statute providing for appeals be interpreted in its widest generality to include all interlocutory orders?
- Niaz Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 902 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali vs Secretary Industries and others1997 MLD 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-02Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali vs Muhammad Sadiq1995 PLD Lahore 617 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-05Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali vs Adalat Hussain and 3 others1995 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court, which had granted bail to the respondents on statutory grounds. The respondents were arrested on 11-6-1991, and their trial remained unconcluded at the time of the petition. The core legal question concerned whether the respondents were entitled to bail under the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically considering the status of the third and fourth provisos to subsection (1) of section 497 at the time of their arrest and the subsequent legislative changes. The High Court had exercised its discretion to grant bail, relying on the principle that the repeal of an amending enactment does not necessarily affect the continuance of amendments already made. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge. It held that since the High Court had exercised its discretion appropriately and the third proviso was indeed part of the law at the time of the respondents' arrest, there was no ground to interfere with the High Court's order. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of an amending enactment affect the continuance of amendments made by that enactment?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with a High Court's discretionary order granting bail when the trial has not concluded?
- Does the statutory right to bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply based on the law in force at the time of arrest?
- Niaz Ahmed vs Shamsuddin And Another1995 MLD 864 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ahmed vs Selection Committee through its Chairman and 5 others1995 PLD Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-08Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ahmad, Patwari vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 618 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ahmad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1511 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
- Niamatullah Khan and others vs Additional District Judge and others1995 MLD 838 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
- Niamatullah Khan And Others vs Additional District Judge And Other1995 MLD 838 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
- New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. vs The Collector of Customs, Dry Port, Lahore and others1995 SCMR 1535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner insurance company's constitutional petition, which challenged the demand and coercive measures threatened by the Collector of Customs under the Customs Act, 1969, for recovery of customs duty and taxes under an insurance policy following a fire in a bonded warehouse. The core legal questions involved the applicability of section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969 for recovering insurance policy dues, the exhaustion of alternate remedies, and the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 where coercive actions or recoveries are to be executed within its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised require detailed interpretation of the Constitution and the Customs Act, while restraining the respondent from taking coercive measures subject to the petitioner executing a bond for the disputed demand.
Questions settled- Whether the Collector of Customs is authorized under section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969 to take coercive measures for the recovery of dues payable under an insurance policy?
- Does the High Court of Sindh possess territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to entertain a petition where the coercive recovery action is to be executed within its territorial jurisdiction?
- Whether a constitutional petition against a demand notice issued by a customs authority is barred for failure to exhaust alternate remedies under the Customs Act, 1969 when the applicability of the empowering section itself is challenged?
- Nemat Ali and others vs Mst. Bakhtawar and others1995 MLD 484 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-01Read full judgment →
- Nemat Ali And Others vs Mst. Bakhtawar And Other1995 MLD 484 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-01Read full judgment →
- Nehmat Ullah Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 34 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmed and others vs Muhammad Din and others1995 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision regarding a property dispute. The core legal question was whether a consent decree passed in 1968, which recognized the respondents' predecessor-in-interest's 1/8th share in the subject land, had become inexecutable due to the passage of time, thereby barring the respondents' subsequent suit. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' contention was unfounded. The Court observed that the petitioners themselves had sought and obtained a modification of the original decree in 1983 and subsequently sanctioned mutations based on that decree. Consequently, the petitioners could not simultaneously rely on the decree to claim ownership while arguing it was inexecutable against the respondents' rightful share. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the respondents' suit was maintainable and within time. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot approbate and reprobate; having acted upon a consent decree to secure their own interests, they are estopped from challenging its executability against other beneficiaries.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the executability of a consent decree after having acted upon it to secure their own interests?
- Does the modification of a consent decree by a party preclude them from later claiming the original decree was inexecutable due to the passage of time?
- Nazir Ahmed and 6 others vs Ghulam Mustafa1995 SCMR 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the execution of a pre-emption decree. The core legal question was whether a decree-holder is entitled to amend a plaint and decree during execution proceedings to correctly describe land that underwent consolidation operations, and whether such an amendment constitutes partial pre-emption or impermissible alteration of the suit's complexion. The Supreme Court held that the decree-holder is entitled to follow the land allotted to the judgment-debtor in lieu of the original suit land, particularly when the initial description was a misdescription caused by inaccurate revenue records. The Court affirmed that once an order allowing such an amendment in execution proceedings has attained finality, it cannot be reagitated. The principle laid down is that where land is subject to consolidation, a pre-emptor may follow the substituted land, and an amendment to correct the description of property in a decree, aimed at achieving substantial justice, is permissible during execution, provided the underlying identity of the property remains consistent.
Questions settled- Can a decree-holder amend a plaint and decree during execution proceedings to reflect land allotted in consolidation operations?
- Does the correction of a misdescription of property in a decree during execution proceedings constitute partial pre-emption?
- Can a party reagitate an order allowing an amendment of a plaint in execution proceedings if that order has already attained finality?
- Nazir Ahmed Alias Pappa vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 562 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs The State1995 SCMR 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a conviction for demanding illegal gratification. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of a Cooperative Society, was apprehended in a raid supervised by a Magistrate after allegedly demanding a bribe from a cashier to process a loan application. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the petitioner, and the Magistrate testified to hearing the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioner’s defense—that the money was intended for deposit into a bank on the complainant's behalf—was rejected by both the trial court and the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that there were concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and no evidence of misreading of the record. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to allege any ill-will or bias against the Magistrate who supervised the raid. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts, and refused the leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a criminal matter?
- Is the testimony of a raiding Magistrate regarding the recovery of tainted currency sufficient to sustain a conviction for bribery?
- Nazir Ahmad vs S.H.O., Police Station Bogowala71995 P Cr. L J 429 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Nisar Ahmad and another1995 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the petitioner for murder under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while commuting his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence provided by the complainant and an eyewitness was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence due to the prosecution's failure to prove the specific motive. The Supreme Court held that the ocular evidence was credible, noting the absence of prior enmity or motive for the eyewitness to falsely implicate the petitioner. The Court affirmed the conviction, finding it well-founded on the testimony of the witnesses. Regarding the sentence, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to commute the death penalty, agreeing that the failure to establish a specific motive justified the reduction. The principle laid down is that while ocular evidence can be sufficient for conviction, the failure to prove motive may be a valid ground for mitigating a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Is ocular evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of established motive?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a specific motive justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can a medical officer prove a post-mortem report prepared by another doctor who has since died?
- Nazir Ahmad vs Khalid Pervaiz and 4 others1997 MLD 2077 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-28Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Tabasum vs District Manager, Punjab Road Transport1995 PLC 562 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad and anothers vs Muhammad Siddique and others1995 SCMR 1740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against a High Court judgment that modified convictions for murder and assault. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court correctly reduced the death sentence of the principal accused to life imprisonment, whether the acquittal of co-accused on murder charges was justified, and whether the principle of vicarious liability applied to the incident. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was sound, noting that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment without premeditation, thereby negating common intention and justifying the reduction of the sentence and the acquittal of co-accused. The Court affirmed that individual liability applies where common intention is absent. Furthermore, the Court upheld the acquittal regarding house trespass due to insufficient evidence of the enclosure's nature. Key principles laid down include that the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them unreliable if their testimony is consistent and corroborated, and that vicarious liability cannot be invoked where the crime lacks premeditation and arises from a spontaneous altercation.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or interested?
- Can a conviction for house trespass under Section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the essential ingredients of the enclosure?
- Is the principle of vicarious liability applicable when an incident occurs at the spur of the moment without premeditation?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on murder charges necessitate the acquittal of the principal offender on the principle of consistency?
- Nazir Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1058 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad alias Haji and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from the conviction of the appellants under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possession of heroin, whose appeal before the Federal Shariat Court was dismissed as barred by time by thirty-four days. The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court was legally justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by time and whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. The Supreme Court held that a limitation period of sixty days is prescribed under the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981, and that no sufficient cause or justifiable grounds existed for extending the period of limitation, given the evidence of managed medical certificates and attempts to secure release through improper means. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Shariat Court was legally justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by time?
- Is there a prescribed period of limitation for filing a criminal appeal before the Federal Shariat Court?
- Whether illness of a relative pursuing the case constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal from jail?
- Nazeer Ahmad vs Haji Muhammad Akram NazK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 183 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-13Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad vs The State1995 SCMR 1497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner, Nazar Muhammad, for the possession of 599 bottles of foreign liquor, recovered from his vehicle and a godown upon his pointation. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Article 3 but maintained the conviction and sentence under Article 4. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the recovery of the contraband and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was credible and that the petitioner failed to substantiate his plea of enmity or provide evidence to rebut the recovery. Finding no infirmity in the reasoning of the Federal Shariat Court, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that appellate interference is unwarranted where the lower courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the recovery of contraband when the lower courts have believed the prosecution witnesses?
- Does the failure of an accused to prove enmity with recovery witnesses undermine the prosecution's case in a narcotics or prohibition offense?
- Is the testimony of recovery witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Nazar Muhammad Etc vs Sultan Ahmad EtcK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 138 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1994-01-03Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad Etc vs Salim Ullah EtcK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 169 · Board of Revenue · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 703 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-14Read full judgment →
- Nazar Hussain through Legal Heirs and anothers vs Ali Akbar1995 CLC 452 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the order of the First Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, South Karachi, which dismissed the appellants' ejectment application filed against the respondent on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement and impairing the utility of the rented premises through additions and alterations. The core legal questions involved whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the shop and whether procedural irregularities in swearing affidavits rendered the evidence inadmissible. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants failed to prove their bona fide personal requirement, noting that they had re-let other shops during the pendency of the application and suppressed material facts, and that the affidavit of one appellant was inadmissible due to a failure to verify it properly. The court affirmed the Rent Controller's order and dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal need must come with clean hands and prove genuine necessity without contradicting pleadings or re-letting other available properties during proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an affidavit in evidence lacking proper verification and thumb-impression can be considered when the deponent is subjected to cross-examination?
- Does the re-letting of other premises by a landlord during the pendency of eviction proceedings negate a claim of bona fide personal requirement?
- Whether a landlord can introduce a new plea of oral partition during evidence that was not pleaded in the original ejectment application?
- Nazar Hussain alias Nazra and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 640 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Nazak MIRConvict vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 724 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a conviction and sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Judge, Loralai, under Section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with Section 216-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether an appeal against a conviction in a joint trial, where some co-accused received sentences exceeding two years while the appellant received exactly two years, lies before the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court. The Court held that the appeal is not maintainable before the High Court. It ruled that the term "order" in Section 24 of the Ordinance refers to the trial court's composite judgment. Consequently, if a trial court's order imposes a sentence exceeding two years for any offence under the Ordinance, the entire order is appealable to the Federal Shariat Court, regardless of the specific sentence awarded to an individual co-accused. This principle prevents the splitting of judgments and avoids conflicting appellate findings, ensuring the consistent administration of justice.
Questions settled- Does an appeal lie to the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court when a joint trial results in some sentences exceeding two years and others being two years or less under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does the term 'order' in Section 24 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 refer to the individual conviction or the composite judgment of the trial court?
- Can a single judgment in a joint trial be split for the purpose of filing separate appeals in different appellate courts?
- Nazak Mir vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 4 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
- Naya Daur Motor (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan Banking Council, through Itschairman And 7 Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
- Nawaz Khan and another vs Ghulam Shabbir and another1995 SCMR 1007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed respectively by a convicted accused seeking to challenge his murder conviction and by the father of the deceased seeking enhancement of sentence from imprisonment for life to death. The core legal questions involve the locus standi of a father of a deceased—who was neither the original complainant nor a testifying witness—to maintain a petition for leave to appeal against an appellate judgment, and whether the High Court correctly exercised discretion in mitigating a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that the father, having been cited as a witness though given up, and otherwise qualifying as an aggrieved person, had the locus standi to file the petition. On merits, the Court held that where the real motive or cause of a murder is shrouded in mystery or obscure due to provocation, the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding the true cause warrants the lesser punishment of imprisonment for life. Consequently, both petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the father of a deceased who was neither the complainant nor a testifying witness has the locus standi to file a petition for leave to appeal against an appellate judgment?
- Can the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding the real motive or cause of a murder be applied to determine the quantum of sentence?
- Does the obscurity or concealment of the real cause of a murder justify awarding the lesser punishment of imprisonment for life instead of death?
- Nawab vs Rehmat Khan And Another1995 MLD 1014 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
- Nawab Ali and others vs Bajwant Singh and others1995 CLC 1823 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →