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.

• Ali Muhammad vs Commissioner Afghan Refugees, N.W.F.P. and another1995 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-07
  dismissal in liminecivil servicetemporary employeepensionary benefitstermination of servicefirst appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, who had served for over ten years in the office of the Commissioner Afghan Refugees, N.W.F.P., challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal in limine. The appellant's services had been summarily terminated on the ground that they were no longer required, despite his long service and a prior departmental inquiry that had exonerated him. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal could dismiss a first appeal in limine when disputed questions of fact and law were involved, and whether an employee with over ten years of service could be summarily terminated as a temporary employee without pensionary benefits. The Supreme Court held that while Rule 11 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974 permits dismissal in limine, this power should not be exercised where disputed questions of fact and law require the appreciation of evidence and interpretation of documents. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a regular hearing on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal in limine under Rule 11 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974?
  • Is dismissal in limine appropriate when a first appeal involves disputed questions of fact and law requiring the appreciation of evidence?
  • Can an employee who has served for more than ten years be summarily terminated as a temporary employee without determining their entitlement to pensionary benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Rana vs The Presiding Officer, Iiiri) Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and another1995 PLC 732 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-16Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Ata Muhammad and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 2024 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 384 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Enterprises vs Federal Government and others1995 CLC 1289 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
• Ali Bahadur vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Muzaffarabad and 41995 CLC 1241 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Bahadur vs Custodian of Evacuee Property Muzaffarabad And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 51 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Farid Khan and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 741 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar Shah vs Nasim Kahn And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 733 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar and anothers vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 10 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-09
  criminal appealtransfer of caseright to be heardscheduled offensecognizancevitiated trialpolice reportSpecial Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by a Special Judge (S.T.A.) for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellants contended that the trial was illegal because the case was transferred from the Sessions Court to the Special Court without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard. Additionally, the appellants argued that once the Sessions Court had taken cognizance of the matter based on the initial police report, the police could not unilaterally alter the case to include a scheduled offense to change the trial forum. The High Court held that the trial was vitiated due to the failure to provide the appellants with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the transfer of the case. The Court emphasized that once a case is instituted in a court of law, the prosecution cannot unilaterally change the forum of trial. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Sessions Court for proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused have a right to be heard before a case is transferred from a Sessions Court to a Special Court?
  • Can the police unilaterally alter the nature of a case to a scheduled offense after a Sessions Court has already taken cognizance?
  • Is a trial vitiated if the case is transferred to a Special Court without notice to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs Ghulam HaiderK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 162 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs Ghulam Haider1995 CLC 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs Director (Admn.) FIA, and others1995 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-15
  service lawpro forma promotionsenioritylimitation perioddepartmental promotionmandatory training course
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding seniority and pro forma promotion. The petitioner, a Head Constable in the Federal Investigation Agency, challenged the denial of his request for seniority restoration and pro forma promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.) from the date his juniors were promoted, following the withdrawal of a prior reversion order. The core legal questions were whether the appeal was barred by limitation due to an amendment and whether the petitioner was entitled to pro forma promotion despite not having completed the mandatory training course. The Supreme Court held that while the Tribunal erred in its computation of limitation—as the limitation period should be calculated from the date of the original appeal filing rather than the amendment—the petition failed on merits. The Court affirmed that pro forma promotion could not be granted retrospectively because the petitioner had not successfully completed the required Intermediate Training Course until December 1990, thereby establishing that promotion eligibility is contingent upon fulfilling mandatory service qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Is the limitation period for an amended appeal computed from the date of the original appeal filing?
  • Can a civil servant claim pro forma promotion prior to completing mandatory training requirements?
  • Does the withdrawal of a reversion order automatically entitle a civil servant to retrospective seniority and promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad and others vs Municipal Committee, Talagang and others1995 SCMR 1523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-31
  evacuee propertyland use restrictionsRafah-e-Aambuilding plancivil suitstatus quoleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their civil suits and subsequent revision petitions by the Lahore High Court concerning a plot of land originally allotted as evacuee property and later purchased by them. The petitioners obtained a building plan sanction, which was recalled by the Municipal Committee following objections from local residents, leading to concurrent findings against the petitioners by the trial court, district court, and the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court involved examining the nature of the petitioners' ownership rights against the restrictions imposed by the Revenue Department limiting the land use to 'Rafah-e-Aam' (public welfare). Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the delay in filing the petitions ought to be condoned and that the matter warranted a thorough examination of the extent to which such revenue conditions restrict an absolute owner's rights, while directing status quo to be maintained pending the final disposal of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Does permanent settlement of evacuee property vest absolute ownership in the transferee free from revenue restrictions?
  • Can a municipal committee recall a sanctioned building plan based on objections from local residents?
  • To what extent can a revenue department condition restrict the rights of an absolute owner of land?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad And 5 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1029 · Board of Revenue · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Abbas alias Babbal vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 922 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-03Read full judgment →
• Alhaj Hamid Nawaz Khan vs Brig. Saleem Zia, SubMartial Law Administrator1995 P Cr. L J 303 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
• Aleem Jaffar vs WAPDA through its Chairman,WAPDA House, Lahore and 21995 PLC (C.S.) 651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09
  WAPDA employeedismissal from serviceSection 17(1-A) WAPDA Actdouble jeopardyleave to appealservice lawreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the petitioner's dismissal from service by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner, an ex-Line Superintendent, was initially dismissed following a criminal conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Although the petitioner was reinstated following his acquittal by the High Court, WAPDA subsequently removed him from service again, invoking Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The petitioner challenged this second removal, arguing that it constituted double jeopardy and violated established legal principles regarding the exercise of powers under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The Supreme Court observed that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the legality of the second dismissal, particularly in light of previous judicial precedents, required deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the authority could invoke Section 17(1-A) to remove an employee after they had already been exonerated of the charges that formed the initial basis for their dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Water and Power Development Authority invoke Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act to dismiss an employee after they have been acquitted of the criminal charges that led to their initial removal?
  • Does the removal of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act after a previous exoneration constitute double jeopardy?
  Read full judgment →
• Aleem Jaffar vs WAPDA through Chairman and 2 others1995 SCMR 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-09
  leave to appealdismissal from serviceWAPDA employeedouble jeopardyacquittalservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Aleem Jaffar, an Ex-Line Superintendent in WAPDA, challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld his dismissal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The petitioner was initially convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, leading to his dismissal. After protracted litigation through the Labour Court, High Court, and Federal Service Tribunal—during which his conviction was set aside and he was acquitted—he was reinstated. Subsequently, WAPDA suspended and removed him anew under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The core legal question concerns whether the employer can invoke Section 17(1-A) to remove an employee after their conviction is set aside and they are reinstated. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether this action constitutes double jeopardy in light of established precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Can WAPDA invoke Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act to remove an employee after their initial conviction and dismissal have been set aside and they have been acquitted?
  • Does the removal of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act after they have been exonerated amount to double jeopardy?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamgir vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 459 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Alamgir vs Chief Commissioner, Northern Areas, Gilgit and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 216 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-08-16Read full judgment →
• Alam Zeb Khan vs Prime Minister of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1005 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan vs Muhammad Ramzan1995 MLD 429 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-10Read full judgment →
• Alam Ali Syed vs United Bank Ltd., Lahore and another1995 SCMR 936 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08
  Banking Tribunalex parte decreerestoration of applicationlimitation periodleave to appealrecovery of loan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing an appeal filed under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984. The respondent bank had obtained a decree against the petitioner for the recovery of a loan. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, alleging lack of service. This application was dismissed in default due to the petitioner's non-appearance on the date of hearing. A subsequent application for restoration of the initial application was also rejected by the Banking Tribunal. The High Court affirmed this dismissal, noting that the original application to set aside the ex parte decree was time-barred and that no sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of the application. The Supreme Court examined the proceedings and found no legal infirmity in the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for restoration or to overcome the limitation issue, and thus refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the lower court's dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application for restoration of an application to set aside an ex parte decree be granted if the original application was filed beyond the period of limitation?
  • Is an appellate court justified in dismissing an appeal against the refusal to restore an application where no sufficient cause for non-appearance is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Aksar Khan vs The State1995 MLD 1237 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Akrampoor vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1781 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-21Read full judgment →
• Akram and others vs Khushi Muhammad and others1995 SCMR 982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07
  specific performanceregistered agreement of saleconcurrent findings of factcontractual obligationminors' interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The core legal question was whether the agreement of sale, which was registered and involved payment of consideration, was enforceable against the vendors and subsequent purchasers (the petitioners). The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court concurrently found that the vendors had validly agreed to sell the land to the plaintiffs, that a significant portion of the consideration was paid before the Registering Officer, and that the plaintiffs remained ready and willing to perform their obligations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of the agreement and the plaintiffs' readiness to perform were well-founded. The Court further rejected arguments regarding the minority of some plaintiffs, noting that the transaction was entered into for the benefit of all parties and that the interest of minors had been adequately protected. The judgment affirms the sanctity of registered sale agreements and the finality of concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the validity of a sale agreement binding on the Supreme Court?
  • Can a registered agreement of sale be enforced against subsequent purchasers who bought the land during the pendency of a specific performance suit?
  • Does a contract entered into by an adult on behalf of minors for their benefit remain valid and enforceable?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 568 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Umar Hayat vs Province of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 167 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-03Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Kiyani vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 145 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 630 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs The Secretary, Economic Affairs and Statistics1995 PLC (C.S.) 681 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-01-04Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Shah and another vs Pir Sabir Shah1995 CLC 402 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Qazi vs Messrs Thatta Sugar Mills, Thatta1995 PLC 3 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Jan vs Government of Pakistan and 3 others1995 SCMR 1554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-30
  Kashmiri migrantPakistan citizenshipJammu and Kashmirdeportation orderconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition against an order directing him to leave Pakistan. The core legal question is whether the appellant, a subject of the State of Jammu and Kashmir who migrated to Pakistan in 1971, qualifies for citizenship under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. The Supreme Court held that the appellant fulfilled all the requirements of having migrated from Jammu and Kashmir with the intention of residing in Pakistan as contemplated by the law. The Court established that upon satisfying the factual criteria under Section 14-B, a Kashmiri migrant automatically attains the status of a citizen of Pakistan, thereby setting aside the deportation order and allowing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subject of the State of Jammu and Kashmir who migrated to Pakistan is entitled to citizenship under Section 14-B of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951?
  • Does continuous residence, marriage, and business establishment in Pakistan suffice to prove the intention of residing in Pakistan under Section 14-B?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs M/s. Abaid Ullah and Sons and another1995 CLC 322 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali Etc. vs University of the PunjabK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 34 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-31Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1403 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 90 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2091 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Akber Masih vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-01Read full judgment →
• Akbar Nawaz Khan vs Sher Dil Khan and 2 others1995 MLD 1061 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-24Read full judgment →
• Akbar Nawaz Khan vs Sher Dil Khan And 2 Other1995 MLD 1061 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-24Read full judgment →
• Akbar Masih vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Secretary-General, Establishment Division, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 512 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
• Akbar Hussain vs Wadero Muhammad Tayyeb1995 PLD Karachi 452 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-15
  arbitration awardex parte proceedingsservice of noticenatural justicevoid orderArbitration Act 1940nullity
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns a challenge to an arbitration award made ex parte, which was previously made a rule of the court. Following a remand by the Supreme Court, the High Court examined whether the defendant had been properly served with notice of the arbitration proceedings. The core legal question was whether the requirements of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, regarding the service of notice, were satisfied. The Court held that the record contained no evidence that the notice was actually delivered to or received by the defendant, noting that the registered mail was returned unserved. The Court ruled that the arbitrator acted in haste and failed to ensure proper service, rendering the ex parte proceedings and the subsequent award a nullity. The key principle established is that an arbitrator must record their satisfaction regarding the service of notice to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld. Furthermore, where an initial order is void, all subsequent actions and rights derived from that order, including auction proceedings, must also fall to the ground.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere issuance of a notice by an arbitrator satisfy the requirements of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Is an arbitration award rendered ex parte valid if the arbitrator fails to record satisfaction regarding the service of notice on the defendant?
  • If an arbitration award is declared void for lack of service, do subsequent actions such as auction proceedings based on that award also become void?
  • Are arbitrators required to follow the strict procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding service of process?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Gul Khan anothers vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Defence, Islamabad and 11 other1995 CLC 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs University of Punjab through Vice Chancellor and 2 others1995 CLC 641 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 559 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-20Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Mansoorul Haq and others1995 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-15
  personal requirementejectmentlandlord and tenantrent controllerbona fide requirementleave to appealcommercial property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that reversed a Rent Controller’s order and granted an ejectment decree against a tenant based on the landlord’s personal requirement. The core legal question was whether a landlord’s plea for personal requirement is defeated by the fact that other properties were previously let out, and whether the landlord must prove financial capacity or specific business plans to establish such a requirement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the selection of premises is the landlord’s prerogative, and the mere fact that other shops were let out previously does not negate the plea of personal requirement. Furthermore, the Court established that a landlord is not required to prove the nature of the business, financial readiness, or the possession of licenses to succeed in an ejectment application. The Court emphasized that prior letting of other properties does not prejudice a current, bona fide claim for personal use.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's previous act of letting out other properties negate a current claim for personal requirement?
  • Is a landlord required to prove financial capacity or the possession of a business license to establish a bona fide personal requirement for a rented shop?
  • Does the retirement of a landlord on medical grounds automatically disqualify them from establishing a personal requirement to start a business?
  • Is the selection of specific premises for personal business a matter of choice for the landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs (Mst.) Hameeda SahafK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 210 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and 4 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 144 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
• Akbar 4 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 655 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-22Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan vs Ishtiaq Ahmed, Field Pay Officer_Dacma, Nowshera and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 998 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-06-06Read full judgment →
• Ajab Shafi vs The State and another1995 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-17
  leave to appealmurderocular evidenceinterested witnessesabscondencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ajab Shafi against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed his criminal appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the uncorroborated testimony of interested eyewitnesses, coupled with the petitioner's prolonged abscondence and an existing land dispute motive, was sufficient to sustain a murder conviction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, noting that close relatives would not easily substitute an innocent person for the real culprit in a broad daylight occurrence, and that the petitioner's unexplained abscondence for nearly three years provided strong corroboration of his guilt. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that ocular testimony found credible and corroborated by subsequent flight is sufficient to maintain a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of interested eyewitnesses is sufficient to warrant a conviction for murder?
  • Does prolonged abscondence of an accused provide substantial corroboration to the ocular account?
  • Can a prior land dispute between parties serve as a valid motive for sustaining a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan vs The State1995 MLD 1199 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Aisha Spinning Mills Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan etc.PTCL 1995 CL. 155 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Aiaz & Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Guftar vs The State1995 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-09
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidenceseminal stains
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court dated 31-5-1994, whereby bail previously granted to the petitioner by an Additional Sessions Judge was cancelled. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where the FIR alleged compromising circumstances and subsequent medical evidence detected semen on vaginal swabs of the deceased. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no interference was warranted against the High Court's order cancelling bail, as the detection of semen corroborated the allegations in the FIR and connected the petitioner to the crime, precluding a case for further inquiry at this stage. The key principle laid down is that where medical evidence corroborates the ocular account regarding illicit relations and sexual activity leading to an offence, bail granted by ignoring such material evidence is rightly cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether detection of semen on vaginal swabs is sufficient to connect an accused with Zina when corroborated by FIR allegations?
  • Can bail granted by ignoring material evidence such as a Chemical Examiner's report be maintained?
  • When does a case qualify for further inquiry regarding the tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan A. Shauque vs Director-General, Central Directorate of National Savings, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 723 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
• Ahmed vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation Throdugh Its MayorK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 106 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan and 29 others vs Pangrio Sugar Mills Limited, District1995 PLC 107 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Rice Mills and others vs Nawab Rahat Ali Khan1995 PLD Lahore 422 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hussain Alias Laloo vs The State1995 MLD 604 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others1995 PLD Karachi 223 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed, Etc. vs Shahmim Akhtar, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 696 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1997 MLD 167 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed and others vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others1995 MLD 1899 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed And Others vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar And Other1995 MLD 1899 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed and anothers vs Mst. Maqsooda Begum1995 MLD 1387 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed And Another vs Mst. Maqsooda Begum1995 MLD 1387 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1997 MLD 200 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Mumtaz and 10 others vs Settlement Commissioner(L) and 51995 SCMR 984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04
  agricultural land allotmentsettlement commissionerconstitutional jurisdictionarithmetical calculationleave to appealexcess land
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an order by the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelling the allotment of agricultural land to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Faiz Muhammad, due to an excess of 2919 P.I. Units. The excess land was subsequently allotted to respondents as informers. The petitioners contended that the department had committed errors in the arithmetical calculation of the land entitlement. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter and determined that the High Court had thoroughly examined the calculation aspect in the impugned judgment. The Supreme Court held that arithmetical calculations regarding land entitlement cannot be re-adjudicated through the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. However, the Court clarified that the petitioners remained at liberty to approach the relevant department to point out any specific arithmetical mistakes in the calculation, provided that such representations do not challenge the merits of the case, such as the classification or type of land originally allotted.

  Questions settled

  • Can arithmetical calculations regarding land entitlement be challenged through the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is it permissible to challenge the merits of a land allotment decision under the guise of correcting arithmetical errors?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 736 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Special Court No.111 EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 207 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Special Court No. III and others1995 P Cr. L J 660 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Lawrencepur Woollen and Textile Mills Ltd.1995 PLC 520 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan vs Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Agriculture1995 PLC (C.S.) 433 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-11-17
  ad hoc appointmenttermination of servicePunjab Civil Servants Actservice tribunallimitationback benefitsregular incumbent
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Assistant Research Officer appointed on an ad hoc basis, challenged the termination of his service before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal questions involved whether an ad hoc appointment could be terminated before the appointment of a regularly selected incumbent under Section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and whether the appeal was barred by time. The Tribunal held that under Section 10(2) of the Act, an ad hoc appointment continues until a regular incumbent is appointed, and since no such appointment was made, the termination was unlawful. The Tribunal further held that the appeal was within time as the cause of action arose from the executory order of the Secretary rather than the general policy decision. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the termination order and reinstating the appellant with back benefits. The key principle laid down is that ad hoc appointments protected by statute cannot be arbitrarily terminated without fulfilling statutory preconditions such as the arrival of a regular selectee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ad hoc appointment can be terminated before a regularly selected incumbent is appointed under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • When does the period of limitation start to run against an order terminating ad hoc service based on a policy decision?
  • Does an administrative authority have the obligation to provide reasons for terminating an ad hoc appointment?
  • Whether a general policy decision of the Chief Minister can automatically terminate individual ad hoc appointments without specific executory orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hasan and anothers vs Punjab University and anothers1997 MLD 91 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Habib Bank Ltd. and 2 others1995 SCMR 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04
  banking tribunalrecovery suitconditional leave to appealdeposit of decretal amountexecution of decreecivil petition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions arise from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing appeals against recovery decrees passed by the Banking Tribunal in favour of the respondent bank. The petitioner failed to deposit the decretal amount as ordered by the High Court as a precondition for admitting the appeals, leading to the dismissal of those appeals. Subsequently, the respondent bank initiated execution proceedings and warrants of arrest were issued against the judgment-debtors. The High Court dismissed the subsequent petitions, holding that since the decrees had attained finality, no objections could be raised against their execution based on grounds already decided in the appeals. The Supreme Court of Pakistan found no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court and accordingly refused leave to appeal, holding that a final decree cannot be challenged in execution proceedings on matters already settled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against a Banking Tribunal decree can be dismissed for failure to deposit the decretal amount as ordered by the High Court?
  • Can objections be raised in execution proceedings against a decree that has attained finality on grounds already decided in appeals?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Banking Tribunal regarding recovery suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Abdullah and others1995 CLC 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Abdullah And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 161 · Other · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bilal vs University of Engineering & Technology through its1995 CLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs Saeed Ahmad, Inspectr/S.H.O. Police Station Uch1997 MLD 45 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh and 3 others vs Managing Director, (Superintending1995 PLC 536 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and others vs Muhammad Hayat and others1995 MLD 571 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad And Others vs Muhammad Hayat And Other1995 MLD 571 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad alias Lota vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1906 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1045 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Agnatius Paul vs Member, Power, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 759 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• Agha Nadeem, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 692 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Agha Jee Cotton Factory vs Hakim Trading Company Rahimyar Khan1995 CLC 302 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04
  summary suitleave to defendcivil revisiondiscretionary jurisdictionbank guaranteenegotiable instrumentsmaterial irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an order by the District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, which granted the petitioner leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, subject to the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire claim of Rs. 500,000. The petitioner, having denied the execution of the cheques forming the basis of the suit, contended that the condition was harsh and rendered the leave to defend illusory. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion judicially in imposing such a stringent condition when the liability was disputed. The High Court held that while the trial court possesses discretion to impose conditions, such discretion must be exercised judiciously. Arbitrarily imposing a bank guarantee for the full amount when the defendant denies the very existence of the liability constitutes a material irregularity. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, granting the petitioner leave to defend upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial court, establishing that conditions must not be so onerous as to defeat the right to defend.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court impose a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire suit amount when the defendant denies the execution of the instrument?
  • Is a civil revision maintainable against an order passed under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the imposition of an onerous condition for leave to defend a summary suit constitute an arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Ghulam Ali Buledi vs Gohar Ali Alias Ganwar Ali1995 MLD 41 · Election Tribunal · 1994-05-02
  election petitiondisqualificationage qualificationburden of proofNational Identity Carddocumentary evidencereturned candidate
  Summary & questions settled

  This election petition was filed under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, challenging the election of the returned candidate, respondent No. 2, to the Provincial Assembly of Sindh. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was under the age of 25 years at the time of filing his nomination papers and was thus disqualified from contesting the election. The core legal question was whether the respondent met the statutory age requirement of 25 years. The Election Tribunal examined conflicting documentary evidence regarding the respondent's date of birth, including school registers and National Identity Card records. The Tribunal held that the burden of proof lay heavily on the petitioner to establish the respondent's disqualification, a burden the petitioner failed to discharge due to contradictory and inconclusive evidence. Conversely, the respondent's evidence, particularly the primary school admission register and the National Identity Card issued in 1987, consistently supported his claim of being of qualifying age. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that entries in official documents like a National Identity Card hold evidentiary weight unless rebutted by superior evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on the petitioner to establish the disqualification of a returned candidate based on age?
  • Do entries in a National Identity Card hold evidentiary weight in determining the age of a candidate?
  • Can a petition challenging an election be sustained when the evidence regarding the candidate's age is contradictory and inconclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Firasat Ali vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 430 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Agha Abdul Rehman Khan and 12 others vs Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur1995 CLC 1084 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
• Aftab Khan vs Haamid Hussain and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 552 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-01Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam Khan vs The General Manager (Personnel), Pakistan1995 PLC 638 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Afsh an Naureen vs Nadeem Abbas Shah1997 MLD 197 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →