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.
- Ghulam Abbas and anothers vs The State1994 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ghulam Abbas and Fateh Muhammad against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 18-7-1993, which refused them post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite being directly charged in the First Information Report with specific roles, given the contentions regarding lack of motive, absence of recoveries, and the conclusions in the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for interference, noting that the petitioners' own bail application acknowledged a relationship with the main offender possessing a motive, and reiterating that the opinion of investigating officers in a challan without underlying material holds no evidentiary value. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the denial of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused directly charged in the FIR with specific roles is entitled to bail?
- What is the evidentiary value of the opinion of investigating officers recorded in a report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of recovery during investigation automatically entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
- Ghulam Abbas and anothers vs Mansabdar and 2 others1994 SCMR 1114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of a civil revision application by the Lahore High Court, which upheld two concurrent judgments of the courts below. The core legal question concerns whether a decree obtained in a previous civil suit can be declared ineffective against a subsequent purchaser through a separate suit, or if such relief must exclusively be sought via an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that contentions regarding the proper mode of challenging a prior decree and the consequential necessity of a fresh trial after impleadment required detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that substantial legal controversies regarding the procedural validity and effect of prior consent decrees upon subsequent purchasers merit a full hearing by the appellate court when raised.
Questions settled- Whether a decree passed in a civil suit can be declared ineffective against a third party without filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a prior consent decree be challenged through a separate independent suit instead of proceedings in the original suit?
- Whether an appellate court is bound to give findings on specific legal controversies raised before it regarding the effect of a prior decree?
- Ghuiam Habib vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 84 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
- Ghui.Am Naseer vs House Building Finance Corporation Through Zonal1994 CLC 464 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
- Ghee Corporation vs Chairman, Board of Trustee And Others1994 PLC 628 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
- Ghazi vs Allah Yar and others1994 SCMR 1705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a writ petition and remanded a pre-emption case. The petitioner had instituted a suit for pre-emption claiming superior right as a tenant at the time of the sale of the disputed land on 30-8-1974. The revenue authorities concurrently ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the High Court set aside those findings through the impugned judgment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was in cultivating possession as a tenant on the exact date of the sale transaction. The Supreme Court held that the relevant revenue records (Khasra Girdawri) established the respondents were in continuous cultivating possession since Kharif 1972, and the entry recording the petitioner as a tenant was made subsequent to the sale on 22-11-1974, with no proof of tenancy on the date of sale. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's finding, laid down that a pre-emptor claiming tenancy must prove cultivating possession on the date of the sale transaction, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emptor claiming a right of pre-emption on the basis of tenancy must establish cultivating possession on the date of the sale transaction?
- Can an entry in the Khasra Girdawri made subsequent to the date of sale prove tenancy on the day of the sale?
- Ghazala Perveen vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Health, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 684 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
- Gener: Manager, Maa, Pof, Wah Cantt And 2 Other vs Abdul Rehman1994 PLC (C.S.) 495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the General Manager, MAA, POF, Wah Cantt., challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The respondent, a Godown Keeper, was removed from service following allegations of keeping excess stock, despite being previously exonerated in a related theft investigation. The Federal Service Tribunal, after a split decision between its members, ultimately modified the respondent's penalty from removal from service to the stoppage of five increments, concluding that no misappropriation occurred and no pecuniary loss was caused to the Government. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the conversion of the punishment was justified because the respondent had not committed misappropriation and the government suffered no financial loss. Finding that the case involved no point of law of public importance, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is the punishment of removal from service justified when there is no evidence of misappropriation or pecuniary loss to the government?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal modify a penalty of removal from service to the stoppage of increments if the original punishment is found to be disproportionately harsh?
- Does a dispute regarding the proportionality of a service penalty constitute a point of law of public importance warranting Supreme Court intervention?
- General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Miners Labour Union (Cba)1994 SCMR 2061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan was filed to complain against the pollution and contamination of the water supply source for residents and mine workers of Khewra caused by coal mining operations within the water catchment area. The core legal question involved the enforcement of fundamental rights to life and health against environmental degradation resulting from industrial and mining activities. The Supreme Court held that the right to have unpolluted and clean water is an essential part of the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution, and therefore public interest litigation is maintainable to restrain activities causing water contamination. The Court laid down the principle that the constitutional right to life encompasses the right to a clean atmosphere, unpolluted environment, and access to clean drinking water, empowering the judiciary to issue necessary directions to prevent environmental hazards and protect public health.
Questions settled- Does the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution include the right to have unpolluted and clean water?
- Can the Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to investigate questions of fact and grant relief in human rights cases involving environmental pollution?
- Are mining operations that threaten or contaminate public water supply sources liable to be restricted or relocated through court directives?
- Do procedural restrictions and the requirement of being an aggrieved person bar the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) in public interest litigation?
- General Manager, Maa, Pof, Wah Cantt. and 2 others vs Abdul Rehman1994 SCMR 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the General Manager, MAA, POF, Wah Cantt., challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the respondent's penalty of removal from service to the stoppage of five increments. The respondent, a Godown Keeper, was removed from service following allegations of keeping excess stock, despite having been previously exonerated in a separate theft investigation. The Federal Service Tribunal, resolving a difference of opinion between its members, determined that the punishment of removal was disproportionate, noting that there was no evidence of misappropriation of government stores and no pecuniary loss caused to the government. The Supreme Court considered the arguments presented by both parties. Finding that the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty was justified given the absence of misappropriation or financial loss, and concluding that no question of law of public importance was raised, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is the penalty of removal from service justified where there is no evidence of misappropriation or pecuniary loss to the government?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal modify a disciplinary penalty imposed by a department if it deems the punishment disproportionate?
- General Manager, Maa, Pof, Wah Cantt. And 2 Other vs Abdul Rehman1994 PLC (C.S.) 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 17-1-1993, which had modified the respondent's penalty of removal from service to the stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. The core legal question concerned the proportionality and justification of the punishment imposed on the respondent, a Godown Keeper, who was charged with keeping excess stock after being exonerated of theft and misappropriation charges. The Supreme Court held that since there was no allegation of misappropriation and no pecuniary loss was caused to the Government, the Tribunal's decision to convert the extreme penalty of removal from service into the stoppage of five increments was fully justified. The Court laid down the principle that minor or technical irregularities not resulting in financial loss or proven misappropriation do not warrant the capital administrative penalty of removal from service, and no substantial question of law of public importance being involved, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the penalty of removal from service is justified when a government employee is exonerated of misappropriation and no pecuniary loss is caused?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal modify a departmental punishment of removal from service to the stoppage of increments?
- Does a case involving the quantum of departmental punishment for excess stock without financial loss raise a question of law of public importance?
- General Manager, Hotel Pearl Continental, Peshawar vs Syed Asar-1994 PLC 509 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- General Manager, G.T.S. vs Muhammad Idris1994 PLC 148 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-05-29Read full judgment →
- Ganga Chit Fund (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 642 · Allahabad High Court · 1992-12-10Read full judgment →
- G.G. Dandekar Machine Works Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 351 · Bombay High Court · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
- Fozail Merchant vs The StatePLD 1994'Supreme Court 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal review petition arose from the dismissal of a criminal appeal for non-prosecution due to the absence of the appellant's counsel and Advocate-on-Record on the date of hearing, followed by the dismissal of the restoration application. The core legal question was whether a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court, in which leave to appeal had already been granted, could be dismissed for non-prosecution solely due to the absence of the counsel, and whether sufficient cause was shown for the counsel's absence. The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalled the earlier orders, and restored the appeal to its original file. The Court held that neither the Supreme Court Rules nor the relevant constitutional provisions provide for dismissing a criminal appeal for non-prosecution on account of a counsel's absence. The key principle laid down is that once leave to appeal is granted in a criminal matter, the absence of the appellant or their pleader does not justify dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, and the Court must examine the matter in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
Questions settled- Can a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of a counsel on the date of hearing?
- Whether an order dismissing a restoration application in a criminal appeal can be recalled through a review petition when the absence of the counsel was due to circumstances beyond control?
- Do the provisions governing the hearing of criminal appeals in the Supreme Court permit dismissal for default of appearance?
- Flour Mills Association vs Province of Punjab1994 MLD 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
- Firozuddin Ahmed vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1691 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-07-05Read full judgment →
- Firdous Textile Printing Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad vs Federation of PakistanPTCL 1994 CL. 299 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fida Hussain vs Yen Pasha and 2 others1994 MLD 501 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain vs Additional District Judge1994 CLC 2287 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Feroze Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 247 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
- Feroze Khan and 4 others vs Zaman Ali and another1994 SCMR 1750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed the dismissal of the petitioners' suit on the grounds that it was barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners' predecessor had previously filed a suit challenging a will, which was withdrawn after the grievance was allegedly remedied. A subsequent suit was filed challenging the mutation based on that same will after it became effective upon the owner's death. The core legal question is whether the withdrawal of the earlier suit, based on the premise that the grievance had been remedied, precludes the filing of the subsequent suit under the bar of Order XXIII, Rule 1(3), Code of Civil Procedure 1908, specifically regarding whether the causes of action in the two suits are distinct. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the causes of action were indeed different, thereby rendering the statutory bar inapplicable.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of a suit on the ground that the grievance has been remedied constitute a bar under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to a subsequent suit?
- Whether the cause of action in a suit challenging a will is the same as a subsequent suit challenging a mutation based on that same will after it becomes effective?
- Feroze Din And Others vs Azmat Bibi And Other1994 CLC 1626 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
- Feroze Ardeshir Mehta and anotherPlaintiffs vs Moin Ahmed Hashmi and 5 others1994 MLD 638 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
- Feroz Khan vs Muhammad Shuaib1994 CLC 1462 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The appellants contended that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements regarding service of summons under Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, specifically noting the absence of evidence from the process-server and lack of local witnesses or affidavits for substituted service. Furthermore, the appellants argued that the trial court erred by passing an ex parte decree without recording evidence and by failing to adhere to the procedural requirements for a suit instituted in forma pauperis under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory procedures for service of summons and the specific requirements for pauper suits. It further emphasized that trial courts must exercise judicial discretion regarding the necessity of recording evidence before passing an ex parte decree. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and the ex parte decree, remanding the matter for the suit to be contested and proceeded with in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can an ex parte decree be sustained if the trial court fails to record evidence to substantiate the plaintiff's claim?
- Is a trial court required to examine the process-server when substituted service is challenged under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure to follow the procedure for suits instituted in forma pauperis render a subsequent ex parte decree invalid?
- Must a trial court record evidence on an application to set aside an ex parte decree when the validity of the service of summons is disputed?
- Feroz Din vs Mohammad Amin And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 434 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan vs Mst. Tahira Begum and others1994 SCMR 1740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the validity of a divorce pronounced under Fiqah Jafria and the constitutionality of Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred by declaring provisions of the Ordinance unconstitutional despite the parties not challenging its validity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted prematurely and unnecessarily in addressing the constitutionality of the Ordinance. The Court affirmed that the divorce was invalid under Fiqah Jafria, as determined by the lower courts, but set aside the High Court's constitutional observations. The key principle laid down is that courts must exercise judicial restraint, avoiding the determination of a statute's constitutionality unless it is strictly necessary for the final disposition of the case. A court should not embark upon unnecessarily wide inquiries or formulate rules of constitutional law broader than required by the specific facts of the controversy, particularly when the issue is not the gist and marrow of the case.
Questions settled- Should a court decide the constitutionality of a statute when the parties have not challenged its validity?
- Is it appropriate for a court to determine the constitutionality of a statute if the case can be resolved on other grounds?
- Does a court have the authority to declare a statute unconstitutional when the issue is not the gist and marrow of the controversy?
- Federation of Pakistan vs Ijaz Hussain Malik1994 PLC (C.S.) 1002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent's appeal and directed the Central Selection Board to consider the respondent's promotion based on correct legal criteria. The core legal question addressed is whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing such directions regarding promotion consideration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the order passed by the Tribunal was just, fair, and in accordance with the interests of justice, declining to interfere with it. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal against a fair and just order of the Service Tribunal that merely directs a competent board to consider a civil servant's promotion according to proper legal criteria.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to direct the Central Selection Board to consider a civil servant's promotion in accordance with correct legal criteria?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction with a just and fair order of the Service Tribunal?
- Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 2PTCL 1994 CL. 296 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a batch of appeals involving the applicability of Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, which was introduced via the Finance Ordinance, 1988, to nullify the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Al-Samrez Enterprises case. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly relied on the Al-Samrez Enterprises precedent despite the subsequent legislative amendment. The Supreme Court, referencing its own established jurisprudence, held that for cases where Bills of Entry were presented or Letters of Credit were opened prior to July 1, 1988, the transactions are considered past and closed. Consequently, such cases are not governed by the provisions of Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, and the principles established in the Al-Samrez Enterprises case remain applicable. The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the statutory amendment did not retrospectively affect transactions finalized before the specified date, thereby maintaining the vested rights of the parties involved in those past transactions.
Questions settled- Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 apply to transactions where Letters of Credit were opened prior to July 1, 1988?
- Are transactions involving Bills of Entry presented before July 1, 1988, considered past and closed transactions?
- Does the introduction of Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 nullify the ratio of the Al-Samrez Enterprises case for transactions completed before the amendment?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Railways And Another vs Mst. Mahjabeen And 2 Other1994 CLC 2395 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad vs Muhammad Bilal and another1994 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had invalidated a government notification issued by the Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control. The notification, issued under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, sought to cancel all licenses for prohibited bore and automatic weapons granted after December 1, 1988, excluding specific categories. The High Court had ruled the notification unlawful and directed the government to establish a mechanism to review licenses individually, allowing licensees an opportunity to defend their grants. The Supreme Court noted that the Sindh High Court had reached a similar conclusion in separate petitions, while the Lahore and Balochistan High Courts had upheld the notification's validity. Recognizing the conflict of judicial opinion and the public importance of interpreting the scope of the government's power under the Ordinance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court ordered the matter to be heard alongside pending appeals from the Sindh High Court and directed that the Attorney General for Pakistan be notified to appear.
Questions settled- Does the government have the authority under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 to cancel all licenses for prohibited bore weapons issued after a specific date?
- Is a notification cancelling weapon licenses valid if it does not provide an opportunity for licensees to be heard?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad vs Mst. Ismat Qayyum Malik1994 PLD Lahore 360 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a trial court decree for the ejectment of the government from a rented property and the payment of damages for unauthorized occupation after the lease expiry. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court, caused by the government's initial filing in a wrong forum (the District Court) due to alleged legal advice, constituted 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court held that the appeal was barred by time, ruling that the government's failure to file in the correct forum, despite clear statutory provisions regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, amounted to gross negligence rather than a bona fide mistake. The Court affirmed that 'sufficient cause' requires proof of good faith and due diligence, which was absent here. Furthermore, on the merits, the Court upheld the award of damages at double the rent, characterizing the government's continued possession as illegal and contrary to public policy and constitutional principles regarding the state's obligation to honor commitments.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an appeal in a wrong forum due to legal advice constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is the government entitled to special indulgence regarding the condonation of delay in litigation compared to an ordinary litigant?
- What is the legal status of a tenant who continues in possession of a property after the expiry of the lease period without the lessor's consent?
- Can damages for illegal use and occupation of premises be awarded at double the rate of rent against the government?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad vs Rafique Inayat Mirza, Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Islamabad And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the appeal of respondent No. 1 and directed the Establishment Division to pay him Rs. 2,000 per month as car maintenance allowance for six months from January 1985 to June 1985. The respondent had been appointed as an Officer on Special Duty in the Establishment Division and claimed the free use of a staff car or corresponding allowance under relevant rules, which was initially denied on the ground that he was not an 'Entitled Officer'. After exhausting departmental remedies, he approached the Tribunal. The Supreme Court examined the record, found no legal error in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the respondent was entitled to the car maintenance allowance as determined.
Questions settled- Whether an Officer on Special Duty is entitled to car maintenance allowance under the relevant rules?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to award allowances to civil servants upon denial by the department?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the factual and legal findings of the Federal Service Tribunal where no legal error is found?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad vs Rafique Inayat Mirza, Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Islamabad and 2 others (Copy)1994 SCMR 2028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 8-3-1993, which had accepted the appeal of respondent No. 1 and directed the Establishment Division to pay him Rs. 2,000 per month as car maintenance allowance for the period from January 1985 to June 1985. The core legal question involved whether the respondent, who was appointed as an Officer on Special Duty and claimed the free use of a staff car under relevant rules, was entitled to the car maintenance allowance. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal committed no legal error in considering the factual and legal aspects of the case to conclude that the respondent was entitled to the allowance. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the entitlement of the civil servant to the claimed allowance for the specified period.
Questions settled- Whether an Officer on Special Duty is entitled to car maintenance allowance for official and private use under the relevant rules?
- Did the Federal Service Tribunal commit any legal error in granting the car maintenance allowance to the respondent?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the factual and legal conclusions of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding service benefits?
- Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others vs Khurshid Spinning Mills Ltd., Faisalabad1994 SCMR 709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a High Court judgment in a constitutional petition concerning the applicable rate of customs duty on imported machinery. The respondent imported textile machinery and filed an ex-bond bill of entry for clearance from a bonded warehouse, depositing fifty percent of the assessed duty in cash with the remainder payable via debentures. Prior to furnishing the debentures, a statutory exemption notification under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 was issued granting full exemption from customs duty and sales tax. The High Court applied the second proviso to Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969, holding that because the entire duty had not been paid within seven days of presenting the bill of entry, the applicable rate of duty was the rate in force on the date of actual payment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to interpret Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969 regarding whether the second proviso applies when only part of the assessed duty is paid within seven days.
Questions settled- Does a partial payment of assessed customs duty within seven days of presenting a bill of entry under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1969 exclude the application of the second proviso to Section 30?
- Whether the term 'duty' in the second proviso to Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969 refers to the entire assessed duty or includes part payment thereof?
- Does an exemption notification issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 apply to goods when the full assessed duty has not been paid within seven days of presenting the bill of entry for clearance from a warehouse?
- Federation of Pakistan through General Manager, Railway Headquarters1994 SCMR 1960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its civil revision by the High Court, which had affirmed the trial court's refusal to delete an allegedly unnecessary issue framed in a civil suit. The core legal question was whether the framed issue was redundant in light of an amended written statement. The Supreme Court held that upon comparing the language of the issue with the relevant averments in the plaint and the amended written statement, the issue was indeed necessary as the relevant language in the amended written statement remained unaltered. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that an issue framed by a trial court will not be deemed redundant or unnecessary where the pleadings and amended written statements substantiate the controversy addressed by that issue.
Questions settled- Whether an issue framed by a trial court becomes redundant upon the amendment of a written statement?
- Can the High Court interfere in revisional jurisdiction regarding the framing of issues when the trial court's decision is justified by the pleadings?
- Federation of Pakistan and others vs Muhammad Qaisar Hayat Khan1994 SCMR 544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Federation of Pakistan and others challenging the judgment dated 20-4-1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Service Appeal No. 278(L) of 1992, whereby the respondent's appeal regarding the denial of move-over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 in the Pakistan Meteorological Department was accepted. The core legal question was whether a civil servant having 'average' Annual Confidential Reports without any specific adverse remarks communicated to them is entitled to a move-over. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly applied the established dictum that 'average' reports, in the absence of communicated adverse remarks, must be treated as 'generally good' for the purpose of a move-over. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the judgment of the Tribunal and establishing that uncommunicated average performance reports cannot operate as a bar to the grant of a move-over.
Questions settled- Whether an 'average' Annual Confidential Report can be treated as an adverse report for denying a move-over to a civil servant?
- Does the absence of specific adverse reports treated and conveyed as such entitle a civil servant to have 'average' reports treated as 'generally good' for move-over purposes?
- When is a civil servant entitled to the grant of move-over to a higher pay scale?
- Federation of Pakistan and others vs Anwar Khan1994 SCMR 2017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent, Anwar Khan, into service with full back benefits. The respondent was initially appointed as an Overseer, Grade-I, and subsequently considered fit for retention in service by the competent authority. Following a period of deputation abroad, the respondent was discharged from service upon his return, with the petitioner citing him as surplus. The core legal question was whether the respondent held the status of a regular employee, thereby rendering his discharge unlawful, or if he was a temporary employee subject to discharge. The Supreme Court held that since the appointment letter did not specify that the respondent was appointed against a temporary post or that he was subject to discharge at any time, and given the finding of fitness for retention, he was a regular employee. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the respondent, affirming that regular employees cannot be summarily discharged without valid cause.
Questions settled- Whether an employee whose appointment letter lacks a stipulation of temporary status or liability for discharge can be treated as a temporary employee?
- Does a finding of fitness for retention in service by a competent authority confer the status of a regular employee?
- Can a government employee be discharged on the grounds of being surplus without evidence of their temporary status?
- Manzoor Pervaiz vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 38 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan (Pakistan Railways) through the General1994 PLD Lahore 303 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a trial court decree awarding a contractor payment for alleged additional road repair work (seal coat) performed for Pakistan Railways. The core legal question was whether the contractor was entitled to compensation for additional work absent formal work orders, addendum slips, or measurement book entries, and whether the contractor was estopped from claiming payment after accepting the final bill without protest. The High Court held that the contractor failed to prove the additional work was ordered or executed, noting the absence of required documentation. Furthermore, the Court found the trial court’s finding of coercion regarding the final payment unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the principle of estoppel applied, barring the claim. Additionally, the Court ruled that Section 70 of the Contract Act 1872 was inapplicable because the alleged benefit (seal coat) was not separable or restorable to the department. The principle established is that government contractors must strictly adhere to contractual formalities, and acceptance of final payment without protest precludes subsequent claims for alleged additional work. The appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a contractor recover payment for additional work performed without a formal work order or entry in the measurement book?
- Does the acceptance of a final payment without protest estop a contractor from subsequently claiming payment for additional work?
- Is the principle of compensation under Section 70 of the Contract Act 1872 applicable where the alleged benefit conferred is not separable or restorable?
- Federal Land Commission through its Chairman vs Hayat Muhammad1994 SCMR 1112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federal Land Commission against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the Commission's order declaring certain land mutations void. The core legal question was whether the Federal Land Commission had the authority to scrutinize and invalidate gifts of agricultural land made by a declarant to his heirs under Martial Law Regulation 115. The Supreme Court held that the alienations of land made by the declarant in favour of his heirs were immune from scrutiny under the provisions of the Regulation. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that such bona fide transactions, even if scrutinized by the Commission, could not be declared void if they fell within the protected category of alienations to heirs. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment, thereby upholding the principle that gifts to heirs made by a declarant are protected from interference by the Federal Land Commission.
Questions settled- Are gifts of agricultural land made by a declarant to his heirs immune from scrutiny by the Federal Land Commission under Martial Law Regulation 115?
- Can the Federal Land Commission declare mutations of land in favour of heirs as void if the transactions are bona fide?
- Federal Goverenment of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Minority1994 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the Federal Government of Pakistan sought leave to examine legal questions regarding the finality of determinative orders that were not subjected to appeal or objection, as well as the scope of suo motu revision powers in the presence of a time-barred application. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these core questions. Additionally, the Court issued an interim directive ordering that no alienation, damage, or depreciation in the value of the disputed property shall occur in the meantime. The judgment underscores the legal implications of failing to challenge determinative orders and the procedural parameters governing revisional powers.
Questions settled- Whether determinative orders that are not objected to or appealed against attain finality?
- Can suo motu powers of revision be exercised in the presence of a time-barred application by a party to the proceedings?
- Fazle Rehman vs Provincial Government Through Secretary, Education, N_ W.F.P., PeshawarAnd 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 903 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1991-08-04Read full judgment →
- Fazal-Ur-Rehman Khan vs Director of Industries and Mineral1994 PLC (C.S.) 1657 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1992-04-23Read full judgment →
- Fazal Rahim vs Messrs Alwajid Town1994 MLD 126 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These four revision applications arose out of similar orders passed by the civil court under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rejecting the plaints filed by allottees seeking declarations and permanent injunctions against payment of development charges and for execution of lease deeds. The core legal question was whether a trial court, while considering an application for rejection of a plaint, is strictly confined to the averments made in the plaint or can examine extraneous documents produced by the defendant. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not exhaustive, and courts are justified in looking at relevant documents like lease agreements and possession orders to prevent meritless proceedings from continuing. The court affirmed the dismissal of the revisions and established that trial courts are not strictly barred from considering material beyond the four corners of the plaint in appropriate circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are exhaustive for the rejection of a plaint?
- Can a court look into documents or material produced by the defendant while deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a trial court is justified in rejecting a plaint that is manifestly meritless based on the fundamental agreements governing the parties' rights?
- Fazal Muhammd through Legal Heirs and others vs Zainab Bibi and 91994 SCMR 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a Review Petition and a Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking reconsideration of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court dated 26-5-1990. The core legal questions involve whether a judgment rendered after the death of a party without bringing legal representatives on record is sustainable, whether service not strictly in accordance with Supreme Court Rules vitiates proceedings when the merits remain unaffected, and whether consolidation grievances can be raised to challenge settlement proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the decision on merits remains undisturbed as the factual assumptions are supported by the record, and prior precedent establishes that a decision given in the absence of a deceased party whose legal representatives were not brought on record can be inconsequential under certain circumstances. Furthermore, grievances concerning consolidation adjustments cannot be used to unsettle matters finalized on the settlement side. The review petition and civil miscellaneous petition were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a decision rendered in the absence of a party who died after the amendment regarding abatement is inconsequential?
- Can a judgment be disturbed in review when the factual assumptions underlying it remain established from the record?
- Do consolidation proceedings afford a valid ground to challenge matters adjudicated on the settlement side?
- Fazal Muhammad Khan Through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Biro And Other1994 CLC 2147 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim vs Education Department Through Secretary And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 703 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-13Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain and 4 others vs Subdivisional Officer, WAPDA, Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 138 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain And 4 Other vs Sub Divisional Officer, WAPDA, Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh And Another1994 PLD Lahore 138 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Fazal Ellahi Siddiqui vs Pakistan Through The Secretary, Establishment1994 PLC (C.S.) 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10Read full judgment →
- Fazal Elahi and others vs Tanveer Hussain and others1994 MLD 1626 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
- Fazal Din vs Muhammad Hussain1994 CLC 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
- Fazal Din vs Mst. Umar Bibi and another1994 MLD 550 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
- Fazal Din vs Mst. Janna T Bibi And Other1994 CLC 304 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-15Read full judgment →
- Fazal Dad vs Member, (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Lahore and 31994 MLD 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
- Fazal Dad vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 123) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fazal Bibi vs Abdul Hameed and 5 others1994 MLD 560 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
- Fazal Abbas Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 230 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Ahmed vs Director-General, Pak. P.W.D., Islamabad And 3 Other1994 PLC (C.S.) 1549 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-05-30Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 130 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
- Fatima Bibi and others vs Additional Secretary and others1994 MLD 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-13Read full judgment →
- Fatehur Rehman vs Umara Khan and 5 others1994 SCMR 1131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a suit for pre-emption where the petitioner's decree was set aside because it was passed in 1987, beyond the mandatory target date of 1986. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the decree was passed after the target date and that the necessary Talabs had not been established, relying on the precedent set in Rozi Khan v. Syed Karim Shah (1992 SCMR 445). The petitioner argued that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction because the matter involved tenancy rights and should have been referred to the Collector. The Supreme Court held that regardless of the argument regarding the Collector's jurisdiction, the absence of a decree prior to the target date and the failure to establish Talabs rendered the petitioner's case untenable under the established law. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the failure to meet the statutory target date and the requirements for Talabs are fatal to a pre-emption claim.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emption decree passed after the statutory target date remain valid?
- Is a pre-emption claim maintainable if the required Talabs have not been established?
- Does the involvement of tenancy rights in a pre-emption suit necessitate a referral to the Collector?
- Fatehuddin Mallah And Other vs The Superintendent of Police, Khairpur1994 PLC (C.S.) 236 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Settlement Department1994 CLC 400 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Allah Rakha through Legal Heirs and another1994 MLD 556 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Fazil1994 MLD 459 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-06Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad Khan And Other vs National Industrial Relations1994 PLC 99 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad and others vs The State1994 MLD 1735 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-25Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad and anothers vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 198 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad And Another vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 198 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 143 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-11Read full judgment →
- Fateh Ali vs Ghulam Muhammad1994 MLD 2374 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
- Farzand Ali vs Fazal Karim1994 CLC 497 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
- Farzand Ali vs (Mst.) Aziz BibiK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 553 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
- Faryad Hussain and 2 others vs The State1994 SCMR 1077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Court arose out of a murder case where the three appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder stemming from a previous blood feud. The core legal question involved whether the testimony of interested and inimical eye-witnesses required corroboration and whether the corroborative evidence relied upon by the High Court was legally sufficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence, and that the requirement for corroboration in cases of interested witnesses is a matter of judicial caution rather than a rigid statutory command. The Court affirmed that supporting circumstances, medical evidence, recoveries, and motive, when objectively assessed by the deciding mind to discover the truth, sufficiently corroborate the ocular account.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of interested and inimical eye-witnesses invariably requires corroboration for a safe conviction?
- Can medical evidence and weapon recoveries serve as valid corroboration for an ocular account in a murder trial?
- Is there a rigid statutory command requiring technical corroboration of witness testimony in criminal cases?
- Farrakh Hussain And Others vs Federal Land Commission And Other1994 CLC 1424 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
- Farough Ahmed Siddiqi vs The Province of Sindh through the Secretary1994 SCMR 2111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed directly in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging the issuance of a license for a brewery or distillery on grounds of public importance and alleged infringement of fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should entertain this petition while an identical petition remained pending before the High Court of Sindh. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on the principle established in Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court clarified that while jurisdiction under Articles 184(3) and 199 is concurrent, the Supreme Court should not bypass the High Court unless there is a clear denial of justice or excessive delay. In the present case, the High Court petition was recent, and the dismissal of an urgency application did not constitute a failure to exercise judicial power or a denial of justice. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the High Court to hear the pending matter after the summer vacation.
Questions settled- Is a direct petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution maintainable when an identical petition is already pending before the High Court?
- Does the dismissal of an urgency application by the High Court justify invoking the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction?
- Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court bypass the High Court's jurisdiction in matters of concurrent jurisdiction?
- Farooq Amin Qureshi vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 361 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
- Farooq Ahmad vs The Rent Controller Lahore, And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 12 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
- Farmanullah vs Superintending Engineer (E), WAPDA, Peshawar1994 PLC (C.S.) 1522 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
- Farman Bi vs Ghulam Farid and others1994 SCMR 1852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent, who was initially tried and convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court's conviction was upheld by one judge in the High Court, but set aside by another, leading to a reference to a third judge who concurred with the acquittal. The primary evidence against the respondent was a dying declaration recorded by a medical officer. The Supreme Court evaluated the surrounding circumstances, noting that the deceased was in a semi-conscious condition, surrounded by relatives when the statement was made, and the declaration was not read over to her. Furthermore, the deceased did not name the respondent explicitly, using a description that was not conclusively linked to him alone, and the dying declaration was not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the dying declaration lacked the requisite veracity and corroboration to sustain a conviction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the acquittal was based on a proper appraisal of the evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on a dying declaration made while the declarant was in a semi-conscious condition and surrounded by relatives?
- Is a dying declaration reliable when the assailant is not explicitly named and the description used fails to uniquely identify the accused?
- Whether failure to put a dying declaration to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affects its utility against him?
- What is the effect of the absence of corroborative evidence on a dying declaration that suffers from infirmities?
- Farm Chemicals (Private) Ltd., Karachi Through Managing Director vs Naseer Akhtar1994 PLC 577 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
- Fariduddin and another vs Mehboob Ali1994 SCMR 1485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges a High Court judgment that reversed a Rent Controller's order, which had dismissed an ejectment application due to the absence of a written tenancy agreement. The core legal question was whether the lack of a written agreement, as contemplated by Section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, precludes the establishment of a landlord-tenant relationship, and whether the Rent Controller was justified in issuing a writ of possession with police aid. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly reversed the Rent Controller's decision. The Court determined that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship can be proven through means other than a written agreement, as Section 5 is directory rather than mandatory, and the landlord's unrebutted affidavit of proof was sufficient to establish the relationship. Furthermore, the Court found no illegality in the issuance of a writ of possession with police aid. The key principle laid down is that the absence of a written tenancy agreement does not automatically negate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship if such relationship can be established through other legal evidence.
Questions settled- Is a written tenancy agreement mandatory under Section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 to establish a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Can a landlord-tenant relationship be proven in the absence of a written agreement?
- Is a Rent Controller authorized to issue a writ of possession with police aid?
- Farid Khan and 3 others vs Abdul Latif and 11 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for declaration and possession of a house filed by the respondents against the petitioners. The petitioners resisted the suit by claiming adverse possession for over twelve years and asserting a right to compensation for improvements made to the property, valued at Rs. 80,000. The trial court rejected these pleas, finding that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims, and decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. This decision was upheld by both the appellate court and the High Court in revision. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioners had raised contradictory defenses by simultaneously denying the respondents' ownership while claiming possession through an alleged agreement to justify compensation for improvements. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioners' contention that the property was a vacant site (Banjar Qadeem) upon which they constructed was unsupported by the evidence. Finding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-founded, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds existed for interference.
Questions settled- Can a defendant simultaneously deny a plaintiff's ownership and claim compensation for improvements based on an alleged agreement?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal when supported by evidence?
- Does a failure to substantiate a plea of adverse possession justify the dismissal of a defense in a suit for possession?
- Farid Khan And 3 Other vs Abdul Latif And 11 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Peshawar High Court dated 11-1-1993, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision petition and upheld the concurrent judgments of the lower courts. The respondents had instituted a suit for declaration and possession of a rented house on 8-9-1981, which the defendants resisted by setting up contradictory pleas of adverse possession and claiming the cost of improvements. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs on 19-7-1989 after finding that the defendants failed to substantiate their claims, and subsequent appeals before the Additional District Judge and the High Court were dismissed. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding ownership and the failure to prove adverse possession or improvements warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the three courts below were fully supported by the evidence and that the petitioners' contradictory pleas lacked substantiation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that concurrent findings based on evidence will not be disturbed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by three lower courts can be interfered with when supported by evidence?
- Can a defendant simultaneously deny the plaintiff's ownership and claim possession through an agreement while asserting costs of improvement?
- Does a plea of adverse possession succeed when the claimant fails to substantiate it through evidence?
- Farid Akhtar Hadi vs Mohammad Latif GhaziK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 477 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Farhat Ali Khan vs Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Through Secretary To The Government Of Pakistan, Ministry Of Law, Islamabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1551 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
- Fareed vs The State and another1994 MLD 183 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-01Read full judgment →
- Faraza (deceased) through L. Rs, vs Fateh Sher and others1994 MLD 1509 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-01Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs Saifullah and others1994 MLD 1820 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs Ghulam NabiK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 178 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Faqir Hussain Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 333 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-01Read full judgment →
- Faqeer Muhammad vs M/s. Karam Ceramics (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi1994 PLC 716 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-06-01Read full judgment →
- Fakhar Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 351 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
- Fakhar Behzad and others vs The State1994 MLD 1793 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
- Faiz Mustafa alias Ludoo vs The State1994 MLD 1278 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
- Faiz Bakhsh vs Ali Muhammad1994 SCMR 1763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an appellate court decree and restored the trial court's dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The petitioner, claiming a right of pre-emption based on being a co-sharer in the Khata, had his suit initially dismissed by the trial court for failing to prove co-sharer status. The first appellate court reversed this, finding the petitioner became a co-sharer through a 1968 exchange. The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, disagreed, ruling the petitioner lacked a preferential right. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court erred in its determination regarding the petitioner's status as a co-sharer and the subsequent application of pre-emption law. The Supreme Court, finding that the contention regarding the misapplication of law and the petitioner's co-sharer status requires further examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court also ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding possession pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a co-sharer in a Khata possess a superior right of pre-emption over an outsider?
- Can an exchange of land effectively confer the status of a co-sharer for the purposes of a pre-emption suit?
- Is the determination of a party's status as a co-sharer a question of law or fact in pre-emption litigation?
- Faiz Bakhsh and others vs Malik Allah Bakhsh1994 SCMR 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the appellants' predecessor-in-interest concerning a plot of agricultural land. The respondent claimed a superior right of pre-emption as an "owner of the estate," which the appellants resisted by asserting they held a similar status based on their ownership of a parcel of land. Although this land was originally purchased for residential purposes and recorded in subsequent jamabandis as ghair mumkin abadi, the trial court initially dismissed the suit, holding the appellants were owners of the estate. However, the District Judge reversed this decision, concluding the land had lost its character as agricultural land and no longer carried assessment to land revenue, a view upheld by the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether ownership of land classified as ghair mumkin abadi confers the status of "owner of the estate" for pre-emption purposes. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that purchasing land recorded as ghair mumkin abadi does not confer the status of "owner of the estate," reaffirming established precedent that such land loses its agricultural character.
Questions settled- Does ownership of land recorded as ghair mumkin abadi confer the status of "owner of the estate" under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Does land purchased for residential purposes and classified as ghair mumkin abadi retain its character as agricultural land for pre-emption purposes?
- Must a pre-emptor and a defendant possess the status of "owner of the estate" at the time of the sale and throughout the proceedings?