Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Afsar Khan vs Nawab Khan and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 549 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to quash an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakki Marwat, whereby two accused persons in a murder case were released pursuant to a police report under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the legality of releasing an accused under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at a late stage when the accused is no longer in police custody, and the propriety of a Magistrate blindly endorsing a police release without judicial scrutiny or application of mind. The court held that powers under section 169 can only be exercised by the police while the accused is in police custody, and Magistrates cannot act as a rubber stamp to police opinions. The impugned order was declared void and set aside, laying down the principle that the release of an accused due to insufficient evidence must be processed properly through the challan and subjected to independent judicial scrutiny by the Magistrate.
Questions settled- Can the police exercise powers under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused is no longer in police custody?
- Whether a Magistrate can blindly endorse the release of an accused person opined by the police without judicial application of mind?
- How should an accused person released by the police due to insufficiency of evidence be reflected in the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Afaque Hussain Naqvi vs Mrs. Razia Begum1995 CLC 222 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
- Afaque Hassain Naqvi vs Rama Begum1995 CLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
- Afaaq Anjum And Other vs The StateK.L.R.1997 Shariat Cases 216 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
- Administrator Thal Development vs Muhammada and others1995 MLD 794 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
- Administrator Thal Development vs Muhammada And Other1995 MLD 794 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
- Adil Khan vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1995 SCMR 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the Board of Revenue's decision dismissing the petitioner's revision petition as time-barred by 17 days. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had originally pre-empted the sale of agricultural land, which was eventually decreed subject to making up a deficiency in court-fee. After protracted litigation involving remand orders and writ petitions concerning limitation and court-fee deficiencies, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against the Board of Revenue's decision on limitation. The core legal question concerns whether a revision petition held to be barred by limitation can be maintained when the initial rejection order was allegedly void and whether delay stands condoned if argued on merits without initial objection. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions regarding the void nature of the initial order, implied condonation of delay, and the raising of limitation objections for the first time in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an order rejecting a suit for deficient court-fee is void and can be assailed without the bar of limitation?
- Does a decision on a revision petition on merits without objection regarding limitation amount to implied condonation of delay?
- Can a party raise the plea of limitation for the first time in writ jurisdiction after succeeding on merits before lower tribunals?
- Adil Brothers (Private) Ltd. vs Pakistan National Shipping1995 CLC 1652 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
- Adeeb Javedani, Printer and Publisher, Moon Digest, Lahore vs Yahya1995 CLC 1246 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for recovery of damages for defamation, filed by a senior advocate and former Attorney-General against the printer and publisher of a digest, was decreed. The core legal question concerned whether the publication of an article based on an allegedly false interview, which impugned the professional reputation and integrity of the plaintiff, constituted actionable defamation, and whether the defense of fair comment in public interest was available to the publisher. The Balochistan High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were free from legal infirmity, ruling that the publisher failed to substantiate the truth of the interview, refused to publish a denial or tender an apology, and employed harsh language that caused demonstrable injury to the plaintiff's reputation. The court laid down that editors must exercise reasonable diligence to verify information before publishing defamatory attacks, and that a publisher of defamatory material is equally liable as the author.
Questions settled- Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts in a defamation suit can be interfered with under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the publication of an unverified interview containing harmful imputations against a person's professional reputation constitute actionable defamation?
- Is a publisher of defamatory material equally liable along with the original author of the imputation?
- Whether proof of actual quantified financial loss is a mandatory pre-requisite for awarding damages in a suit for defamation?
- Adeeb Javedani vs Yahya BahtiarK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 442 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
- Adam Khan And Others vs Muhammad Sadiq1995 MLD 506 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
- Achar and anothers vs Abu Baker Modi and another1995 CLC 465 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of their hereditary rights and a perpetual injunction regarding the possession of over 130 salt-pans in Maripur, Karachi. The defendants moved for the dismissal of the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs had previously filed an identical suit (Suit No. 456 of 1991) concerning the same subject matter and cause of action, which was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally and dismissed on 4-3-1992. The defendants contended that the current suit was therefore barred under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court examined the record and confirmed that the earlier suit had been withdrawn without the court's permission to institute a fresh suit. The Court held that, pursuant to Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a plaintiff who withdraws a suit without such permission is precluded from instituting a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter. Finding the present suit to be based on the same cause of action as the previously withdrawn suit, the Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Does the unconditional withdrawal of a previous suit without the court's permission preclude the filing of a fresh suit on the same subject matter?
- Is a subsequent suit barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it arises from the same cause of action as a previously withdrawn suit?
- Achar And Another vs Abu Baker Modi And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 372 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
- Abu Talib vs Government of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh, Law Department, Karachi and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 934 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-11-14Read full judgment →
- Abida Rashid vs The Secretary, Government of Sindh and others1995 PLD Karachi 587 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order passed by the Secretary, Government of Sindh, which cancelled the petitioner's allotment of a government quarter in favor of the respondent. The core legal question was whether the Secretary possessed the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Vice-Chairman, Administrative Committee, Shah Latifabad, and whether such a right of appeal existed in the absence of express statutory provision. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and was void ab initio. It emphasized that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and must be expressly granted, not implied. Furthermore, even under the administrative circular relied upon by the respondent, the appellate authority was the Commissioner, not the Secretary. Consequently, the Court declared the Secretary's order to be of no legal effect, affirming that power vested in a specific authority must be exercised by that authority alone, and any usurpation of such power renders the resulting act illegal.
Questions settled- Can a right of appeal be implied or inferred in the absence of an express statutory provision?
- Does an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction constitute a void act?
- Can a subordinate administrative circular confer a substantive right of appeal where the parent statute is silent?
- Is an order passed by an authority other than the one designated by the relevant administrative circular sustainable in law?
- Abid Shah, And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 540 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-24Read full judgment →
- Abid Rashid And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Abid Masood and others vs Dilshad Khan1995 SCMR 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment matter involving a commercial property in Rawalpindi. The petitioners, successors-in-interest to the original landlord, sought the eviction of the respondent tenant on grounds of rent default, unauthorized subletting, and personal need for the premises. While the Rent Controller dismissed the petition on all counts, the Additional District Judge, on appeal, reversed the decision regarding personal need and ordered eviction. Following multiple rounds of litigation and remands, the Lahore High Court ultimately set aside the appellate order and dismissed the ejectment petition. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that personal need was established by the evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners failed to provide the necessary evidence on record for review. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners owned numerous other shops, some of which became vacant during the proceedings, yet the petitioners failed to demonstrate why those premises were unsuitable for their needs. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners failed to prove bona fide personal need and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's failure to provide evidence of personal need for a specific premises, despite owning other vacant properties, justify the dismissal of an ejectment petition?
- Is a finding of bona fide personal need for a commercial property sustainable when the landlord fails to explain why other vacant properties in their possession are unsuitable?
- Abid Mahmood vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 105 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone B, Lahore1995 PTD 262 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain and others vs Aziz Fatima and others1995 PLD Supreme Court 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a civil suit decree challenged by the petitioners through an appeal and subsequently a revision petition before the Lahore High Court. The revision petition was refiled after a significant delay of nearly two years following the removal of objections. The High Court dismissed the revision as time-barred, citing the petitioners' failure to provide a plausible explanation for the delay. The core legal question was whether the High Court is obligated to entertain a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given that no specific limitation period is prescribed, and whether such revision constitutes an absolute right. The Supreme Court held that while the right to invoke revisional jurisdiction is not merely a privilege, the exercise of such jurisdiction remains discretionary. The Court affirmed that the High Court may decline relief where the petitioner’s conduct is contumacious or where there is undue delay without reasonable cause. The principle established is that while no statutory limitation period exists for revisions, the court may properly exercise its discretion to dismiss petitions filed after undue delay, particularly when the petitioner fails to justify the lapse.
Questions settled- Is the filing of a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a matter of right or a privilege?
- Can the High Court refuse to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to undue delay?
- Does the absence of a prescribed limitation period for filing a revision petition preclude the High Court from dismissing a petition on the grounds of laches?
- Abid Hussain and 2 others vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 5, Karachi and another1995 PLC 261 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
- Abid alias Abi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
- Abid Ali and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 834 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
- Abdus Saeed Khan and 2 vs Basharat Ali and 13 others1995 PLD Lahore 255 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The plaintiffs sought enforcement of an agreement against the original vendors, while the appellants, who purchased the disputed land from the vendors during the pendency of the suit, challenged the decree. The core legal questions were whether the appellants, as purchasers pendente lite, could claim the status of bona fide purchasers for value without notice, and whether the suit was maintainable against them without a specific prayer for the cancellation of their sale deed. The Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens, as recognized under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, bars such a defense. The Court affirmed that the principle of lis pendens is based on public policy rather than notice, preventing litigants from alienating property to prejudice the opposite party during litigation. Consequently, the appellants, having stepped into the shoes of the original vendors, were bound by the agreement. The appeal was dismissed, subject to a minor modification regarding the payment of consideration.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to a purchaser who had no actual notice of the pending suit?
- Can a purchaser of property during the pendency of a specific performance suit claim the status of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice?
- Is it necessary to specifically pray for the cancellation of a sale deed executed pendente lite in a suit for specific performance?
- Are successors-in-interest bound by an agreement to sell executed by their predecessors under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Abdur Rehman vs Tanveer Hussain and 4 others1995 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for the cancellation of bail granted by the Lahore High Court to four respondents accused of murder and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondents despite the presence of ocular and medical evidence implicating them in the crime. The Supreme Court partially allowed the petition. It upheld the bail for respondents Tanveer Hussain and Khadim Hussain, noting that Tanveer caused no injury and Khadim’s weapon, a rifle, did not match the injuries sustained by the victims. However, the Court cancelled the bail for respondents Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Yousaf, finding that the High Court had erroneously concluded that the victims did not sustain fire-arm injuries, thereby ignoring the prima facie evidence of their involvement. The Court affirmed that bail may be cancelled where the High Court’s order is based on a misreading of the medical evidence or a failure to appreciate the specific role and weapon attributed to an accused in the First Information Report.
Questions settled- Does the finding of innocence by the police during investigation constitute absolute grounds for the grant of bail?
- Can bail be cancelled if the High Court misreads medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the victims?
- Is bail appropriate for an accused when the medical evidence contradicts the weapon attributed to them in the First Information Report?
- Abdur Rehman vs Khaliq Dad1995 SCMR 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave arises out of a suit for declaration filed by the respondent challenging a mutation of sale of land on the ground of fraud, collusion, and lack of consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the sale transaction genuine, but the first appellate court and the High Court reversed this decision and decreed the suit, doubting the passing of consideration and delivery of possession. The core legal question was whether the first appellate and High Courts were justified in reversing the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court held that the lower appellate forums misread and non-read the evidence, particularly ignoring bank testimony proving the payment of consideration and the plaintiff's admitted thumb-impression on the mutation, and reiterated that delivery of possession is not legally essential for a sale transaction.
Questions settled- Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court?
- Whether the learned Judge in Chambers had rightly declined to interfere with the appellate judgment and decree?
- Is delivery of possession legally essential for a transaction of sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Abdur Rehman Khan vs Muhammad Altaf And 3 OthersK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 643 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-11Read full judgment →
- Abdur Razzaq vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1800 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
- Abdur Razzaq and anothers vs Nawabzada Col. (Retd.) Muhammad1995 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the ownership and possession of land measuring 7 Kanals 1 Marla. The respondent filed a suit for declaration, challenging a gift mutation as collusive and fraudulent, asserting that the land was Shamilat Deh and historically in the possession of his predecessor-in-interest. While the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, the District Judge reversed this decision, citing the suit as time-barred. The Peshawar High Court subsequently restored the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court examined the revenue records, noting that the land was consistently recorded as Shamilat Deh and in the respondent's possession until an unexplained entry in 1970-71 introduced the petitioner's name. The Court held that the High Court correctly restored the trial court's judgment, finding no justification for the sudden alteration in long-standing revenue entries. The principle established is that unexplained, abrupt changes in revenue records regarding possession, particularly for 'Banjar Qadeem' land, cannot form a valid basis for title or gift mutations when they contradict decades of consistent historical record.
Questions settled- Can a sudden, unexplained entry in revenue records regarding possession of 'Banjar Qadeem' land serve as a valid basis for a gift mutation?
- Does a long-standing historical entry in revenue records prevail over a recent, unsubstantiated entry in a dispute over land ownership?
- Is a suit for declaration challenging a fraudulent mutation barred by time when the underlying revenue entries were altered without justifiable grounds?
- Abdur Razzak vs Muhammad Qasim And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 324 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- Abdur Razza vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 642 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rauf vs The State and another1995 SCMR 833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question presented for consideration was whether the trial court could lawfully alter the charge against the respondents from an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to one under Section 308 of the same Code. This alteration was proposed in the context where certain legal heirs of the deceased had expressed their willingness to compound the offence. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legal propriety of such a charge alteration in light of the compounding of the offence by some, but not necessarily all, of the heirs of the deceased. The judgment focuses on the procedural and substantive implications of compounding offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when multiple heirs are involved, specifically addressing the authority of the court to modify charges based on partial settlements between the parties involved in the criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 308 when some heirs of the deceased have agreed to compound the offence?
- Does the compounding of an offence by some heirs of the deceased justify an alteration of the charge against the accused?
- Abdur Rauf vs Muhammad Aslam Khan and 9 others1995 CLC 618 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid vs Riazuddin and others1995 SCMR 999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal challenging a judgment by a Judge in Chamber, which declared the appointment of the petitioner as a Chowkidar in a Government Primary School to be void ab initio and illegal. The petitioner had been appointed to the post in 1988 based on the recommendation of an M.P.A., following the termination of the respondent, who had previously served as a part-time Bhishti-cum-Chowkidar. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was the validity of government appointments made solely through the recommendations or quotas of political figures such as Ministers, MNAs, or MPAs. Relying on the precedent established in Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and others (1993 SCMR 1287), the Court held that the allocation of appointment quotas to political representatives and any appointments made pursuant to such recommendations are illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision to invalidate the petitioner's appointment, emphasizing that such practices violate the principles of fair and lawful recruitment into public service.
Questions settled- Are appointments to government posts made on the recommendation of an M.P.A. valid?
- Does the allocation of appointment quotas to Ministers, MNAs, or MPAs render resulting appointments illegal?
- Is an appointment made through political recommendation considered void ab initio?
- Abdur Rashid Etc vs S.H.O, EtcK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahim And Others vs M/s United Bank Limited1996 P.C.T.L.R. 43 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-29Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahim Alias Kaka vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 226 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
- Abdullah vs Abdur RashidK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 398 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Khan and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1025 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Etc vs The State1995 KLR Criminal Cases 576 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
- Abdullah and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
- Abdullah alias Badal vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1363 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wakeel Khan and 4 others vs Land Acquisition Collector, Nowshera and 10 others1995 CLC 548 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of land acquisition proceedings wherein land was acquired for a residential colony under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, filed an application under section 18 of the Act requiring a reference to the Court. During the proceedings before the Senior Civil Judge acting as the Land Acquisition Judge, respondents Nos. 2 to 11 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleadment as parties, which was allowed. The petitioners challenged this order through a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal question was whether a Land Acquisition Judge can implead persons as parties to a reference under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when those persons failed to seek a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within the prescribed limitation period and had accepted compensation without protest. The Peshawar High Court held that the Land Acquisition Judge erred in exercising jurisdiction by allowing the impleadment, as the special procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 overrides general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court laid down the principle that persons who fail to file a reference before the Collector under section 18 within the stipulated limitation period and accept compensation without protest cannot subsequently circumvent the special law by seeking impleadment as parties before the Reference Court.
Questions settled- Can a Land Acquisition Judge implead a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 who failed to file a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Does the special procedure provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 exclude the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the addition of parties?
- Is a person who has accepted compensation without protest entitled to seek a reference or impleadment in land acquisition proceedings after the expiry of the limitation period?
- Abdul Wahid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 949 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs The State and others1995 SCMR 1174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court directing a retrial of the petitioner, who had initially been acquitted by the trial court on a charge of murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's acquittal and ordering a retrial based on the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the trial court's reasons for rejecting the testimony of the natural witnesses were unsustainable and legally flawed. The ratio of the decision is that where a trial court's assessment of evidence is demonstrably unsustainable, an appellate or revisional court is empowered to interfere with an acquittal order to ensure the ends of justice. The key principle laid down is that the findings of a trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are subject to judicial review, and if such findings are based on unsustainable reasoning, the order of acquittal can be set aside in favor of a retrial.
Questions settled- Can a High Court order a retrial if the trial court's reasons for rejecting witness testimony are found to be unsustainable?
- Is an order of acquittal by a trial court immune to interference in revision if the evidence assessment is flawed?
- Abdul Wahid vs Banking Tribunal, Bahawalpur and others1995 MLD 1960 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs Banking Tribunal, Bahawalpur And Other1995 MLD 1960 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Waheed vs The State1995 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 by the trial court, which was subsequently upheld by the Federal Shariat Court. The appellant had been tried for abduction, Zina-bil-Jabr, and theft, but was acquitted of abduction and theft after the trial court concluded that the prosecutrix had accompanied him and submitted to his lust voluntarily. The core legal question was whether a conviction for Zina could be sustained on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix who was found to be an accomplice and a basically dishonest witness, without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that since the prosecutrix was judicially found to be a participant and her allegations regarding abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr were false, she was a basically dishonest witness upon whose solitary testimony no implicit reliance could be placed without independent and reliable corroboratory evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be recorded on the solitary statement of a prosecutrix found to be an accomplice without independent corroboration?
- Whether a witness whose statement regarding abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr has been found false can be considered a basically dishonest witness requiring independent reliable evidence for any conviction?
- Abdul Waheed Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahad Junejo vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 274 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahad and others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 440 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sleem vs Habib UllahK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 513 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor and anothers vs M/s. Abdul Razzaqueabdul Sattar,1995 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller dismissing an eviction application filed by the appellants against the respondents for default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had initially found no landlord-tenant relationship and no willful default. Upon review, the High Court held that a landlord-tenant relationship clearly existed, as the appellants were the sole proprietors of the firm and the respondents had previously paid rent to them. Regarding the alleged default, the Court rejected the respondents' defense that the appellants had previously accepted rent in lump sums or through representatives. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court established that a landlord's past practice of accepting rent periodically does not absolve a tenant of their legal obligation to pay rent on time, nor does it imply a waiver of the statutory requirement. The landlord is not legally required to collect rent from the tenant. Consequently, the Court found the respondents committed willful default, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to vacate the premises within four months.
Questions settled- Does the definition of landlord under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 include sole proprietors of a company acting as landlords?
- Does a landlord's past practice of accepting rent periodically constitute a waiver of the tenant's obligation to pay rent on time?
- Is a landlord legally obligated to collect rent from the tenant at the tenant's convenience?
- Does the failure to pay rent on time, despite alleged past practices of lump-sum collection, constitute willful default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Abdul Sattar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 639 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner Abdul Sattar sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 337-F(ii) and (vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal, after his bail was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether bail should be withheld for offences carrying punishments not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically where injuries involved a fracture. The Lahore High Court held that since the maximum punishments for the alleged offences were two and seven years, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause, withholding bail would amount to pre-trial punishment. The Court laid down the principle that in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail ought not to be withheld as a form of punishment before the guilt of the accused is legally established, leading to the acceptance of the bail petition subject to surety bonds.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be withheld in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does withholding bail for an offence carrying a maximum sentence outside the prohibitory clause amount to pre-trial punishment?
- Is bail a matter of right in cases where the maximum punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Abdul Sattar vs Province of the Punjab through Registrar/Deputy1995 CLC 187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking a declaration that the recovery of additional stamp duty amounting to Rs. 2,94,695 on a sale deed was illegal and without jurisdiction, along with a direction for its refund. The core legal question concerned whether the registering authorities were justified in demanding additional stamp duty based on a valuation table for a transaction originating from an agreement to sell dated back to 1981, and whether section 27-A of the Stamp Act had retrospective effect or had been duly notified. The Lahore High Court held that the demand for additional stamp duty was illegal, as section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 came into force on 14-06-1986 and lacked retrospective effect to cover a 1981 transaction, and further that no proper notification or publication of the valuation table had been proved. The court laid down the principle that the fixation of property valuation is a matter between vendor and vendee, executing authorities cannot modify a court decree by demanding additional stamp duty on under-valuation grounds, and valuation tables under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 cannot be applied retrospectively or without proper public notification.
Questions settled- Whether section 27-A of the Stamp Act 1899 has retrospective effect to cover transactions entered into prior to its enforcement?
- Can the Sub-Registrar refuse registration of a sale deed executed through a court decree on the ground that the property is under-valued?
- Is a valuation table issued by the Collector under the Stamp Act 1899 effective without proper publication or notification to the public?
- Does the fixation of property valuation rest between the vendor and vendee when a genuine price is paid through a court in a specific performance suit?
- Abdul Sattar vs Province of the Punjab And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 116 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Ghulam Muhammad and 9 others1995 CLC 1075 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Abdul KarimK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 250 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar Bhutto vs Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority through its1995 PLC (C.S.) 369 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1793 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically involving injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular testimony in the absence of independent corroboration, the evidentiary value of an investigating officer's finding of innocence regarding a co-accused, and the sufficiency of proof regarding the recovery of the weapon of offence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the co-accused, Abdul Sattar, noting that the investigating officer's testimony declaring him innocent—uncontested by the prosecution—could not be ignored. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery of the weapon doubtful due to the lack of independent witnesses and forensic evidence. While upholding the conviction of the principal accused, Muhammad Zubair, the Court modified the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively, emphasizing that in cases of family feuds or youth altercations, evidence against secondary participants requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and any doubt regarding participation must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of an investigating officer declaring an accused innocent be ignored by the court if the prosecution fails to declare the witness hostile?
- Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of injured witnesses when the accused are alleged to have merely held the victims?
- Does the failure to produce independent witnesses for the recovery of a weapon render the recovery doubtful?
- Should sentences for multiple hurt offences run concurrently or consecutively when the incident arises from a single transaction?
- Abdul Saboor vs Abdul AzizK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 690 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 85 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 21995 PLD Supreme Court 546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a former Head Constable dismissed for alleged misconduct, challenged an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine two main legal issues: first, whether a single member or Chairman of the Service Tribunal could validly dismiss an appeal; and second, whether limitation should be calculated from the date of the appellate order or the revisional order. Examining Sections 3, 3-A, and 2(g) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the Supreme Court held that a Bench constituted under Section 3-A consisting of the Chairman alone or one Member is deemed to be a Tribunal competent to pass orders. Addressing the limitation issue, the Court applied a beneficial construction to Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, holding that the term 'appeal' includes 'revision' where such a remedy is explicitly provided by the applicable rules (such as the Police Rules, 1934). Consequently, the limitation period commenced from the dismissal of the revision petition, rendering the appeal timely. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Can the Chairman alone or a single Member of the Punjab Service Tribunal constitute a valid Bench competent to hear and decide an appeal?
- Whether the word 'appeal' in proviso (a) to Section 4(1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 can be interpreted to include a 'revision' provided under applicable service rules?
- From which date is the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal to be computed when a departmental revision is prescribed and filed under the relevant rules?
- Can statutory provisions governing limitation be given a beneficial construction to advance the remedy of appeal for an aggrieved party?
- Abdul Rehman vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 21995 PLC (C.S.) 1191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a former Head Constable, challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had deemed the appeal time-barred. The core legal questions were whether a single member of the Service Tribunal was competent to dismiss an appeal, and whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Tribunal should be computed from the date of the appellate order or the date of the revisional order. The Supreme Court held that under Section 3-A of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, a Bench consisting of a single member is deemed a Tribunal and is competent to decide cases. Regarding limitation, the Court applied a beneficial construction to Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, ruling that the term 'appeal' therein should be interpreted to include 'revision' where such a remedy is provided by applicable rules, such as the Police Rules, 1934. Consequently, the limitation period commences from the disposal of the revision application. The appeal was allowed, and the case remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Is a single member of the Punjab Service Tribunal competent to dismiss an appeal?
- Does the term 'appeal' in Section 4(1)(a) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 include a 'revision' petition provided under the Police Rules, 1934?
- From which date should the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal be computed when a revision application has been filed?
- Abdul Rehman And 7 Other vs Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 628 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq vs Province of Punjab and others1995 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs The Collector of Customs and another1995 CLC 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the maintainability of First Appeals filed against orders of the District Judge rejecting plaints in civil suits. The plaintiffs had initially sued for recovery of money against the Collector of Customs, alleging illegal duty assessments under the Customs Act, 1969. While the trial court refused to reject the plaints, the District Judge, exercising revisional jurisdiction, subsequently rejected them. The appellants argued that because the rejection occurred at the revisional level, it constituted a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby granting a right of appeal under Section 96. The Court held that First Appeals under Section 96 are only maintainable against decrees passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction, not revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court ruled that the First Appeals were incompetent. The Court further clarified that while previous decisions suggested otherwise, they failed to account for the specific jurisdictional constraints of Section 96, and thus, the appeals were dismissed for lack of maintainability.
Questions settled- Is a First Appeal maintainable against an order rejecting a plaint passed by a District Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the definition of a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 automatically confer a right of appeal under Section 96 regardless of the court's jurisdiction?
- Can a decision be considered per incuriam if it fails to consider the jurisdictional constraints imposed by Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Abdul Razzaic and others vs Muhammad Aslam and others1995 SCMR 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as four eviction applications filed by a landlord against tenants occupying four separate shops, citing grounds of default and bona fide personal use. While the allegation of default was rejected by the lower courts, the eviction applications were granted based on the landlord's established requirement for personal use, specifically to conduct a business involving iron bars and cement. The High Court affirmed these concurrent findings of fact, noting that the individual shops were too small to accommodate the business requirements, necessitating the use of multiple units for storage and office space. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the findings and determined that there was no misreading of evidence by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court upheld the eviction orders, dismissing the appeals. The Court affirmed the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal requirement of a landlord, supported by evidence, are generally not disturbed in appellate proceedings. By consent of the parties, the Court granted the appellants a period of six months to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's personal requirement be disturbed in appellate proceedings?
- Is a landlord entitled to multiple premises for a single business if the individual units are insufficient in size?
- Abdul Razak Adamjee and anothers vs Directorgeneral, Karachi1995 MLD 803 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razak Adamjee And Another vs Directorgeneral, Karachi1995 MLD 803 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf Ghauri vs Mrs. Kishwar Sultana and 4 others1995 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a summary suit instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the respondents for the recovery of Rs. 19 lakhs based on a dishonoured cheque. The trial court granted the appellant leave to defend the suit on the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee equal to the claimed amount, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in revision. The appellant contended that because he had raised plausible defences and triable issues based on a conditional agreement, he was entitled to unconditional leave, or at least to a condition of solvent security rather than a bank guarantee. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of a bank guarantee and substituting it with a condition to furnish solvent security. The Court reiterated the established principle that where a defendant discloses facts constituting a plausible defence or raising substantial questions of fact or law, they are entitled to leave; even if the defence is vague or doubtful, the defendant should be put on terms to furnish security or deposit the amount, rather than being subjected to an onerous condition like a bank guarantee which practically denies the leave.
Questions settled- What is the appropriate standard for granting leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court impose the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for granting leave to defend when the defendant has raised a plausible defence?
- Whether a defendant whose defence is vague or unsatisfactory should be denied leave to defend altogether or put on terms such as furnishing solvent security?
- Abdul Rashid vs Station House Officer, Police Station Nasirabad, Lahore and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 2030 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Chairman Labour Appellate Tribunal N.W.F.P, And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Velmi- vs Habiburrehman and 4 others1995 MLD 397 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Velmi vs Habiburrehman And 4 Other1995 MLD 397 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Khan and anothers vs Muhammad Shoukat Hussain and other1995 CLC 1708 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Butt vs Muhammad Ashiq Marth, Inspector Police, Formerly SHO P.S. Gulshan Ravi, Lahore And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 418 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid and 2 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Renala1995 P Cr. L J 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed for the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of abduction. The petitioner, Mst. Parveen Akhtar, had previously been married to respondent No. 4, but the marriage was dissolved via a 'Talaqnama' executed by mutual consent (Mubaraat). Subsequently, Mst. Parveen Akhtar contracted a new Nikah with petitioner No. 3. The core legal question was whether a Talaq executed by mutual consent is immediately operative and irrevocable, thereby precluding the husband from withdrawing it. The Court held that once spouses decide to separate by mutual consent and a Talaq document is signed, it becomes final and operative for all intents and purposes, and the husband cannot withdraw it. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Union Council is bound to register such a Talaq under the relevant family laws. Given the police investigation report confirming the marriage and finding the criminal allegations baseless, the Court disposed of the petition, effectively quashing the proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a Talaq executed by mutual consent immediately operative and irrevocable?
- Can a husband withdraw a Talaq once it has been signed and executed by mutual consent?
- Is the Chairman of a Union Council bound to register a Talaq executed by mutual consent under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Abdul Rashid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1610 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rasheed vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 16 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the police investigation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the investigation was marred by dishonesty and manipulation. Specifically, the arrest memo was discredited, the identification parade was found to be fabricated, and the recovery of ransom money and weapons was not established. The Court emphasized that under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, the burden of proof only shifts to the accused after the prosecution successfully establishes the prerequisite conditions of possession or suspicious circumstances. Since the prosecution failed to meet this threshold and the evidence was tainted, the convictions were set aside. The judgment affirms that courts cannot maintain convictions based on faulty, dishonest investigations lacking independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 before the prosecution establishes the prerequisite conditions of possession or suspicious circumstances?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the police investigation is proven to be dishonest, faulty, and manipulated?
- Is an identification parade valid if the accused were in police custody and not properly presented for identification?
- Abdul Rasheed vs The State and another1995 PLD Karachi 202 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rasheed vs Muhammad Ashraf and others1995 SCMR 1180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, who was accused alongside co-accused of abducting a woman under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail where the alleged abductee stated she was not subjected to rape and no eye-witnesses to the commission of Zina existed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no grounds for interference were made out, noting that the Additional Advocate-General was unable to oppose the bail application in light of the victim's statement in the Civil Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that bail is appropriately granted when the primary allegation of Zina is unsupported by the victim's statement or direct eyewitness testimony at the preliminary stage.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when the alleged abductee states she was not subjected to rape?
- Does the absence of eye-witnesses to the commission of Zina justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail?
- Abdul Rahman, vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahman vs Ghulam Muhammad through Legal Heirs and another1995 SCMR 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that had reversed an appellate court's finding regarding the waiver of the right of pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the pre-emptor had waived his right of pre-emption by declining to purchase the land when offered, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the appellate court's factual findings on this issue. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had restored the trial court's decree in favor of the pre-emptor. The Court held that the appellate court's judgment was based on a strained interpretation of evidence, whereas the trial court had correctly identified that the defendant's evidence regarding the waiver was self-contradictory and unimpressive. The key principle affirmed is that an appellate court's findings of fact may be set aside in second appeal if they are based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence, or if the evidence relied upon is inherently contradictory and fails to establish the asserted fact of waiver.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court's finding on the issue of waiver be set aside in second appeal if the evidence relied upon is self-contradictory?
- Does a pre-emptor waive their right of pre-emption if they decline to purchase land due to a lack of funds?
- Is the High Court justified in reversing an appellate court's finding if the appellate court laboured to stretch evidence in favour of a party?
- Abdul Rahim vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1102 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahim Shoro and 3 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1307 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rafiq Alias Qassu vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 135 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum vs Lt.Col. (Retd.) Jamilur Rehman Qureshi1995 SCMR 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which allowed the landlord's appeal and granted eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under Section 14(4)(b)(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The tenant challenged the order, contending that the requirement was not genuine because the landlord had another vacant shop and an advertisement seeking tenants had been published. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reversing the Rent Controller's dismissal when the landlord explained the availability of the additional space. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the landlord's complete deposition and pleadings demonstrated a genuine need to combine both shops to open a departmental store after retirement. The Court found sufficient, satisfactory evidence supporting the bona fide requirement and dismissed the appeal, allowing the tenant six months to vacate.
Questions settled- Can a landlord claim bona fide personal requirement for a rented shop if an adjacent shop owned by him is also lying vacant?
- Whether the publication of an advertisement to rent out a vacant shop by a third party automatically disproves a landlord's bona fide requirement?
- Abdul Qayyum vs Chief Justice, Federal Shariat Court and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 726 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Musa Khan and 5 others1995 CLC 729 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner sought to frame additional issues regarding 'Talb-e-Muwathibat' and 'Talb-e-Ishhad' after the trial had progressed. The core legal question was whether a court is obligated to frame additional issues regarding specific pre-emption demands when the plaintiff failed to plead these essential facts in the original plaint. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court correctly disallowed the framing of these additional issues. The Court reasoned that issues must be framed based on the existing pleadings of the parties. Since the petitioner's plaint contained no allegations regarding the time, place, or manner of the required 'Talbs'—which are mandatory for the existence of a pre-emption right—there was no factual basis in the pleadings to support the framing of such issues. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition suffered from laches and that the attempt to frame these issues was an improper effort to introduce evidence on matters not raised in the original pleadings. The writ petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed on the merits.
Questions settled- Can a court frame an issue regarding a pre-emption demand if the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary facts in the plaint?
- Is a second revision competent against an order passed by an appellate court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to plead the time and place of 'Talb-e-Muwathibat' and 'Talb-e-Ishhad' in a pre-emption suit preclude the framing of issues on those topics?
- Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department and another1995 PLD Lahore 205 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by a larger Bench of the Lahore High Court addresses whether a dispute raised in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 can be referred to arbitration through the intervention of the court. The petitioner had been awarded a contract for collecting export tax by a Zila Council. Following a dispute regarding contract money adjustments, the court had previously referred the matter to arbitration by consent, leading to an award and subsequent applications before the High Court. The core legal question is whether the High Court exercising constitutional jurisdiction qualifies as a 'Court' under section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and whether it can make a reference to arbitration. The court held that while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court is not a 'civil Court' of general jurisdiction competent to try suits as defined under section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and thus cannot make a reference to arbitration. Consequently, any such purported reference by the court must be deemed a private arbitration without the intervention of the court, and applications regarding the award must be presented to a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is distinct from ordinary civil jurisdiction, and a constitutional court cannot act as a court under the Arbitration Act, 1940 to refer matters to arbitration or pass decrees based thereon.
Questions settled- Whether a dispute raised in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 can be referred to arbitration by the High Court?
- Does the High Court exercising constitutional jurisdiction qualify as a civil court as defined under section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- What is the legal status of an arbitration reference made by a court that lacks jurisdiction to make such a reference under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Which court has the jurisdiction to entertain applications for making an arbitration award a rule of the court or setting aside an award arising from a reference improperly made in constitutional proceedings?
- Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Government of Punjab and others1995 PLD Lahore 143 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayoom Soomro vs Government of Sindh through Chief1995 PLC (C.S.) 1137 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir Paracha vs The State and another1995 PLD Karachi 326 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir Hashim vs Principal, Bolan Medical College Quetta and 21995 CLC 1233 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir and others vs Muhammad Arshad and others1995 MLD 699 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir And Others vs Muhammad Arshad And Other1995 MLD 699 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadeer Qamar, Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 749 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →