Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• DR. Rubina Sharif vs Addl. Chief Secy, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rubina Sharif vs Additional Chief Secretary and others1995 MLD 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rubina Sharif vs Additional Chief Secretary And Other1995 MLD 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Qiamuddin vs Government of N.W.F.P. and 3 others1995 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-21
  leave to appealpremature writ petitiondepartmental promotionpowers of chief ministerservice lawpromotion recommendations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition as premature. The petitioner, serving as an Assistant Professor, was recommended for promotion by the Secretary of the Health Department and cleared by the Provincial Selection Board, but the summary sent to the Chief Minister was returned for re-examination and consultation with the Regulation Wing and Law Department. The core legal question is whether recommendations by departmental authorities and committees give rise to an actionable cause before a final appointment order is passed by the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that recommendations and departmental clearances are not binding on the Chief Minister, who retains the jurisdiction to refer the matter back for re-examination, rendering the writ petition rightly dismissed as premature. The key principle laid down is that mere departmental recommendations or committee clearances do not create a vested right or cause of action for promotion until the final appointing authority makes a binding decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition challenging a departmental recommendation for promotion is maintainable as premature before a final order is passed by the competent authority?
  • Are the recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee or departmental secretaries binding on the Chief Minister for making a final appointment or promotion?
  • Does a government servant acquire a cause of action based merely on a recommendation for promotion that has been returned for re-examination by the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Qambar Murtaza Bokhari vs Mst. Zainab Bashir1995 PLD Lahore 187 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29
  Talaq-i-TafweezMuslim Family Laws Ordinancedelegated divorcerestitution of conjugal rightspersonal lawArbitration Councildivorce effectiveness
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the order of the Chairman, Arbitration and Reconciliation Council, declaring a divorce effective. The petitioner, a Shia Muslim, contested the wife’s exercise of 'Talaq-i-Tafweez,' arguing that the delegation was invalid and that the divorce mode should follow Shia law. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the delegated power, the governing sect law for the divorce, and the Chairman's jurisdiction. The Court held that the delegation of Talaq-i-Tafweez in the Nikahnama was unconditional and valid. It established that the personal law of the spouse exercising the right of divorce governs the mode of pronouncement; thus, the respondent, being a Sunni, was entitled to exercise the right according to Sunni law. The Court affirmed that the Chairman acted within his jurisdiction under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to initiate reconciliation and certify the divorce's effectiveness after the statutory period. The principle laid down is that once a husband delegates the power of divorce, it becomes irrevocable upon exercise, and the Chairman is legally bound to process such notices under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a husband delegate the power of divorce (Talaq-i-Tafweez) to his wife in the Nikahnama?
  • Does the personal law of the wife or the husband govern the mode of divorce when the power of Talaq-i-Tafweez is exercised?
  • Does the Chairman of an Arbitration Council have the jurisdiction to certify the effectiveness of a divorce after the failure of reconciliation?
  • Is a formal pronouncement of Talaq required when a wife exercises the delegated power of Talaq-i-Tafweez?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Pir Sahib Shah vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Department of S&Gad and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 860 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Dr. Nazir Khan Afridi (Cardiologist) vs Masood Beg, Advocate1995 MLD 1982 · Bar Council TribunalRead full judgment →
• Dr. Naila Rehman Cheema vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1995 CLC 1225 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1995-03-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Naeem Akhtar vs Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris and 5 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 34 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Munir Ahmad Khan vs Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Lahore and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 39 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-06-26
  service lawmove-overretrospective applicationannual confidential reportsuncommunicated ACRsvested rightspromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Assistant Director in the Livestock and Dairy Development Department, challenged the refusal of the department to grant him a move-over from BS-17 to BS-18, effective from December 1, 1986. The core legal question was whether the department could retrospectively apply a 1991 notification requiring specific performance benchmarks (two good and three average Annual Confidential Reports) to a claim that accrued in 1986, and whether uncommunicated average ACRs should be treated as adverse. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the 1991 notification could not be applied retrospectively to a claim arising in 1986, which was governed by the 1986 notification requiring only average to good reports. The Tribunal further held that uncommunicated average ACRs are not adverse and should be deemed generally good, particularly when the employee was subsequently promoted. The principle laid down is that administrative rules regarding move-overs cannot be applied retrospectively to deprive an employee of a vested right, and uncommunicated average ACRs must be treated as satisfactory for the purpose of career advancement.

  Questions settled

  • Can administrative rules regarding move-overs be applied retrospectively to claims that accrued prior to their issuance?
  • Should uncommunicated average Annual Confidential Reports be treated as adverse for the purpose of move-over eligibility?
  • Does a subsequent promotion based on the same performance record preclude the department from later claiming those reports were inadequate for a move-over?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muharram Ali Sanjranai vs Space and Upper Atmosphere Research1995 PLC (C.S.) 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 309 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Shaft Zehri and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 1708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-11
  contempt of courtmedical certificatefalse certificateinterim bailquashment of proceedingssuo motu
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the High Court of Balochistan's rejection of an application to withdraw suo motu contempt and criminal proceedings initiated against two senior doctors. The High Court had initiated action under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1976 and Section 197 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging they issued a false medical certificate stating an accused was a suspected case of a brain tumor, which was subsequently used to obtain interim bail. The Supreme Court observed that the certificate was directory in nature, merely recommending a C.T. Scan not available locally, and was not issued for the purpose of being produced in court for bail. Furthermore, subsequent examination by a neurosurgeon in Karachi largely supported the diagnosis. The Court held that because the certificate was not false and the appellants had not interfered with the administration of justice, no contempt or statutory offense was committed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a medical practitioner be held liable for contempt of court or under Section 197 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a directory medical certificate that was not specifically intended for court production?
  • Does a medical certificate recommending diagnostic tests for a suspected condition constitute a 'false certificate' if the patient subsequently absconds after obtaining bail?
  • Whether criminal proceedings under Section 197 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when subsequent specialist evaluation supports the initial medical observation?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Shafique vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Rafiq vs Muhammad Yousuf and another1995 PLD Karachi 382 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Nasrullah vs Pakistan Medical Council and others1995 MLD 1862 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Nasrullah vs Pakistan Medical Council And Other1995 MLD 1862 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Hassan, Additional Medical Superintendent, Services1995 MLD 264 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Ali vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Department1995 PLC (C.S.) 1123 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-04-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mst. Nazir Begum vs Government of the Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 699 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mrs. Zahida Iftikhar vs Government of Punjab1995 PLC (C.S.) 372 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Miss Hajira Abdullah and 3 others vs Lahore Development Authority, Lahore through DirectorGeneral and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 579 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mian Mohsin Shah and 7 others vs University of Peshawar through Vice Chancellor, Peshawar and 16 others1995 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Masood Ahmed Butt vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1995 PLC (C.S.) 478 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
• Dr. Masood Ahmed and 3 others vs Government of Balochistan1995 PLC (C.S.) 586 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-07-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ma. Mahboob and anothers vs Mrs. Nawab Begum1995 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-10
  injunctionunauthorized constructionconsent ordercivil suitappointment of commissionerappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed appeals filed by the petitioners against an injunction order restraining them from carrying out unauthorized construction. The core legal question concerned the validity of the injunction granted by a learned Single Judge against the petitioners. Upon converting the petitions into appeals, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, with the consent of the parties, disposed of the appeals by directing that the injunction application be governed by the terms of a prior consent order dated 5-10-1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 611 of 1988. The Court clarified that the petitioners were strictly prohibited from performing any construction or finishing work in the disputed area defined in that consent order. To prevent future disputes, the Court appointed the Official Assignee of the Sindh High Court as a Commissioner to visit the site, demarcate the area, and prepare a plan. The judgment establishes the principle that parties may resolve appellate disputes regarding injunctive relief through mutual consent and court-supervised demarcation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court dispose of a dispute regarding an injunction based on a prior consent order between the parties?
  • Is the appointment of a court commissioner an appropriate mechanism to resolve disputes regarding the demarcation of construction sites?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. M. Hassan Khan Ammacha vs Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 273 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
• Dr. M. Aslam Syed vs Ouaid-E-Azam University, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 1029 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Khalid Mansoor vs Dr. Azhar Baqai1995 MLD 1476 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-13Read full judgment →
• Dr. Javed Iqbal vs Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 504 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hameed Ahmad Ayyaz vs Govt. of PunjabK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 378 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Gulab Sher vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and 41995 CLC 574 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-19
  foreign scholarshiplocus paenitentiaevested rightconstitutional petitionservice ruleswithdrawal of scholarshipFATA scholarship
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court to challenge the cancellation of a foreign scholarship awarded to the petitioner, Dr. Gulab Sher, for higher studies in medicine under a scheme reserved for doctors domiciled in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA). The core legal questions involved whether a valuable right had accrued to the petitioner precluding the government from withdrawing the scholarship under the doctrine of locus paenitentiae, and whether the three-year government service restriction applied to a candidate who was not a government servant at the time of application. The court held that once an order of scholarship has taken legal effect, decisive steps have been taken, and the recipient has acted upon it without misrepresentation, the government loses the locus paenitentiae to rescind the benefit to the individual's detriment. The court further held that the three-year service rule applied exclusively to government servants nominated as such, which did not affect the petitioner's standing. The petition was consequently allowed, protecting the petitioner's scholarship.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government can withdraw a scholarship after decisive steps have been taken and the order has taken legal effect?
  • Does the doctrine of locus paenitentiae permit the authorities to rescind an order to the detriment of rights created in favour of an individual?
  • Whether a three-year government service restriction applies to a candidate who was not a government servant at the time of submitting an application for a general scholarship?
  • Can a scholarship recipient be penalized for administrative lapses or departmental errors when there is no misrepresentation or suppression of material facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Mohayyuddin Chaudhry vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Services General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 188 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fazal-E-Raziq vs Principal, Ayub Medical College and others1995 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-25
  service promotionteaching experiencemedical collegeseniority listpost-graduate diplomaleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the promotion of respondent No. 4 as Associate Professor and subsequently Professor in Pathology at Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad. The core legal questions concern whether the service matters of the college employees are governed by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations or specific college service regulations, and whether amendments to these regulations apply retrospectively or at the time of appointment/promotion in light of established precedents. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that substantial questions of law of public importance required examination, particularly regarding the applicability of the amended regulations versus old regulations and the governing statutory framework for civil servants and institutional employees. The key principle laid down relates to the proper application of service rules and teaching experience requirements for academic promotions in medical institutions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Regulations framed by the P.M.D.C. or the Ayub Medical College (Terms and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1980 would govern the cases of the employees of Ayub Medical College?
  • Whether the finding of the learned Division Bench that notwithstanding the amendment in the Regulations of the P.M.D.C., the old Regulations would govern the case of respondent No. 4 and not the new Regulations which held the field on the date when the impugned orders of promotion of respondent No. 4 were made, is in accord with the law declared by this Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fawad Anwar vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Services1995 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ehsanulhaq Niazi and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Dodo Mehri vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Barkat Ali, Associate Professor vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur1995 PLC (C.S.) 703 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Akram Chaudhry vs Ch. Fazal Dad1997 MLD 1821 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ahsan Waheed Rathore vs College of Physicians1995 CLC 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abrar Hussain Ahmed Khan and others vs Government of Punjab1995 CLC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-19
  service rulesconstitutional petitionmedical educationeligibility criteriapublic employmentmerit-based selectionforeign qualificationsadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of the Punjab Health Department (Medical and Dental Teaching Posts) Service Rules, 1979, which relegated foreign-trained medical professionals to a secondary category for the post of Assistant Professor (Plastic Surgery), making them eligible only if no local candidates were available. The petitioner, a foreign-trained surgeon, contended that these rules were discriminatory, contrary to merit, and inconsistent with the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council's recognition of his qualifications. The Court examined whether such rules were unjust and whether the government was bound by its own Service Rules Committee's recommendations to rectify the identified anomaly. The High Court held that the impugned rule was unconscionable, unjust, and unfair, as it discouraged merit and foreign-acquired expertise. The Court declared the petitioner eligible and at par with other candidates. It directed the Government of Punjab to implement the recommendations of its Service Rules Committee to amend the rules, emphasizing that public employment selection processes must prioritize merit and equal opportunity rather than arbitrarily excluding qualified candidates based on the location of their training.

  Questions settled

  • Are service rules that relegate foreign-trained professionals to a secondary category of eligibility for public teaching posts unconstitutional or unfair?
  • Is the government bound to implement recommendations made by its own Service Rules Committee regarding the amendment of discriminatory service rules?
  • Does the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council have the authority to certify the equivalence of foreign medical qualifications for the purpose of domestic teaching appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Ghafoor Raza and 2 others vs Mst. Razia Begum1995 SCMR 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-30
  special oathHoly Quranremand of casecivil revisionacceptance or denial of claim on oath
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a civil revision filed by the respondent was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial court for decision on the basis of evidence. The core legal question involves the interpretation and application of Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, specifically regarding the procedure and legal consequences when a plaintiff takes a special oath in support of their claim and the defendant subsequently denies the claim on oath. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order of remand was proper because Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not explicitly lay down the consequences or the mechanism to resolve a situation where both parties take contradictory special oaths. The key principle laid down is that where a statutory provision on acceptance or denial of a claim on oath is ambiguous and fails to provide for conflicting oaths by contesting parties, the appropriate course is to remand the matter for adjudication based on recorded evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What are the legal consequences under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 when both the plaintiff and the defendant take contradictory special oaths on the Holy Quran?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a civil suit for decision on evidence when the statutory provisions regarding decision on oath fail to provide for conflicting special oaths?
  • Does Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 apply to criminal cases or laws relating to the enforcement of Hudood?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. (Mrs.) Shamim Dadi vs Masood Shaikh and 3 others1995 CLC 206 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-15Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Transpak Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad , .1995 PLC 41 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1812 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-14Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad And Others vs Muzaffar Khan1995 MLD 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1650 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and anothers vs Ranjha through Legal Heirs and 71995 SCMR 1014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09
  inheritancecustomary lawlimited estateSharia lawmutationreversionary rightslife estateleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that modified an appellate court's decree concerning an inheritance dispute. The core legal question revolved around the inheritance rights of a widow under customary law versus Sharia law, particularly regarding a limited estate. Sardar, the last full owner, died issueless in 1926, and his property was mutated in his widow's (Mst. Fatima Bibi) name as a life estate holder under customary law. She subsequently transferred the property via mutations, which were challenged by the reversionaries. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that Mst. Fatima Bibi held a limited estate, and upon its termination, succession opened for the last full owner's property. The property was to be divided among Sardar's Shari heirs living at the time of his death, with Mst. Fatima Bibi being entitled to a 1/4th share as per Sharia law. The High Court's modification, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit to the extent of 3/4th share (leaving 1/4th for the transferees through the widow), was found to be in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • What is the nature of a widow's inheritance under customary law when the last full owner dies issueless?
  • When does succession open for property held under a limited estate?
  • How is property divided among heirs upon the termination of a limited estate, particularly when customary law previously applied?
  • What is the Shari entitlement of a widow when her husband dies issueless?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1650 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
• Dost Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-26Read full judgment →
• Dosa vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Dosa vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha and another1995 CLC 1627 · Chief Land Commissioner · 1995-04-27Read full judgment →
• Dollar Co. Private Ltd. vs Union of India and others1995 PTD 228 204 I T R 03 · Madras High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
• Doctor Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 410 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-11-20
  service appealupgradation of postsown pay and scaleaggrieved personlocus standipromotioncivil servantAzad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir relates to a dispute over the appointment to an upgraded post in the Department of Animal Husbandry. The appellant, a senior veterinary doctor in B-17, challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the upgraded post of Deputy Director (Planning, Development and Evaluation) in B-18 in his own pay and scale, which had been upheld by the Service Tribunal. The core legal questions involved whether the appointment violated the Upgradation Rules, 1984, whether the appellant qualified as an aggrieved person, and whether appointing a civil servant to a higher grade post in their own pay and scale is permissible under Azad Jammu and Kashmir service laws. The Supreme Court held that the appointment violated Rule 5 of the Upgradation Rules, 1984, that the appellant was an aggrieved person with locus standi, and that Azad Jammu and Kashmir service laws do not recognize the practice of appointing civil servants to higher grade posts in their own pay and scale outside prescribed statutory modes. The Court laid down that upgradation of a post takes effect only when filled by a qualified person, that affected incumbents of abolished posts are left without posts rather than automatically promoted, and that service laws do not sanction indefinite appointments to higher posts in one's own pay and scale.

  Questions settled

  • Does the upgradation of a post under the Upgradation Rules, 1984 result in the automatic upgradation of its incumbent?
  • When does a civil servant qualify as an aggrieved person to challenge an appointment to a higher post?
  • Is there any concept in Azad Jammu and Kashmir service laws of appointing a civil servant to a post carrying a higher grade in their own pay and scale?
  • What are the permissible modes of appointment to a post under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi vs Muhammad Tufail and 38 others1995 PLC 589 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-13Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi vs Fazal1995 PLC 586 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Peshawar Division, Peshawar vs Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others1995 PLC 324 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan vs Ch.1995 PLC 378 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Sher Khan1995 PLC 396 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and 3 others vs Pervez Akhtar1995 PLC 574 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi vs Syed Aftab1995 P LC 344 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-11-02Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways vs National IndustrialK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 94 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Divisional Manager, Electricity WAPDA, Division No. II, Gujranwala vs Munir Athar1995 PLC 369 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi vs S.1995 PLC 605 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi vs Raja1995 PLC 663 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi vs Matloob Ahmed and another1995 PLC 609 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
• Director, Small Industries Department, Quetta and 2 others vs Hameedullah Khan1995 SCMR 768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-27
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksservice tribunalbias and prejudicecountersigning officermaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by the Director, Small Industries Department, challenges the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which allowed the respondent's appeal against adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 1989 and 1990. Leave was granted to examine whether the Service Tribunal's observations regarding delayed ACRs and the hierarchical valuation of Reporting and Countersigning Officers were justified. The Supreme Court observed that while the opinion of the highest reporting officer generally prevails under established hierarchical principles, such an opinion can be scrutinized and set aside by the Service Tribunal if it is found to be manifestly untenable, biased, or prejudiced. The Court noted that the Tribunal rightly examined the physical condition of the ACR entries, which revealed material alterations, erasures, and the use of different pens and inks, demonstrating mala fides and bias on the part of the second countersigning officer. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Service Tribunal's finding of bias, held that biased ACRs possess no legal validity, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the opinion of the highest reporting officer in an Annual Confidential Report prevails over subordinate officers?
  • Can an Annual Confidential Report recorded with bias and prejudice be sustained in service jurisprudence?
  • Does a delay in recording or communicating an Annual Confidential Report completely vitiate the adverse remarks contained therein?
  • To what extent can a Service Tribunal interfere with the evaluation and assessment recorded in a civil servant's Annual Confidential Report?
  Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and 5 others vs Ghulam Wahid and 3 others1995 SCMR 675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-29
  redemption of mortgagelimitation periodacknowledgment of liabilityevacuee propertymortgaged landextinguishment of right
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment that set aside a decree for the redemption of mortgaged property. The petitioners claimed that the 60-year limitation period for redemption was extended under Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908, due to the partial redemption of the property after the original mortgage was created in 1885-86. The core legal question was whether such partial redemption or other actions constituted an acknowledgment of liability or payment sufficient to restart the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the right of redemption had already extinguished by 1946, prior to the property becoming evacuee property in 1947. The Court found no evidence of any written acknowledgment of liability under Section 19, nor did the partial redemption constitute a payment under Section 20 to extend the limitation period. The key principle laid down is that the statutory period of limitation for redemption of a mortgage cannot be extended without clear evidence of a written acknowledgment of liability or a qualifying payment as strictly defined under the Limitation Act, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Does the partial redemption of a mortgaged property automatically extend the limitation period for a redemption suit under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a suit for redemption of mortgage be maintained if the 60-year limitation period expired before the property became evacuee property?
  • What constitutes a valid acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908 to extend the period of limitation?
  • Does the receipt of rent or produce from mortgaged land by a mortgagee constitute a payment that restarts the limitation period under Section 20(2) of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilshad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 248 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28
  murderocular testimonypolice statementsection 161 Cr.P.C.admissibility of evidencerecovery of weaponsentence reductioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased through multiple stab wounds inflicted with a chhuri. The core legal questions involved whether the eyewitness testimony whose police statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not recorded is admissible, and whether the remaining prosecution evidence sufficiently established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not mandatory substantive pieces of evidence, but where an investigating officer fails to record a material witness's statement, depriving the accused of cross-examination utility, that witness's testimony is inadmissible. However, excluding that testimony, the court found the remaining ocular account of the complainant father duly corroborated by medical evidence and credible recovery. While setting aside the unproven motive and noting the deceased's personal habits, the court upheld the conviction based on cumulative evidence but reduced the sentence of imprisonment for life to ten years rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine and the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eyewitness whose statement was not recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is admissible in evidence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of a solitary corroborated eyewitness account when another eyewitness testimony is excluded?
  • Whether failure to prove the motive alleged by the prosecution is fatal to the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilshad Ahmed Khan vs Ali Muhammad and 11 others1995 CLC 1207 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
• Dilmeer vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 686(1) · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Dildar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1993 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-18Read full judgment →
• Dildar and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 209 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Dilbar Hussain vs Muhammad Saleem and another1995 CLC 777 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan vs The State and 2 others1995 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
• Dhoop Khan vs Muhammad Yaseen and others1995 MLD 868 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Dewin vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 233 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-12Read full judgment →
• Dewan Ali Khan vs Jehandad Khan through Legal Heirs and 2 others1995 CLC 136 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-09-21
  adverse possessiontenant-at-willlimitationpossession based on titlerevenue recordinterpretation of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court decreeing the plaintiffs-respondents' suit for possession of land on the basis of title. The core legal questions involved were whether the defendant's possession had ripened into ownership through adverse possession, whether the interpretation of revenue records constitutes a question of law or fact, and whether Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act governs a suit for possession based on title where dispossession is not pleaded. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that a tenant-at-will cannot claim adverse possession without first showing that the tenancy came to an end, that the interpretation of revenue records is a question of law, and that Article 142 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable unless the plaintiff expressly alleges dispossession or discontinuance of possession in the plaint, leaving such suits governed by the residuary Article 144. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant-at-will claim adverse possession against the landlord without proving that the tenancy has come to an end?
  • Whether the interpretation of entries in the revenue record is a question of fact or a question of law?
  • Does Article 142 of the Limitation Act apply to a suit for possession where the plaintiff has not pleaded dispossession or discontinuance of possession?
  • When does the residuary Article 144 of the Limitation Act govern a suit for possession of immovable property based on title?
  Read full judgment →
• Deputy Director, Administration and Coordination, Faisalabad1995 SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08
  work-charged establishmentpermanent employmentlabour lawregularisation of serviceStanding Orders Ordinanceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an order of the Labour Court directing the petitioners to regularise the respondents in service. The respondents, employed for five years within the work-charged establishment of the Faisalabad Development Authority, sought a declaration of permanent employment status under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that because the respondents were part of a work-charged establishment subject to shifting between projects, their employment was not of a permanent nature, regardless of the duration of service. The High Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal had previously ruled in favour of the respondents. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted the petitioners' contention that the respondents' employment did not meet the criteria for permanent status under the relevant Standing Order, citing prior case law. Finding that the contentions raised required further examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the legal status of work-charged employees under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does employment in a work-charged establishment automatically qualify as permanent employment under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance?
  • Can employees of a work-charged establishment claim permanent status based solely on the duration of their continuous service?
  Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner/Administrator, Zila Council, Attock and1995 SCMR 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-13
  Intra-Court Appealmaintainability of appealtaxationstatutory remedywrit jurisdictionLaw Reforms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) setting aside a decision of a learned Single Judge. The dispute originated from the District Council, Attock, levying a tax on the export of goods via a notification. The respondent, a manufacturer, challenged the tax imposition through a writ petition, which was initially dismissed in limine. The core legal question is whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against an order passed in writ jurisdiction when the underlying statute provides alternative remedies, specifically considering the proviso to Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The petitioner argues that because the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 provides specific appellate and revisionary remedies against tax assessments, the ICA was barred by the Law Reforms Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine whether the ICA was competent given the existence of these alternative statutory remedies and the restrictive proviso in the Law Reforms Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against an order passed in writ jurisdiction when the governing statute provides for an appeal, revision, or review?
  • Does the proviso to Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 bar an Intra-Court Appeal where alternative statutory remedies exist for tax assessment disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar vs Muhammad Younas Khan, Advocate1995 CLC 1629 · Bar Council TribunalRead full judgment →
• Deltatek Pvt. Ltd. vs Town Committee, Khan Garh and others1995 MLD 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
• Deltatek Pvt. Ltd. vs Town Committee, Khan Garh And Other1995 MLD 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
• Dawood Abad, District Attock vs Muhammad Farooq and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-01
  misconductsubversive of disciplineindustrial relationstermination of servicewrit jurisdictionlabour lawdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a Lahore High Court order dismissing a writ petition in limine, which had upheld a Labour Court decision reinstating a clerk whose services were terminated for alleged misconduct. The respondent clerk had written a letter to management, with copies to labour authorities, alleging that his transfer was a pretext for forced resignation through fabricated charges. The management contended this conduct was subversive of discipline under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Labour Court had ordered reinstatement, citing the lack of misconduct in the charge sheet and the absence of a second show-cause notice. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitioner's contention—that the respondent's allegations against management constituted conduct subversive of discipline—required further examination. The Court observed that previous jurisprudence established that direct attacks on the probity of superior officers, accusing them of engineering trouble, could be considered destructive of discipline. Consequently, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition in limine without fully examining the matter in light of established legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does a letter from an employee to management and labour authorities alleging fabricated charges against the employer constitute misconduct under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is an allegation by an employee that management is engineering trouble among workmen considered an act subversive of discipline?
  • Can a High Court dismiss a writ petition in limine when the petition raises substantial questions regarding the interpretation of misconduct in industrial employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Dawa Khan vs The State1995 MLD 940 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Datari Construction Co. (Pvt) Ltd. vs A. Razak Adamjee and others1995 CLC 846 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-31
  public nuisancepermanent injunctionbuilding control regulationseasement rightsrepresentative suitmaterial injurycivil procedurehigh-rise construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a representative suit filed by residents of Clifton, Karachi, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the construction of a multi-storey building by the appellant, alleging it constituted a public nuisance and violated building regulations. The core legal question was whether the construction of a high-rise building in a residential area, even if contrary to certain building plans, is actionable as a public nuisance by private individuals without proof of material injury. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish "absolute nuisance" or substantial interference with their physical comfort. The Court ruled that mere violation of municipal rules or building plans is not actionable per se unless the plaintiff proves real or apprehended material injury. Furthermore, the standard for determining nuisance is based on the ordinary physical comfort of human existence, not the "dainty or elegant" habits of living. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's decree restricting the building's height, emphasizing that in the absence of proven material injury, no injunction can be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the violation of building regulations or municipal plans actionable per se as a public nuisance?
  • What is the standard for determining whether an act constitutes an actionable nuisance in a residential area?
  • Can a private individual maintain a suit for public nuisance without proving special or material damage?
  • Is the publication of building regulations in the official Gazette a mandatory requirement for their legal enforcement?
  Read full judgment →
• Darya Khan vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad Through Chairman And 3Other1995 MLD 1737 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• DR. Beck & Co. (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 1199 206 I T R 3 · Bombay High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Darya Khan vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through ChairmanPTCL 1995 CL. 405 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Darul Aman Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi vs The Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Works Andrehabilitation Division , And 3 Other1995 MLD 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Darul Aman Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi vs The Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Works and Rehabilitation Division and 3 others1995 MLD 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Darshan Singh And Other vs State of HaryanaK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 743 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-08-30Read full judgment →
• Danish Mahmood Azfaree And 2 Other vs Industrial Development BankK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 110 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-24Read full judgment →
• Daewoo Corporation vs (M/s.) Platinum Insurance Co. Ltd.1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad Baloch vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1995 PLC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
• D.P. Edulji & Co (Pvt) Ltd vs Government of Punjab and others1995 MLD 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
• D. P. Edulji & Co. (Put.) Ltd. vs Government of Punjab And Other1995 MLD 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
• Crescent Board Limited, Faisalabad through General Manager vs Muhammad Shabbir and 2 others1995 PLC 128 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistant (Pvt) Limited vs M/s. AwamiK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 458 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Awami1995 PLD Karachi 282 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-06
  civil revisionwithdrawal of suitinherent powersbona fide mistakerestoration of suittechnicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from a suit filed under summary procedure for the recovery of an outstanding loan. Due to a bona fide mistake stemming from a similarity in names with another defaulting firm that had settled its dues, the plaintiff's counsel inadvertently filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking withdrawal of the suit on the ground of out-of-court settlement. The trial court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the suit. Upon discovering the error, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to recall the withdrawal order, which the trial court dismissed on technical grounds. The Sindh High Court allowed the revision, holding that the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 are wide and meant to advance justice and prevent abuse of process. The Court ruled that where an order is passed based on a bona fide mistake of fact, the court should invoke its inherent powers to recall the order, as procedural technicalities must not defeat substantive rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to recall an order dismissing a suit as withdrawn if the withdrawal was sought due to a bona fide mistake of fact?
  • Whether procedural technicalities should be allowed to defeat substantive rights where there is no express statutory prohibition against the relief sought?
  • Does the refusal of a trial court to recall a withdrawal order passed under a clear mistake of fact constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it?
  Read full judgment →