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.

• Babu Muhammad Munir Versus S.A. Hameed, Etc. Babu Muhammad MunirK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 533 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Baboo Din vs Nasroo1995 MLD 1460 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• B.S. Magnetic (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sindhh Labour Court No. 5 And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 186 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
• Azmatullah Khan and others vs Gul Khan Ahmed Qureshi and others1995 PLD Karachi 52 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Azmat Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Sindh Employees' Social1995 PLD Karachi 341 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Azmat Textile Mills Ltd vs Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Central Division And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 94 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
• Azizur Rehman vs M/s. Pak Chemical Limited, Karachi1995 PLC 723 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-15Read full judgment →
• Azizur Rehman and others through Legal Heirss vs Rana Abdul Khaliq1995 MLD 408 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Azizur Rehman And Others Through Legal Heirs vs Rana Abdul Khaliq1995 MLD 408 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Azizullah vs The State1997 MLD 1883 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-23Read full judgment →
• Azizul Haq vs Muhammad Aslam and others1995 MLD 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Azizul Haq vs Muhammad ASI.Am And Other1995 MLD 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 38 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Aziz Sons (Private) Limited, Karachi vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh Karachi and another1995 PLC 492 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
• Aziz Book Depot Lahore vs Inspecting A.C. of Income Tax, Lahore and anotherPTCL 1995 CL. 253 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmed vs Government of Sindh through Its Chief SecretaryK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 331 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmed vs Government of Sindh through its Chief Secretary, Karachi1995 CLC 1884 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad vs The State1995 MLD 1134 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Azam Alias Ajoo vs The State1995 MLD 1771 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and KASHMIRthrough Chief Secre_73ba26df1995 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 47 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief1995 MLD 1350 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-03-18Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Its Chief1995 MLD 1350 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-03-18Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, . Muzaffarabad and another vs Abdul Kabir Qureshi and 51 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 46 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-08-27
  Secretariat AllowanceWrit jurisdictionService TribunalTerms and conditions of serviceEqual protection of lawDiscriminatory treatmentCivil servantFundamental Rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment issuing a writ of mandamus to grant Secretariat Allowance to High Court employees, matching the allowance given to other Secretariat staff. The appellants contended the High Court lacked jurisdiction, arguing the matter concerned terms and conditions of service exclusively cognizable by the Service Tribunal under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975. The Supreme Court held that the allowance was not pay or a term and condition of service as defined under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, because it had not been declared as such by the prescribed authority. Consequently, the High Court retained jurisdiction. On merits, the Court found the exclusion of the respondents from the allowance discriminatory and violative of the Fundamental Right to equal protection of law. It established that executive orders granting compensatory allowances must rely on reasonable, non-arbitrary classification. Absent a rational basis for excluding the respondents, the denial of the allowance was unconstitutional. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the entitlement of the respondents to the allowance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a service-related dispute if the subject matter does not constitute a term and condition of service under the Civil Servants Act?
  • Can an executive order granting a compensatory allowance to specific employees be challenged as discriminatory if it excludes other similarly situated employees without a rational basis?
  • Does the definition of pay under the Civil Servants Act include all emoluments, or only those declared as such by the prescribed authority?
  • Does the term departmental authority under the Service Tribunals Act encompass government notifications regarding service terms?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of J&K through Chief Secretary and anothers vs Maj.Gen. (Rtd.) Muhammad Hayat Khan, Member Legislative Assembly, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and another1995 MLD 1361 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-03-25Read full judgment →
• Chaudary Shujat Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-27Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of J&K Through Chief Secretary And Another vs Maj.Gen. (Rtd.) Muhammad Hayat Khan, Member Legislative Assembly, Azad Jammu and Kashmir And Another1995 MLD 1361 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ayyaz Ahmed vs Allah Wasaya and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 80 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
• Ayub Azeez Khan and 3 others vs Jammu and Kashmir Council through Secretary, Islamabad and 5 others1995 PLD Azad J&K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-09-13Read full judgment →
• Awais Shibli vs The State1995 MLD 592 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Shaffi Burki vs Farooq Ahmad1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-01
  arbitration awardwinding upcompany liquidationleave to appealshare sale agreementcivil revisionstay of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil petitions for leave to appeal arising from a dispute over a share sale agreement between private parties. Following an arbitration award in favor of the petitioner, proceedings were initiated before a Senior Civil Judge to make the award a rule of the court. Concurrently, a winding-up order was passed against the company whose shares were the subject of the agreement. The Senior Civil Judge adjourned the arbitration proceedings sine die, citing the company's liquidation, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the arbitration proceedings were between private individuals regarding share ownership and did not constitute a suit by or against the company in liquidation, thereby rendering the application of Section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, inapplicable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the petitioner's contention regarding the nature of the proceedings and the applicability of the statutory provision required deeper examination by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding the sale of shares between private individuals constitute a suit by or against a company in liquidation for the purposes of Section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can proceedings to make an arbitration award a rule of the court be stayed sine die solely because the company whose shares are the subject of the dispute is undergoing voluntary winding up?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 51995 PLC (C.S.) 772 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan vs Province of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, P&D1995 PLC (C.S.) 324 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Auqaf Department vs Javed Shuja and others1995 CLC 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16
  Waqf propertyPunjab Waqf Properties OrdinanceAuqaf DepartmentRegistered deedPresumption of truthGazette notificationWaqf validitySection 11 petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against an order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which declared certain property not to be Waqf property under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved the validity of the Waqf deed, the effect of late publication of the government notification in the Official Gazette, and the scope of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Ordinance. The High Court held that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the Waqf deed was a forgery, noting that a registered document carries a presumption of truth. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the late publication of the notification was a curable irregularity causing no prejudice, and that once a valid Waqf is created, subsequent conduct of the Waqif cannot invalidate it. The Court emphasized that proceedings under Section 11 are limited to determining the status of the property and cannot be expanded into general inheritance or administration suits. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, upholding the validity of the Waqf and the Auqaf Department's take-over.

  Questions settled

  • Does the subsequent conduct of a Waqif, such as dealing with the property as an owner, invalidate a validly created Waqf?
  • Does the late publication of a notification in the Official Gazette render the take-over of Waqf property by the Auqaf Department illegal?
  • Can a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, be converted into a general suit for property administration or inheritance?
  • Is a registered Waqf deed entitled to a presumption of truth, placing the burden of proving forgery on the challenger?
  Read full judgment →
• Aulad Hussain vs Messrs Pakistan Machine Tool Factory, Limited, Karachi1995 PLC 304 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-11-02Read full judgment →
• Attique-Ur-Rehman and others vs Muhammad Aslam1995 CLC 66 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18
  landlord and tenantejectment petitionrelationship of landlord and tenantco-ownershipinterlocutory orderwrit petitionjurisdiction of Rent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an ejectment petition filed by the respondents against the petitioners concerning a commercial shop. During the proceedings, the petitioners contended that they had purchased a share in the property from one of the co-owners, thereby acquiring the status of co-owners and terminating the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller summarily held that the relationship subsisted and that the purchase did not alter the tenancy, without recording evidence or awaiting the outcome of pending civil suits concerning the disputed titles. The petitioners challenged this interlocutory order through a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. The High Court held that the writ petition was maintainable against an order passed without jurisdiction and without evidence. The Court ruled that when a serious question of title and the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant arises, the Rent Controller must either afford an opportunity to adduce evidence, await the decision of the court of general jurisdiction where titles are sub judice, or decide against the landlord and direct them to establish their title first. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller passed without jurisdiction?
  • Can a Rent Controller summarily decide the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant without recording evidence when the title is disputed?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for a Rent Controller when a bona fide question of title and non-existence of landlord-tenant relationship is raised?
  • Does the purchase of a share in the disputed property by a tenant during ejectment proceedings extinguish the tenancy or raise questions requiring civil adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Attiq-Ur-Rehman and others vs The State1995 MLD 220 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Attiq Ur Rehman And Others vs The State1995 MLD 220 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Atta Subhani vs Estation, Civil Lines Slalkot And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 683 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Atta Rasool vs Fateh Khan and others1995 CLC 1321 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19
  second appealappraisal of evidenceownership of propertyappellate court powerscourt-feemisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which reversed the trial court's decision and decreed the plaintiff’s suit regarding ownership of the property. The primary legal question before the High Court was whether the appellate court erred in its reappraisal of evidence regarding the issue of title. The appellant contended that the trial court's initial appraisal was more reasonable and should not have been disturbed. The High Court held that the trial court’s original assessment was faulty because it failed to properly evaluate the evidence regarding title, focusing instead on minor contradictions concerning the occupation of the house. The Court affirmed that an appellate court possesses the authority to reappraise evidence and reach its own conclusions, provided those conclusions are grounded in the record. Finding no misreading or non-reading of material evidence by the appellate court, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Furthermore, the Court held that a plea regarding the insufficiency of court-fee cannot be raised for the first time during a second appeal if it was not urged in the first appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the authority to reappraise evidence and reach its own conclusions in a civil suit?
  • Can a party raise an objection regarding the sufficiency of court-fee for the first time during a second appeal?
  • Is interference in a second appeal warranted when the appellate court's findings are based on a proper appraisal of evidence without misreading?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Hussa1n vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1942 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-27Read full judgment →
• Atlas Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1996 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-12
  narcotics smugglingconfession of co-accusedcircumstantial evidenceTazirProhibition OrderQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of twenty kilograms of heroin concealed in furniture brought to a railway parcel office by a minor co-accused. The core legal question was whether the judicial confessional statement of an acquitted co-accused implicating the appellant could be used as evidence against the appellant, and whether the conviction could be sustained thereon. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence, holding that while a co-accused's confession must be treated with caution, an inculpatory judicial confession corroborated by circumstantial evidence can be lawfully taken into consideration against another person under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The key principle laid down is that a confession by a co-accused, when corroborated by independent facts and circumstances pointing irresistibly to the guilt of the accused, constitutes valid circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in Tazir.

  Questions settled

  • Can the judicial confession of a co-accused be used as circumstantial evidence against an accused person under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether a conviction for transporting narcotics under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 can be sustained solely on the basis of a corroborated confessional statement of a co-accused?
  • Does Islamic Criminal Law permit the acceptance of a co-accused's confession as circumstantial evidence for conviction and Tazir?
  Read full judgment →
• Atiya Nasir and another vs S.H.O., Police Station Badana, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1657 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
• Atiq-Ur-Rahman vs The State1995 MLD 1073 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Atiq Ur Rahman vs The State1995 MLD 1073 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Athar Hussain Jafari vs SH. Akbar AminK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 185 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs Mazhar Hussain and others1995 MLD 877 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs Mazhar Hussain And Other1995 MLD 877 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-08
  interested witnessesocular evidence corroborationfalsus in uno, falsus in omnibusmedical evidence corroborationenmity double-edgedbenefit of doubtprompt FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a conviction under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 PPC, where the trial court sentenced one appellant to death and the other to life imprisonment, which the High Court upheld. The core legal question was whether interested ocular testimony, which had already been found unreliable regarding eight acquitted co-accused, received sufficient independent corroboration to sustain the appellants' conviction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted both appellants. The Court held that ocular testimony classified as partly reliable and partly unreliable cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by evidence coming from an independent, distinct source connecting the accused with the crime. Medical evidence merely confirms the receipt of injuries or weapon type but cannot identify the specific assailant. Furthermore, a prompt FIR lodged by an interested eye-witness cannot corroborate that same witness, nor can motive serve as independent corroboration when longstanding enmity exists between parties, as enmity cuts both ways.

  Questions settled

  • Can medical evidence serve as independent corroboration to identify a specific accused?
  • Can a complainant's prompt First Information Report provide corroboration for their own testimony at trial?
  • What degree of corroboration is required to sustain a conviction where ocular evidence is partly reliable and partly unreliable?
  • Does motive constitute independent corroboration to connect an accused with the commission of a crime when enmity exists between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Astam Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 459 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-18
  murderf.i.r. delaymedical evidenceocular account contradictionmotiveacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant, Astam Khan, against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his father, Sher Ahmad, fired at the deceased (the appellant's father-in-law) following a domestic dispute. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found a significant, unexplained delay of two and a half hours in lodging the First Information Report, which cast doubt on the presence of the eye-witnesses. Furthermore, the ocular account was directly contradicted by the medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired, the distance of firing, and the nature of the injuries. The Court also noted the lack of corroborative evidence, such as the delayed transmission of blood-stained earth to the Chemical Examiner and the absence of recovered weapons. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, accepted the appeal, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging a First Information Report on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • How should a court resolve a material contradiction between the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence regarding the distance and number of gunshots?
  • Is a conviction sustainable under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when there is no evidence of pre-planning or common intention, and the ocular account is unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Assistant Collector Customs (Preventive) Collectorate of Customs1995 P Cr. L J 581 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-23Read full judgment →
• Assessee. vs Department.PTCL 1995 CL. 258 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Assessee vs DepartmentPTCL 1995 CL. 138 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-08Read full judgment →
• Assam Forest Products (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 1188 [211 I T R 447] · Supreme Court of India · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan and others vs Jhangi Khan and others1995 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-03
  civil appealconcurrent findings of factrecovery of moneysuit for declarationimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two appeals by special leave directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which affirmed the concurrent dismissal of two cross-suits filed by the respective parties. The core legal question involved the determination of disputed questions of fact regarding a monetary claim for the recovery of Rs. 3,00,000 based on an alleged unfulfilled agreement to purchase immovable property, and a cross-suit seeking a declaration of ownership of a house or alternatively the return of earnest money. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the trial court and the High Court suffered from no infirmity, and the evidence regarding the disputed payment was too scanty to support either party's version. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as being without merit. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of any legal infirmity or misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of legal infirmity?
  • Can a civil suit for recovery succeed when the evidence regarding the nature of payment is scanty and inconclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Aslam Hayat Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 248 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
• Asif Mehmood And 4 Other vs Farkhanda Akhtar And 19 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 463 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Asif Mahmood and others vs Mst. Farkhanda Akhtar and others1995 CLC 946 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Asif Chughtai vs Mrs. Zile Huma and others1995 SCMR 741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-30
  leave to appealejectmentrelationship of landlord and tenantrent restrictionstriking off defencedeposit of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court passed in a constitutional petition, which had restored the order striking off the petitioner's defence and directing his ejectment. The core legal question was whether an order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, directing the deposit of rent was legally tenable when the relationship of landlord and tenant was initially disputed, and whether failure to comply justified striking off the defence. The Supreme Court held that once the Rent Controller had adjudicated upon and determined the existence of the tenancy relationship, the tenant was legally bound to deposit the rent as directed, and his failure to do so justified the striking off of his defence and subsequent ejectment. The court laid down the principle that a tenant who fails to deposit rent as ordered following the determination of tenancy cannot successfully challenge his ejectment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order directing the deposit of rent under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is tenable when the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed?
  • Does the failure of a tenant to deposit arrears and future rent as ordered justify the striking off of his defence and his ejectment?
  • Can a tenant who fails to comply with a rent deposit order successfully seek interference against his ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1268 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Zardari vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and 4 others1997 MLD 1852 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali and others vs K.M.C. through its Administrator and 6 others1995 CLC 1659 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Ashok Vardhan Birla vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1995 PTD 951 208 I T R 958 · Bombay High Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Muhammad vs Karam And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 185 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1995-06-14Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs The State1995 MLD 932 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain and anothers vs The State1997 MLD 77 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain alias Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1995 SCMR 1494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-16
  sodomyleave to appealcriminal convictionmedical evidencecorroborationvictim testimonysentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ashiq Hussain, who was convicted under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing sodomy against a minor victim. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which the Federal Shariat Court subsequently reduced to three years of rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts, based on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and the Chemical Examiner's report, were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding no infirmity in the evidence or the impugned judgments. The court affirmed that the victim's testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the Chemical Examiner's report, established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of any motive for false implication or evidence of substitution. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal, dismissed the petition, and ordered the petitioner to be taken into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a minor victim sufficient to sustain a conviction for sodomy when corroborated by medical evidence and a Chemical Examiner's report?
  • Does the absence of a motive for false implication strengthen the credibility of a victim's testimony in a criminal trial?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of legal infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Muhammad vs Director-General, Pakistan Meteorological1995 PLC (C.S.) 359 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad vs University of the Punjab through ViceChancellor, Senate Hall, Lahore and anothers1997 MLD 87 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Asghar Masih and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 544 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirypolice investigationinnocence found by policetentative assessmentbenefit of doubtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Asghar Masih and Hayat, who were arrested under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail when they were found innocent during successive police investigations, despite being named in the First Information Report with specific roles and firearm attributions. The Lahore High Court held that where multiple police investigations successively find an accused innocent, it creates a case of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling the accused to bail as of right. The court laid down the principle that police findings of innocence, though not strictly binding, form material that must be judicially evaluated, and that courts must not treat the First Information Report version as sacrosanct while keeping an accused in jail without reasonable grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused found innocent in successive police investigations is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are the findings of an investigating officer regarding the innocence of an accused binding upon the court at the bail stage?
  • Can bail be withheld merely on the ground that the accused is specifically named in the First Information Report with a specific role?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Khan vs Muhammad Khan1995 SCMR 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-20
  possession suitsettlement schemeconcurrent findingsallotment orderproperty disputeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the possession of a house in Bhai Pheru, originally transferred to the respondent under Settlement Scheme No. VII in 1969. The respondent filed a suit for possession against the petitioner, alleging forceful occupation. The petitioner contested the claim, asserting that the house in his possession was transferred to his father and was distinct from the property claimed by the respondent. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal and the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could substantiate his claim that the property in his occupation was different from the property transferred to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that while the respondent produced valid allotment orders and defined boundaries, the petitioner failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the house transferred to his father was the same as the disputed property. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner succeed in a property dispute by claiming the property in his possession is different from the one claimed by the respondent without providing evidence?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when the petitioner fails to substantiate his defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 250 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-04Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Muhammad Rafiq and 2 others1995 SCMR 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-24
  pre-arrest bailfalse implicationleave to appealcriminal investigationarbitration agreementretaliatory F.I.R.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court confirming the pre-arrest bail of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner alleged that the respondents committed theft of cloth from his power loom factory. The respondents, however, contended that the case was a retaliatory measure, noting that they had previously obtained a High Court order directing the police to register a complaint against the petitioner just days before the petitioner lodged the F.I.R. against them. The High Court, observing that the respondents had been cooperating with the investigation and that the timing of the F.I.R. suggested a possibility of false implication, confirmed their pre-arrest bail. The petitioner argued that the respondents had admitted guilt and agreed to arbitration, but the Supreme Court found that the arbitration agreement did not constitute an admission of liability. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the circumstances justified the grant of pre-arrest bail, and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to refer a dispute to arbitration constitute an admission of guilt in a criminal case?
  • Can the timing of an F.I.R. relative to a prior legal action by the accused against the complainant support a finding of potential false implication?
  • Is the cooperation of an accused with the investigation a relevant factor in confirming pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Commandant Shahbaz Rangers, Sukkur and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 945 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 54 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Malik, Advocate vs Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases I6 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1094 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Asadullah vs Asghar Ali and another1995 CLC 150 · Election Tribunal · 1994-08-30
  election petitionElection Tribunalverification of pleadingsmandatory provisionsdismissal of petitionRepresentation of the People ActCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an election petition filed to challenge an election result. The core legal question was whether an election petition that was neither signed nor verified upon presentation, and remained unverified, was liable to be dismissed under the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Election Tribunal held that the petition must be dismissed. The Tribunal established that the requirement under Section 55(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, for an election petition to be signed and verified in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is mandatory. It reasoned that since the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, amended Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to require verification on oath or solemn affirmation, such verification is no longer a mere technicality but a substantive requirement. Consequently, failure to verify the main petition constitutes a non-compliance with Section 55, triggering the mandatory dismissal provisions under Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Tribunal distinguished this from previous precedents involving only unverified annexures.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Election Tribunal have the authority to dismiss an election petition for non-compliance with Section 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Is the verification of an election petition on oath or solemn affirmation a mandatory requirement under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Can an Election Tribunal dismiss an election petition for non-compliance with Section 52 or Section 53 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, or is that power reserved for the Commissioner?
  • Does the failure to verify an election petition in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, constitute a curable technicality or a ground for dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Khan vs Abdul Karim1995 CLC 1889 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04
  additional evidenceappellate stageOrder 41 Rule 27specific performancecivil appeallacuna in evidenceprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to introduce additional evidence during the pendency of an appeal against a judgment dismissing a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the appellate court should allow the production of documents and witness depositions from a separate rent case that were not presented during the original trial. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the appellant failed to provide a valid, substantial reason for the non-production of these documents at the trial stage. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not intended to allow parties to fill lacunae in their evidence or to improve a case after an unfavorable judgment. The ratio established is that additional evidence at the appellate stage is strictly limited to instances where the Court requires it for conclusive adjudication or for other substantial cause, and cannot be invoked to remedy a party's negligence or inadvertence in the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can additional evidence be admitted at the appellate stage to fill a lacuna left by a party during the trial?
  • Does the mere claim of mistake or inadvertence constitute sufficient grounds for the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an appellate court required to admit additional evidence if it is not necessary for the final or conclusive adjudication of the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ullah Munir Tarrar vs Chief Engineer, Irrigation Development1995 PLC (C.S.) 938 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1995-05-23
  ad hoc appointmenttermination of serviceregularizationdiscriminationPunjab Civil Servants Actlast come first go principle
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an ad hoc Sub-Engineer, challenged the termination of his services, arguing that he was entitled to continue until a regularly selected incumbent replaced him, citing Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He further alleged discrimination, noting that junior employees had been regularized pursuant to a Chief Minister's directive, which also covered him. The respondent argued that ad hoc appointments confer no vested right to continuation or regularization and that the termination complied with government policy. The Tribunal held that under Section 10(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, an ad hoc appointee is entitled to continue until a regular replacement is found, subject to the 'last come, first go' principle and the requirement of one month's notice or salary. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant could not be discriminated against when similarly situated juniors had been regularized, particularly given an explicit directive from the Chief Minister. The appeal was allowed, the termination order set aside, and the appellant's service ordered to be regularized.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ad hoc civil servant have a right to continue in service until a regularly selected incumbent is appointed?
  • Is an ad hoc employee entitled to notice or salary in lieu of notice before the termination of their services?
  • Can the state discriminate against an employee by regularizing their juniors while denying the same to the employee despite a directive from the Chief Minister?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Shafique vs District and Sessions Judge, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 344 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali and 2 others vs Judge, Family Court, Lahore and 2 others1995 MLD 172 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali And 2 Others vs Judge, Family Court, Lahore And 2 Other1995 MLD 172 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Arshid Mahmood vs Ashtiaque Ahmad And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 209 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 478 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Arshad Jawaid Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Wafaqi1995 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-20Read full judgment →
• Arshad Jawaid Khan vs Government of Pakistan Through Wafaqi1995 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-20Read full judgment →
• Arshad Aziz, Managing Director, Imran Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and anothers vs Bank. of Oman Ltd. and another1995 PLD Lahore 6 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-08
  Banking Tribunalconstitutional petitionouster of jurisdictionequitable mortgagemark-upalternative remedyvires of statuteIslamic jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed challenging a recovery decree passed by the Banking Tribunal, as well as the constitutional validity of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984. The petitioners contended that the Banking Tribunal was not a "Court" under Article 175 of the Constitution, that the Ordinance violated fundamental rights, and that mark-up and equitable mortgages were un-Islamic. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Banking Tribunal constitutes a special court performing judicial functions and its establishing Ordinance is constitutionally valid. The Court ruled that questions regarding the Islamic repugnancy of mark-up or interest fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court under Chapter 3-A of the Constitution and cannot be agitated under Article 199. Furthermore, the Federal Shariat Court had already declared equitable mortgages by deposit of title deeds as not repugnant to Islam. Finally, the Court held that Sections 5(3) and 10 of the Ordinance oust the High Court's jurisdiction, making the statutory appeal under Section 9 the sole proper remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Banking Tribunal established under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 qualifies as a Court within the meaning of Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 determine whether banking mark-up or interest is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam?
  • Is an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 repugnant to the injunctions of Islam?
  • Does the existence of a statutory right of appeal under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 bar a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Aziz And Other vs Bank of Oman And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-08Read full judgment →
• Arshad Alias Papu vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Sharial Cases 28 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 215 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 142 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-26
  narcotics recoverysearch proceedingsmandatory provisionspossessioncriminal appealacquittalprohibition order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of three appellants under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following an alleged recovery of narcotics from a vehicle. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the search proceedings and the sufficiency of evidence regarding possession. The Federal Shariat Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce the vehicle as case property, which undermined the prosecution's narrative and supported the defence's claim that the police raided the appellants' residence rather than a public location. Crucially, the Court found that the complainant failed to associate two respectable persons from the locality during the search, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. This omission rendered the search proceedings invalid. Furthermore, the Court noted that one appellant was not present at the scene, precluding a finding of possession. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting all appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that non-compliance with mandatory search procedures vitiates the recovery process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate two respectable persons from the locality during a search violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to produce the vehicle allegedly used for transporting narcotics as case property during a trial?
  • Can a conviction for possession of narcotics be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the accused was present at the scene of the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Army No. 8470067 Muhammad Farrukh Bashir Bhatti vs Engineerinchief, GHQ, Rawalpindi and another1995 SCMR 1000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-20
  leave to appeallimitationservice appealcondonation of delayFederal Service Tribunaladverse ACR entries
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended that after his departmental representation against adverse ACR entries was disposed of, he filed an appeal under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, which was later returned as not maintainable. He argued that the time spent pursuing that appeal constituted a valid ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Service Tribunal under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court found the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel to require consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent appeal before an appellate authority constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the pursuit of a mistaken remedy before an appellate authority attract the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Arjumand Manzoor vs Vicechancellor, Punjab University, Lahore and 3 others1995 CLC 2025 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
• Arif vs Haji Muhammad and another1995 PLD Karachi 271 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain vs (Mst). Aziz Fatima EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 295 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Arif And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 542 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Arbab Jamshed Ahmad and another vs Ghazan Khan and others1995 CLC 695 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-18
  revisional jurisdictionsale mutationburden of proofrevenue recordpresumption of truthtemporary injunctionirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two connected revision petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title, possession, confirmation of possession, and annulment of a sale mutation on the grounds of fraud, collusion, and non-payment of consideration was dismissed. The core legal questions involved whether the concurrent findings regarding the validity of the sale mutation and payment of sale consideration were sustainable, and whether the burden of proof was properly discharged. The Peshawar High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the correct attestation of the mutation and the receipt of sale consideration by the deceased vendor were unexceptionable and supported by the revenue records and oral testimony, thereby creating a rebuttable presumption of truth that the plaintiffs failed to rebut. The court laid down the principle that while mutations do not confer title by themselves, they carry a strong presumption of truth when incorporated into the revenue records, and once evidence has been led by both parties, the question of onus loses its significance.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a sale mutation be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the evidentiary weight and presumption of truth attached to a mutation incorporated in the revenue records?
  • Does financial loss resulting from the breaking of a monopoly constitute irreparable loss for the grant of a temporary injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1272 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-12-27Read full judgment →