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.
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad vs Abdur1995 SCMR 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises eighteen petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a common interim order of the Lahore High Court. The respondent employees had filed writ petitions claiming entitlement to a Secretariat Allowance and sought interim relief during the pendency of those proceedings. The High Court granted interim relief directing the payment of the allowance, with some respondents awarded the allowance from a date prior to the filing of their writ petitions. The core legal question was whether an interim relief granting the main claim or operating retrospectively prior to the institution of the suit can be validly granted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while a court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief if a prima facie case is made out, granting an interim measure prior to the date of filing the constitutional petition is impermissible. The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order by restricting the payment of the allowance from the prospective date of March 1, 1994, while protecting those respondents who were already in receipt of the allowance prior to that date. The key principle laid down is that interim relief ordinarily cannot exceed the scope of the main lis nor be granted for a period antedating the initiation of proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an interim relief can be granted from a date prior to the filing of the constitutional petition in the High Court?
- Can a court grant the main relief claimed in a pending writ petition by way of an interim measure?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's interim order for payment of allowances when supported by precedent and a prima facie case?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment, Islamabad and anothers vs B.A. Tabassum and 11 others1995 SCMR 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a civil petition filed by the Federal Government challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had restored the seniority of respondent No. 1 (B.A. Tabassum) as established in a 1990 seniority list. The core legal question was whether the Department could unilaterally revise a final seniority list three years after its issuance, particularly when no representations were filed against the initial ranking by aggrieved parties. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the Department failed to demonstrate that any officer junior to the respondent had challenged the 1990 list. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal Safvi, admitted he had not filed any representation against the 1990 list despite being ranked junior to the respondent. The Court held that in the absence of timely representations against a finalized seniority list, the Department lacks the authority to unilaterally revise such seniority after a significant lapse of time. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the finality of the original seniority determination.
Questions settled- Can a government department unilaterally revise a finalized seniority list after a significant lapse of time?
- Does the failure to file a representation against a published seniority list preclude a later challenge to that seniority?
- Is a seniority list considered final if no representations are made against it by affected parties?
- Federation of Pakistan and anothers vs Ghulam Nabi1995 SCMR 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of the respondent Civil Supply Inspector and remanded the case for further action after observing that senior officers responsible for shortages had made the respondent a scapegoat. The core legal question was whether the Federal Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by widening the scope of the inquiry and directing further action regarding unnamed senior officers. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal acted within its powers, noting that an appeal is a continuation of proceedings and that the Tribunal's remand and observations were proper. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal possesses the authority to make appropriate orders of remand and observations regarding departmental conduct within the scope of its appellate powers under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry against senior officers while deciding an appeal filed against dismissal?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of remand passed by the Service Tribunal when no question of public importance is raised?
- Whether an appeal is considered a continuation of the original proceedings before the service authorities?
- Federation of Pakistan and another vs Ghulam Nabi1995 PLC (C.S.) 869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Federation of Pakistan and the Administrator, Northern Areas, against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The respondent, a Civil Supply Inspector, was dismissed from service and ordered to pay recoveries following a significant shortage of wheat and gunny bags under his charge. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's appeal, set aside his dismissal, ordered his reinstatement, and remanded the case for a proper inquiry, observing that senior officers might have been responsible for the shortages and made the respondent a scapegoat. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 by widening the scope of the inquiry. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings, and since the departmental authority could have ordered an inquiry against senior officers, the Tribunal was competent to do so. Finding no issue of public importance, the Court refused leave and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the conduct of senior officers while deciding an appeal against a civil servant's dismissal?
- Whether an order of remand by the Service Tribunal should be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of an issue of public importance?
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal considered a continuation of the departmental proceedings?
- Federal Land Commission vs Sardar Noor Ahmed Khan and 7 others1995 SCMR 1231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the validity of an order passed by the Federal Land Commission. The core legal questions concern the scope of the Federal Government's suo motu revisional powers under the Martial Law Regulation 115, specifically whether such powers allow for the interference with factual findings established by subordinate Land Reform Authorities. Furthermore, the case addresses the retrospective impact of the Federal Shariat Court's judgment in Qizalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore (PLD 1990 SC 94) and the subsequent Appellate Shariat Bench decision in Government of Pakistan v. Qazilbash Waqf, Lahore (1993 SCMR 1697) on land reform decisions made in 1976. The Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the Federal Land Commission's 1976 decision could be declared without lawful authority in a writ petition filed in 1977 but decided in 1994, in light of these Shariat-based precedents which fundamentally altered the legal landscape regarding land reforms.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Government in exercise of its suo motu power under paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation 115 interfere with findings of fact recorded by subordinate Land Reform Authorities?
- Can a decision rendered by the Federal Land Commission in 1976 be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect in a writ petition filed in 1977 but decided in 1994, in view of the decisions in Qizalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and Government of Pakistan v. Qazilbash Waqf, Lahore?
- Federal Investigation Agency vs Muhammad Younus Habib and 5 others1995 PLD Karachi 124 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
- Fazulur Rehman Alias Wazir vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 233 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
- Fazlur Rehman and 2 others vs Messrs Nagaria Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi1995 PLC 336 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
- Fazlur Rehman Alias Wazir vs The State1995 MLD 197 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-04Read full judgment →
- Fazle Raziq and others vs Additional Commissioner, Peshawar and others1995 CLC 1569 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
- Fazar Ali Khan and 3 others vs Ghulam Ali Khan and 9 others1995 CLC 1850 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a dispute over the ownership and possession of a house located in Lakki Meena Khel. The plaintiff, Ghulam Ali Khan, sought a declaration of ownership and possession against Fazar Ali Khan and his wife, Mst. Sameena Yasmeen, alleging they were permissive occupants. The lower courts concurrently held that the property belonged to the plaintiff and the heirs of Akbar Ali Khan, including Mst. Sameena Yasmeen, and decreed possession against the defendants. The core legal question was whether a co-sharer in possession of a property can be ejected by other co-sharers without a formal partition. The High Court held that while the declaratory decree regarding ownership was correct, the decree for possession was unsustainable. The court established the principle that a co-sharer in possession of joint property cannot be ejected by other co-sharers merely because they deny the plaintiff's title or claim hostile title; such dispossession is only permissible through a formal partition of the property. Consequently, the court upheld the declaration of ownership but set aside the decree for possession, subject to the petitioner paying the requisite court fees.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer in possession of joint property be ejected by other co-sharers without a formal partition?
- Does a co-sharer lose their right to possess joint property if they deny the title of other co-sharers?
- Is a revision petition against an appellate decree subject to the payment of court fees under the Court Fees Act 1870?
- Fazalullah Unar vs Government of Sindh and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1182 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
- Fazal-Ur-Rehman vs S.D.O., Highway, Wazirabad and others1995 MLD 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
- Fazal-Ur-Rehman and 14 others vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P. Peshawar and 7 others1995 CLC 904 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
- Fazal Ur Rehman vs S.D.O., Highway, Wazirabad And Other1995 MLD 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad and anothers vs Ata Muhammad alias Attar Singh and 2 others1995 SCMR 994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an order remanding a civil suit for trial. The core legal question concerned the procedural propriety of a trial court deciding preliminary issues in a piecemeal fashion and dismissing a suit without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to produce evidence. The trial court had dismissed the suit based on a single preliminary issue, despite other pending issues and applications. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in deciding preliminary issues in a piecemeal manner. It affirmed the principle that all issues of law should be decided jointly, and a suit cannot be summarily dismissed without providing the parties a full and fair opportunity to produce evidence. The Court further noted that while a court may direct an attorney to produce their principal, the dismissal of a suit without allowing the plaintiff to present their case is legally improper. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the remand order for the trial court to proceed in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a trial court decide preliminary issues in a piecemeal manner?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to dismiss a suit without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to produce evidence?
- Should all issues of law be decided jointly by the trial court?
- Fazal Karim vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 655 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-05Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 620 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs Mst. Musharaf Sultana and 9 others1995 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning protracted pre-emption litigation over agricultural land. The core legal question involves whether the withdrawal of pre-emption money or technical mistakes in remand orders and court proceedings vitiate a pre-emption decree, and whether parties should suffer for court oversights correctable under inherent powers or statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that where pre-emption decrees were properly granted and upheld after extensive proceedings, and where technical objections regarding the withdrawal of pre-emption money or procedural confusions from earlier remand orders lack merit, the pre-emptor's rights remain intact. The Court established that technical procedural flaws or the subsequent transfer of decreed property do not defeat a lawful pre-emption claim, and litigants should not be prejudiced by judicial or clerical oversights in the record. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the withdrawal of pre-emption money after the passing of a decree defeats the pre-emptor's claim on technical grounds?
- Can parties be made to suffer for mistakes committed by courts in proceedings or remand orders?
- Is it permissible for the High Court to correct a mistake in proceedings under its inherent powers and section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Fazal Hussain vs Mst. Husna Bano1995 MLD 170 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the annulment of a decree of Khula granted in favor of the private respondent, the petitioner's wife. The court addressed the maintainability of the petition and the request for substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that constitutional remedies cannot be invoked against a decree for dissolution of marriage unless there is manifest illegality, and that substituted service through publication is a remedy of last resort that cannot be granted casually without fulfilling strict procedural prerequisites to prevent abuse of process. Furthermore, the court emphasized that Khula is a substantive right of a Muslim female and such a decree cannot be interfered with lightly. Consequently, the application for substituted service and the main constitutional petition were dismissed, establishing that constitutional jurisdiction must be exercised to aid justice rather than perpetuate litigation against a spouse.
Questions settled- When can substituted service through publication be granted under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula?
- Is Khula a right of a female professing Islam that warrants protection against light interference by courts?
- Fazal Hussain and others vs Malik Muhammad Saeed and others1995 PLD Lahore 451 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
- Fazal Dad vs Khadim Hussain And Another1995 MLD 1299 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, arising from a judgment of the High Court, examines the effect of the substitution of Section 14 of the Right of Prior Purchase Act by the Right of Prior Purchase (Amendment) Act, 1993 on pending pre-emption suits in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The appellant, a defendant in a pre-emption suit, argued that the amendment repealed the unamended statutory grounds and rendered the suit non-maintainable because a pre-emptor must possess a superior right at three essential stages (sale, suit, and decree). The Supreme Court held that an amendment involving substitution operates as a repeal of the old provision, thereby attracting Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 56-C of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act. Consequently, accrued rights and pending proceedings under the old law are protected and continue as if the law had not been repealed. However, newly introduced grounds of pre-emption could not be retrospectively applied to a sale executed before their enactment. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order.
Questions settled- Does the substitution of a statutory provision by an amendment amount to a repeal of the original provision attracting the protection of pending proceedings?
- Are pre-emption suits filed under unamended statutory grounds saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act when the relevant provision is substituted during the pendency of the suit?
- Can newly introduced grounds of pre-emption under an amended law be applied retrospectively to a sale-deed executed prior to the coming into force of the amending statute?
- What are the essential stages at which a pre-emptor must possess a superior right of prior purchase to successfully maintain a pre-emption suit?
- Fazal Baqi and anothers vs Rehmatullah1995 MLD 303 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
- Fazal Baqi And Another vs Rehmatullah1995 MLD 303 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
- Fazal Ahmed vs The State1995 SCMR 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's order cancelling his post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, along with a co-accused, had initially been granted bail by a Magistrate, but the Additional Sessions Judge subsequently cancelled the petitioner's bail while maintaining the co-accused's bail, citing the serious nature of the injuries inflicted on the complainant. The High Court upheld this cancellation. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts' discretionary decision to deny bail was legally infirm. The Court held that the determination of bail for an undertrial prisoner falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of the lower courts. Finding that the lower courts had provided proper reasons based on the gravity of the injuries and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in those findings, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order. The petition was dismissed, with a directive for the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Questions settled- Is the grant or refusal of bail to an undertrial prisoner a matter within the discretionary jurisdiction of the courts?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a bail cancellation order if the petitioner fails to demonstrate legal infirmity in the lower court's reasoning?
- Does the infliction of serious injuries justify the cancellation of bail for an accused charged under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Fazal Ahmed vs Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Karachi1995 PLC 615 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Rasul vs The State1995 SCMR 1298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and dacoity under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions concerned the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court regarding the confirmation of death sentences and the sufficiency of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of an identification parade and the credibility of eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's jurisdictional objection was factually incorrect as the trial court had properly referred the matter to the Federal Shariat Court. Furthermore, the Court upheld the convictions, finding that the eyewitnesses were independent, disinterested, and had no prior enmity with the accused. The identification parade was deemed reliable, and the recovery of incriminating evidence, including cash and the murder weapon, corroborated the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that where eyewitnesses are independent and lack motive to falsely implicate, their consistent testimony, supported by corroborative evidence like recoveries and identification parades, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even in capital cases.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Shariat Court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the trial court has failed to make a reference for confirmation of a death sentence?
- Can the testimony of eyewitnesses who have no prior enmity with the accused be relied upon to sustain a conviction?
- Is an identification parade valid where the accused was not previously known to the witnesses?
- Fayyaz Haider Shah vs District Magistrate, Gujrat and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
- Fatima Bibi And Another vs The S.H.O. Police Station Bahanwala, TehsilK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 106 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
- Fatima Bibi and another vs Mallan and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 507 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by a woman and her mother seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, alleging abduction and adultery. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation where the F.I.R. appeared to be a mala fide counterblast to a pending civil suit for dissolution of marriage and where the allegations lacked credibility. The Court held that while it ordinarily refrains from interfering with police investigations, it may intervene in the interest of justice when police actions are not sacrosanct and subject to judicial scrutiny under the Constitution. Finding the F.I.R. to be mala fide and noting that the petitioner had already initiated civil proceedings for the dissolution of her marriage, the Court ordered the suspension of the criminal investigation pending the final resolution of the family dispute by the Family Court. The key principle established is that criminal proceedings should be stayed when the underlying controversy is concurrently pending before a competent Family Court.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a police investigation under its writ jurisdiction?
- Should criminal proceedings be stayed when a related matter is pending before a Family Court?
- Are police actions and investigations subject to judicial scrutiny under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Fatima Bibi And Another vs Malian And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 2 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
- Fateh Sher and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 48 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
- Fateh Shah and 2 others vs The State1995 SCMR 1316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had enhanced the appellants' sentences from life imprisonment to death following their conviction for triple murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence where the trial court had exercised its discretion to impose life imprisonment, and whether such enhancement was permissible given the Presidential amnesty order dated 7-12-1988. The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s discretion in awarding life imprisonment was neither perverse nor unreasonable, and thus the High Court erred in interfering with the sentence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that because the conviction occurred prior to the 7-12-1988 amnesty, which commuted existing death sentences, enhancing the sentence to death would result in impermissible discrimination. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's enhancement and restored the trial court’s original sentence of life imprisonment. The principle established is that appellate courts should not interfere with a trial court's sentencing discretion unless it is perverse, and sentences cannot be enhanced to death if doing so violates the parity principle regarding amnesty orders.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to death if the trial court's discretion was not perverse?
- Does the Presidential amnesty order of 7-12-1988 preclude the enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death for convictions recorded prior to that date?
- Is a trial court's decision to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty subject to interference by the High Court if the reasoning is based on mitigating circumstances?
- Fateh Muhammad vs Mst. Hafizan Begum and others1995 PLD Lahore 292 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Ilam Din and 9 others1995 SCMR 938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court whereby a Constitution Petition filed by respondent No. 1 against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was allowed regarding the respondent's allotment. The core legal question concerned whether an allotment previously cancelled as fraudulent and bogus, which cancellation had attained finality, could be revived or protected through a writ petition that challenged a subsequent remand order. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted, noting that the original cancellation order of the allotment had not been challenged by the respondent and thus had become final, and that the impugned judgment may have been obtained through concealment of material facts. The key principle laid down is that an uncontested and final administrative order canceling a fraudulent property allotment cannot be undermined or set aside through subsequent proceedings without disclosing the finality of the earlier adjudication.
Questions settled- Whether an uncontested order canceling a fraudulent property allotment can be challenged indirectly through subsequent proceedings?
- Can a party obtain relief in constitutional jurisdiction by concealing the finality of an earlier adverse order passed against them?
- Fateh Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Ajaz Din through Legal Heirs and 2 others1995 SCMR 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging orders passed by settlement authorities regarding property allotments. The core legal question is whether a temporary allotment made for maintenance to one brother can be claimed for an equal share by another brother who received a separate allotment in lieu of verified joint claims. The Supreme Court held that since the verified claim was joint, the inclusion of the respondent's name in the Q.P.R. and subsequent allotment correction was lawful, while the temporary allotment made strictly for maintenance (Guzara) in the name of the respondent alone conferred no right of share upon the petitioner. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and settlement authorities, laying down the principle that temporary maintenance allotments do not form part of joint verified property claims subject to division between co-claimants.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary allotment made for maintenance can be claimed for a share by a co-claimant?
- Can settlement authorities correct a clerical omission in a joint verified claim?
- Does an allotment in lieu of a joint Q.P.R. create rights exclusively for one claimant?
- Fateh Khan vs Province of Punjab1995 CLC 111 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan vs Manzoor and 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan And Other vs Province of Punjab And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan And 2 Others vs Province of Punjab And Another1995 MLD 908 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Farzand Ali Shah vs S.H.O., Police Station City, Muzaffargarh1995 P Cr. L J 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Faryad Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 433 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
- Faryad Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 490 · Other · -Read full judgment →
- Faryad Ali alias Faiz and other vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 262 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-01Read full judgment →
- Farooq Iqbal Dar vs Azad Govt. through Chief SecretaryK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 41 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-09-13Read full judgment →
- Farooq Iqbal Dar vs Azad Government through. Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 172 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-09-13Read full judgment →
- Farooq Ahmad vs The State1995 KLR criminal cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-23Read full judgment →
- Faris Rahman Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others1995 SCMR 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a civil servant in the Pakistan Postal Service and later the Secretariat Group, challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing his service appeal regarding ante-dated promotion and seniority in BPS-20. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to seniority and promotion from the date he was initially recommended by the Central Selection Board in 1981, notwithstanding that the Establishment Secretary had returned the recommendation and the appellant was subsequently superseded multiple times over several years without immediate challenge. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while the Establishment Secretary's action in returning the recommendation violated established convention, the appellant's prolonged delay and laches in acquiescing to his successive supersessions for over five years was fatal to his claim, as disturbing settled seniority structures after a long lapse of time is impermissible. The key principles laid down are that administrative recommendations must follow established statutory conventions, but delayed challenges to supersession and seniority claims disentitle a civil servant to relief.
Questions settled- Whether an appellant is entitled to promotion and seniority from the date of an initial recommendation by the Central Selection Board when that recommendation was improperly returned by the Establishment Secretary?
- Does the acceptance of repeated supersessions over a prolonged period constitute a bar to claiming retrospective seniority on grounds of delay and laches?
- Whether the Establishment Secretary possesses the authority under prevailing rules and conventions to return recommendations of the Central Selection Board for reconsideration?
- Farid Ullah vs Muhammad Niaz and 6 others1995 PLD Supreme Court 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by the petitioner Farid Ullah against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court granting bail to respondents 1 to 6 in a murder case registered under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in granting post-arrest bail to the accused on the ground that it was a case of further inquiry due to a clash at a crowded public meeting. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding was unfounded given the prompt FIRs, eyewitness accounts recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specific role attribution, and recovery of weapons and empties from respondents 1 to 5 immediately after the incident. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and cancelled the bail of respondents 1 to 5, while maintaining the bail of respondent 6 who was only charged with instigation and not firing. The key principle laid down is that where prompt FIRs, specific roles, eyewitness statements, and recoveries prima facie connect the accused to a heinous crime, bail cannot be granted on vague assumptions of general confusion at the scene.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted on the ground of further inquiry when prompt FIRs, eyewitness statements, and weapon recoveries prima facie connect the accused to the murder?
- Does general confusion at a crowded public meeting warrant the grant of bail to accused persons specifically charged with firing and murder?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the grant of bail to an accused person who was only attributed instigation rather than direct firing?
- Farid and others vs Assistant Commissioner and others1995 SCMR 941 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of land allotments made under evacuee property laws. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, claiming to be co-sharers of land abandoned in India, were entitled to the allotments they received, despite the lack of verified claim forms in their names. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish their entitlement, as the Settlement Department's records confirmed that no claim forms were ever filed or verified for them. The Court affirmed that the Settlement Authorities acted within their competence in cancelling allotments procured through misrepresentation and directing the adjustment of the land in favour of informers against their outstanding claims. The key principle laid down is that an allotment of evacuee land is invalid and subject to cancellation if it is not supported by a duly verified claim form, and that Settlement Authorities possess the inherent power to rectify allotments procured through misrepresentation or fraud.
Questions settled- Can land be validly allotted under evacuee laws if the claimant has not filed a verified claim form?
- Are Settlement Authorities competent to cancel an allotment of land that was procured through misrepresentation?
- Does the absence of a verified claim form render an allotment of evacuee land liable to cancellation?
- Farhat Ali Khan vs Muhammad Siddidue, Advocate and another1995 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment declaring the appellant unqualified for the position of Judicial Member/Chairman of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who had served as a magistrate and judge in Uganda for several years, satisfied the constitutional requirement of having been an 'Advocate of a High Court' for at least ten years, given that his name remained on the Bar Council rolls during his foreign service. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant was ineligible. The Court held that the constitutional requirement of being an 'Advocate' for a specified period necessitates active engagement in the legal profession. By accepting a permanent, substantive judicial office abroad, the appellant ceased to be an active advocate. Consequently, the period of foreign service must be excluded when computing the ten-year standing requirement. The Court further emphasized that one cannot rely on their own omission to suspend their license, as mandated by Bar Council rules, to claim continuous standing. Thus, the appellant failed to meet the mandatory qualifications for the appointment.
Questions settled- Does the constitutional requirement of being an 'Advocate' for ten years for judicial appointment mandate active legal practice?
- Can a person who accepts a permanent, substantive foreign judicial office be considered an active 'Advocate' for the purpose of calculating standing?
- Does the failure to suspend a legal license while in other employment allow one to count that period as active legal practice for judicial eligibility?
- Can a petition for quo warranto be dismissed on the grounds of laches?
- Farhat Abbas and another vs Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Islamabad and another1995 PLC 35 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
- Fareed Ahmed and 6 others vs Z.P. Sultan & Co1995 MLD 857 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- Fareed Ahmed And 6 Others vs Messrs Z.P. Sultan & Co:1995 MLD 857 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- Faraz Gul vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs M/s. Fateh Weaving Mills Ltd., Hyderabad1995 PLC 79 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-15Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad and 8 others vs Abdul Momin and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 405 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land, which was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The vendor had agreed to sell the land to the plaintiffs but later transferred it to the appellants during the pendency of the suit. The appellants and vendor contested the suit, arguing that time was of the essence of the contract and that the plaintiffs failed to perform their part, while the appellants claimed to be bona fide purchasers without notice. The Lahore High Court held that in contracts relating to the sale of immovable property, time is generally not of the essence unless proven otherwise, and the vendor herself was not in a position to transfer the title during the stipulated period as mutations were pending. Furthermore, the court held that the sale in favour of the appellants during the pendency of the suit was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and conferred no valid title against the plaintiffs. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is time considered of the essence in contracts relating to the sale of immovable property?
- Does the execution of a power of attorney transfer title to an attorney or validate subsequent sales from its date of execution?
- Does a sale of property executed during the pendency of a specific performance suit affect the rights of the plaintiff under the doctrine of lis pendens?
- Can a vendor claim breach of contract for delay when the vendor herself lacked title and was unable to execute the sale-deed during the stipulated period?
- Falaksher vs Noor Muhammad, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher vs The State1995 SCMR 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had confirmed the death sentence of one petitioner and altered the death sentence of the second petitioner to life imprisonment following their conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Munir Ahmad. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony and the corroboration provided by medical evidence and motive in a capital case. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court were based on sound reasoning, as the eye-witnesses were corroborated by prompt lodging of the F.I.R., medical evidence, and a strong motive. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent convictions founded on credible ocular accounts corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence warrant no interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, and that brutality in commission justifies the retention of the death penalty.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony of related or interested witnesses can be relied upon when corroborated by medical evidence and motive?
- Does a prompt F.I.R. provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court in a criminal appeal?
- Falak Sher Khan and anothers vs Mir Qalam Khan and another1995 CLC 1077 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a pre-emption suit for declaration-cum-possession was decreed in favor of the pre-emptors. The core legal question revolves around whether the pre-emptors validly and timely made the statutory demand of Talb-e-Muwathibat as required by the pre-emption law, and whether one of the pre-emptors could prove his case without personally appearing in court. The Peshawar High Court held that the pre-emptors failed to prove the timely making of Talb-e-Muwathibat, noting a fatal delay of two days between acquiring knowledge and making the demand, along with material contradictions and omissions in the evidence. Furthermore, the Court held that Talb-e-Muwathibat is a personal act that must be deposed to personally by the plaintiff, and failure of a plaintiff to appear in court and subject himself to cross-examination is fatal to the case. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted and the pre-emption suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a delay of two days between acquiring knowledge of a transaction and making Talb-e-Muwathibat fatal to a pre-emption suit?
- Can the requirement of proving Talb-e-Muwathibat be fulfilled without the personal appearance and testimony of the pre-emptor in court?
- Does failure to mention the details of the informant and time of knowledge in the plaint render evidence regarding Talb-e-Muwathibat inadmissible?
- Falak Sher Khan and 2 others vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore and another1995 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding a seniority dispute. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction and proper procedure of the Service Tribunal upon remand by the Supreme Court to determine the maintainability of a service appeal in light of departmental remedies. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the Tribunal erred by directing the Provincial Government to decide the representation rather than independently determining whether the statutory waiting period of ninety days had elapsed under the relevant law. The Court laid down the principle that the Service Tribunal must itself verify compliance with departmental appeal requirements and proceed with the adjudication of the appeal upon the expiry of the prescribed statutory period without awaiting executive disposal.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to direct the Provincial Government to decide a pending departmental representation instead of deciding the appeal itself?
- When does a service appeal become maintainable before the Punjab Service Tribunal after filing a departmental representation?
- What is the effect of the expiry of the ninety-day period under the Punjab Service Tribunal Act?
- Fakhar Hayat, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 256 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
- Faizullah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 510 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 239 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Ashraf Khan and 8 others1995 MLD 1428 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Ashraf Khan And 8 Other1995 MLD 1428 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
- Faiz Karim vs Multan Development Authority through Director General1995 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 challenges the dismissal of a constitutional petition relating to the cancellation of a plot allotment. The core legal questions involved whether the original allottee's allotment was legally cancelled for non-construction, whether an arbitration award under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 required making it a rule of the court to be enforceable, and whether a subsequent allottee was entitled to a hearing upon cancellation of his allotment. The Lahore High Court held that time is not of the essence in immovable property sales and penalizing an allottee for non-construction is illegal when possession could not be delivered due to squatters. Furthermore, an award rendered under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 is final under section 57 and does not require validation as a rule of the court under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Consequently, the original allotment stood restored, leaving no valid title for subsequent transfer, rendering a hearing for the subsequent transferee unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether time is of the essence in contracts relating to the sale of immovable property?
- Does an arbitration award rendered under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 require being made a rule of the court to be valid and enforceable?
- Can an allottee be penalized for failing to raise construction when physical possession of the plot could not be delivered due to squatters?
- Whether a subsequent transferee is entitled to a pre-cancellation hearing when their allotment was void ab initio due to the prior restoration of the plot to the original allottee?
- Faiz Elahi vs The State1995 MLD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
- Faiz Bakhsh vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
- Faiz And Sons vs Hakimsons (Impex) Private LimitedK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 611 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Development Authority, Faisalabad through its Directror-1995 PLC 567 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
- Faisal Asad vs Secretary, Health, Government of Sindh and 9 others1995 MLD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
- Faisal Asad vs Secretary, Health, Government of Sindh And 9 Other1995 MLD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
- Fahad Latif Piracha vs Board of Intermediate and SecondaryK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 492 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- F.S. Tobacco Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Superintendent, Central Excise1995 PTD 874 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a cigarette manufacturing company, challenged a show-cause notice and a demand notice issued by tax authorities alleging sales tax evasion. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, acting as a contract manufacturer for another entity, was entitled to the sales tax exemption granted to industries established in the North-West Frontier Province under Notification No. S.R.O. 580(1)/91. The Court held that the petitioner, as the entity engaged in the production process, qualified as a "manufacturer" under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and was entitled to the exemption regardless of the ownership of raw materials. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notices illegal and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that where a tax exemption is granted to an industry based on its geographical location and date of establishment, the exemption remains valid even if the manufacturer produces goods for third parties. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that constitutional petitions are maintainable in fiscal disputes involving the interpretation of exemption rights, notwithstanding the availability of alternate statutory remedies.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition maintainable in fiscal disputes despite the existence of an alternate statutory remedy?
- Does a company manufacturing goods under a contract for another entity qualify as a 'manufacturer' under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- Can tax authorities levy sales tax on goods produced by an industry that is otherwise exempt under a government notification?
- Evershine Paints (Eastern) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax , 29, 1241995 PTD 614 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This income tax reference concerns whether Explanation 8 to Section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, introduced by the Finance Act 1976, applies retrospectively to loans advanced prior to the assessment year 1976-77. The Appellate Tribunal had previously held that the provision applied retrospectively. The Court examined whether the language of the Explanation, which imposes a new tax liability on companies for interest not charged on loans, evinced a clear legislative intent for retrospective operation. The Court held that while an explanation in a statute generally clarifies existing law, it may also create new rights or obligations. Because Explanation 8 imposed a new tax burden, it could not be construed as retrospective absent clear language to that effect. The Court rejected the argument that the phrase 'has made any loan' necessitated retrospective application. Consequently, the Court ruled that Explanation 8 applies only to loans advanced during the assessment year 1976-77 or thereafter, and not to loans advanced before that period, adhering to the principle that fiscal statutes should be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer where ambiguity exists.
Questions settled- Does Explanation 8 to Section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, apply retrospectively to loans advanced before the assessment year 1976-77?
- Can a statutory explanation that imposes a new tax liability be applied retrospectively without explicit legislative intent?
- Should fiscal statutes be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer when two interpretations are possible?
- Does the use of the phrase 'has made any loan' in a statute necessarily indicate an intent for retrospective application?
- Evershine Paints (Eastern) Ltd Iqbal Naeem Pasha , vs CommissionerK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 5 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Evanuee Trust Property Board vs The Deputy Commissioner SahiwalK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Evacuee Trust Property Board through the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Sahiwal vs Muhammad Azam and 2 others1995 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by respondent No. 1 concerning the ownership of a house and challenging an order declaring it as evacuee trust property. During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation and lack of civil court jurisdiction. The Civil Judge rejected the plaint holding that the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board had exclusive jurisdiction under section 14 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975. The Additional District Judge allowed the first appeal and remanded the case for decision on merits, a view upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question concerns whether the civil court's jurisdiction is barred to entertain such a suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in light of the express bar on civil jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to determine the nature of a property claimed as evacuee trust property?
- Is a Civil Court under an obligation to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by law?
- Evacuee Trust Property Board through Assistant Director, Evacuee Trust1995 SCMR 1748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals by the Evacuee Trust Board challenge concurrent decisions of the lower courts dismissing their appeals and revisions on technical grounds regarding a dispute over agricultural land in District Gujrat previously allotted to respondents. The core legal question concerned whether civil courts possess jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the bona fide transfer of evacuee trust property protected under specific statutory provisions, and whether appellate and revisional courts can non-suit parties on technicalities. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in dismissing the proceedings on technicalities and that under section 14 of the relevant statute, the jurisdiction of civil courts is completely barred in respect of matters exclusively empowered to be determined by the Chairman under section 10. The Court established the principle that courts must avoid non-suiting litigants on mere technical defects and that exclusive statutory tribunals have final jurisdiction to determine the bona fide nature of evacuee trust property transfers, thus rendering civil suits barred and not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to determine matters that are exclusively empowered to be decided by an officer or authority under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
- Can an appellate or revisional court dismiss an appeal or revision filed by a functionary or department on technical grounds regarding locus standi?
- Whether the determination of a bona fide transaction regarding immovable evacuee trust property falls within the exclusive domain of the Chairman under section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
- Employees' Union Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (Regd.) through its1995 PLC 191 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
- Electro Service Industries vs Hamdoon Subhani1995 SCMR 1811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged three concurrent judgments and decrees granting ejectment of a tenant from a commercial shop on the ground of personal requirement. The core legal question was whether a minor landlord, who was a minor at the time of filing the ejectment application, could maintain such an application on the ground of personal requirement when incapable of personally carrying on a trade or business. The Supreme Court held that a minor landlord can maintain an ejectment application for personal requirement under the relevant rent restriction law, and that a natural guardian or father can run the business on behalf of the minor for the minor's benefit and welfare. The Court laid down the principle that the law does not disqualify a minor landlord from seeking ejectment on the ground of personal requirement merely because the minor cannot physically conduct the business, and that running the business through a parent or guardian is legally permissible, equating a minor in this context to a female or widow owner incapable of personally operating a business.
Questions settled- Whether a minor landlord can maintain an ejectment application on the ground of personal requirement when unable to carry on business personally?
- Can a father or natural guardian run a business in rented premises on behalf of a minor landlord for the minor's benefit?
- Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 disqualify a minor landlord from seeking ejectment of a non-residential building?
- Eiden and 5 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1885 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- Ehsanullah Tarar vs Gul Nawaz Waraich and 6 others1995 PLD Lahore 602 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company, Ltd. vs Khushi Muhammad1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1473 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
- Dur Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 417 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-26Read full judgment →
- Dur Muhammad Khan vs The SHO, P.S. City B-Division R.Y.KhanK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 589 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- Dur Muhammad Khan vs S.H.O., Police Station "B" Division, Rahimyar1995 P Cr. L J 993 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- Dur Muhammad and others vs The State and others1995 MLD 1088 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-26Read full judgment →
- Dur Muhammad And Others vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1088 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-26Read full judgment →
- Droop Khan vs Zuhammad Yaseen And Other1995 MLD 868 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
- Dr. Tariq Mahmood Malik vs Chairman, WAPDA and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 718 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Syed Qambar Murtaza Bokhari vs Chairman, Arbitration and Reconciliation Comittee, Lahore and another1995 CLC 1524 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- Dr. Surayya Matin And Others vs Mst. Akhtarunnisa1995 MLD 456 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are cross first rent appeals arising from an order of the Rent Controller regarding an ejectment application filed by a landlady against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, concerning two commercial shops. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant committed default in rent payment, impaired the value and utility of the premises, and whether the premises were required in good faith for the personal use of the landlady's husband and children. The Sindh High Court held that although the tenant made delayed payments, the landlady's acceptance of such payments without protest amounted to condonation, rendering the tenant not liable to ejectment on the ground of default. However, the Court upheld the finding that the tenant impaired the value and utility of the premises by unauthorized structural alterations, including the removal of a supporting wall under the mezzanine floor and replacement of iron shutters. Furthermore, the Court reversed the Rent Controller's findings on personal need, holding that the requirement of the landlady's retired husband and unemployed sons was bona fide. The key legal principles laid down clarify that acceptance of delayed rent without objection constitutes condonation preventing ejectment for past delays, and that structural alterations impairing a property's utility justify eviction.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of delayed rent payments by a landlord without protest amount to condonation preventing ejectment on the ground of default?
- Whether the removal of a supporting wall and replacement of iron shutters constitutes impairing the value and utility of rented premises?
- Is the affidavit of children necessary when a landlord seeks eviction for the personal use and occupation of their children?
- Can a tenant avoid ejectment for structural alterations by claiming oral consent for a different modification?
- Dr. Sher Dil Batra and others vs Director, Federal Investigation Agency1995 P Cr. L J 1541 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
- Dr. Sheela B. Charles vs Election Tribunal and another1995 CLC 344 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses two writ petitions filed against an interlocutory order passed by the Election Tribunal, Punjab, which directed a recount of ballot papers in several constituencies during pending election petitions challenging the election of the returned candidate, Dr. Sheela B. Charles. The core legal question was whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order of an Election Tribunal directing a recount of votes. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petitions in limine, holding that the impugned order was an interlocutory order passed with jurisdiction, which would ultimately merge into the final decision of the Election Tribunal. The court laid down the principle that piecemeal or fragmentary challenges to interlocutory orders of Election Tribunals via writ petitions are barred when an adequate and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal before the Supreme Court against the final judgment is available under section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional writ petition maintainable against an interlocutory order of an Election Tribunal directing a recount of ballot papers?
- Does an interlocutory order passed by an Election Tribunal merge into its final judgment?
- What is the proper appellate forum for challenging a final decision of an Election Tribunal under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Dr. Shakeel Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order forcing a government servant to proceed on earned leave without his formal request, allegedly due to mala fides and departmental victimisation. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition in view of the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order of forced leave constituted a final order challengeable before the Service Tribunal. The Court reiterated that while orders tainted by mala fides or lack of jurisdiction can theoretically be scrutinized under constitutional jurisdiction, such intervention is an extraordinary exception subject to strict constitutional constraints, and pleas of mala fides must be genuine and substantiated with detailed facts. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had subsequently accepted the regularisation of a portion of the disputed leave period in exchange for a beneficial posting, thereby waiving his right to challenge it in the constitutional petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an order forcing a civil servant to proceed on leave constitutes a final order for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal?
- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exclude the constitutional jurisdiction of High Courts in service matters tainted by mala fides?
- Can a civil servant challenge an administrative order in a constitutional petition after having voluntarily accepted the regularisation of the disputed period under that order?
- DR. Shaheena Nusrat vs Province of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 116 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
- Dr. Saif-Ud-Din vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 484 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-08-16Read full judgment →