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.
- Abdul Nabi vs The State1995 MLD 521 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Nabi And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1658 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Muttalib vs Secretary, Cabinet Division, Islamabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 375 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Mogees. Etc. vs M.C. Kasur And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 388 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Manna N vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 564 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Abdul Malik vs Secretary, Revenue Department, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 314 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Malik vs Mrs. Qaisar Jehan1995 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that ordered the appellant's ejectment from rented premises due to default in rent payment. The respondent, claiming ownership via a registered gift deed, served a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, requiring the appellant to pay rent to her. The appellant, instead of paying, deposited rent in court, naming multiple parties, and challenged the validity of the gift deed. The core legal question was whether the appellant's deposit of rent in court constituted a valid payment or a contumacious act amounting to default. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller cannot adjudicate the validity of a gift deed or title; such disputes must be resolved in a civil court. The Court further held that depositing rent in court without evidence of the landlord's refusal or avoidance, and doing so in a manner that harasses the landlord, does not protect a tenant from ejectment. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the tenant's conduct was mala fide and contumacious, justifying the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller adjudicate the validity or legality of a gift deed regarding the title of rented premises?
- Is a tenant entitled to deposit rent in court under Section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, without first establishing the landlord's refusal or avoidance to accept rent?
- Does the deposit of rent in the names of multiple parties, rather than the landlord alone, constitute contumacious conduct justifying ejectment?
- Is a tenant permitted to challenge the landlord's title in rent proceedings instead of initiating separate civil litigation?
- Abdul Malik vs (Mst.) Maryam BaiK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 608 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs S.H.O., Police Station Rohilanwali District1995 P Cr. L J 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This habeas corpus petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the recovery and release of two detenus allegedly held in illegal police custody. The court-appointed bailiff recovered the detenus from the lock-up of Police Station Rohilanwali. The Station House Officer (SHO) claimed they were arrested in connection with a registered theft case. However, the court observed that the arrest was not entered in the daily diary of the police station, and the statements of key witnesses were not recorded. Furthermore, a medical examination of the detenus revealed multiple blunt-force injuries, confirming severe police torture. The Lahore High Court held that the detenus were not lawfully arrested but were kept in illegal confinement. Consequently, the court ordered their immediate release, directed the removal of the court bailiff from future duties for assisting the SHO in fabricating records, and ordered the SHO to pay compensatory costs to the victims for the unlawful deprivation of their liberty.
Questions settled- Can an arrest be deemed lawful if the fact of the arrest is not entered in the daily diary of the police station?
- Whether the court can award compensatory costs against a police officer for illegal detention under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary value of an alleged confession made before the police during illegal confinement?
- Abdul Majid vs Abdul Sattar EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs Abdul Sattar and others1995 MLD 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs Abdul Sattar And Other1995 MLD 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid Qureshi vs National Bank of PakistanK.L.R. 1997 Labour Services 124 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid Khan anothers vs Noor Muhammad Mehkari1995 CLC 1357 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid Karim vs (M/s.) Orient Pakistan Ltd. & AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 75 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid and another vs Qazi Abbas Hussain Shah1995 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from contempt of court proceedings initiated against a Senior Civil Judge and an Advocate for entertaining fresh civil suits and granting a status quo order regarding property where ownership had already been finally adjudicated and settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The respondent had filed fresh declaratory suits alleging fraud and forgery despite the finality of the previous judicial proceedings. The Advocate assumed responsibility, admitting a mistaken view, and subsequently passed away. The Senior Civil Judge submitted an unconditional and unqualified apology, pleading that the status quo order was granted inadvertently due to a heavy workload and without reading the relevant paragraphs of the plaints mentioning the Supreme Court's final judgment. The Supreme Court deprecated the growing trend of initiating frivolous, vexatious, and secondary rounds of litigation to flout final adjudications. However, balancing this with the Judge's unblemished seventeen-year career, good reputation, and lack of mala fides, the Court took a lenient view, accepted the apology, and discharged the contempt notice with a warning.
Questions settled- Whether a subordinate court commits contempt by entertaining fresh suits and granting interim relief on a subject-matter already finally decided by the Supreme Court?
- What is the legal effect of a Supreme Court decision deciding a question of law on other courts in Pakistan under Article 189 of the Constitution?
- Under what circumstances may the Supreme Court accept an unqualified apology and discharge a contempt notice against a judicial officer who inadvertently flouted its judgment?
- Abdul Majid And 2 Others vs Abdul Ghani.1995 MLD 8 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Rohilanwali, District MuzaffargarhK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 610 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs Khalil Ahmed and another1995 SCMR 1108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the cancellation of pre-trial or post-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a criminal case registered under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the propriety of bail cancellation in light of a delayed First Information Report and subsequent advancements in the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court held that since the trial had progressed significantly—specifically, the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had already been recorded and the trial was nearing conclusion—the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this late stage. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, establishing the principle that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with bail matters when the underlying trial has substantially advanced.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order refusing to cancel bail when the trial has substantially concluded?
- Does a delayed F.I.R. without sufficient explanation warrant the cancellation of bail?
- Is the recording of an accused person's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a relevant factor when considering a petition against bail?
- Abdul Majeed Soomro vs The State1995 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, whereby the criminal appeal of the appellant was dismissed with a modification reducing his sentence to the period already undergone by giving him the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant, who served as a bank manager, was charged and convicted by the trial court under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the misappropriation of a specific amount, out of multiple instances alleged by the prosecution. The core legal question was whether the trial court's finding regarding the misappropriation was ambiguous and lacked conclusive proof of the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the record and evidence, including witness testimonies and identified signatures on relevant bank documents, clearly supported the finding of guilt regarding the misappropriation and that no ambiguity existed. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact supported by direct documentary evidence and witness testimonies regarding misappropriation will not be disturbed when the evidence conclusively establishes the act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as being without merit.
Questions settled- Whether an ambiguous finding by a trial court regarding misappropriation vitiates a conviction when supported by independent documentary evidence?
- Does the identification of signatures on bank pay-in-slips and counterfoils constitute sufficient proof of misappropriation under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be extended to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone upon dismissal of an appeal?
- Abdul Majeed and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 135 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed and 4 others vs Messrs H. Ghulam Muhammad & Brothers1995 P Cr. L J 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal revision application filed against an order of the Sessions Judge, Karachi (West), which had set aside an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate and remanded the case for retrial. The applicants, who were initially acquitted of charges under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, challenged the Sessions Judge's order on the grounds of legal incompetence. The core legal question was whether a revision petition against an acquittal order is maintainable when the statutory remedy of appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was available but not pursued. The High Court held that where a specific remedy of appeal against acquittal is provided under the law but remains unutilized, a revision petition is not competent. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Sessions Judge erred in entertaining the revision. The ratio established is that a party cannot bypass the statutory appellate procedure by filing a revision petition against an acquittal, and such an order passed in revision is liable to be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court.
Questions settled- Is a revision petition against an acquittal order maintainable when the remedy of appeal under Section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was available but not exercised?
- Can a Sessions Judge set aside an order of acquittal and remand the case for retrial through a revision petition?
- Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an order passed by a Sessions Judge that is not in accordance with law?
- Abdul Latif vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1792 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Punjab Province and others1995 CLC 408 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif And Other vs Riazul HaqK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 144 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif Alias Kitto vs The State1995 MLD 762 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khan and 2 others vs The State and another1995 PLD Quetta 12 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-07-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq vs The State1995 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Balochistan High Court confirming the petitioner's sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly approached the appraisal of evidence by condoning investigative flaws and delays on account of the socio-legal conditions and transition from tribal systems to regular law in the 'B' area of Chaman. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner's contentions regarding the High Court's departure from the principles of safe administration of justice in criminal cases merit detailed consideration. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts must rigorously examine whether investigational shortcomings and societal conditions can justify lowering the standards of safe criminal administration of justice.
Questions settled- Whether investigative flaws and delays caused by a tribal set-up and lack of investigational skills can be condoned to the detriment of an accused person?
- Did the High Court's approach to evaluating evidence negate the principles of safe administration of justice in criminal cases?
- Can the reluctance of the general public to come forward in a deteriorated law and order situation justify dispensing with standard rules of evidence and investigation?
- Abdul Khaliq vs Executive Engineer, 1ST Division, WAPDA, Sargodha and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 534 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq Khan vs Muhammad Afsar Khan and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 391 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This acquittal appeal was preferred by the complainant against the judgment of the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges. The core legal questions were whether a complainant possesses the locus standi to appeal an acquittal order under the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974, and whether the Shariat Court’s acquittal was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that a complainant is competent to file an appeal against an acquittal under the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974, overruling contrary precedents. On the merits, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality in the Shariat Court’s judgment. The Court emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, it will not ordinarily interfere or reappraise evidence unless the lower court’s findings are perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or result in a miscarriage of justice. Here, the prosecution evidence was found contradictory, the dying declaration was deemed doubtful given the severity of the deceased's injuries, and the eye-witnesses were unreliable, justifying the acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a complainant or an aggrieved person file an appeal against an order of acquittal under the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal judgment in a criminal case?
- Does the distinction between the right of appeal against acquittal and conviction in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases under the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974?
- Abdul Khaliq and 6 others vs Jumma Allah Rakha and 8 others1995 SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a Regular Second Appeal and three Civil Revisions regarding the possession of property. The core dispute involved whether the property in question was evacuee property or non-evacuee property, and whether the plaintiffs, as successors-in-interest of the original purchasers, were entitled to possession against the defendants who claimed title through settlement authorities and adverse possession. The Supreme Court reviewed the history of the litigation, noting that previous rounds of litigation had already conclusively determined that the property was non-evacuee and belonged to the plaintiffs' predecessors. The Court held that the issues regarding the nature of the property and the plaintiffs' entitlement were barred by the principle of res judicata, having been finally settled in earlier proceedings up to the Supreme Court level. Furthermore, the Court rejected the defendants' plea of adverse possession, affirming that possessory title cannot be maintained against the rightful owner established by consistent judicial adjudication. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as lacking merit, upholding the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Can the nature of property as evacuee or non-evacuee be re-litigated once a final determination has been made by the Custodian and upheld by the Supreme Court?
- Does the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar the re-opening of issues regarding property status and ownership in subsequent suits between the same parties?
- Can a claim of adverse possession be successfully maintained against a rightful owner whose title has been consistently upheld by judicial adjudication?
- Abdul Khaliq and 2 others vs The State1997 MLD 217 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khalil and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1894 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Sabir and others1995 CLC 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Akram1995 CLC 130 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the District Judge, Kotli, which had set aside the dismissal of a suit by the Additional Sub-Judge and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The suit was filed by the respondent challenging a gift deed executed by his late father in favour of the appellant, on grounds of fraud, undue influence, and execution during death illness. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the gift deed was vitiated by fraud or undue influence. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the suit was hopelessly time-barred as limitation began to run from the date of the execution and registration of the deed, and the plaintiff had attained majority years prior to filing the suit. Furthermore, the court held that the gift was valid, simple, and absolute, and the plaintiff failed to prove any fraud or undue influence. The key principles laid down are that once limitation starts running it does not break, a question of law can be raised at any stage, the burden of proving fraud and undue influence lies squarely on the party alleging it, and a gift to a person related within prohibited degrees cannot be revoked by heirs after the donor's death.
Questions settled- Does the period of limitation for challenging a registered gift deed continue to run once it has commenced, notwithstanding the plaintiff's absence from the jurisdiction?
- Can a question of limitation be raised for the first time or re-agitated in appellate proceedings if the necessary facts are available on the record?
- Does the burden of proving fraud and undue influence in the execution of a gift deed lie upon the person alleging it?
- Can a gift made in favour of a person related within prohibited degrees to the donor be revoked by the donor's heirs after the donor's death?
- Is an appellate court justified in remanding a case for fresh trial when all material issues have already been elaborately dealt with and decided by the trial court?
- Abdul Jabbariqbal vs Government of Punjab EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 241 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 472 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Meer vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad Azad Kashmir and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 690 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs Shamim Akhtar And Another1995 MLD 1104 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Iqbal vs Government of the Punjab, Local Government1995 PLC (C.S.) 246 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arose from the conviction of the petitioners for dacoity and robbery at a petrol pump. The petitioners challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment, which had upheld their convictions under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while modifying their sentences. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of eye-witnesses who identified the accused despite the assailants having muffled faces, and whether the subsequent recovery of stolen items provided sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the petrol pump was well-lit, allowing witnesses to observe the assailants closely. Furthermore, the Court found that the prompt filing of the F.I.R., which detailed the description of the assailants and the specific items stolen, combined with the subsequent recovery of those exact items from the petitioners, provided sufficient corroboration of their guilt. The Court affirmed the convictions, emphasizing that eyewitness testimony in such circumstances, when corroborated by recovery, is reliable evidence. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for dacoity be sustained based on eyewitness testimony where the assailants had muffled their faces?
- Does the recovery of stolen items mentioned in the F.I.R. from the possession of the accused provide sufficient corroboration for a conviction?
- Is the testimony of a witness who observed the accused fleeing the scene on a motorcycle reliable evidence in a dacoity case?
- Abdul Haque vs The State1995 KLR Criminal Cares 435 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haq vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 560 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haq and others vs Muhammad Ismail and others1995 CLC 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hanna N Pasha vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and another1995 PLD Karachi 295 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hanif vs House Building Finance Corporation through its General1995 PLC 225 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hammid and Others vs The State1997 P.C.T.L.R, 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Senior Vice President, National Sank of Pakistan and 31995 CLC 950 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Senior Vice President National Bank of Pakistan P.H.Q.K.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 316 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Ghaffari vs Begum Zubaida Ihsanul Haq1995 MLD 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid and 8 others vs Haji Shabbir Khan and another1995 PLD Supreme Court 649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a pre-emption judgment and decree of the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether a consent decree passed in a pre-emption suit on the basis of a compromise after the enforcement of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987, could be set aside on the ground of the absence of 'Talbs', notwithstanding that the vendee had waived the plea and entered into a compromise. By a majority view, the Supreme Court held that since the vendee entered into the compromise and chose to give up the plea of 'Talbs', the consent decree was validly passed under the new Act of 1987 and could not be reopened or set aside by the appellate court. The key principle laid down is that the requirement of 'Talbs' is a question of fact which a defendant-vendee may waive or give up, and a compromise decree entered into under the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987 cannot be invalidated on the absence of 'Talbs' where the vendee has voluntarily settled the matter.
Questions settled- Whether a consent decree passed on the basis of a compromise in a pre-emption suit can be set aside on the ground of absence of 'Talbs' when the vendee has waived the plea?
- What is the effect of section 35(3) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1987 on pending pre-emption suits filed under the repealed 1950 Act?
- Can a defendant-vendee legally give up or waive the requirement of making 'Talbs' in a pre-emption suit?
- Whether an appellate court can set aside a compromise decree after the case has been remanded by the High Court for a specific limited inquiry?
- Abdul Hameed vs S.H.O., Police Station, Daaira Deen Panah and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1068 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs Ghulam Sarwar and others1995 P Cr. L J 1957 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed and others vs Muhammad Zubair1995 PLD Lahore 329 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 779 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed And Another vs The State1995 MLD 779 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed and 4 others vs Imam Bakhsh and 14 others1995 CLC 1705. · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 286 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hakim vs Atiya Sultana1995 PLD Karachi 370 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant's ejectment from rented premises due to alleged rent default. The core legal questions were whether the tenant had committed default and whether the landlord possessed a valid cause of action at the time the ejectment application was filed. The Court held that the ejectment application was premature, as the statutory period for default had not elapsed when the application was filed. Furthermore, the Court established that a security deposit held by a landlord can be legally adjusted against alleged arrears of rent, particularly where the tenancy has transitioned into a statutory tenancy following the expiry of any initial agreement. Additionally, the Court observed that the acceptance of rent for a subsequent month creates a rebuttable presumption that rent for the preceding month was satisfied. Finding that no default was proven and that the landlord lacked a cause of action at the time of filing, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Can a security deposit held by a landlord be adjusted against arrears of rent?
- Does the acceptance of rent for a subsequent month create a presumption that rent for the previous month was paid?
- Can an ejectment application be maintained if the landlord lacks a cause of action at the time of filing?
- What is the effect of the expiry of a tenancy agreement on the nature of the tenancy?
- Abdul Ghias vs Syed Haji Tat Muhammad and 42 others1995 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was directed against the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Quetta, which dismissed the appellant's suit for possession through pre-emption. The appellant claimed a right of pre-emption over the suit land as a co-sharer (Shareek-e-Khatta) and asserted that he had made the necessary demands (Talb-e-Mawasbat and Talb-e-Ishhad) upon learning of the sale. The respondents contested the suit, arguing that the appellant failed to prove the requisite demands. The High Court observed that the right of pre-emption is a feeble right requiring strict compliance with formalities. The Court noted that the appellant filed the suit after a delay of one year and failed to establish the exact timing of his knowledge of the sale. Crucially, the witnesses did not depose that the appellant, while making the second demand (Talb-e-Ishhad), had expressly referred to the first demand (Talb-e-Mawasbat). Consequently, the High Court held that the indispensable conditions for pre-emption were not met and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a pre-emptor to expressly refer to the first demand (Talb-e-Mawasbat) while making the second demand (Talb-e-Ishhad) is fatal to a suit for pre-emption?
- What is the legal effect of a delay of one year in filing a pre-emption suit where the pre-emptor fails to prove the exact date of obtaining knowledge of the sale?
- Are the demands of Talb-e-Mawasbat and Talb-e-Ishhad indispensable conditions precedent for the successful exercise of the right of pre-emption?
- Abdul Ghias vs (Syed) Haji Taj Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 5 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Hafiz Jalaluddin1995 CLC 348 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant, Abdul Ghani, in favour of the respondent, Hafiz Jalaluddin, regarding a tenement in Karachi. The core legal questions were whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, whether the respondent was required to issue a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the appellant was a defaulter in rent payment. The Court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established, and the appellant, having full knowledge of the transfer of the property to the respondent through previous litigation, could not claim ignorance or lack of notice. The Court affirmed the Rent Controller's finding that the appellant was a wilful defaulter for failing to pay rent for a significant period. The key principle laid down is that where a tenant is fully aware of the transfer of ownership of the premises through prior legal proceedings, the requirement of a formal notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is dispensed with, and failure to pay rent constitutes valid grounds for ejectment.
Questions settled- Is a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, required when the tenant has actual knowledge of the property transfer through previous litigation?
- Does the repeal of evacuee laws render the notice requirement under Section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act, 1958, inapplicable?
- Can a tenant who denies the landlord's title and fails to pay rent be declared a wilful defaulter?
- Abdul Ghani vs Abrar Hussain1995 MLD 642 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani Khan vs Secretary Home Department, Govt of Sindhh, Karachi And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 46 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Zubaida BibiK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 557 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 866 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 936 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Member, Board of Revenue, B.O.R., Hazara Division, Abbottabad and 13 others1995 SCMR 1557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an ejectment order against an agricultural tenant for non-payment of the share of produce. The core legal question was whether a tenant could avoid ejectment by claiming the landlord failed to collect the produce, while simultaneously invoking the statute of limitation to defeat the landlord's claim for arrears. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the ejectment order. The Court held that a tenant who fails to pay the share of produce for an extended period and successfully uses the law of limitation to defeat the landlord's claim for arrears cannot simultaneously seek equitable relief or argue against the finding of wilful default. The Court further clarified that under the North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950, a tenant holding for an unspecified period is liable to ejectment upon default. It established that while Section 25 restricts the landlord's right to eject, it permits eviction through the execution of a decree for ejectment or where a decree for arrears remains unsatisfied, subject to the procedural requirements of Sections 26 to 28.
Questions settled- Can a tenant claim equitable relief against ejectment after successfully using the statute of limitation to defeat a landlord's claim for rent arrears?
- Does a tenant's failure to pay the share of produce for an extended period constitute a ground for ejectment under the North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950?
- Under what circumstances can a landlord execute a decree of ejectment against a tenant of agricultural land?
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Fateh Sher1995 CLC 172 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police, Gujrantwala1995 P Cr. L J 1514 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor Shaheen vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1995 PLC (C.S.) 1154 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor Rana vs D.I.G. Gujranwala RangeK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 475 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and others vs Member, Board of Revenue1995 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar, Etc. Versus The State Abdul Ghaffar, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 81 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar, And Another vs Judge Spec Ail Court No.1 (Ph) for Supreesion of Terroriat Activities Rawalpindi Division Rawalpindi And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 25 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 862 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Selection Committee through Director of Education1997 KLR Labour and Services Cases 192 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar Malik vs Government of Balochistan through ChiefK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 110 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar Malik vs Government of Balochistan through Chief1995 PLC (C.S.) 165 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 1994-08-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar Butt vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Its Chief Secretary, Muzaflarabad And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 119 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-07-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar Butt vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 905 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-07-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Bari vs Muhammad Rasheed Khan and 7 others1995 SCMR 851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the lower courts' orders for the restitution of a disputed shop to respondent No. 1. The core legal question involved the competence of the Civil Court to order restitution under Section 144, Section 47, and Section 151, read with Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, after the Supreme Court finally determined the property rights in favor of respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court held that the Senior Civil Judge was fully competent, particularly under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to direct restitution of the property to prevent perpetuating an injustice. The key principle laid down is that while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, the paramount consideration of the court is whether interference would advance the cause of justice or perpetuate an injustice, and that inherent powers under Section 151 can be invoked to order restitution following a final determination of property rights by the apex court.
Questions settled- Can a Civil Court order restitution of property under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after the final determination of property rights by the Supreme Court?
- Whether the Supreme Court will exercise its constitutional discretion under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when interference with an impugned order would perpetuate an injustice?
- Is a party entitled to restitution of possession and mesne profits when a previously executed decree is overturned by the final judgment of a superior court?
- Abdul Aziz vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 267 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs The Secretary/Chairman Railway Board, Ministry ofK.L.R.1997 Labour & Services Cases 30 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1996-07-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Shaft and 2 others1995 CLC 1740 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Ashraf and 11 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 221 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Ashiq1995 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and affirmed the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts below decreeing the respondent's suit for pre-emption regarding the suit land, while granting an additional amount to the petitioner vendee. The core legal question raised pertained to whether certain judgments of the Supreme Court had altered the established view on waiver and estoppel in pre-emption suits. The Supreme Court held that it was unnecessary to resolve this question because both the trial court and the appellate court had recorded concurrent findings of fact holding that the respondent was not estopped from claiming the right of pre-emption. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, establishing that concurrent factual findings on issues such as waiver and estoppel obviate the need to examine broader jurisprudential conflicts regarding earlier precedents when such findings decisively settle the merits.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding waiver and estoppel render it unnecessary to examine alleged conflicts in earlier Supreme Court precedents?
- Does a vendee become entitled to an additional amount when a pre-emption suit is decreed?
- When can leave to appeal be refused in a pre-emption matter involving concurrent findings?
- Abdul Aziz vs Ahmed Bakhsh and others1995 SCMR 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition regarding a pre-emption suit. The original suit for possession of land, based on the right of pre-emption, was filed by the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. The trial court initially decreed the suit, but upon appeal, the case was remanded to determine whether the requirements of Talb-e-Mawasibat and Talb-e-Ishahad had been satisfied. Following the remand, the trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had failed to fulfill these essential requirements. The petitioner subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine whether the evidence on record sufficiently established that the petitioner had fulfilled the requirement of Talb-e-Ishahad, thereby entitling him to successfully pre-empt the sale. The core legal question centers on the evidentiary sufficiency regarding the performance of Talb-e-Ishahad in the context of a pre-emption claim.
Questions settled- Does the evidence on record sufficiently establish the fulfillment of the requirement of Talb-e-Ishahad to entitle a plaintiff to pre-empt a sale?
- What are the necessary evidentiary requirements for Talb-e-Ishahad in a pre-emption suit?
- Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan (the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue), Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1995 PTD 1087 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeals against tax assessments. The core legal question was whether the Appellate Tribunal's order constituted a valid, speaking order containing independent reasoning. The Lahore High Court held that the Tribunal failed to apply its mind and record independent reasons for its conclusions, merely summarizing previous proceedings and issuing a cryptic dismissal. The Court established the key principle that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, being the highest appellate forum on the income tax side, is legally required to write a speaking order containing reasons for accepting or rejecting an appeal, and failure to do so renders the order unlawful. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal without recording independent reasons is a valid speaking order?
- Does failure of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to give reasons for rejecting appeals warrant setting aside its order and remanding the case?
- Is the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal required to discuss facts and record reasons for its conclusions?
- Abdul Aziz and others vs Additional District Judge and 4 others1995 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging interlocutory orders passed by a trial court. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction regarding an order disallowing an amendment to an application for setting aside an ex parte decree. The trial court had dismissed the petitioners' application to amend their plea for setting aside the ex parte decree, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge in revision. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's order was interlocutory in nature and that the petitioners retained the right to challenge the final order on the application to set aside the ex parte decree, including any legal grounds available, upon the conclusion of those proceedings. The Court affirmed that the High Court rightly declined to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with such interlocutory orders, finding no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the High Court's judgment. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Is an order disallowing an amendment to an application for setting aside an ex parte decree an interlocutory order?
- Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with an interlocutory order that does not involve a jurisdictional error?
- Does a party have the right to challenge an interlocutory order after the final decision of the case?
- Abbas Ali vs Ghulam Umar and others1995 MLD 1971 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
- Abbas Ali vs Ghulam Umar And Other1995 MLD 1971 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
- Aabid A. Butt vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 22 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking quashment of an FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely of a civil nature, civil litigation was already pending between the parties, and the criminal proceedings were lodged mala fide to harass him. The State and complainant argued that the FIR disclosed distinct criminal acts, including dishonoured cheques and unauthorized transfer of entrusted property. The High Court examined the FIR to assess if a prima facie criminal case was disclosed, holding that the simultaneous pendency of civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution. The Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be stifled at the outset if the FIR discloses an offence. The petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to move the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if evidence later showed purely civil liability.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a civil suit bar the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings on the same underlying dispute?
- Can an FIR be quashed under Section 561-A CrPC where its contents prima facie disclose commission of a criminal offence?
- What recourse is available to an accused if criminal proceedings initially allowed to proceed later turn out to involve purely civil liability during trial?
- A. Rasul vs Vicechancellor and others1995 MLD 1978 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- A. Rasul vs Vicechancellor And Other1995 MLD 1978 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- 1204 T R 8421 SMT. Sunanda Devi Singhania vs Commissioner of Wealth1995 PTD 120 · Calcutta High CourtRead full judgment →