Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• S. Iqbal Balighuddin vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Civil Lines, KarachiK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 413 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• S. Iqbal Balighuddin vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Civil Lines, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
• S. Ali Raza Zaidi vs Province of Sindh And 5 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1154 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
• Rustam Khan and anothers vs Government of N.W.F.P. Education1994 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-06
  service lawsenioritydirect recruitmentpromoteesdate of appointmentservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal regarding the determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Education Department. The petitioners, appointed as Assistants via direct recruitment on 23-8-1987, contended that they should be ranked senior to promotees appointed on the same date because the vacancies they filled were technically available in 1986. They argued that the delay in the selection process was a deliberate attempt to favor promotees. The core legal question was whether direct recruits are entitled to seniority from the date vacancies became available or from the date of their actual appointment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that seniority cannot be assigned from a date prior to the actual appointment to the post. The Court found that since the advertisement for the posts occurred in 1987 and the petitioners were appointed on 23-8-1987, they could not claim seniority over promotees appointed on the same date. The principle established is that seniority is determined by the date of appointment, not by the date vacancies theoretically arose.

  Questions settled

  • Can direct recruits claim seniority from the date vacancies became available rather than their date of appointment?
  • Does the delay in the selection process for direct recruits entitle them to seniority over promotees appointed on the same date?
  • Is seniority in government service determined by the date of appointment or the date of vacancy availability?
  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Perveen Nazir vs National Logistic Cell and 2 others1994 MLD 626 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-02Read full judgment →
• Rozina Khatoon vs Muhammad YousafK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 402 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Roshan Din And Others vs Muhammad Maqbool1994 CLC 677 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ara Begum and another vs Waheedullah Khan and another1994 MLD 43 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
• Riffat Ibrar vs Mst. Shehla Sabri and others1994 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Riffat Ibrar vs Mst. Shehla Sabri And Other1994 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State1994 SCMR 358 · Shariat Appellate BenchRead full judgment →
• Riaz Electric Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Cool Industies (Pvt.) Ltd.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 567 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad Khan. vs Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore And 110 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 460 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 535 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-09Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad And 3 Other vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-09
  post-arrest bailblasphemyFirst Information Reportpolice investigationconstitutionalityAhmadiyya communityprohibitory clausedefilement
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment of the Lahore High Court addresses a reference to a Full Bench and a subsequent post-arrest bail application in a case registered under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Full Bench was tasked with determining whether a police investigation can commence before the formal registration of a First Information Report (FIR), the weight of delay in sensitive blasphemy cases, and the constitutionality of Section 295-C. The Full Bench held that recording an FIR is not a condition-precedent to initiating a criminal investigation, and any failure to do so does not per se vitiate the arrest or trial. It further held that Section 295-C is constitutionally valid. Subsequently, the Single Bench evaluated the petitioners' bail application. The petitioners, belonging to the Ahmadiyya community, allegedly made derogatory comparisons between Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Conducting a tentative assessment, the Court held that such comparisons prima facie constitute defilement under Section 295-C. Since the offence carries the death penalty, falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail was denied.

  Questions settled

  • Is the formal registration of a First Information Report (FIR) a mandatory condition-precedent for the police to initiate a criminal investigation?
  • Does an irregularity or delay in the recording of a First Information Report (FIR) by the police vitiate the subsequent arrest or trial of the accused?
  • Is Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 violative of any provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether comparing any person's status or miracles to those of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) prima facie constitutes the offence of defilement under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Mst. Sardar Bibi And 7 Other1994 CLC 475 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-26
  civil revisiongift of landvalidity of giftburden of proofdonor capacitymarginal witnessmuslim lawcustomary law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a dispute regarding the validity of a gift of agricultural land measuring 26 Kanals and 2 Marlas executed by one Taj Din in favour of the petitioner, Riasat Ali. The trial Court initially upheld the gift and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, but the lower appellate Court reversed this decision and annulled the gift, holding it not proved. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the voluntary execution of the gift-deed by the donor, coupled with the delivery of possession and his sound disposing mind at the relevant time, was adequately established by the defendant. The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision in limine, holding that the evidence produced by the defendant to prove the gift was unconvincing, unsatisfactory, and fraught with serious doubts, particularly given the donor's hospitalization, conflicting testimonies of marginal witnesses, and lack of reliable proof regarding his physical and mental capacity at the time of the alleged transaction. The key principle laid down is that when the execution of a gift-deed is categorically denied and surrounded by suspicious circumstances such as the donor's critical illness, the heavy onus lies upon the beneficiary to prove the voluntary and genuine execution of the gift through clear, credible, and unimpeachable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the heavy onus of proving the voluntary execution of a gift-deed when its execution is denied by the plaintiffs?
  • Whether a gift of land is validly proved when the marginal witnesses fail to support its voluntary execution and the donor's mental capacity is seriously disputed?
  • Does the mere registration of a gift-deed cure serious doubts regarding the donor's physical and mental capacity to make a valid donation?
  Read full judgment →
• Re_ Contempt of Court Proceedings Against General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig vs Not1994 PLD Supreme Court 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-29
  contempt of courtinterference with judicial processscandalizing the courtsuo motu noticemitigating circumstancesarmed forces and judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from suo motu contempt of court proceedings initiated against General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg, former Chief of Army Staff, following a press statement made on February 4, 1993, in which he claimed he had conveyed a message to the Supreme Court seeking to influence its decision in a 1990 case concerning the restoration of the Junejo Government. The core legal question was whether the respondent's admitted public statements and actions regarding attempting to influence the judicial verdict amounted to contempt of court under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that attempting to convey a message to the highest court of the country to obtain a desired verdict constitutes a grave act of contempt of court by interfering with the judicial process and scandalizing the judiciary. The Court established that public statements suggesting the superior judiciary can be influenced by persons in authority undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Finding the respondent guilty, the Court considered mitigating circumstances, including his expression of regret, and sentenced him to a severe reprimand.

  Questions settled

  • Does attempting to convey a message to the Supreme Court to obtain a desired verdict during the pendency of a case constitute contempt of court?
  • Whether public statements by a former military official claiming interference in judicial decisions tend to bring the court into hatred, ridicule, or contempt?
  • What principles govern the assessment of libellous and defamatory statements in contempt of court proceedings under Pakistani law?
  • Can expression of remorse and mitigating circumstances be taken into account while determining the quantum of sentence in a contempt case?
  Read full judgment →
• Re_ Contempt of Court Proceedings Against General (R) Mirza Aslam Baig vs Not1994 PLD Supreme Court 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-29
  contempt of courtscandalizing the courtinterference with judicial processsuo motu noticemitigating circumstancesjudicial independence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved suo motu contempt of court proceedings initiated against General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg, former Chief of Army Staff, following his public statement at a 'Meet the Press' programme that he had attempted to convey a message to the Supreme Court during the pendency of a major constitutional case in 1988 to ensure that its verdict did not impede scheduled general elections. The core legal question was whether the respondent's admitted public remarks regarding his intervention and messaging to the judiciary constituted criminal contempt under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Holding the respondent guilty, the Court determined that attempting to influence judicial proceedings and suggesting that the highest court could be pressured by authorities severely undermines public confidence in the judicial process and constitutes a grave act of scandalizing the court. The key principle laid down is that any conduct calculated to diminish the dignity, authority, and independence of the judiciary, or to impair public faith in its impartiality, constitutes criminal contempt of the highest order. Taking into account mitigating circumstances, the Court sentenced the respondent with a severe reprimand.

  Questions settled

  • Does a public statement admitting an attempt to convey a message to the Supreme Court to influence a pending case constitute contempt of court?
  • Whether remarks tending to suggest that the highest court can be influenced by authorities amount to scandalizing the court under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What principles govern the interpretation of allegedly libellous or disparaging statements in contempt of court proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Reliance Construction Co. vs Agha Khan Medical College1994 MLD 248 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Munshi Wahid Bakhsh and others1994 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-20
  evacuee propertysettlement schemetransfer of propertywrit petitionlachesconstitutional jurisdictionlocal claimant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee house under settlement laws. The respondent, a local, initially applied for the transfer of the house, but his L.H. Form was rejected in 1960 due to non-appearance, and the property was subsequently auctioned and transferred to the appellant, culminating in P.T.D. issuance in 1964. Years later, after an ejectment suit was filed against him, the respondent challenged the settlement orders through a constitutional writ petition in 1974. The High Court accepted the petition and remanded the case, holding that the rejection order suffered from procedural illegalities and that the petition was not barred by laches. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the respondent was legally ineligible for the transfer of the house as its value exceeded the statutory limit for locals, that subsequent settlement schemes could not apply retrospectively to divest completed transfers, and that the writ petition suffered from unexplained laches and acquiescence amounting to fourteen years of inaction. The Supreme Court accordingly accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the transfer orders in favour of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a local claimant can be transferred an evacuee house exceeding the statutory value limit prescribed for locals?
  • Does a settlement scheme promulgated after the completion of a property transfer apply retrospectively to affect that transfer?
  • Whether a constitutional petition filed after an inordinate delay of fourteen years against settlement orders is maintainable despite the plea of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah through Legal Heirs and others vs Abdul Karim1994 SCMR 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-03
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptionagricultural landorder of successionjoint right of pre-emptionsuperior right
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over agricultural land sold by three co-owners (a brother and two sisters) to a stranger. The respondent, the brother's son, filed a suit for pre-emption, claiming a superior right as an heir of the vendors. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding waiver, collusion, and the respondent's standing. The Supreme Court granted leave to determine whether a brother's son could maintain a pre-emption suit for the sisters' share under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Court held that the right of pre-emption is a statutory right that must be asserted by filing a suit. When the contest is between an heir and a stranger, the heir's right is superior. The Court clarified that the 'order of succession' under the Act applies to competition between the pre-emptor and the vendee, not between potential pre-emptors who have not asserted their rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an individual heir maintain a suit for pre-emption if other heirs of the vendor do not join the suit?
  • Does the 'order of succession' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, apply to competition between potential pre-emptors who have not filed suits?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be maintained by an heir against a vendee who is a stranger to the vendors?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat through Legal Heirs and others vs Allah Ditta and others1994 MLD 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Rehmat And Another vs Allah Ditta And Another(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 98) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Alt vs Mukhtar Bibi And Other1994 CLC 148 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 70) · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Sooba Khan and 25 others1994 PLD Lahore 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Sooba Khan And 25 Other1994 PLD Lahore 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Hashmat Ali And Other1994 CLC 694 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Regional Head National Bank of Pakistan And Another vs MahboobK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 97 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
• REGINADefendant vs Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, Ex Parte Bennett1994 SCMR 618 · House of Lords · 1993-06-24Read full judgment →
• Rees and others vs Crane1994 SCMR 1682 · House of Lords
  judicial independencenatural justiceaudi alteram partemconstitutional removaladministrative lawultra viresjudicial reviewsuspension of judge
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the suspension and potential removal of a High Court Judge in Trinidad and Tobago. The core legal questions were whether the Chief Justice’s decision to exclude the respondent from the judicial roster amounted to an unlawful suspension, and whether the Judicial and Legal Service Commission’s failure to notify the respondent of complaints before recommending his removal to the President violated the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the Chief Justice’s indefinite exclusion of the judge from court duties was ultra vires, as it bypassed the exclusive constitutional procedure for removal. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Commission’s failure to provide the respondent an opportunity to respond to allegations before initiating the removal process breached the requirements of fairness. The judgment establishes that while preliminary investigations do not always require a full hearing, fairness demands that a person facing serious allegations, particularly one whose office is constitutionally protected, must be informed of the complaints and provided a reasonable opportunity to respond at an early stage, provided no urgent administrative necessity justifies otherwise.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Chief Justice indefinitely exclude a judge from the court roster without following the constitutional procedure for removal?
  • Does the failure of a commission to inform a judge of complaints before recommending his removal to the President violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Is there an absolute rule that natural justice does not apply to preliminary stages of an investigation?
  • Does the existence of a multi-stage removal process excuse the failure to observe natural justice at the initial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Razaq Ahmad Etc vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 42) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Rauful Mulk vs Muhammad Saleem And Another1994 CLC 111 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-26Read full judgment →
• Rasul Bakhsh vs Mushtaq1994 MLD 2198 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan And Other vs Murtaza Khan And OtherK.L.R.1904 Civil Cases 426 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-26Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmed Etc vs Sardar Bibi And 10 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 484 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad Kalyar vs WAPDA Through Chairman And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 334 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad and others vs Sardar Bibi and others1994 MLD 467 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-25
  civil revisiongift-deedburden of proofadverse inferenceinheritanceexecution of documentconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration of rights and possession regarding agricultural land, challenging a gift-deed allegedly executed by the deceased owner in favour of his brother. The core legal question centered on the genuineness and valid execution of the gift-deed amidst allegations of fraud and the donor's critical illness. Both the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the execution and registration of the gift-deed unproven. The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision in limine, holding that the onus heavily lay upon the beneficiary-donee to prove the valid execution of the gift-deed, which the defendants failed to discharge given their failure to produce essential witnesses such as the scribe, stamp-vendor, and marginal witnesses, alongside suspicious circumstances surrounding the donor's health and hospital admission. The key principle laid down is that the burden of proving a gift is strictly on the beneficiary, and the withholding of primary attesting and drafting witnesses raises a strong adverse inference against its validity.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the heavy onus to prove the valid execution of a gift-deed when it is challenged on the grounds of fraud and incapacity?
  • What is the legal effect on a party's case when key witnesses such as the scribe, stamp-vendor, and marginal witnesses are withheld from giving evidence?
  • Whether concurrent factual findings of lower courts regarding the invalidity of a gift-deed can be interfered with in civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Willayat Ali vs The State1994 MLD 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
• Rana Rifat Saeed, Members Muhammad Aslam vs Director-General, Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad And 2 Others1994 PLC (CS.) 1044 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-02-17Read full judgment →
• Rana Rashid Ahmad and 2 others vs Muhammad Younus and another1994 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-19
  review petitionsettlement commissionertransfer of propertyfactual appreciationnew plea in review
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed by the petitioners seeking a review of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 1-12-1992, which had set aside a High Court order and restored an order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 10-9-1976 regarding the transfer of a roof of a shop. The core legal questions involved whether the Settlement Commissioner possessed the power of review at the material time and whether the roof constituted an integral part of the residential portion or an independent unit. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the plea regarding the Settlement Commissioner's lack of review power was never raised before the High Court or in the memo of appeal, and thus could not be agitated for the first time in review proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that the arguments concerning the factual nature of the roof and the shop unit were matters of factual appreciation already decided, which provided no grounds for review. The key principle laid down is that new legal pleas not raised in lower courts or the original proceedings cannot be introduced for the first time in a review petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new legal plea regarding the authority of a Settlement Commissioner for the first time in a review petition before the Supreme Court?
  • Does a review petition lie against a judgment based on the re-appreciation of facts already decided?
  • Is a shop transfer limited to the ceiling, excluding the roof?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Saryvar vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 474 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Asif vs The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Revenue Department, Punjab, Lahore And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
• Rana Gulzar Ahmad vs Additional District Judge J Hang And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 399 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Rana Farhat Ali vs The State1994 MLD 990 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Majid and others vs Faisalabad Development Authority1994 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Ghafoor-- vs Government of Sindh And Other1994 PLD Karachi 52 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-05Read full judgment →
• Shahida Rafi vs Muhammad Kamal1994 MLD 407 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Ghafoor vs Government of Sindh and others1994 PLD Karachi 52 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-05Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Bari vs Mst. Khalida Parveen and 2 others1994 MLD 150 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 85) · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-01Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Muhammad through his Legal Heirs vs AlHaj Choudhry1994 MLD 502 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ramzan alias Khushi Muhammad vs Awamunna S and others1994 MLD 1764 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Rajagiru Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-1994 PTD 986 · Kerala High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Rajab vs Manzoor and others1994 MLD 266 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Raja Zafar Iqbal Naseem vs Chairman, CBR, Islamabad And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1049 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-01-18Read full judgment →
• Raja vs The State1994 MLD 133 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Raja Shaukat Mahmood vs Inspector-General of Police, Azad Jammu1994 PLC (C.S.) 1753 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
• Raja Shafqat Armed Khan vs Province of the Punjab Through Secretary, Forestry And Wildlife Department And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1233 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Union Council Thatha Khalil, District Rawalpindi1994 MLD 930 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-08
  constitutional petitionexhaustion of alternative remedieslocal council taxationwrit petitionadequate statutory remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the imposition and recovery of a levy on the import and export of certain items by respondent Union Councils within their territorial jurisdiction, allegedly in violation of a government memorandum and procedural formalities under the Taxation Rules. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked directly when adequate alternative statutory remedies were available under the governing law. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petitions in limine, holding that the petitioners must exhaust the efficacious alternative statutory remedies of appeal and representation provided under section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 before approaching the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the well-settled rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies must be strictly observed to allow statutory functionaries to perform their functions and to prevent the unnecessary congestion of cases in the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition can be maintained against the imposition of a tax by a Union Council without exhausting the statutory remedies of appeal and representation?
  • Do the appellate and controlling authorities possess all-pervasive powers under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 to check excesses of local councils?
  • Is the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies mandatory before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ramzan and 21 others vs Union Council, Bajnial and another1994 SCMR 1484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-19
  constitutional petitionalternative remedywrit jurisdictiontax levymarket feedisputed questions of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions filed against the refusal of the High Court to entertain Constitutional Petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution due to the petitioners' failure to exhaust adequate alternative remedies provided by law. The core legal question concerns whether the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, provides an adequate alternative remedy for challenging the levy of the impugned tax, thereby barring writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petitions, as the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, including sections 139, 156, 166, and 173, furnish adequate alternative remedies. Furthermore, the Court ruled that disputed questions of fact, such as whether the tax in question constitutes a market fee, are more appropriately resolved before specialized functionaries or through a civil suit where evidence can be recorded. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the impugned judgment and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 provide an adequate alternative remedy barring a constitutional petition under Article 199?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the levy of a tax be properly agitated in writ proceedings when alternative forums and civil suits are available?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to entertain a writ petition when the petitioner has not exhausted available alternative remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Nawaz vs Chairman, B.I.&S.E. And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 894 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Azam Khan vs Rang Baz Khan And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 666 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan vs Commissioner, Revenue Department, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.)115 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Raja Mansoor Sadiq vs Government of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 1332 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Raja Dil Nawaz Khan vs Muhammad Siddique And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 532 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
• Raja Amanullah Khan vs Muhammad Afsar Khan And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 195 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-10-03Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdul Qayyum vs Ch. Latif Akbar, Advocate And 2 Other1994 CLC 2041 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-06-29
  election petitioncorrupt and illegal practicestandard of proofelection tribunalmaterially affectedreturned candidateappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an election dispute regarding the general elections to the Legislative Assembly of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for Constituency LA-26 Muzaffarabad-4, where the appellant was declared the returned candidate. The first respondent challenged the election through an election petition before the Chief Election Commissioner, which was entrusted to an Election Tribunal. The Tribunal declared the election void after excluding a substantial number of votes across several polling stations due to corrupt practices, missing polls, and excessive voting, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the standard of proof required in election petitions alleging corrupt practices, the interpretation of preliminary objection requirements concerning parties under the relevant electoral laws, and the scope of interference by appellate courts in concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that proceedings before an Election Tribunal are civil in nature and that while allegations of corrupt practices directly attributed to a returned candidate require strict proof akin to a criminal charge, other grounds such as statutory non-compliance or widespread illegalities only necessitate proof by a preponderance of probabilities based on the Tribunal's satisfaction. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower tribunals committed no legal error in unseating the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • What standard of proof is required to establish corrupt and illegal practices in an election petition?
  • Does the word 'parties' in section 51(1)(b) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Election Ordinance, 1970 refer to all individuals accused of corrupt practices or strictly to the parties impleaded in the election petition?
  • When can an election be declared void under section 66 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Election Ordinance, 1970 without proof of the returned candidate's personal responsibility?
  • What is the scope of interference by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir with concurrent findings of fact recorded by an Election Tribunal and upheld by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdul Qaiyyum Khan vs Choudhary Latif Akbar and 2 others1994 MLD 2108 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
• Rai Rashid Ahmed Khan vs President of Pakistan1994 PLD Supreme Court 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-05
  misconductdisqualificationparliamentary membershipundue influenceloan write-offcivil nature of proceedingsfavouritismabuse of power
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a Member of the National Assembly, challenged his seven-year disqualification imposed by a Special Court for "misconduct" under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant’s influence in securing a loan interest write-off for his wife constituted misconduct and the nature of the proceedings under the Order. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings under the Order are civil in nature, though the court must extend the benefit of doubt to the respondent given the severe penalty of disqualification. The Court found that the appellant, by using his status as an MNA to bypass established procedures and influence the Debt Write-off Committee to grant an unjustified remission of interest on his wife's loan, committed "misconduct" through favouritism and abuse of position. The Court affirmed that influence can be established through circumstances, even without explicit verbal commands. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Court emphasized the need for strict regulatory guidelines regarding the arbitrary write-off of loans by financial institutions.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977, civil or criminal in nature?
  • Does the exercise of influence by a public representative to secure a financial benefit for a family member constitute 'misconduct' under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977?
  • Can 'misconduct' through undue influence be established without proof of explicit verbal commands?
  • Does the standard of proof in proceedings under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977, require the benefit of doubt to be extended to the respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Rai Ahmad Nawaz and anothers vs Municipal Committee, Murree1994 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
• Rai Ahmad Nawaz And Another vs Municipal Committee, Murree Through Administrator _A.C. And 3 OtherP LD1994 Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
• Rahim Ud Din and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux vs Pir Syed Sadaruddin1994 MLD 2201 · Election Tribunal · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
• Rahilla Khalid vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Through Chief1994 PLC (C.S.) 1068 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
• Rahat Sadiq vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman and 2 others1994 MLD 818 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Rahat Mehmood vs Tariq Rasheed And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 468 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
• Rahat Akhtar vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Industries, Islamabad And 5 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 513 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
• Rafiullah vs The State1994 MLD 2042 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-02Read full judgment →
• Rafiuddin vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 2 others1994 MLD 874 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-25
  rejection of plaintcivil court jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionencroachmentmala fidespublic propertyrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These revision petitions arose from a common judgment wherein civil suits filed by petitioners challenging encroachment removal notices were dismissed through the rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question concerned whether the ouster of civil court jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act 1975 bars a civil court from examining the legality of a notice alleged to be mala fide, issued by an unauthorized person, or in violation of statutory provisions. The Sindh High Court held that where allegations of mala fides and lack of statutory authority are raised in the plaint, such averments must be accepted as correct at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, and the civil court retains jurisdiction to examine acts done without jurisdiction, in bad faith, or in violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Consequently, the High Court set aside the concurrent orders rejecting the plaints and remanded the suits for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 11 of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act 1975 completely bar the jurisdiction of a civil court to examine a notice issued with mala fide intent or by an unauthorized person?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when allegations of mala fides are specifically pleaded against the authorities?
  • Under what circumstances can a civil court exercise jurisdiction despite a statutory bar ousting its ordinary powers?
  • Whether the merits of allegations or the weakness of proof can be considered by a court while determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Inayat Mirza vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 618 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rafi Ahmad Qureshi vs Pakistan Water & Power Development1994 PLC (C.S.) 409 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ahmed vs The State1994 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-14
  private defenceculpable homicideunnatural lustsodomyexceeding right of self-defencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, after the trial court and the High Court found he had exceeded his right of private defence. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who claimed he killed the deceased while resisting an attempted act of sodomy, was entitled to a full acquittal under the right of private defence provided by Section 100, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court observed that the lower courts had accepted the appellant's version of events as probable and natural. The High Court had erroneously concluded that the appellant exceeded his right of private defence because the deceased was disarmed and the appellant's injuries were insignificant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's actions were justified under the fourth clause of Section 100, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which permits the causing of death to prevent an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of private defence under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 extend to causing death when resisting an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust?
  • Can a conviction for exceeding the right of private defence be sustained if the court accepts the accused's version of events as natural and probable?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ahmad vs The State1994 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-14
  private defenceexceeding right of self-defenceculpable homicideunnatural lustsuspension of sentenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for causing the death of the deceased. The petitioner, a student at the time, claimed he acted in self-defence after being waylaid and subjected to an attempted act of sodomy by the deceased and his companion. Both the trial court and the High Court concluded that while the petitioner had a right of private defence, he had exceeded that right. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioner’s actions fell within the scope of the right of private defence as defined under Section 100, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding the apprehension of grievous hurt or the commission of unnatural lust. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law of self-defence. Pending the appeal, the Court suspended the petitioner's sentence, noting his status as a law student and his prior bail history.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of private defence of the body extend to causing death when there is an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust?
  • Can a conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the accused exceeded the right of private defence?
  • Under what circumstances can a sentence be suspended pending the hearing of an appeal in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Muhammad Nawaz And 2 Other1994 CLC 64 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-13
  specific performanceproduction of documentsadditional evidencecivil revisionnegligence of counseladjudication on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1, wherein subsequent purchasers were impleaded as parties. During the pendency of the suit and at the stage of the petitioner's evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Order XIII, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to place on record a copy of a receipt regarding earnest money, which was inadvertently omitted by the petitioner's now-deceased counsel due to work pressure. The trial Court dismissed the application. The core legal question was whether a party should be permitted to produce a document at the evidence stage despite failing to annex it with the plaint or list of documents. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision petition, holding that law leans in favour of adjudication on merits and technicalities should be avoided, and that a litigant should not suffer for the default or negligence of their counsel, provided the opposing party can be compensated through costs. The Court set aside the trial Court's order and allowed the document to be placed on record subject to the payment of costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff can be permitted to produce a document at the evidence stage after failing to annex it to the plaint?
  • Should a litigant suffer for the inadvertent omission or negligence of their counsel in failing to produce documents in time?
  • Can a trial court allow the production of a belated document by compensating the opposing party through costs?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs D.S., Pak. Railways And Others1994 PLC 565 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 515 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz And Other vs The State1994 PLD Supreme Court 858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-11
  prohibition ordercharas smugglingbenefit of the doubtenhancement of sentencerevisional powerspilot vehicleburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which had dismissed the appellants' appeal against their conviction under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and enhanced their sentences in revision. The prosecution alleged that certain appellants, who were excise officials, were piloting a truck carrying a large quantity of contraband charas, while the remaining appellants were the driver and owner transporting the narcotics. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether the defense version of the excise officials intercepting the smugglers was more probable, and the legality of the appellate court enhancing sentences beyond the trial magistrate's powers under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the allegation of piloting against the excise officials, whose defense version was found to be plausible, thereby entitling them to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal. Furthermore, the Court held that the Federal Shariat Court could not legally enhance the imprisonment and fine beyond the maximum limits competent to a Magistrate of the 1st Class under Section 439(3) Cr.P.C., but maintained the mandatory sentence of whipping. The key principles laid down include that the prosecution must prove its case independently and cannot rely on the weakness of the defense, that a plausible defense must be extended the benefit of doubt, and that an appellate/revisional court cannot enhance a sentence beyond the jurisdictional competence of the original trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can derive benefit from the weakness of the defense in a criminal trial?
  • Does suspicion by a police officer substitute for proof of abetment?
  • Can an appellate court legally enhance a sentence beyond the maximum limits imposable by a Magistrate of the 1st Class under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.?
  • Is the imposition of whipping mandatory under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz (Alias) Zafra vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-11Read full judgment →
• R. Krishnamurthy vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 1432 · Gujarat High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
• Qutabuddin vs Farzand Ali1994 SCMR 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-10
  pre-emptionoccupancy rightscivil revisionduty of courtright of substitutionPunjab Tenancy Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding the sale of occupancy rights in land. The trial court and the district court decreed the suit in favor of the pre-emptor, holding that the sale was pre-emptible. In revision, the High Court applied Section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, which had extinguished occupancy rights and converted such tenants into owners by operation of law, a point not raised in lower courts. The appellant challenged this, arguing that a new legal ground could not be introduced in revision without notice. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a Judge has a duty to apply the law of the land to the facts proved on the record, regardless of whether counsel invokes it. The Court affirmed that the right of pre-emption is a right of substitution, meaning the pre-emptor acquires no better title than what the transferor was capable of passing. The Court concluded that the sale of occupancy rights in 1982 was legally untenable, and the pre-emptor's right is limited to the extent of the interest the vendor actually possessed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court legally justified in deciding a case based on a point of law not raised by the parties in the lower courts?
  • Does the right of pre-emption allow a pre-emptor to acquire a better title than what the transferor was capable of passing to the vendee?
  • Is a judge under a duty to apply the law of the land to the facts proved on the record even if counsel fails to invoke it?
  Read full judgment →
• Qureshi Muhammad Anwar And 6 Others vs S.A. Qureshi And 3 Other1994 CLC 733 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30
  specific performancefrustration of contractcantonment leaseveto powerearnest moneyimperfect titlediscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale concerning leasehold rights in sub-divided plots of a bungalow in Kharian Cantonment. The core legal question was whether specific performance could be enforced when the proposed transfer of leasehold rights was vetoed by the military authorities under the terms of the original perpetual lease and where the authorities' subsequent conditional willingness required converting the perpetual lease into a limited lease under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules 1937 on payment of exorbitant rent and premium. The Court held that the contract stood frustrated due to the lawful exercise of the veto by the military authorities and that the court cannot compel specific performance by varying the contract or forcing the vendor to accept disadvantageous terms. The key principle laid down is that where an agreement for sale is contingent upon a cantonment authority's approval or non-exercise of veto, and the transfer is validly vetoed or rendered impossible without fundamentally altering the nature of the tenure, the contract stands frustrated and cannot be specifically enforced under sections 21 and 22 of the Specific Relief Act 1877.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement for the sale of cantonment leasehold rights stand frustrated when the competent military authority validly exercises its power to veto the proposed transfer?
  • Can a court direct specific performance of a contract by compelling a vendor to alter the fundamental nature of their tenure, such as converting a perpetual lease into a limited lease under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules?
  • Whether section 18 of the Specific Relief Act applies where a vendor possesses complete title at the time of the contract but the transfer is blocked by a third party's lawful veto?
  • Is a vendor entitled to retain earnest money when a contract stands frustrated through no fault of either party?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 76 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain and anothers vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 385 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-16
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionvicarious liabilityLalkarafurther inquirycriminal proceduremurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the grant of post-arrest bail to two accused persons charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of their bail application by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were alleged to have uttered a 'Lalkara' (instigation) during a sudden altercation, were vicariously liable for the murders committed by their co-accused, or if their case necessitated further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, determining that the mere utterance of a 'Lalkara' does not invariably establish common intention or effective participation, and that the petitioners' liability required deeper evidentiary scrutiny. The court affirmed the principle that bail is a right under Section 497(2) when reasonable grounds for guilt are absent, emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere uttering of a 'Lalkara' by an accused person automatically constitute sufficient evidence of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances does a case fall within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the refusal of bail permissible solely on the ground that the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 317 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-16Read full judgment →
• Qudsia Nawaz vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education1994 CLC 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Quarban Ali vs The Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 53) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Qazi Zaheeruddin vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and another1994 MLD 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• Qazi Zaheer-Ud-Din vs Additional District Judge And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →