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.
- Haji Ghulam Rasool vs Badarul Islam1995 MLD 797 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1325 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
- Haji Feroze Din vs The District Magistrate, Lahore and another1995 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a dealer for Pakistan Burmah-Shell Limited, challenged a notice issued by the District Magistrate, Lahore, requiring the relocation of a petrol pump site on grounds of public safety and traffic obstruction. The petitioner had previously invested significant capital in the site with official approval and held a lease valid until January 1986. After the trial court granted an ad interim injunction to maintain the status quo, the Additional District Judge set aside this order, and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the District Magistrate possessed the authority to withdraw a previously issued No-Objection Certificate (N.O.C.). The Court held that the District Magistrate became functus officio after issuing the N.O.C. and lacked the authority to unilaterally withdraw it. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner had established a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo to prevent irreparable loss. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's injunction order, ruling that the District Magistrate's actions were legally unsound.
Questions settled- Does a District Magistrate become functus officio after issuing a No-Objection Certificate for a petrol pump?
- Can a District Magistrate unilaterally withdraw a previously issued No-Objection Certificate on grounds of public safety?
- Is an ad interim injunction appropriate when the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss from eviction before the expiry of a lease?
- Haji Fazal Shah and 2 others vs Shahbaz Khan and 5 others1995 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside an appellate court's decision and restored a trial court decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether an appellate court could deprive recorded owners of ownership rights in a specific Khasra number on the ground that it had become dedicated Waqf property as a graveyard due to long user, despite the absence of a specific plea in the written statement and without impleading the affected beneficiaries or owners. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of pleadings, specific evidence, and proper impleadment, and given that revenue records (Jamabandis) demonstrated continuous ownership by the proprietary body alongside subsequent alienations and abadi usage, ownership rights could not be deemed extinguished. The Court laid down that presumption of truth is attached to Jamabandi entries regarding ownership, and a finding of dedication as graveyard cannot be sustained without proper pleadings, evidence, and parties.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can deprive recorded owners of ownership rights in land on the ground of dedication as a graveyard without specific pleadings and impleadment?
- Does a presumption of truth attach to ownership entries in the Jamabandis regarding Shamilat-i-deh?
- Can ownership rights in a Khasra number be extinguished on account of long user as a graveyard without clear evidence of dedication?
- Haji and another vs The State1995 MLD 588 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
- Haji And Another vs The State Opponent1995 MLD 588 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
- Haji Amanullah Khan vs Sahibzada Tariqullah and 2 others1995 CLC 158 · Election Tribunal · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This election petition challenges the election of the returned candidate, Sahibzada Tariqullah, to the Provincial Assembly of the N.-W.F.P. from constituency No. PF-73 Dir-I, on the ground that he suffered from a disqualification under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, having been in the service of the Afghan Refugees Organisation—allegedly a body controlled by the Government—less than two years prior to contesting the election. The Election Tribunal addressed preliminary objections regarding the service of petition copies and verification of annexures, ruling them to be non-fatal irregularities. On the merits, the Tribunal held that the Afghan Refugees Organisation is indeed a body controlled by the Government of N.-W.F.P. and that the respondent was disqualified from contesting. However, since the disqualification was not notorious at the time of polling, the votes cast for the unseated candidate could not be thrown away to declare the runner-up elected under section 69 of the Representation of the People Act 1976. Consequently, the Tribunal declared the election as a whole to be void under section 67(1)(d) and ordered a bye-election.
Questions settled- Whether the Afghan Refugees Organisation is a body controlled by the Government of N.-W.F.P. for the purposes of electoral disqualification under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the disqualification under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply to contractual employees?
- Whether non-verification of annexures attached to an election petition is fatal to the maintainability of the petition under the Representation of the People Act 1976?
- Can the runner-up candidate be declared elected when a returned candidate is unseated due to a disqualification that was not notorious at the time of polling?
- Does the doctrine of estoppel apply against a statutory disqualification prescribed by the Constitution or election laws?
- Haji Alias Muhammad Rafiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 459 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
- Haji Ali Khan & Company, Abbottabad and 8 others vs M/s. Allied Bank1995 PLD Supreme Court 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a recovery suit decreed by the Special Court Banking under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, and affirmed by the Peshawar High Court in a First Appeal. The trial court had dismissed the appellants' application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 C.P.C. and decreed the suit, which the High Court maintained. The primary legal question was whether, upon refusal of leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII C.P.C. (read with Section 7(2) of the Banking Ordinance, 1979), the court is still bound to record evidence of the plaintiff, or whether the allegations in the plaint are deemed admitted, entitling the plaintiff to a decree. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that refusal or absence of leave to defend under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. places the defendant in default, meaning allegations in the plaint are deemed admitted and the plaintiff becomes entitled to a decree without formally proving its claim through evidence, provided the court applies its mind to ensure the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and legal entitlement.
Questions settled- Does sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XXXVII C.P.C. apply to cases where an application for leave to defend has been filed and rejected by the court?
- Is a court required to record evidence of the plaintiff before decreeing a suit under Order XXXVII C.P.C. when the defendant's leave to defend application is dismissed?
- Does the fact that a bank loan is fully secured automatically entitle a borrower to grant of leave to defend under Order XXXVII C.P.C.?
- What are the legal consequences when a defendant fails to obtain leave to defend or fails to fulfill conditions subject to which leave was granted under Order XXXVII C.P.C.?
- Haji Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 666 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-09Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Sattar Khan vs Salim Khan and others1995 CLC 529 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-02Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Ghafoor vs Abdul Qayum and others1995 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-04Read full judgment →
- Haider Zaman and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 217 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-18Read full judgment →
- Haider Zaman And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1218 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
- Haider Jaffer vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1279 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-20Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Sharafatullah vs Federation of Pakistan through SecretaryK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 369 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hafiz Sharafatullah and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 CLC 1790 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, agents of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, filed constitutional petitions seeking the restoration of their Extra Departmental Public Call Offices (EDPCO) after the Corporation disconnected their manual telephone services to replace them with Card Pay Phones. The petitioners argued that the disconnection violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem). The Court examined whether this principle applies to a civil contract where the parties have explicitly agreed to a clause allowing the principal to withdraw the agency at any time without assigning reasons. The Court held that the principle of audi alteram partem cannot be read into a civil contract where it has been expressly excluded by the terms of the agreement. Applying the doctrine of expressum facit cessare tacitum, the Court ruled that the parties' rights are governed strictly by the contract. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the enforcement of a civil contract. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.
Questions settled- Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to a civil contract where the parties have expressly agreed to a clause allowing termination without assigning reasons?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained for the enforcement of a civil contract?
- Does the doctrine of expressum facit cessare tacitum preclude the implication of natural justice principles in a contract containing specific termination clauses?
- Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf vs Manager (Finance (T&G), WAPDA House, Lahore1995 PLC 749 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Muhammad 1Shaq vs Ch. Muhammad Siddique1995 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an eviction petition filed by the respondent against the appellant, alleging rent default and property damage. The appellant contested the eviction, asserting an agreement to sell the property and a pending civil suit for specific performance. The Rent Controller determined the relationship of landlord and tenant existed and ordered eviction without addressing the substantive allegations of default or property damage. On appeal, the Additional District Judge upheld the finding on the landlord-tenant relationship but remanded the case for the Rent Controller to frame and decide issues regarding the alleged default and damage. The High Court subsequently set aside the remand order and restored the eviction order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Rent Controller erred by failing to frame and adjudicate upon the core issues of default and property damage. The Court emphasized that the mere existence of a landlord-tenant relationship does not automatically warrant eviction without a finding on the specific grounds alleged. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a proper inquiry into the merits of the eviction grounds.
Questions settled- Does the mere establishment of a landlord-tenant relationship automatically justify an eviction order without findings on specific grounds like default or property damage?
- Is a Rent Controller required to frame and adjudicate upon all material issues raised in the pleadings, including allegations of rent default and property damage?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit for specific performance regarding the tenanted property preclude a Rent Controller from deciding an eviction petition?
- Hafiz Ahmad vs The Superintendent of Police, District Layyah and others1995 P Cr. L J 967 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Abdul Waheed vs Muhammad ArshadK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 121 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hafeez and Company vs Dy. Cit Circle-05, Multan1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1303 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1997-05-31Read full judgment →
- Hadibux vs Government of Sindh And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 71 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
- Hadi Bux vs Government of Sindh and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 692 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-07-18Read full judgment →
- Hadayatullah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 681 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
- Habibur Rehman Shaikh vs District and Sessions Judge, Shikarpur and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 265 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-07-19Read full judgment →
- Habibur Rehman Shaikh vs District and Session Judge, Shikarpur And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 62 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Habibur Rehman Shaikh vs Chief Engineer/Chairman, Area Electricity1995 PLC (C.S.) 405 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Habibulwahab Alkhairi and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 PLD Lahore 27 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved multiple constitutional petitions challenging the elevation and non-confirmation of various judges to the Lahore High Court, alleging that appointments were made on political considerations, with mala fides, and in violation of Islamic injunctions regarding women judges. The petitioners also contended that an Acting Chief Justice lacks the authority to recommend judicial appointments. The core legal questions revolved around the constitutional validity of judicial appointments based on political affiliations, the eligibility of women as judges under Islamic law and the Constitution, the scope of an Acting Chief Justice's powers under Article 196, and whether high court practice is a mandatory prerequisite under Article 193. The court held that pre-service political affiliation or bar association membership does not disqualify a person from judicial office, women are fully eligible to be appointed as judges, an Acting Chief Justice is competent to make recommendations, and enrolment as an advocate of the High Court for ten years satisfies the qualification requirement regardless of actual practice location. The petitions were dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether pre-service political affiliation or membership of a political party disqualifies a person from being appointed as a judge of the High Court?
- Does Article 193 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibit the appointment of women as judges of the High Court?
- Whether an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court is competent to make recommendations for the appointment of judges?
- Does the requirement of being an advocate of a High Court for a period of not less than ten years under Article 193 necessitate actual practice exclusively within the High Court?
- Habibullah Oureshi vs Farooque And 3 Other1995 MLD 92 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Habibullah Nasir and another vs Government of Pakistan, Department1995 PLC (C.S.) 950 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
- Habib-Ur-Rehman vs Maula BakhshK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
- Habib Ullah Khan vs Amir Zaman and 9 others1995 SCMR 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the District Judge's order revising the trial court's order regarding the deposit of pre-emption money. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation and mandatory nature of unamended section 24 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, requiring a pre-emptor to deposit one-third of the sale price in cash and furnish a bank guarantee for the remaining two-third. The Supreme Court held that where the sale price is explicitly mentioned in the sale deed or mutation, the court has no discretion to determine a probable value and is bound to order the deposit strictly in accordance with subsection (1) of section 24. Resorting to sections 3 and 33 of the Act for guidance from Shariah is unwarranted when the statutory provision is clear and unambiguous. Furthermore, the trial court lacked grounds under section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to review its initial valid deposit order. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the petition while granting an extension of time to comply with the deposit.
Questions settled- Whether a court has the discretion to determine the probable value of property under unamended section 24 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 when a sale price is already mentioned in the sale deed or mutation?
- Can recourse be had to sections 3 and 33 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 for interpretation when the provisions of section 24 of the said Act are clear and unambiguous?
- Under what circumstances can a trial court review its interlocutory order regarding the deposit of pre-emption money under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Habib Sugar Mills Limited, Nawabshah through Deputy General Manager1995 PLC 714 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited LDA Plaza, Lahore and 2Others vs Ramzan Sugar1997 P.C.T.L.R. 169 · Banking TribunalRead full judgment →
- Habib Bank Employees Federation of Pakistan through its President vs Habib Bank Limited, Karachi through its Senior Vice-President and another1995 PLC 414 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-11-17Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Employees Federation of Pakistan through its President vs Habib Bank Limited through its Vice-President, Karachi and another1995 PLC 247 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-11-17Read full judgment →
- Habib Bakhsh vs Mst. Bilquis Begum and others1995 SCMR 448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which set aside the Rent Controller's order and granted ejectment against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The core legal question was whether a tenant can withhold rent from a registered purchaser and deposit it with the Rent Controller based on a pending suit for specific performance and cancellation of the sale deed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner remained a tenant and was legally liable to pay rent to the new purchaser under the registered sale-deed, notwithstanding any pending litigation or agreement to purchase. The Court concluded that depositing rent in the name of the previous owner, who had lost interest in the property, did not cure the default. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that filing a suit for specific performance does not absolve a tenant from paying rent to the rightful purchaser.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a suit for specific performance and cancellation of a sale deed absolve a tenant from paying rent to the registered purchaser?
- Can a tenant validly deposit rent with the Rent Controller in the name of the previous owner after receiving notice of a registered sale?
- Whether a tenant commits default by refusing to pay rent to the successor-in-interest of the demised premises?
- Habib Ahmed Khan and anothers vs Sameeullah Khan and others1995 SCMR 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment upholding an order that set aside a consent decree. The petitioner had obtained a decree for a declaration of ownership of agricultural land based on a written statement filed by an advocate, which the respondents subsequently challenged under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The trial court set aside the decree, finding it was procured through fraud and that the advocate lacked authorization. The High Court affirmed this, noting that the suit remained pending for adjudication on merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud and misrepresentation by the lower courts did not warrant interference. The Court further clarified that observations made during Section 12(2) proceedings are restricted to that specific controversy and do not prejudice the trial on the merits. It was established that parties are free to lead fresh evidence or adopt existing evidence during the subsequent trial, ensuring the trial court remains uninfluenced by prior interlocutory findings.
Questions settled- Can a decree obtained through fraud and misrepresentation be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Do findings made during proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prejudice the trial of the suit on its merits?
- Are parties permitted to lead fresh evidence during the trial of a suit after a decree has been set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- H.H. Sir Rama Verma (Decd by L. Rs,) vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 205 205 I T R 433 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
- H. Pir Buksh And Others vs Administratorgeneral, Punjab1995 MLD 249 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ali Gul vs Secretary, Social Welfare and Special Education1995 PLC (C.S.) 1113 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmed vs Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 954 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmed Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1997 Criminal Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by petitioners accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who sought release on the ground of statutory delay in trial under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to mandatory bail due to the passage of two years since the case's registration, despite the trial being near completion. The Court examined the trial court's order-sheets and found that significant delays were directly attributable to the petitioners, including the absence of the accused, the absence of their counsel, or adjournments sought on their behalf. Holding that the statutory right to bail under the third proviso is forfeited if the delay is occasioned by the act or omission of the accused, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not grant an absolute right to bail if the accused has contributed to the delay in the conclusion of the trial.
Questions settled- Does the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant an absolute right to bail if the trial has not concluded within two years?
- Can bail be refused under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the delay in trial is attributable to the accused?
- Is it appropriate for the Court to grant bail when the trial has already commenced and is near conclusion?
- Gulson Air-Cargo Services (Pvt.) Ltd vs Compagnie International Air1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1162 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Gulraiz vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 474 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
- Gulistan and others vs The State1995 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained based solely on the testimony of a related and inimical witness, particularly when the First Information Report (FIR) appeared fabricated. The Supreme Court held that while a conviction may legally rest on the testimony of a single witness, that witness must be absolutely dependable. In this case, the witness was related, partisan, and had previously implicated an accused who was subsequently acquitted, demonstrating a tendency to exaggerate. Consequently, the Court ruled that the witness's testimony required independent corroboration to be considered a safe basis for conviction, which was absent. Furthermore, the Court found that the investigating officer had dishonestly prepared the FIR, necessitating extreme caution in evaluating the prosecution's evidence. Finding no reliable corroborative evidence to connect the appellants to the crime, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing that a tainted FIR and an unreliable solitary witness preclude a safe conviction.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a related and inimical witness without independent corroboration?
- What is the legal consequence when an investigating officer is found to have dishonestly prepared the First Information Report?
- Does the acquittal of a co-accused, to whom a witness attributed specific criminal acts, affect the credibility of that witness's testimony against other accused persons?
- Gul Muhammad vs Mst. Munawar Sultana and 14 others1995 CLC 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
- Gul Khan vs The State1995 MLD 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
- Gul Hussain Shah vs Mulazim Hussain Shah1995 SCMR 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner to challenge the sale of the suit property to the respondent. The suit was contested by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make the necessary 'Talabs' as required under pre-emption law. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, and the Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's civil revision in limine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the petitioner's deposition, stating that upon learning of the sale he immediately sent two persons to the defendant to offer the money consideration and demand the return of the property, was sufficient to constitute 'Talab-e-Muwathibat'. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this specific question regarding the legal sufficiency of the petitioner's actions in fulfilling the requirement of Talab-e-Muwathibat.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emptor's act of sending two persons to the vendee to offer the consideration money and demand the return of the property immediately upon learning of the sale constitutes a valid Talab-e-Muwathibat?
- Gul Hassan vs Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.1995 PLC 756 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Gul Haider vs Ahmed Adaya & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi1995 PLC 147 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
- Gul Daraz vs Secretary, Planning and Development Division, Islamabad and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 815 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1991-01-10Read full judgment →
- Government Transport Service vs Imtiaz Ahmad1995 PLC 522 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
- Government of the Punjab through Secretary (Services), Sga&I1995 PLD Supreme Court 541 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court interim order that admitted a writ petition filed by a civil servant and granted a stay against adverse departmental actions. The Provincial Government argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction, asserting the matter fell exclusively within the Service Tribunal's domain under the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s order was interim and non-final. The Court held that the High Court is fully competent to determine its own jurisdiction and the maintainability of the petition after hearing both parties. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim order, noting that the High Court had not yet had the opportunity to adjudicate the jurisdictional objections raised by the appellants. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with a direction for the High Court to dispose of the writ petition finally within one month. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts should avoid premature interference with interim orders, allowing the High Court to first exercise its authority to decide its own jurisdiction and the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to determine its own jurisdiction and the maintainability of a writ petition after hearing both parties?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interim, non-final order of the High Court before the High Court has adjudicated the jurisdictional objections raised by the parties?
- Is a dispute regarding disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Government of the Punjab through Secretary (Services), Services1995 SCMR 546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) as time-barred by four days. The core legal question was whether the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Government departments, where the explanation of departmental correspondence was deemed vague and each day's delay was not explained. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in declining to condone the delay was properly exercised on correct appreciation of the factual and legal position, emphasizing that the Government cannot be treated differently from private litigants on the question of limitation and that each day's delay must be accounted for under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Furthermore, pleas not raised before the High Court cannot be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Government can be treated differently from a private litigant on the question of limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is it mandatory to explain each day's delay when seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a plea regarding the explanation of delay, not raised before the High Court, be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Government of Punjab and others vs Khadim Hussain and others1995 SCMR 754 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Punjab against an order of the Lahore High Court dated 15-4-1992, which disposed of a writ petition in terms of a compromise allowing respondent Khadim Hussain to continue stone quarrying until 5-9-1996 upon payment of Rs. 77 lacs. The core legal question concerns whether a compromise order allowing a lease extension and substitution of unworkable quarrying land was contrary to law, unauthorized, and collusive, resulting in financial loss to the exchequer. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of the compromise order and whether it was vitiated by unauthorized interpolation. The court held that leave should be granted to consider the validity of the High Court's compromise order regarding the lease of an area other than the one originally leased out.
Questions settled- Whether a compromise order allowing a lease for quarrying of stone from an area other than the one previously leased out is contrary to law?
- Can a compromise leading to a lease extension be set aside if it is alleged to be unauthorized and collusive resulting in financial loss to the government exchequer?
- Government of Pakistan, Aviation Division and anothers vs Mst. Shaila1995 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, filed by the Government of Pakistan against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The respondent, an Assistant Security Officer at Lahore Airport, had been discharged from service under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The core legal question was whether employees of the Airports Security Force qualify as civil servants, thereby falling under the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal, particularly in light of amendments to the Airports Security Force Act, 1975. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order of the Federal Service Tribunal was unexceptionable. The Court reaffirmed the principle established in its precedent, Fasihuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt and others (1993 SCMR 1), that employees of the Airports Security Force are indeed civil servants. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the government's contention that the respondent was excluded from civil servant status, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a fresh determination.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Airports Security Force considered civil servants?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction over the service matters of Airports Security Force employees?
- Can the government challenge the status of Airports Security Force employees as civil servants based on the Airports Security Force (Amendment) Ordinance 1984?
- Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and anothers vs Abdul Hamid1995 SCMR 1214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially set aside a disciplinary order against a government employee. The respondent, a Record Keeper and In-charge of Maps, faced disciplinary action after maps were found missing, resulting in his reduction to a lower grade and an order for the recovery of Rs. 77,890. The Federal Service Tribunal, upon reviewing the departmental inquiry, concluded that the evidence created doubt regarding the respondent's liability for the missing maps and consequently set aside the recovery order, while maintaining the reduction in rank. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the Tribunal and found no legal infirmity in the decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the respondent regarding the financial recovery. Furthermore, the Court noted that because the respondent had not filed a cross-appeal challenging the reduction in his rank, it could not grant further relief. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's judgment and dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant relief regarding a disciplinary penalty if the aggrieved employee has not filed an appeal against that specific penalty?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal empowered to set aside a financial recovery order if the evidence regarding the employee's liability is doubtful?
- Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad and 31995 SCMR 209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Government of Pakistan filed a petition for leave to appeal against the Sindh High Court's order dated 24-3-1992, which had quashed letters issued by the Central Board of Revenue banning the import of tyres under the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, holding them violative of section 16 of the Customs Act. At the hearing before the Supreme Court, both parties conceded that section 16 of the Customs Act was not applicable and that the matter was instead governed by section 129 of the Customs Act and the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965, neither of which had been examined by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court by consent converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and remanded the case for fresh determination in light of section 129 of the Customs Act and the terms of the treaty agreement.
Questions settled- Whether section 16 of the Customs Act applies to goods in transit to Afghanistan or if such cases are governed by section 129 of the Customs Act?
- Can administrative letters banning transit trade items be sustained without examining the applicable statutory provisions and treaty agreements?
- Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 3 others vs Manzoor Brothers1995 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal by the Government of Pakistan against a High Court judgment favoring a respondent-firm, M/s. Manzoor Brothers, regarding the import of cycle hub-spindles. The Customs authorities had confiscated the goods, alleging they were imported without a valid license under the Import Policy Order, 1982-83, thereby violating the Customs Act, 1969 and the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950. The core legal question was whether the Customs Department could retroactively apply a new administrative ruling to goods imported prior to that ruling, despite a long-standing departmental practice of permitting such imports. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Customs Department could not depart from a consistent, long-standing departmental practice to the detriment of settled rights. The Court affirmed that administrative rulings cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions completed before the ruling was issued. The key principle laid down is that where an executive authority has consistently interpreted a statute or rule over a long period, it creates an element of estoppel, and courts will prevent the authorities from suddenly departing from such practice to the prejudice of parties who relied upon it.
Questions settled- Can an administrative authority retroactively apply a new ruling to goods imported before that ruling was issued?
- Is the government bound by a long-standing departmental practice regarding the interpretation of import regulations?
- Does a consistent departmental construction of a statute create an estoppel against the authorities?
- Government of N.WF.P. through Secretary Forests, Fisheries and Wildlife, Peshawar and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 15 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing their writ petitions, which challenged the order of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, permitting the legal heirs of late Nawab Muhammad Fareed Khan to file fresh declaration forms under Martial Law Regulation 64 and Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal question was whether fresh declarations could be authorized and filed in respect of property already subjected to declarations under the said regulations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions that once declarations had been made, no subsequent declarations could be entertained and the Chairman lacked the power to authorize them, while ordering that the interim stay order shall continue pending the disposal of the appeals.
Questions settled- Can the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission authorize the filing of fresh declaration forms under Martial Law Regulation 64 and Martial Law Regulation 115 after initial declarations have already been submitted?
- Whether fresh declarations can be filed in respect of property that was previously surrendered and settled under Martial Law Regulation 64?
- Does the Federal Land Commission have the power to direct the Deputy Land Commissioner to issue fresh notices to heirs for independent determination under Martial Law Regulations?
- Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and others vs Iqbal1995 SCMR 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which directed the absorption of the respondent as a regular civil servant in Grade-18 or to an equivalent post. The core legal question concerned whether the services of an ad hoc employee, whose appointment had been regularized pursuant to earlier finalized judicial decisions, could be terminated on the premise that he was appointed to a specific project. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no infirmity, noting that the respondent's initial appointment was not tied to any specific project and that the earlier judgments confirming his regularized service status had attained finality and could not be re-opened. The key principle laid down is that matters and questions conclusively decided by final judicial pronouncements operate as a bar to subsequent re-litigation or inconsistent administrative action regarding an employee's service status.
Questions settled- Can the service of a regularized civil servant be terminated on the ground that he was appointed to a specific project when the original appointment order and final judicial decisions establish otherwise?
- Whether questions already decided by final judgments in previous writ petitions can be re-opened and re-agitated in subsequent proceedings?
- Government of N.anothersW.F.P. through Secretary, C & W Department1995 CLC 516 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Appeal from Order (F.A.O.) challenges the legality of an order passed by the Civil Judge, Abbottabad, dismissing the appellants' applications for setting aside an ex parte decree. The respondents had instituted a suit for permanent injunction and recovery of damages against the appellants (including the Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, C & W Department). Despite being served and initially represented by departmental Sub-Engineers, the appellants repeatedly failed to appear and were proceeded against ex parte. The trial court appointed a Local Commissioner, before whom the appellants' representative also participated before withdrawing. An ex parte decree was subsequently passed on June 22, 1992. The appellants filed applications to set aside the decree months later, which were dismissed as time-barred. The Peshawar High Court held that the appellants had clear knowledge of the proceedings and were bound by Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908, making their applications hopelessly time-barred. The High Court further ruled that the appellants failed to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance or lack of due service. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree is governed by Article 164 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Can a defendant who actively participated in trial proceedings through a representative subsequently claim lack of service or knowledge of the suit?
- What are the remedies available to a defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed?
- Does the failure to assign good cause for previous non-appearance preclude a defendant from succeeding under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Law, Peshawar vs Muhammad1995 PLC (C.S.) 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Government of N.-W.F.P. filed a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent to count his previous service period from 10-2-1967 to 30-12-1979 for the purpose of calculating gratuity and pensionary benefits. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal correctly applied the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Appeals Nos. 369 to 373 of 1985 regarding the computation of past service for pensionary purposes. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's counsel could not provide any compelling arguments to justify departing from the established legal position or the Tribunal's reliance on the cited precedent. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision of the Service Tribunal, holding that the respondent's previous service period was validly countable for pensionary benefits. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the principle that established precedents regarding the calculation of pensionable service must be consistently applied by Service Tribunals.
Questions settled- Can previous service rendered by a government employee be counted for the determination of gratuity and pensionary benefits?
- Is a Service Tribunal bound to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court regarding the computation of pensionable service?
- Government of Balochistan vs Ghulam MohammadK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 136 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
- Government Employees' Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and anothers vs Province of Punjab and others1995 CLC 765 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
- Government CONTRACTOR's Association vs Government of PakistanKL.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 49 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
- Gohar Rashid vs Fazal Hasan Mazhar1995 PLD Lahore 469 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a landlord's second appeal against the concurrent dismissal of an ejectment petition filed under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking the eviction of a tenant from a commercial shop on the ground of personal bona fide need. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge had non-suited the appellant primarily for failing to personally appear in the witness-box, omitting details of the requirement in the petition, and allegedly possessing alternative vacant portions within the same building. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a landlord is not legally required to personally testify if an attorney with personal knowledge is examined, nor is there any strict requirement to plead detailed specifics of personal need or negative ownership of other properties in the eviction application. Furthermore, the court reiterated that it is the exclusive prerogative of the landlord to select which property to occupy, and the tenant bears the burden of proving bad faith once the landlord establishes a bona fide requirement.
Questions settled- Whether the non-appearance of a landlord as a witness in an ejectment petition is fatal to the case when a duly conversant attorney is examined?
- Is it mandatory for a landlord to explicitly detail the nature of personal requirement and plead non-ownership of other properties in the ejectment application?
- Does a Rent Controller or appellate court have the authority to dictate which property a landlord should occupy for their business?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish lack of good faith once the landlord produces evidence showing a bona fide requirement?
- Goculdas Dossa and Co. and others vs J.P. Shah and others1995 PTD 1257 · Bombay High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
- Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Ahmad Shafi and another1995 PLC 621 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
- Glaxo Laboratories (India). Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 1204 206 I T R 335 · Bombay High Court · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
- Glaxo Group Limited, And 2 Other vs Evron (Private) Limited, And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 34 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-09Read full judgment →
- Ghumgeen Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Castes 131 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulamshabbir vs Judge Family Court, Layyah , Decided Oh February, 1996K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 482 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Sobia Bhatti vs Secretary, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and 2 others1997 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Siddique vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 84 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabhir vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 583 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State1995 SCMR 1166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which allowed a criminal revision application filed by the complainant, setting aside the acquittal of the petitioners and remanding the case for retrial. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction and correctly appraised the evidence in accordance with principles for safe administration of justice while interfering with an acquittal in revision. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these questions, noting contentions regarding misreading of evidence by the High Court and the prolonged delay since the incident. The Court held that leave should be granted to properly evaluate the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction and appraisal of evidence, continuing the stay of proceedings in the trial court pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction in setting aside an acquittal and remanding the case for retrial in a criminal revision application?
- Did the High Court rightly appraise the evidence in accordance with principles laid down for the safe administration of justice?
- Whether a retrial ordered after a significant lapse of time serves any useful purpose in the administration of justice?
- Ghulam Shabbir vs Judge Family Court, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 707 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs Judge Family Court and anothers1997 MLD 74 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1995 MLD 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Mazhar Ahmad1995 PLD Supreme Court 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The core legal question revolves around the determination of the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit where the sale is effected through an oral transaction subsequently recorded in a mutation, specifically whether limitation runs from the alleged prior delivery of physical possession or the date of attestation of the mutation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner-vendee failed to establish actual physical possession prior to the attestation of the mutation through reliable evidence, and therefore limitation rightly commenced from the date the mutation was formally attested by the Revenue Officer, rendering the respondent's suit within time. The key principle laid down is that recitals in private agreements or unverified revenue entries regarding prior delivery of possession cannot bind a pre-emptor unless substantiated by convincing evidence showing clear public notice of physical possession functioning to start the limitation period earlier than the mutation attestation date.
Questions settled- When does limitation start to run for a pre-emption suit in the case of an oral sale of agricultural land effected through a mutation?
- Can recitals in an unverified sale agreement or private receipt regarding prior delivery of possession bind a pre-emptor for the purpose of limitation?
- Whether a mutation can be deemed to be sanctioned on the date parties acknowledge the sale transaction before a Revenue Officer rather than the date of formal attestation?
- What constitutes sufficient proof of physical delivery of possession capable of serving as notice to prospective pre-emptors to trigger the limitation period?
- Ghulam Sarwar and 2 others vs The State1997 MLD 1872 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sadiq vs The State1997 MLD 126 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sabir vs Abdul Rashid Khan1995 PLD Peshawar 9 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two First Appeals challenging orders passed by the Rent Controller, Peshawar Cantonment, which allowed eviction petitions against tenants on grounds of default and bona fide personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether the eviction petitions were premature, having been filed prior to the landlord's retirement, and whether the landlord had sufficiently substantiated the claim of bona fide requirement for the premises. The Court held that the petitions were filed under Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963, not Section 17-A, rendering the 'premature' argument misconceived. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that if a lis is filed prematurely but matures during the pendency of proceedings, it is not liable to be dismissed on technical grounds. Regarding personal need, the Court established the principle that a landlord's statement regarding bona fide requirement is of fundamental importance and must be accepted as truthful unless rebutted by cogent evidence from the tenant. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the eviction orders were upheld.
Questions settled- Whether an eviction petition filed prematurely is liable to be dismissed if the statutory period for maintaining the lis expires during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Is a landlord's statement regarding the bona fide requirement of premises sufficient to establish the need in the absence of rebuttal by cogent evidence?
- Does the expression 'requires in good faith' connote mere wish or convenience of the landlord, or must it be substantiated by positive evidence?
- Ghulam Rasool, And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 188 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 156 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Superintendent of Police, Bhakkar and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1905 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Haji Allah Wasaya and others1995 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1161 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Deputy Inspctor-General of Police And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 76 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs (Mst.) Zainab Bibi1995 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order passed by a Judge in Chambers, which had allowed the respondent's application under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby restoring an appeal to be heard on its merits. The petitioner contended that the respondent had been served with a notice of appeal on March 4, 1987, and that the subsequent proceedings were flawed because no hearing took place on that specific date, leading to an adjournment. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order, noting that the lower court had carefully considered the relevant legal authorities regarding the service of notice and the procedural requirements for restoring an appeal. Finding that the lower court had exercised its discretion with care and caution, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision to restore the appeal for a hearing on the merits.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court restore an appeal under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after it has been dismissed for default?
- Is the service of notice on a specific date a prerequisite for the validity of subsequent adjournment orders in an appeal?
- Ghulam Rasool Khan and anothers vs Collector of Customs and another1995 CLC 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool and others vs Khuda Bakhsh and others1995 CLC 26. · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool and others vs Canal Authorities and others1995 MLD 999 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool And Others vs Canal Authorities And Other1995 MLD 999 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool and anothers vs Abdur Rashid and another1995 SCMR 761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their pre-emption suit regarding a land sale registered on 16 April 1986, filed on 12 April 1987 on the ground of co-ownership. The trial court held the suit had abated based on the judgment in Malik Said Kamal's case (PLD 1986 SC 360), and the appellate and revisional courts upheld this view. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that since the suit was filed on 12 April 1987 when Shariat Law was applicable, it was governed by the rule in Mst. Safia Begum v. Ibrahim (PLD 1989 SC 314), which allowed suits for pre-emption under general law regarding causes of action arising after 31 July 1986. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine this contention.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit filed on the ground of co-ownership after 31 July 1986 is competent under general law?
- Did the judgment in Malik Said Kamal's case abate all pre-emption suits arising after 31 July 1986?
- Ghulam Rasool and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the two appellants under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby they were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could be compounded following a compromise between the appellants and the legal heirs of the deceased. The Court examined the compromise application, affidavits of the legal heirs, heirship certificates, and the formal application filed under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that all legal formalities had been duly completed and that the legal heirs had waived their right of Qisas and Diyat, the Court allowed the compromise application with the permission of the Court. The ratio decidendi is that an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is compoundable at the instance of the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, resulting in the acquittal of the accused upon valid verification.
Questions settled- Whether an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is compoundable at the instance of the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Can a compromise in a murder case be accepted on the basis of affidavits and verified statements of all legal heirs waiving Qisas and Diyat?
- What is the legal effect of an accepted compromise under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the conviction and sentence of an accused?