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.
- Government of Sindh Through Chief Secretary To Government Of Sindh, Karachi And Other vs Sharaf Faridi And Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil appeal arising from judgments of the Sindh High Court concerning the constitutional obligation to separate the judiciary from the executive under Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court could competently direct the Executive to enforce the separation of the judiciary from the executive and ensure the financial independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional mandate requiring the separation of the judiciary from the executive is mandatory and must be implemented, upholding the High Court's directions while extending the time frame to avoid administrative chaos. The Court also affirmed that the judiciary's financial independence is an essential component of its independence, allowing superior courts to disburse allocated budget funds without executive interference. The key principles laid down include the mandatory nature of the separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 175, the necessity of administrative control of the subordinate judiciary by the High Courts, and the financial autonomy of the superior courts within their budgetary allocations.
Questions settled- Whether the constitutional provision requiring the separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan is mandatory or directory?
- Can the High Court issue directions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to compel the Executive to implement the separation of the judiciary from the executive?
- Does the independence of the judiciary encompass financial autonomy in disbursing allocated budget funds without executive interference?
- Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government & Rural1994 SCMR 1630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the procedural propriety of a High Court recording a compromise between parties on a miscellaneous application after the final disposal of the main constitutional petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to extend the duration of a contract between parties through such a compromise order post-adjudication of the primary petition. The Supreme Court, noting that leave to appeal had already been granted in a connected matter (Civil Appeal No. 712 of 1992) regarding the same legal issue, determined that the instant petitions raised identical questions of law. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in these petitions and directed that they be heard concurrently with the aforementioned Civil Appeal. The decision underscores the principle that procedural mechanisms, such as miscellaneous applications, cannot be utilized to circumvent the finality of a judgment or to substantively alter contractual terms once the main litigation has been concluded by the High Court.
Questions settled- Can a High Court record a compromise between parties on a miscellaneous application after the main constitutional petition has been disposed of?
- Is it permissible for a High Court to extend the period of a contract between parties through a compromise order after the final disposal of the main petition?
- Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Religious and Minority1994 SCMR 1908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court heard civil appeals challenging a High Court judgment that set aside orders declaring a specific property as 'evacuee trust property.' The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with factual findings made by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Properties Board. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly intervened because the Chairman’s order was arbitrary and based on no evidence. The Court established that for a property to be classified as an evacuee trust property, there must be clear evidence, such as entries in official records designating it as a 'Mandar', 'Dharamsala', or 'Tikano', or proof that its income was applied to religious, charitable, or educational purposes. In this case, the survey register entries relied upon by the appellants failed to establish such a connection. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that findings of fact by a tribunal must be supported by evidence to withstand judicial review.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with factual findings of a tribunal if the order is based on no evidence?
- What evidence is required to establish that a property is an evacuee trust property?
- Does an entry in a survey register without specific religious or charitable designation suffice to classify a property as an evacuee trust property?
- Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 3 others vs Messrs Manzoor Brothers1994 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the legality of the confiscation of cycle hub spindles imported by the respondent firm under the Import Policy Order 1982-83. The core legal question was whether a departmental ruling interpreting import items could be applied retrospectively to goods imported prior to the issuance of that ruling, contrary to a long-standing consistent departmental practice. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that administrative authorities cannot depart from a consistent long-standing practice to the detriment of settled rights, nor can a new policy ruling be applied retrospectively to goods imported before the ruling was made. The key principle laid down is that executive construction and consistent departmental practice followed for a long period create a settled expectation, and administrative bodies are estopped from altering such interpretations retrospectively to invalidate past transactions.
Questions settled- Whether a departmental ruling on an import policy can be applied retrospectively to goods imported prior to the date of the ruling?
- Can administrative authorities depart from a long-standing and consistent departmental practice to the detriment of settled rights?
- Does a consistent executive construction of a statute or rule create an element of estoppel against making sudden adverse changes?
- Government of Pakistan and others vs Kohinoor Industries Limited1994 SCMR 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four appeals filed by the Government of Pakistan against a Lahore High Court judgment that granted relief to manufacturers of cotton fabrics. The respondents, who were assessed for excise duty based on production capacity under the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Fabrics) Rules, 1968, had manufactured synthetic fabrics instead of cotton fabrics on the same machinery. The Central Excise Authorities charged separate excise duty on these synthetic fabrics under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The High Court held that the levy of excise duty without granting corresponding abatement for duties paid on synthetic fabrics was unlawful and struck down the formula prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue for relief. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in allowing such rebate when it was difficult to determine if the substituted items were manufactured within the assessed capacity. Following the precedent established in a previous Supreme Court judgment involving similar issues, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, thereby upholding the respondents' entitlement to the abatement and refund of excess excise duties paid.
Questions settled- Are manufacturers entitled to abatement of excise duties paid on cotton fabrics when they have paid separate excise duties on synthetic fabrics manufactured on the same plant and machinery?
- Is the formula prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue for granting relief in respect of excise duty subject to judicial review for reasonableness?
- Can excise duty be levied on production capacity without providing adjustments for duties paid on substitute goods manufactured within that same capacity?
- Government of N: W.F.P. Through Secretary, S&Gad, Peshawar And 2 Other1994 PLC (C.S.) 493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal filed by the Government of N.W.F.P. against a decision of the Provincial Service Tribunal, which had directed the Government to grant an age-limit relaxation to the respondent, a Qanungo, for promotion to the post of Naib-Tehsildar. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possessed the competence to mandate the Provincial Government to exercise its discretionary power to relax the upper age-limit for promotion. The respondent had been denied promotion opportunities due to a pending inquiry, from which he was subsequently exonerated, and was later deemed ineligible due to crossing the age-limit of 50 years. The Supreme Court observed that the Government had failed to restore the respondent to his rightful position following his exoneration, despite precedents of granting such relaxations. Finding the Tribunal's order to be eminently fair and equitable, the Court declined to interfere with the decision. The Court held that, given the peculiar facts of the case, it was unnecessary to determine the Tribunal's competence to exercise the Government's discretionary power, and consequently dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal have the authority to direct the Provincial Government to relax the upper age-limit for promotion?
- Is a government employee entitled to be restored to their original position regarding promotion eligibility after being exonerated from disciplinary charges?
- Can the Supreme Court decline to decide a question of law regarding the competence of a Tribunal when the facts of the case warrant an equitable outcome?
- Government of N.W.FP. through Secretary, Food Department, Peshawar1994 SCMR 1130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for recovery of damages filed by the respondents against the petitioners, the Government of N.W.F.P., following a fire that destroyed a rented bungalow. The respondents alleged that the petitioners, as tenants, failed to maintain the property properly, leading to the fire and subsequent damage. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 1,92,000, a decision upheld by the High Court. The evidence indicated that the petitioners had failed to vacate the premises following an eviction order, and a Bailiff's report confirmed the building was damaged while in the petitioners' possession. The petitioners' own witness admitted the fire occurred but could not identify the cause. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts had correctly appraised the evidence regarding the petitioners' negligence. Finding that the lower courts had appraised the evidence in its true perspective and that no substantial point of law was raised, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that re-appraisal of evidence is not permissible in such proceedings.
Questions settled- Is the re-appraisal of evidence permissible in a petition for leave to appeal where the lower courts have already appraised the evidence?
- Does a tenant's failure to vacate premises after an eviction order, resulting in damage to the property, establish liability for damages?
- Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, S&Gad, Peshawar and 2 others1994 SCMR 947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal filed by the Government of N.W.F.P. against the judgment of the Provincial Service Tribunal, which had directed the Provincial Government to relax the upper age-limit of the respondent for promotion to the post of Naib-Tehsildar. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was competent to direct the Provincial Government to relax the upper age-limit of an employee. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where an employee was unjustly delayed from consideration for promotion due to a pending inquiry of which he was subsequently exonerated, it was only fair that the Government restore him to the position he would have enjoyed absent the inquiry. Declining to examine the abstract competency of the Tribunal to exercise powers vested in the Government given the peculiar facts and fairness of the case, the Court withdrew the leave already granted and dismissed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that an employee exonerated from disciplinary charges must be restored to their rightful seniority and consideration status, and courts or tribunals may rectify resultant hardships caused by administrative omissions.
Questions settled- Whether the Provincial Service Tribunal is competent to direct the Provincial Government to relax the upper age-limit of a civil servant for promotion?
- Does an employee exonerated in a departmental inquiry have a right to be placed in the same position they would have enjoyed had the inquiry not been initiated?
- Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Law, Peshawar vs Muhammad1994 SCMR 1653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Government of N.-W.F.P. against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had directed that the respondent's previous service period from 10-2-1967 to 30-12-1979 be counted for the purpose of calculating his gratuity and pensionary benefits. The Service Tribunal had based its decision on a prior judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal's decision to count the respondent's previous service for pensionary purposes was legally sustainable. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was unable to provide any compelling arguments to justify a departure from the established legal position or the precedent relied upon by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the previous service period was correctly counted for pensionary benefits. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming the principle that established precedents regarding the computation of service for pensionary benefits must be followed.
Questions settled- Can previous service be counted for the purpose of determining gratuity and pensionary benefits?
- Does a Service Tribunal's reliance on a Supreme Court precedent justify the counting of previous service for pensionary benefits?
- Government of N.W.F.P. Through Secretary, Health Department, N.W.F.P., Peshawar And 3 Other vs Haji Muhammad Rafique And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent challenged a transfer order issued by the provincial government before the High Court, which set aside the order on the grounds of mala fides, specifically citing the influence of an M.P.A. in the decision-making process. The Government of N.W.F.P. appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The core legal question presented is whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon service transfer matters, or if such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Service Tribunal under the relevant service laws. The appellant argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the matter pertained to the terms and conditions of service, and further contended that transfers made in the exigency of service and public interest are not subject to judicial interference. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the jurisdictional competence of the High Court in service-related transfer disputes and the scope of judicial review regarding administrative transfer orders.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to set aside an order of transfer relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Is the Service Tribunal the exclusive forum for adjudicating disputes regarding the transfer of civil servants?
- Can the High Court interfere with a transfer order made in the exigency of service and public interest?
- Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Forest and others vs Said1994 MLD 2300 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-17Read full judgment →
- Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and 3 others vs Abdul1994 SCMR 833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision petition filed by the appellants against concurrent judgments decreeing the respondent's suit for declaration and injunction. The core legal questions pertained to whether a specific period of limitation applies to civil revision petitions in the High Court when no explicit period was prescribed under the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether government departments can claim special indulgence for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that although no limitation period was expressly provided under the Limitation Act for filing a civil revision prior to the 1992 amendment to Section 115, C.P.C., judicial practice required revisions to be filed diligently within 90 days. Any delay beyond this period must be satisfactorily explained. The Court reiterated that bureaucratic delay or administrative procedures within government departments do not constitute sufficient ground for condoning delay. Furthermore, the Court upheld the High Court's suo motu revisional power to foster justice without time limits in appropriate cases.
Questions settled- Is a civil revision in the High Court subject to a standard target period of 90 days in the absence of a specific statutory provision in the Limitation Act?
- Can administrative delay or procedural slowness in a government department constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Can the High Court exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction without being restricted by a fixed period of limitation?
- Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, S&Gad, Peshawar And 21994 PLC (C.S.) 772 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal by the Government of N.-W.F.P. against an order of the Provincial Service Tribunal, which had directed the government to grant a relaxation in the upper age-limit for the promotion of the respondent, a Qanungo, to the post of Naib-Tehsildar. The respondent had been passed over for promotion due to a pending disciplinary inquiry, during which he crossed the age-limit for promotion. Upon his exoneration, the government refused to consider him for promotion, citing the age-limit prescribed under the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was competent to direct the government to relax the age-limit. The Supreme Court held that the government's failure to restore the respondent to his rightful position after his exoneration was unfair, especially given prior precedents of age relaxation. Declining to strictly adjudicate the Tribunal's competence to order such relaxation, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision as an eminently fair rectification of the respondent's grievance, thereby dismissing the government's appeal.
Questions settled- Is the government obligated to restore an employee to their rightful position for promotion purposes after they have been exonerated in a disciplinary inquiry?
- Can the Supreme Court decline to decide on the competence of a Service Tribunal to order age relaxation when the Tribunal's order is otherwise fair and equitable?
- Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Education Department, Peshawar vs Fazlullah1994 PLC (C.S.) 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, a Superintendent at an Examination Centre, was convicted by a Military Summary Court for offences relating to leaked question papers and subsequently dismissed from service through departmental action. Although he was later granted a presidential pardon, the pardon order explicitly stipulated that it did not restore him to public office. The respondent's departmental appeals and initial constitutional petition were unsuccessful, but the Service Tribunal allowed his appeal and ordered his reinstatement. The Government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a pardon granted to a convicted civil servant automatically restores them to service and vitiates a departmental dismissal based on the conviction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that a pardon does not amount to an acquittal or set aside the underlying conviction, and that the pardon order expressly barred restoration to public office, thereby rendering the Service Tribunal's reinstatement order unsustainable. The Court established that a pardon does not expunge a conviction unless specifically set aside, and does not automatically entitle a dismissed public servant to reinstatement.
Questions settled- Does a presidential pardon amount to an acquittal or set aside a conviction?
- Does a pardon automatically restore a convicted civil servant to public office?
- Can a Service Tribunal order the reinstatement of a civil servant dismissed following a valid conviction when the pardon expressly bars restoration to service?
- Gouri Prasad Goenka and Family (Huf) vs Commissioner of Wealth1994 PTD 906 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-05-03Read full judgment →
- Gopi Chand And Other vs Pehlaj Rai And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 35) · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
- Golden Chemical Works vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 651 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1992-07-23Read full judgment →
- Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited through General Manager vs Syed Manzar Abbas through Legal Heirs1994 MLD 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- Glass Miniature Bulb Industries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 1473 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-09-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Yaseen and 2 others vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting three appellants under section 302(b)(c)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Ghulam Akbar Khan, sentencing each to twenty-five years' rigorous imprisonment, while the complainant sought death enhancement. The core legal question was whether a murder committed on account of grave and sudden provocation arising from 'Ghairat' (grave and sudden provocation/honor) upon finding the deceased in an objectionable condition with a close female relative justifies a lesser punishment under Islamic injunctions pursuant to section 338-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court held that while the statute lacked explicit provisions for Qatl committed under Ghairat, courts are bound under section 338-F to be guided by the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. The Court concluded that such homicide does not constitute pure Qatl-e-Amd punishable with Qisas and converted the conviction to section 302(c)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence of each appellant to five years' rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether a murder committed on account of Ghairat upon discovering a close female relative in an objectionable condition warrants a lesser punishment under Islamic injunctions?
- Can courts be guided by the Injunctions of Islam under section 338-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when specific statutory provisions are silent regarding homicides committed under grave and sudden provocation?
- Whether a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be converted to section 302(c) in cases of Qatl committed due to grave and sudden provocation?
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their sentence is reduced on appeal?
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 106 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Muhammad Akram alias Akku and another1994 SCMR 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a criminal conviction. The respondent was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his father-in-law and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court. The complainant filed a petition seeking enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to death, while the convict filed a petition challenging the conviction itself. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, rather than the death penalty, warranted appellate interference given the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court, having considered the High Court's finding that the respondent had been humiliated prior to the occurrence, held that the alternate sentence awarded by the High Court did not call for interference. Consequently, the Court dismissed the complainant's petition for enhancement. Following this, the convict's counsel did not press the petition challenging the conviction. Both petitions were dismissed, affirming the High Court's original order.
Questions settled- Does the humiliation of an accused prior to the commission of a murder constitute a valid ground for the High Court to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court if the High Court has duly considered the mitigating circumstances of the case?
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Bana Ram through Legal Heirs and others1994 SCMR 2044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the High Court dismissing two Regular Second Appeals concerning the estate of Jehandad, who died in 1920. The property was held by Mst. Hafizan as a limited owner, who gifted it to the petitioner in 1950. The gift was challenged and declared inoperative in earlier litigation ending in 1960. Upon Mst. Hafizan's death in 1962, further suits by reversioners and sisters were decreed. The petitioner contended that the gift should be protected to the extent of Mst. Hafizan's personal share or regarding shares of heirs who did not claim. The Supreme Court held that since the gift by a limited owner was invalid and inoperative ab initio, no part of it could be protected for the donee, and the unclaimed shares of other potential heirs did not validate the void transaction. The petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a gift made by a limited owner of property be protected to the extent of the limited owner's personal share when the gift itself is declared invalid and inoperative?
- Does a donee acquire any legal right to property under a gift that has been judicially declared void?
- Can the existence of other potential heirs who have not claimed their shares validate an otherwise invalid gift?
- Ghulam Sarwar and anothers vs The State and another1994 MLD 1146 · Board of Revenue · 1993-06-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar and 3 others vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1994 MLD 1927 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar Alias Muhammad Sarwar vs The State And Another(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 70) · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1993-06-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sakina Alias Sakina Bibi vs Muhammad Salim1994 CLC 1355 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sadiq vs Mst. Aisha and 16 others1994 SCMR 1775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 5-11-1991 in Civil Revision No. 415 of 1988, which affirmed the decree passed in favour of the respondents. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration seeking a one-fourth share in the disputed land, which was decreed by the Civil Judge, Daggar and subsequently upheld on appeal by the District Judge, Swat. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by three courts below justified interference in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and noted that no question of law was involved in the matter. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court in the absence of a substantial question of law or error.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts when no question of law arises?
- Ghulam Rasul and others vs Sher Muhammad and others1994 MLD 950 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs The State1994 MLD 1531 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Waris Bismil1994 MLD 527 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application arose from a dispute over the possession of a shop, where the respondent-plaintiff sought a declaration, permanent injunction, and possession against the applicant-landlord. The core legal question was whether a tenant dispossessed by a landlord is restricted to seeking relief under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or if they may invoke Section 8, and whether an appeal lies against such a decree. The Court held that the suit was not filed under Section 9, as it included additional claims for declaration and injunction, thus rendering the appeal competent. The Court affirmed that a tenant entitled to possession may sue under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as this provision is not limited to owners but extends to anyone with a legal entitlement to possession. The Court further clarified that Sections 8 and 9 are not mutually exclusive in a manner that precludes a dispossessed tenant from invoking Section 8. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the Court emphasized the need for expeditious execution of the decree.
Questions settled- Can a tenant dispossessed by a landlord sue for recovery of possession under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
- Does the inclusion of claims for declaration and injunction in a suit for possession preclude the suit from being treated as one under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
- Are Section 8 and Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, mutually exclusive in a manner that bars a dispossessed tenant from invoking Section 8?
- Is an appeal competent against a decree in a suit that is not filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
- Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Azhar And Other1994 CLC 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Mst. Amina Begum1994 MLD 26 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Govt. of PunjabK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 415 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Additional District Judge, Narowal And Another1994 CLC 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by an Additional District Judge, which granted an extension of time to a pre-emptor for depositing pre-emption money. The core legal question is whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to extend the time fixed for depositing pre-emption money after a decree has been passed, or if the court becomes functus officio. The Lahore High Court held that once a pre-emption decree is passed, the trial court becomes functus officio and lacks the jurisdiction to extend the time prescribed for the deposit of pre-emption money. The court emphasized that a pre-emptor is bound to comply with the terms of the decree at their own peril; failure to deposit the money within the stipulated time results in the dismissal of the suit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the revisional order, affirming that the trial court correctly refused the extension. The judgment reaffirms the principle that statutory time limits in pre-emption decrees cannot be extended by the trial court under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Does a trial court have the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money after passing a decree?
- Does the filing of an appeal against a decree automatically suspend the operation of the decree or stay the proceedings?
- Is an order refusing to extend the time for the deposit of pre-emption money appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Ghulam Rasool and 2 others vs Mst. Moondan and 3 others1994 PLD Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool And 2 Other vs Mst. Moondan And 3 Other1994 PLD Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qasim vs Silver Cotton Mills Ltd., Hyderabad Through Manager1994 PLC 394 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-01-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qasim Etc. vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 65) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir vs Nawab Din and others1994 MLD 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir Khan And Others vs Ahmad Nawaz Khan And Other1994 CLC 1118 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi vs The State1994 MLD 91 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi vs Gul Mohammad And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 251 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi and others vs Ashraf Ali1994 SCMR 1709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arose under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had dismissed the petitioners' civil revision. The dispute concerned land originally mortgaged by the respondent to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, who subsequently filed a suit for declaration claiming to have purchased the land through the respondent's attorney. The attorney submitted a confessional written statement and a purported compromise deed, both of which were contested by the principal as collusive, unauthorised, and forged. While the trial court decreed the suit, the first appellate court and the High Court set aside the decree, finding that the suit and transaction were fraudulent and collusive between the plaintiff and the attorney. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact, noting lack of proof of sale consideration, absence of a registered deed or mutation, and unauthorised actions by the attorney. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact establishing fraud and collusion between an attorney and a plaintiff warrant interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether an alleged sale of land through an attorney can be sustained where the transaction lacked a registered deed, a sanctioned mutation, and proof of payment of consideration?
- Can a principal be bound by a confessional written statement and compromise entered into by his attorney without his consent and knowledge?
- Ghulam Nabi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 8 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Mst. Manzooran Bibi and others1994 MLD 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs District Education Officer1994 PLC (C.S.) 795 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa Qureshi vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1994 PLC (C.S.) 119 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa Qureshi vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1994 PLC (C.S.) 1078 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter concerns a seniority dispute between civil servants in the Local Government and Rural Development Department. The appellant challenged the final seniority list, claiming seniority over seven private respondents who were initially appointed on an ad hoc and temporary basis. The core legal question was whether service rendered on an ad hoc or temporary basis counts towards seniority under the Kashmir Civil Service Rules and the AJ&K Rules of Business, 1971. The Service Tribunal had previously dismissed the appeal, relying on the view that such service was relevant. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the term 'first appointment' in the Kashmir Civil Service Rules refers exclusively to regular appointments made in accordance with the rules, excluding temporary or ad hoc service. Consequently, the Court ruled that periods spent on ad hoc appointments cannot be counted towards seniority. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was declared senior to the respondents, establishing the principle that seniority is determined by the date of regular, rule-compliant appointment rather than initial temporary engagement.
Questions settled- Does service rendered on an ad hoc or temporary basis count towards seniority under the Kashmir Civil Service Rules?
- What is the legal definition of 'first appointment' for the purpose of determining seniority in the civil service?
- Does the requirement to consult the Public Service Commission under the AJ&K Rules of Business 1971 distinguish regular appointments from temporary appointments?
- Ghulam Mustafa Khan vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad1994 PLC (C.S.) 5 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-07-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Returning Officer, Sindh and 13 others1994 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Burning Officer, Sindh And 13 Other1994 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi vs Additional District & Sessions Judge_Returning Officer, Na. 158, Naushero Feroze and others1994 SCMR 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court arose out of the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Sindh High Court, which held that the Returning Officer's order dropping the appellant's nomination from the final candidate list could not be challenged under Article 199 in view of Article 225 of the Constitution and the precedent in Election Commission of Pakistan v. Javaid Hashmi. The primary questions were whether a guarantor falls within the loan default disqualification under Section 12(2)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA), and whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is maintainable when a candidate's nomination is dropped without notice after statutory appellate remedies have expired.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a guarantor is not covered under Section 12(2)(iii) of ROPA, as penal and disenfranchising provisions require strict interpretation and non-pari materia statutes cannot be imported. Crucially, the Court held that while Article 225 generally bars writ petitions during elections, Article 199 remains available where an order of an election authority is patently illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of natural justice, and leaves the aggrieved party with no statutory remedy under ROPA.
Questions settled- Does the disqualification declaration concerning unpaid loans under Section 12(2)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 include a person who has only stood as a guarantor?
- Can definitions of 'loan' or 'finance' from banking recovery statutes be imported to interpret candidate qualifications under the Representation of the People Act, 1976 when the statutes are not in pari materia?
- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable against a patently illegal order of an election authority when no statutory remedy is available under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Does an order dropping a candidate from the published list of candidates on grounds of loan default without prior notice violate the principle of audi alteram partem?
- Ghulam Mustafa and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 1400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Multan, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for dacoity with hurt and under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved the reliability of an identification parade conducted in jail, the availability of sufficient light during a nighttime occurrence, the legality of imposing Hadd punishments without satisfying statutory prerequisites, and the double jeopardy aspect of simultaneous convictions under sections 324 and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitnesses and the injured victim had sufficient opportunity and street light to recognize the culprits, validating the identification evidence and maintaining the core findings of guilt. However, the Court held that Hadd punishment under the Hudood Ordinance could not be sustained due to non-compliance with statutory conditions, altering that conviction to section 394/34, P.P.C., and set aside the separate conviction under section 324 to avoid double punishment. The key principle laid down is that while ocular testimony backed by reliable identification parades and prompt FIRs is sufficient to sustain convictions in violent dacoity cases, strict procedural prerequisites must be met for Hadd punishments, and cumulative convictions for the same underlying hurt are impermissible.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Hadd provisions of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance be sustained if the mandatory procedural prerequisites regarding the examination of the victim are not fulfilled?
- Whether an identification parade conducted in jail is reliable when eyewitnesses had sufficient street light to observe the culprits' features during a nighttime incident?
- Is it legally permissible to convict an accused under both section 324 and section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the same homicidal attempt and resulting injury?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 14 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Mst. Karim Bibi1994 MLD 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Jan Muhammad and another1994 SCMR 1797 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the nature of possession regarding specific agricultural land (Killas Nos. 4 and 5) in District Bahawalnagar. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were co-sharers in the land following a joint purchase. However, upon purchase, the vendor delivered exclusive possession of the disputed Killas to respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the petitioner was recorded in the Khasra Girdawari as a tenant under respondent No. 1. The petitioner later challenged this status, asserting that as a co-sharer, he could not legally be a tenant under another co-sharer. After a series of revenue proceedings, the Board of Revenue restored the entry reflecting the petitioner as a tenant, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a co-sharer in possession of specific land is entitled to cultivate it or lease it to another, including a co-sharer. The Court affirmed that a co-sharer can indeed hold the status of a tenant under another co-sharer if the latter has been granted exclusive possession of that specific portion of the joint property.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer in joint land be recorded as a tenant under another co-sharer?
- Does the granting of exclusive possession of a specific portion of joint land to one co-sharer entitle that co-sharer to lease it to another person, including a co-sharer?
- Ghulam Muhammad Baloch vs Muhammad Latif And Another1994 CLC 472 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad And Others vs Munir Ahmad Shah And Other1994 CLC 14 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the trial court and the revisional court, which had refused the petitioners' application to withdraw their civil suit with permission to file a fresh one. The core legal question was whether the court should allow the withdrawal of a suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when the plaint contains formal defects, omissions, or incorrect averments, even after evidence has been recorded. The Court held that procedural provisions should not obstruct the administration of justice. It determined that where a plaint suffers from formal defects or inaccuracies that would necessitate a fresh suit to resolve the controversy on merits, the court should be liberal in granting permission to withdraw. The Court concluded that the lower courts acted against the spirit of the law by prioritizing technicalities over justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, allowing the petitioners to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one, emphasizing that procedural rules are meant to facilitate, not hinder, the resolution of disputes.
Questions settled- Can a court allow the withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one if the plaint contains formal defects or omissions?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interlocutory order if the alleged wrong cannot be remedied in subsequent appellate proceedings?
- Does the recording of evidence in a civil suit automatically bar the court from granting permission to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Under what circumstances should a court exercise its discretion to allow the withdrawal of a suit to prevent a technical knock-out of a party's claim?
- Ghulam Muhammad and others vs Mst. Sharifan Bibi1994 MLD 1978 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad And Others vs Allah Wasaya Through Legal Heirs1994 CLC 1162 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad and anothers vs Bagh Hussain and others1994 SCMR 1965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the dismissal of a suit for declaration regarding land ownership. The petitioner, claiming title through an alleged gift (Hibba) from the deceased owner, Khadim Hussain, sought to challenge inheritance mutations that favored another sister, Mst. Beeban. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established a valid gift of the land in question. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the suit. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the essential ingredients of a valid gift under Islamic law, specifically noting that the donor was mentally incapacitated at the time, the gift was unregistered and unstamped, and, crucially, possession of the land was never delivered to the donee, as the tenants remained in possession and did not attorn to the petitioner. The principle laid down is that for a gift to be valid, the donor must have the capacity to gift, and the essential requirement of delivery of possession must be strictly proven.
Questions settled- Is the delivery of possession an essential requirement for the validity of a gift (Hibba) under Islamic law?
- Can a gift be considered valid if the donor is mentally incapacitated at the time of the transaction?
- Does the failure to prove the delivery of possession to the donee render a gift invalid?
- Ghulam Muhammad and anothers vs Allah Dewaya and others1994 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question involves reconciling conflicting precedents of the Court, specifically the decisions in Mir Ahmad and others v. Attaullah alias Atta Muhammad and others (PLD 1991 SC 210) and Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karim and others (PLD 1968 SC 140) with Muhammad Riaz and others v. Fateh Muhammad and others (PLD 1991 SC 1099). The Court held that leave to appeal is granted for the purpose of reconciling these differing decisions.
Questions settled- Can leave to appeal be granted to reconcile conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court?
- How are conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court reconciled?
- Ghulam Muhammad And Another vs The State1994 PLD Supreme Court 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Federal Shariat Court judgment that upheld the petitioners' convictions under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involve the validity of a marriage disputed by a complainant, the legal efficacy of a divorce deed allegedly executed under coercion, and whether an admission of cohabitation as husband and wife constitutes sufficient proof of Zina in the absence of other evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the lower court failed to adequately address whether Nikah disputes should be resolved in Family Courts prior to determining criminal liability, the distinction between oral and written divorce under coercion in Sharia, and the evidentiary value of an admission of marital status. The Court emphasized that criminal liability for Zina requires rigorous examination of the underlying marital status and the nature of the alleged divorce, particularly when coercion is pleaded, and that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on an admission of cohabitation without considering the legal validity of the marital bond.
Questions settled- Should a dispute regarding the validity of a Nikah be resolved by a Family Court before determining criminal liability for Zina?
- Is a written divorce deed executed under coercion legally effective under Hanafi jurisprudence?
- Does an admission of cohabitation as husband and wife constitute sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- What is the evidentiary requirement to establish Zina when the accused claims a valid, subsisting marriage?
- Ghulam Muhammad and 20 others vs Mst. Bagh Bhari and 11 others1994 SCMR 1610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit concerning occupancy rights in State land. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents originally held the land, executed a power of attorney during his imprisonment, and a sale ensued, which subsequently led to a civil suit challenging the sale as fraudulent. Meanwhile, the land was auctioned by the Central Cooperative Bank under Martial Law Regulation No. 241 to recover a loan, and a constitutional petition challenging this sale was dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question involved whether the doctrine of lis pendens applied to a statutory auction sale of the disputed property during the pendency of the suit. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens was not attracted because the sale was not executed by any of the parties to the suit but rather by an independent authority under Martial Law Regulation No. 241, divesting both parties of their rights. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that intervening lawful statutory sales override private claims.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply when a property is sold by an independent authority under statutory provisions rather than by a party to the suit?
- Does a valid auction sale of property under Martial Law Regulation No. 241 divest the parties to a pending civil suit of their rights in the land?
- Can a sale executed pursuant to Martial Law Regulation No. 241 be challenged on the basis of a pending private civil litigation regarding the same property?
- Ghulam Mohy-Ud-Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Khalid vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 564 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Jiiani vs The State1994 CLC 2108 · Board of Revenue · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Jeelani And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue1994 CLC 2110 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hyder vs The State and another1994 MLD 893 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The StateK.L.R 1994 Criminal Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Noor Shah Ali1994 MLD 36 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Nasir and 2 others1994 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal petitions filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan: one by the complainant challenging the acquittal of a co-accused and the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment, and another by a convict challenging his conviction. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in altering the death sentence of the convict to life imprisonment based on his age and lack of motive, and whether the acquittal of the co-accused was justified given the evidentiary record. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions. Regarding the sentence reduction, the Court held that the High Court’s discretion was well-grounded, citing the convict's youth and lack of proven motive as valid considerations for safe administration of criminal justice. Regarding the acquittal, the Court found that the High Court’s decision to extend the benefit of doubt was based on a proper appraisal of evidence, noting the absence of the weapon in the F.I.R. and the lack of established motive for the co-accused. The principle laid down is that appellate courts possess discretion to mitigate sentences based on mitigating factors like age and motive, and acquittals based on evidentiary doubts will not be disturbed if the reasoning is not extraneous to the record.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the convict's age and lack of proven motive?
- Is an acquittal based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the presence of a weapon in the F.I.R. and lack of motive legally sustainable?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in sentencing when the reasons are well-grounded in the record?
- Ghulam Hussain and others vs Mushtaq Ahmad and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The petitioners sought to revive a suit for pre-emption that had been dismissed on 15-3-1987, arguing for the application of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit where no decree was granted in favour of the pre-emptor before the target date of 31-7-1986 (established in the Said Kamal Shah case) could be revived or decreed under subsequent legislation. The Supreme Court held that since the suit was dismissed after the target date and lacked the essential requirements of Talb-i-Ishhad and pleadings regarding Zaroorat or avoidance of Zarar, it could not be revived. The Court affirmed that in the absence of a decree in favour of the pre-emptor prior to the target date, the right of pre-emption could not be enforced. The key principle laid down is that the absence of a decree in favour of the pre-emptor before 31-7-1986, coupled with the failure to comply with mandatory Islamic law requirements like Talb-i-Ishhad, precludes the revival of such suits under new pre-emption laws.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit be revived under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1990 if no decree was passed in favour of the pre-emptor before 31-7-1986?
- Does the dismissal of a pre-emption suit constitute a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of revival under new pre-emption laws?
- Is compliance with the requirement of Talb-i-Ishhad a mandatory condition for the enforcement of the right of pre-emption?
- Does the term 'final' in the context of judgments and decrees determining pre-emption rights include orders that are still subject to appeal?
- Ghulam Hussain And Other vs Mushtaq Ahmad And Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a pre-emption suit filed in 1974, which was eventually dismissed on 15 March 1987. During the pendency of a revision petition in the High Court, the petitioners sought to have the judgment treated as cancelled and the suit restored under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1990. The lower forums and the High Court dismissed the applications, holding that no decree had been passed in favor of the pre-emptor on or before the target date of 31 July 1986 set in the landmark case of Malik Said Kamal Shah, and that mandatory requirements such as Talb-i-Ishhad were absent from the pleadings. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that where a pre-emption suit has been dismissed rather than decreed prior to the target date of 31 July 1986, it cannot be revived or decreed under new pre-emption legislation, and non-compliance with the statutory requirements of making demands (Talabs) extinguishes the right of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit dismissed prior to the target date of 31 July 1986 can be revived and decreed under the new pre-emption laws?
- Does the dismissal of a pre-emption suit constitute a decree in favor of the plaintiff for the purposes of statutory revival provisions?
- What is the legal effect of the absence of Talb-i-Ishhad in the pleadings on a claim of pre-emption?
- Do judgments and decrees passed by the court under pre-emption laws refer only to those wherein the suit has been decreed in favor of the pre-emptor?
- Ghulam Hussain alias Hussain Bakhsh and 4 others vs The State and anothers1994 PLD Supreme Court 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the murder of two individuals, Muhammad Ashraf and Mst. Zohran Mai. The prosecution alleged a premeditated killing, while the defence argued that the appellant, Ghulam Hussain, killed both deceased under grave and sudden provocation after finding them in an objectionable state. The Supreme Court examined the conflicting versions, noting the absence of blood evidence at the alleged initial crime scene and the improbability of the prosecution's narrative regarding the sequence of events. The Court held that when two conflicting versions are presented, and both are plausible, the version favouring the defence should be preferred if supported by circumstantial evidence. Finding the prosecution's account of a premeditated conspiracy improbable, and rejecting the defence's claim that a single individual committed the act due to the nature and extent of the injuries, the Court concluded that the appellants acted under grave and sudden provocation. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from murder under section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Questions settled- When two conflicting versions of an incident are presented, which version should the court prefer?
- Does the presence of multiple injuries on the deceased negate a plea that a single accused committed the crime under grave and sudden provocation?
- Is a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code sustainable when the prosecution's narrative of the crime scene is contradicted by the absence of forensic evidence?
- Ghulam Hussain Alias Hussain Bakhsh And 4 Other vs The State And Another1994 PLD Supreme Court 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants challenged their convictions for the murder of two individuals, arguing that the High Court failed to properly consider their plea of grave and sudden provocation. The prosecution alleged a premeditated killing, while the defense contended that the primary appellant caught the deceased in an objectionable situation. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the prosecution's narrative highly improbable, noting the absence of blood trails, signs of forced entry, or independent corroboration. Conversely, the defense's version appeared plausible given the medical evidence. The Court held that when two conflicting versions of an incident are presented, and both are plausible, the version favoring the defense must be preferred, especially when supported by circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and substituted them with convictions under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentences to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. This judgment reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt in conflicting versions of events must accrue to the accused.
Questions settled- When two conflicting versions of an incident are presented before a court, which version should be preferred?
- Does the absence of corroborative circumstantial evidence, such as blood trails or signs of forced entry, undermine the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304, Part I, based on a plea of grave and sudden provocation?
- Ghulam Hamid Khan through Legal Heirs and 3 others vs Dr. Ghulam1994 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a property in Lahore, originally allotted to Dr. Ghulam Bheek upon his migration. The core legal questions were whether the property was validly allotted to Dr. Bheek or his father, and whether the High Court could legally divide the property and create life interests for the siblings based on an alleged, unrecorded concession. The Supreme Court held that the evidence, including rent deductions from Dr. Bheek’s salary and the failure to follow procedural requirements for transfer to heirs, confirmed Dr. Bheek as the sole allottee. The Court ruled that the High Court’s decision to divide the property and create life interests was unsustainable, as there was no valid record of an agreement to that effect, and the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, does not authorize the creation of life interests. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the order of the Settlement authorities, affirming Dr. Bheek’s exclusive entitlement to the property.
Questions settled- Who is the rightful allottee of a property when rent is deducted from the salary of a specific individual?
- Can a High Court create life interests in property during an appeal without a properly recorded agreement?
- Does the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, permit the creation of life interests in transferred properties?
- Is an attorney authorized to claim property for themselves and others when the principal is the sole allottee?
- Ghulam Haider vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 65) · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider Deceased Representd by His Leagal Heir Mst. HamidK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 252 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider And Others vs Hayat Muhammad And Other1994 CLC 1852 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the validity of a consent decree obtained in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns whether a subsequent transfer of property during the pendency of a pre-emption suit to a person whose purchase was made after the expiry of the period of limitation and not in recognition of a superior right of pre-emption is protected by the doctrine of lis pendens, and whether such a transferee is a necessary party. The Lahore High Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to pre-emption claims unless the sale by the vendee is made to someone with a superior right of pre-emption within the period of limitation. Since the resale to the petitioner's predecessor occurred after the limitation period had expired, it was hit by lis pendens and conferred no valid title, rendering him neither a necessary nor proper party. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the lower courts' judgments.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to pre-emption claims where a resale is made to a person after the expiry of the period of limitation?
- Can a subsequent purchaser of land during the pendency of a pre-emption suit claim protection as a person having a superior right of pre-emption if the purchase is made outside the period of limitation?
- Is a transferee whose purchase is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens considered a necessary or proper party to a pre-emption suit?
- Ghulam Haider and 3 others vs Haji Abdul Shakoor1994 SCMR 2058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which overturned an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller against a tenant. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenant's eviction due to default in rent payment. The High Court reversed this decision, reasoning that the default was for a short duration and that the arrears had subsequently been deposited in compliance with the Controller's order under the relevant rent legislation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court was legally justified in condoning the delay in payment, which had originally triggered the ejectment, and to examine the application of the amended provisions of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, particularly in circumstances where the respondent-tenant failed to admit liability for rent on the first date of hearing. The core legal question involves the scope of the High Court's discretion to condone rent defaults and the procedural requirements for invoking statutory protections against ejectment.
Questions settled- Can the High Court condone a delay in rent payment that has already resulted in an ejectment order?
- Does the failure of a tenant to admit liability for rent on the first date of hearing affect the application of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Ghulam Habib vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 84 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ghaus vs Ghulam Murtaza1994 CLC 461 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Fatima And Another vs Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 77) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Fatima and 4 others vs Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1994 PLD Lahore 296 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Fatima And 4 Other vs Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1994 PLD Lahore 296 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid vs Muhammad Younas and others1994 MLD 116 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid vs (Mst) Pathani And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 230 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Baqir Shah vs Akhtar Hussain Shah (Akhtar Shah) and 51994 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that modified the convictions of the respondents in a criminal case involving murder, assault, and trespass. The respondents were originally tried for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, with the trial court convicting them for individual acts. The High Court, upon review, concluded that both the prosecution and defense had suppressed facts regarding the origin of the conflict. Finding that the occurrence developed suddenly following an altercation where the complainant party initiated the violence, the High Court held that the respondents acted in response to provocation, thereby altering the convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court examined whether there were grounds to interfere with the High Court's acquittal and modification of sentences. Applying the principle that it will not ordinarily interfere with an acquittal unless the view taken is insupportable, the Supreme Court found no legal basis to disturb the High Court's findings. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Does the Supreme Court ordinarily interfere with a High Court's judgment if the view taken is supportable by the evidence?
- Can a conviction be modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the occurrence develops suddenly?
- Ghulam And Others vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner And Other1994 CLC 1461 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-15Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Akbar vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 45) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ahmed vs Messrs Island Textile Mills Ltd., Kotri1994 PLC 474 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Gill vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 245 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 86 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ahmad And Another vs M.B.R. And Other1994 CLC 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 72) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs Muhammad Sharif(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 83) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas and others vs The State1994 MLD 1294 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 166 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →