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.

• Aqil Badshah vs Mayor Karachi Metropolitan Corporation And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 102 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Appeejay (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 813 206 I T R 367 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
• Apex Finance and Leasing Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1995 PTD 1273 207 I T R 781 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-12-03Read full judgment →
• Anwarul Haq vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 21995 PLC (C.S.) 213 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Anwarul Haq vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 13 others1995 SCMR 1505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-30
  seniority disputeservice lawlimitation periodinterpretation of documentsredesignation of postFederal Service Tribunalservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding seniority. The petitioner, a redesignated Assistant Executive Engineer, claimed seniority over respondents who were directly appointed, relying on a 1975 government letter. The core legal question concerned the proper interpretation of this letter and whether the petitioner’s seniority claim was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the letter, when read as a whole, established separate seniority frameworks for redesignated officers and existing officers, refuting the petitioner's claim. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner was aware of his seniority position since the issuance of the letter in 1975. Consequently, the Court ruled that challenging a seniority list after an 18-year delay was impermissible. The Court upheld the principle that an appeal before the Tribunal is incompetent if the underlying departmental appeal is time-barred. The petition was dismissed, affirming that documents must be construed in their entirety and that stale claims regarding seniority cannot be entertained after significant lapses of time.

  Questions settled

  • How should a government notification regarding seniority be interpreted when read as a whole?
  • Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal competent if the underlying departmental appeal is time-barred?
  • Can a government employee challenge a seniority list after an inordinate delay of eighteen years?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar vs The State1997 MLD 1890 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-15Read full judgment →
• Anwar Muhammad vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore1995 SCMR 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-30
  adverse remarksACRFederal Service Tribunalcompetent authorityCountersigning Officerimplied condonation of delayservice appeallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil service appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal as time-barred. The appellant challenged adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1983. Initially, the appellant filed a representation before the Divisional Superintendent, who was the Countersigning Officer, and it was rejected. Years later, the appellant made a representation to the General Manager, Pakistan Railways, which was considered and rejected on the merits rather than on the ground of limitation. When the appellant appealed before the Federal Service Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed it as hopelessly time-barred. The Supreme Court observed that under Para. 3.39 of 'A Guide to Performance Evaluation', the competent authority was an authority higher than the Countersigning Officer, rendering the initial representation and order void for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that since the competent authority decided the belated representation on the merits without raising an objection to limitation, it impliedly condoned the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal on limitation and ought to have decided it on the merits. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Service Tribunal dismiss a service appeal as time-barred when the competent departmental authority decided the underlying representation on merits without objecting to limitation?
  • Does a departmental competent authority impliedly condone the delay in filing a representation if it decides the representation on merits rather than dismissing it for limitation?
  • Is a departmental representation and the resulting rejection order without jurisdiction if passed by the Countersigning Officer rather than the authority next higher under service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwaar Ali vs (Mst.) Riaz Anwar And OtherK.L.R, 1997 Revenue Cases 124 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-06Read full judgment →
• Anver T. Khandwala vs Shah Zaman Khuro and another1995 CLC 225 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Ansar Ali vs Government of Sindh through Secretary and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 912 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Wazifa Sadat Momineen (Regd.) vs Ghulam Ahmed1995 CLC 271 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Khudam Al Imran vs District Magistrate Etc.K.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 7 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-26Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Khudam Aall Imran through its President Syed Ghulam Akbar1995 MLD 4 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-26Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Khudam Aall Imran Through It S President Syed Ghulam Akbar1995 MLD 4 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-26Read full judgment →
• Anis Zafar vs Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 880 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-07-26Read full judgment →
• Anis Ahmed and 7 others vs Messrs Habib Bank Limited1997 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
• Anayat Ali Shah vs Anwar Hussain and 2 others1995 MLD 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
• Anayat Ali Shah vs Anwar Hussain And 2 Other1995 MLD 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
• Anas Muhammad and anothers vs V.C.N.E.D University, Karachi1995 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-24
  out-of-court settlementnot presseddisposal of casecompromisecivil petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition involving Anas Muhammad and others against the Vice Chancellor of N.E.D. University, Karachi. The core legal question concerned the resolution of the dispute between the parties. During the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that the matter had been amicably settled and patched up between the parties out of Court. Consequently, the counsel did not press the cases. In light of this out-of-court settlement, the Supreme Court disposed of both cases accordingly without rendering a decision on the merits. The key principle laid down is that where parties reach an amicable out-of-court settlement, the court may dispose of the pending cases as not pressed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition be disposed of by the Supreme Court if the parties reach an amicable out-of-court settlement?
  • What is the effect of a petitioner's counsel stating they do not press the case due to an out-of-court compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Amtul Haseeb vs Jamil Autos, Proprietor S. Bartar Hussain Naqvi1995 MLD 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Amrood Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1378 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ammad Yahya And Another vs Muhammad Ahmad1995 MLD 332 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
• Amjad Mehmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 253 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
• Amjad Khan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 594 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
• Amjad Iqbal vs The State1995 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07
  illegal gratificationcorruptiontainted currency notesconcurrent findingsleave to appealtrap raid
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a Sub-Inspector in the Cooperatives Department. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, based on the recovery of tainted currency notes and the testimony of disinterested witnesses, were sustainable. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution successfully proved the charge through the testimony of the complainant, the Inspector, and the Magistrate who supervised the raid. The Court held that the petitioner's inconsistent explanations—initially acknowledging receipt of money while claiming it was for a superior, then later denying the recovery entirely—undermined his defense. The key principle affirmed is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, supported by credible evidence and the recovery of tainted money, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal error or perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a corruption case?
  • Does an inconsistent defense statement by an accused undermine the credibility of their testimony?
  • Is the testimony of a Magistrate and an Inspector sufficient to establish the recovery of tainted money in a corruption trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain Butt vs Khalid MianK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali alias Muna vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 447 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Amir Qadir vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 547 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-14Read full judgment →
• Amir Mukhtar vs Life Line Private Limited1995 PLC 754 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan vs The State1995 PLD Peshawar 153 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain vs Murid Hussain and others1995 P Cr. L J 423 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-05Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux vs The State1995 MLD 610 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
• Amir Ahmad vs Irshad AhmadK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 130 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-13Read full judgment →
• Amir Afzal vs Tariq Almas and others1995 MLD 756 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
• Amir Afzal vs Tariq Almas And Other1995 MLD 756 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
• American Express Bank Ltd vs Adamjee Industries Limited1995 CLC 880 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-08
  leave to defendsummary suitcontinuing guaranteeconsiderationpledgesuretylimitationbanking company
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses multiple applications for leave to appear and defend a summary recovery suit filed by American Express Bank Ltd against Adamjee Industries Limited and various guarantors and pledgors for a substantial sum. The core legal questions involve whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether a promissory note for a time-barred debt constitutes an express promise under the Contract Act, whether past advances and continuing banking facilities serve as valid consideration for guarantees and pledges, whether a pledgor qualifies as a 'surety' under the relevant banking recovery laws, and whether a partner can bind a partnership firm by pledging its securities for third-party debts or natural guardians can pledge minor properties. The Court held that a promissory note acts as a valid promise to pay under Section 25(3), that continuing banking facilities constitute good consideration for continuing guarantees and pledges, and that pledgors qualify as sureties. However, unconditional leave to defend was granted to certain defendants due to issues regarding alleged forgery of signatures, a partner's lack of implied authority to pledge firm securities for third-party debts, and the validity of a father pledging minor properties for third-party liabilities. The key principle established is that past and future advances coupled with forbearance or credit facilities constitute valid consideration, and pledgors fall within the definition of sureties under banking recovery frameworks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a promissory note executed for a time-barred debt operates as a valid express promise under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Does a continuing guarantee covering past and future advances have valid and sufficient consideration under the law?
  • Whether a person who provides a pledge or security for the performance of another's obligation qualifies as a surety under banking recovery laws?
  • Does a partner have the implied authority under Section 19 of the Partnership Act 1932 to pledge a firm's securities for the debts of a third party?
  • Can a natural guardian validly pledge the property or securities of minors for the debts of a third party?
  Read full judgment →
• Amer Habib vs Senior Superintendent of Police and others1995 CLC 29 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
• Ameerul Hassan Khan vs Abdul Waheed and 5 others1995 MLD 820 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ameerul Hassan Khan vs Abdul Waheed And 5 Other1995 MLD 820 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ameer vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 25 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-29Read full judgment →
• Ameena vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence Through Secretary AndAnother1995 MLD 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ameena vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence through Secretary and another1995 MLD 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ameen-Ud-Din and 4 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 232 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Ameen Ud Din And 3 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1321 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan vs Chief Secretary, Government of N.W.F.P. and 21995 SCMR 1856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-24
  departmental inquirysubstitution of inquiry officercasus omissusconstruction of statutescivil serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the substitution of an inquiry officer during a departmental inquiry. The petitioner, a Chief Officer, faced allegations of financial irregularities involving missing funds in District Council, Bannu, leading to a departmental inquiry under the N.-W.F.P. Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1980. The core legal question was whether an inquiry officer could be lawfully substituted during departmental proceedings when the rules were silent on substitution following the routine transfer of the initial inquiry officer. The Supreme Court held that the absence of a provision explicitly permitting substitution does not imply a legal prohibition, as courts cannot supply missing words or fill legislative gaps under the doctrine of casus omissus. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, ruling that substitution resulting from a routine transfer is permissible in the absence of an express bar, and declined to grant leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inquiry officer can be substituted in a departmental inquiry when the governing rules are silent on substitution?
  • Can a court supply missing words or fill a gap in a statute or rule under the doctrine of casus omissus?
  • Does the routine transfer of an initial inquiry officer justify the appointment of a substitute inquiry officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan and anothers vs Chairman, Medical Research Council1995 SCMR 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-23
  original jurisdictionpublic interest litigationfundamental rightscigarette commercialstelevision advertisementsright to lifehealth hazard
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking a ban on cigarette commercials on television due to the public health hazards associated with smoking. The core legal question was whether the petition met the threshold requirements for the direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) is strictly limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights contained in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution. The Court observed that Article 4(2)(a) does not fall within Chapter I of Part II, Article 25(1) was not impinged by television advertising, and Article 9, even if broadly construed to cover the quality of life, was not violated given the health warnings displayed after commercials. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution restricted strictly to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights in Chapter I of Part II?
  • Can Article 4(2)(a) of the Constitution be directly enforced through an application under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
  • Does the broadcasting of commercial advertisements for cigarettes on television violate Article 9 or Article 25(1) of the Constitution where health warnings are simultaneously displayed?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs The State1995 MLD 954 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab , Decided On 23RdK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 181 · Board of Revenue · -Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali Alias Billa vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-15Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah Khan vs Abdul Majeed Khan and others1995 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
• Altaf Shakoor and 4 others vs The Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 615 · Sindh High Court
  Section 144 CrPCpillion riding banDistrict Magistrate powersjudicial reviewconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders issued by District Magistrates in Karachi prohibiting pillion riding on motorcycles and scooters. The petitioners argued these orders were discriminatory, unreasonable, and ultra vires. The core legal question was whether District Magistrates could repeatedly issue successive orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to effectively create a permanent ban, thereby circumventing the statutory time limits. The Court held that while Section 144 allows for temporary restrictions to prevent public disorder, it does not permit the indefinite renewal or repetition of such orders by a Magistrate to bypass the two-month limitation period prescribed by Section 144(6). The Court affirmed that if conditions necessitate an extension beyond the statutory limit, the power to do so lies exclusively with the Provincial Government via official notification, not with the District Magistrate through successive, overlapping orders. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders as being without lawful authority, establishing that a public officer cannot achieve indirectly what the law prohibits doing directly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a District Magistrate repeatedly issue successive orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to extend a ban beyond the statutory time limit?
  • Does the power to extend an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 beyond two months vest in the District Magistrate or the Provincial Government?
  • Is a ban on pillion riding a violation of the equality clause under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 505 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State & Another1997 K.L.R. Criminal Cases 707 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-09Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 1201 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain and 6 others vs Khushi Muhammad1995 P Cr. L J 414 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• Alok Spices vs State of Kerala1995 PTD 202 205 I T R 45 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
• Allied Cans vs The Income Tax Officer (Now Designated as Assistant1995 PTD 366 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Allia Safdar vs University of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1?97 Civil Cases 375 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
• Allaud Din vs Addl. Settlement Commissioner and 2 others1995 CLC 11 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and 3 others vs Sher Muhammad and 2 others1995 SCMR 749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-20
  government landauction bidproprietary rightsBoard of Revenuecompetent authorityoral agreementco-sharers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the ownership of government land. The petitioners claimed that despite the government auction of land being awarded solely to respondent Sher Muhammad, there existed a prior oral agreement for joint ownership and possession. They sought to enforce this arrangement, relying on a 1980 Collector's order that purportedly recognized their co-share status. The core legal question was whether an oral agreement between private parties regarding government land, made prior to an auction, could override the official auction record and bind the government without the sanction of the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the Collector lacked the authority to alter the auction terms approved by the Board of Revenue. The Court ruled that such private arrangements are not binding on the government unless formally incorporated into the auction bid and approved by the competent authority. Consequently, the Court affirmed that possession and private agreements cannot confer proprietary rights in government land without proper sanction, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an oral agreement between private parties regarding government land bind the government if it was not part of the original auction bid?
  • Does a Collector have the authority to alter the terms of a government land auction approved by the Board of Revenue?
  • Can possession of government land create proprietary rights in the absence of sanction from the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and 18 others vs Ghulam Jilani and 3 others1995 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 703 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya And 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 405 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Warayo vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 645 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-10Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakhia vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 573 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 241 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs The State and 2 others1995 SCMR 834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-09
  post-arrest bailmurder casecancellation of bailgrave and sudden provocationexculpatory statementsinvestigation findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Allah Rakha, challenging a Lahore High Court order that granted bail to respondents Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Iqbal in a murder case. The deceased, Ibrahim, was allegedly murdered due to an illicit liaison. The High Court granted bail to Muhammad Hassan, noting he lacked a motive, the investigation suggested the incident occurred under grave and sudden provocation at a different location, and co-accused provided exculpatory statements exonerating him. Bail for Muhammad Iqbal was granted based on a finding of innocence during the police investigation. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that Muhammad Hassan was named in the F.I.R. with a specific role, thus disentitling him to bail. However, the petitioner could not refute the High Court's findings, and the State did not support the cancellation of bail. Given that the trial was imminent and scheduled for a specific date, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretion at this stage and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's grant of bail when the trial is imminent and the State does not support cancellation?
  • Does the presence of a specific role in an F.I.R. automatically disentitle an accused to bail if investigation findings suggest otherwise?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Muhammad Amin and 2 others1995 CLC 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Muhammad Amin And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 162 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Ashfaq Ali1995 MLD 874 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Allah Nawaz Sheikh vs Divisional Superintendent (Workshops), Pakistan Railways1995 PLC 564 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 47 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya and others vs Bangul and others1995 MLD 918 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya And Others vs Bangul And Other1995 MLD 918 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya alias Allah Ditta vs The State1995 SCMR 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-16
  free-fightculpable homicidereduction of sentenceleave to appealcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Allah Diwaya alias Allah Ditta against the judgment of the High Court, which had altered his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304, Part I, and reduced his sentence of death to imprisonment for life for causing the death of a deceased person during a free-fight. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the High Court was excessive under the circumstances of a non-pre-planned free-fight. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the substantive sentence was indeed excessive given that the incident was a free-fight precipitated by the complainant party. Consequently, the Court reduced the petitioner's substantive sentence to rigorous imprisonment for ten years while maintaining the fine and granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that in cases of sudden free-fights without premeditation, the sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder should be adjusted commensurately.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence of imprisonment for life is excessive in a case of culpable homicide arising out of a sudden free-fight?
  • Can the Supreme Court reduce a substantive criminal sentence upon converting a petition for leave into an appeal?
  • Is a convict entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon reduction of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The Chief Conservator of Forests, (P&E) Punjab, Central Zone, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 552 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Afzal and others1995 CLC 292 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Judge Family Court and others1995 MLD 1852 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Judge Family Court And Other1995 MLD 1852 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs A. C/Magistrate 1ST Class and 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 500 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Etc vs The State EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 525 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Etc vs Bangul EtcK.L.R. 1995 CivU Cases 286 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 296 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 199S Shariat Cases 94 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and anothers vs Bashir Ahmad alias Faqiria1995 PLD Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-05
  ex parte decreefraudulent decreerevival of suitregular second appealconcurrent findings of factres judicataadverse possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two regular second appeals arising from a long-standing property dispute. The core legal question was whether, upon setting aside an ex parte decree on the ground that it was obtained through fraud and non-service of summons, the original suit automatically stands revived for rehearing, even when the subsequent suit explicitly challenged and tried the merits of the original claim. The Lahore High Court held that whether an original suit is revived depends upon the pleadings, the issues, and the actual decision in the subsequent suit. If the subsequent suit tries the merits and concludes that the original claim itself was false, fraudulent, and that no transaction took place, the original suit cannot be revived or retried, as the controversy has already been effectively resolved. The appeals were consequently dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an original suit stands automatically revived when an ex parte decree is set aside on the ground of fraud?
  • Does a finding in a subsequent suit that the original claim was false and fraudulent preclude the revival and retrial of the original suit?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding non-service and fraud be disturbed in a regular second appeal without proof of non-reading or misreading of evidence?
  • What is the effect on a previous suit when the subsequent suit effectively resolves the core controversy regarding the validity of the transaction and consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and 3 others vs The State and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1668 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and 2 others vs Daulat Bibi and 3 others1995 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09
  leave to appealpermanent injunctionproperty descriptionburden of proofrevision application
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the dismissal of their revision application by the High Court, which had upheld the decree passed in favor of the respondents in a suit for permanent injunction. The respondents filed the suit claiming ownership and possession of a house without providing Khasra numbers in the plaint, alleging long-term possession, damage during floods, subsequent repair, and interference by the petitioners. After fluctuating decisions by the trial and appellate courts, the suit was ultimately decreed in favor of the respondents, and the revision was dismissed. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of property description in the plaint and the burden of proof regarding ownership. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioners' contentions regarding the lack of specific property particulars and discrepancies in evidence warrant further examination. The key principle laid down is that a party claiming ownership must sufficiently identify the property and substantiate its claim through consistent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff claiming ownership and permanent injunction must provide specific particulars such as Khasra numbers in the plaint?
  • Does a discrepancy between the description of property given in the plaint and the evidence produced vitiate the suit?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when concurrent findings of lower courts involve substantial questions regarding property identification?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-26
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentencereappraisal of evidenceidentification of accusedsentence mitigationconcurrent sentences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for murder and murderous assault. The appellants were originally convicted by the trial court under Sections 302, 307, and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with death sentences imposed on the appellants. The Lahore High Court maintained the convictions but altered the death sentence of one appellant to life imprisonment. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged the identification of the accused, arguing that the occurrence took place at night. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitnesses were natural, being inmates of the house, and that the appellants were known to them. Finding no misreading of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the convictions. However, regarding the sentencing, the Court held that because the evidence did not conclusively establish which specific appellant fired the fatal shot, the death sentence was inappropriate. Consequently, the Court substituted the death sentence with imprisonment for life, while maintaining other sentences and granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Supreme Court required to perform a fresh reappraisal of evidence when two lower courts have already concurrently found the accused guilty?
  • Can a death sentence be maintained when the evidence fails to conclusively establish which of the co-accused fired the fatal shot?
  • Are eyewitnesses who are inmates of the house where the crime occurred considered natural witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2075 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-26Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and 3 others vs Muhammad Abdullah and 10 others1995 CLC 331 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-21
  civil revisionres judicatadeath registeradditional evidencecustomary lawinheritance sharerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts granting the plaintiffs a 3/8th share instead of a 3/4th share in the disputed estate of Nawab, deceased. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs' predecessor, Sardar, survived the original owner Nawab, thereby entitling the plaintiffs to a 3/4th share, or predeceased him. The Lahore High Court held that the lower courts erred in ignoring admissible public documents such as the death register and misapplying the doctrine of res judicata to an adverse finding in a previous suit where the ultimate decree favored the party. The ratio decidendi is that an adverse finding in a judgment whose ultimate result is in favor of a party does not operate as res judicata, and official entries in death registers maintained in the regular course of business are admissible and reliable evidence of the date of death. The petition was allowed and the judgments modified to grant the plaintiffs a 3/4th share.

  Questions settled

  • Does an adverse finding recorded in a judgment whose ultimate result is in favor of a party operate as res judicata in subsequent litigation?
  • Are entries in a public register of deaths maintained by a public servant in the discharge of official duty admissible as relevant facts under the law of evidence?
  • Can a High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the lower courts have misread or ignored material evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a certified copy of a death register when the original record is summoned and inspected by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and 15 Other vs Member Board of Revenue Punjab, LahoreK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 37 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Alla Ditta vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 454 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State1995 MLD 100 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1316 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-12
  bailabsconderco-accusedrule of consistencycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Ali Nawaz, seeking pre-trial or post-arrest release in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be refused solely on the ground of the accused being an absconder against whom proceedings under Section 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were initiated, particularly when co-accused with indistinguishable cases have already been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the rule regarding the refusal of bail to an absconder is not an absolute rule and that exceptions can be made depending on the circumstances, notably where co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. The court thus granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing the requisite security, laying down the principle that the grant of bail to co-accused similarly placed serves as a valid ground for making an exception to the general rule withholding bail from absconders.

  Questions settled

  • Is the rule refusing bail to an absconder an absolute rule without exceptions?
  • Does the grant of bail to co-accused constitute a sufficient ground to make an exception for an absconder?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused when proceedings under Section 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were ordered against him?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad vs Ayub and another1995 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-20
  leave to appealacquittalocular testimonydying declarationappreciation of evidencemurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against an order of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted respondent No. 1 of the charge of murder. The respondent had been convicted by the trial court for the murder of the petitioner's father, Ali Baig, based on ocular testimony, a dying declaration, medical evidence, and forensic reports regarding a recovered firearm. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction and acquitting the respondent based on assumptions regarding the deceased's physical capacity to speak after receiving the injury, despite the presence of direct, corroborated evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the contentions raised regarding the misappreciation of evidence by the High Court warranted further examination. The Court held that the case requires a full review of whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prosecution's evidence, which included eyewitness accounts and forensic support, based on mere assumptions. Consequently, the Court issued bailable warrants for the respondent's arrest to ensure his presence during the appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court set aside a conviction based on assumptions regarding the physical capacity of a deceased person to speak after receiving a fatal injury?
  • Is the High Court justified in rejecting direct, corroborated ocular evidence in a murder case without sufficient grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar, Arifwala, District1995 P Cr. L J 626 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Mst. Murad Bibi1995 SCMR 773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-07
  specific performanceright to cross-examinedue processremand of caseprocedural irregularitytrial court procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an appellate decision setting aside a trial court's judgment and decree in a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully when it closed the respondent's right to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses and proceeded to pass a final decree on the same day, without affording the respondent an opportunity to produce evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the trial court's actions were procedurally flawed and unsustainable. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to remand the case for a fresh trial, emphasizing that a court cannot bypass fundamental procedural requirements of due process. The key principle laid down is that a trial court acts in excess of its authority and prejudices a party's rights when it closes the right to cross-examine and immediately renders a final judgment without allowing the opposing party to present their evidence, thereby necessitating a remand to ensure a trial conducted in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court pass a final decree on the same day it closes a party's right to cross-examine without allowing that party to produce evidence?
  • Is a judgment and decree passed in haste, without following the procedure laid down by law, liable to be set aside and remanded for a fresh trial?
  Read full judgment →