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.
- Allah Bakhsh vs Mst. Fateh Bibi1994 CLC 91 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs Government of Punjab And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the calculation of pensionary benefits for the appellant, who served as an Overseer in the Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi, and was temporarily appointed as a Municipal Engineer subject to government sanction. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to receive pension calculated on the basis of the higher post of Municipal Engineer or his substantive post of Overseer. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's appointment as Municipal Engineer was never finalized or approved by the competent authority, his reversion to the substantive post of Overseer was validly upheld in previous litigation, and his continued discharge of duties as a Municipal Engineer was merely under interim court stay orders. The key principle laid down is that an employee occupying a higher post provisionally or under interim judicial protection without final approval or substantive confirmation cannot claim retirement benefits or pension based on that higher post.
Questions settled- Whether an employee who performed duties of a higher post under interim court stay orders is entitled to pension calculated on the basis of that higher post?
- Does a provisional or officiating appointment without the requisite statutory approval ripen into a substantive appointment for retirement benefits?
- Whether a municipal employee's pension should be computed based on their substantive post when their reversion to that post was upheld by courts?
- Allah Bakhsh vs Ghulam Rasool and 8 others1994 SCMR 2048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the appellant challenged the High Court's decision to set aside a decree in his favor. The trial court had initially dismissed the suit due to non-payment of court fees, a decision later reversed by the first appellate court. However, the High Court partially set aside the appellate decree, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Malik Said Kamal Shah, which barred pre-emption decrees after July 31, 1986. The core legal question was whether the appellant could invoke the principle that 'no person should suffer for the act of the court' to argue that his suit should be deemed decreed on the date of the trial court's erroneous dismissal, thereby bypassing the subsequent legal bar on pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the principle applies only to procedural omissions or failures by the court, not to erroneous judicial decisions on law or fact. The Court ruled that judicial errors must be corrected through appellate processes and cannot be equated with an 'act of the court' causing injury. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the legal bar applied to the suit.
Questions settled- Does the principle that no person should suffer for the act of the court apply to erroneous judicial decisions on questions of law or fact?
- Can a party claim that a suit should be deemed decreed on an earlier date because a trial court's initial dismissal was later found to be erroneous by an appellate court?
- What constitutes an 'act of the court' that triggers the protective principle that no person should suffer for such an act?
- Allah Bakhsh vs (Mst.) Sher Khanum Etc.K.L.R 1994 Civil Cases 408 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh And Others vs Muhammad Boota And Other1994 CLC 2278 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh And Others vs Mst. Bhagan1994 C L- C 1942 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
- Allah Bachayo Bhutto vs Government of Sindh Through Chief1994 PLC (C.S.) 1174 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
- Aliirtaza Khan vs Principal, Lawrence College, Gorah Gali, Murree, District Rawalpindi And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 316 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ali Sher vs Director-General, Excise and Taxation, Government of Sindh And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 183 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
- Ali Sher alias Ajab Ali vs The State1994 SCMR 1884 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that maintained the conviction of the petitioner for kidnapping for ransom and dacoity. The petitioner was convicted by a Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities under Sections 365-A, 395, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction was sustainable given his defense that he was also a victim of kidnapping and the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence regarding identification and police encounter. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's conviction was sound, noting he was apprehended at the scene with the car used in the crime and the abductees, and was found in possession of the car key. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea of being a victim as an afterthought, unsupported by evidence, and affirmed that a retracted judicial confession, when corroborated by direct and circumstantial evidence, remains a valid basis for conviction. The Court refused leave to appeal, finding no legal or factual flaws in the lower courts' concurrent findings.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession be used to support a conviction if corroborated by other evidence?
- Does the apprehension of an accused at the crime scene with the victims and instruments of the crime negate a plea of innocence?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Ali Shah, H Allah Din and 18 others vs The State and another1994 SCMR 717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order transferring a criminal case involving murder and attempt to murder (Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 PPC) from the ordinary Sessions Court to a Special Court established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the case was exclusively triable by the Special Court where an automatic assault rifle (Klashnikov) was alleged to have been used in the F.I.R., despite the weapon's non-recovery during investigation and the recovery of different crime empties. The Supreme Court held that the question of jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of allegations made in the F.I.R. and the material produced by the prosecution at the time of presenting the challan, and non-recovery of the weapon during investigation does not oust the Special Court's jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that trial jurisdiction under the Act is evaluated from the prosecution's initial allegations and supporting material, such as eye-witness statements affirming the use of prohibited weapons, leaving evidentiary discrepancies to be tested during the trial.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, is to be determined on the basis of allegations in the F.I.R. and prosecution material at the time of challan?
- Does the non-recovery of an alleged automatic weapon like a Klashnikov during investigation exclude the jurisdiction of the Special Court?
- Can the question of trial jurisdiction be decided based on the non-recovery of crime weapons before recording evidence and cross-examination?
- Ali Shah vs Allah Ditta And 6 Other1994 CLC 800 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three connected civil revisions filed against the decisions of the Executing Court and Appellate Court, which had directed the Tehsildar to partition suit land and grant actual physical possession of a half-share to the rival pre-emptor/respondent. The petitioner had initially obtained physical possession of the suit land following an earlier trial decree, but subsequent post-remand proceedings resulted in both rival pre-emptors being granted a decree for a 1/2 share each. The core legal question was whether an Executing Court can direct the partition of joint land and grant actual physical possession to a co-decree-holder, or whether it is limited to issuing a warrant for symbolic joint possession under Order XXI Rule 35(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the petitioner, as a co-sharer in physical possession, cannot be dispossessed until actual partition takes place via a partition suit. Furthermore, the Executing Court cannot go behind or vary the decree by ordering a partition. The High Court allowed the revisions, set aside the impugned orders, and ordered the issuance of symbolic joint possession to the respondent.
Questions settled- Can an Executing Court order the partition of joint land to deliver actual physical possession where a decree is only for a fractional share?
- Whether a pre-emptor decree-holder granted an undivided share in joint property is entitled to actual physical possession or merely symbolic joint possession under Order XXI Rule 35(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a co-sharer in established physical possession of joint land be dispossessed prior to formal partition by metes and bounds?
- Ali Rehman vs Mst. Husan Ara and 4 others1994 PLD Peshawar 271 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
- Ali Rehman vs Mst. Husan Ara And 4 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 271 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 449 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz And 2 Other vs District Manager, Sindh Road Transport1994 PLC 672 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-05-05Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs Muhammad Afzal and others1994 MLD 1726 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad And Others vs M.B.R./C.S.C.1994 CLC 2299 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
- Ali Khan Subhopoto vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1994 PLC (C.S.) 30 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-06-29Read full judgment →
- Ali Hassan vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 146) · Board of Revenue · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
- Ali Hassan And Another vs The State1994 CLC 2173 · Board of Revenue · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
- Ali Begum and 2 others vs Zardad Khan and 4 others1994 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing the respondents' suit for joint possession. The dispute arose from a gift of land made in 1964 by a widow who had succeeded to her deceased husband's estate in 1933 as a limited owner under customary law. The core legal question was whether the widow, after the termination of her limited estate, became the full owner of the property or was restricted to her Shariat share. The Supreme Court held that upon the enforcement of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, the limited estate terminated, and succession opened among the Shariat heirs of the last full owner. Consequently, the widow was only entitled to her 1/4 share under Shariat, and her gift of the entire property in excess of her legal share was void ab initio and not binding on the residuaries.
Questions settled- Does a limited owner under customary law become the absolute owner of the entire estate upon the enforcement of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
- Is a gift made by a former limited owner in excess of her Shariat share valid and binding on the residuaries of the last full owner?
- How is succession determined upon the termination of a widow's limited estate under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
- Ali Akbar Shah vs The Secretary, Government of Sindh, Education1994 PLC (C.S.) 1093 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-02-28Read full judgment →
- Ali Ahmad Baloch and another vs The State1994 MLD 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Alhaja Alima vs The StatePTCL 1994 CL. 349 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
- Alamsher and others vs The Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), Punjab, Lahore and others1994 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the retention of state land provided to the appellants in exchange for their land acquired by the government in 1953. Initially, the Thal Development Authority granted the appellants state land, but later attempted to reclaim it. While a High Court judgment in 1967 restrained the Authority from interfering with the appellants' possession, it dismissed the suit against the Government. Subsequently, in 1976, the Board of Revenue issued a memorandum allowing the appellants to retain the land upon payment of the price difference between the acquired land and the state land. However, in 1982, the Board of Revenue reversed this decision, ordering the appellants' eviction. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue could unilaterally resile from its 1976 commitment to allow the appellants to retain the land. The Supreme Court held that the Board's 1982 decision was based on a misconception of the High Court's earlier ruling, which did not prohibit the Government from exercising its authority to settle the matter. Consequently, the Court declared the 1982 eviction orders without lawful authority and upheld the 1976 arrangement.
Questions settled- Can the Board of Revenue unilaterally resile from a commitment to allow land retention after issuing a formal memorandum to that effect?
- Does a court judgment dismissing a suit against the Government preclude the Government from subsequently exercising its administrative discretion to settle a land dispute?
- Is a government body bound by its own administrative decisions regarding the disposal of state land?
- Alam Zab Khan vs Commissioner, Afghan Refugees, N.W.F.P., Peshawar1994 PLC (C.S.) 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the termination of his services as a Village Administrator in the Afghan Refugees Organization. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose appointment was described as temporary and on a contract basis for two years, qualified as a 'civil servant' under the relevant statutory framework, thereby granting him the right to maintain an appeal before the Service Tribunal. Upon reviewing the appointment order, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the employment was indeed temporary and contractual in nature. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner did not meet the definition of a civil servant and lacked the standing to maintain an appeal before the Tribunal. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle established is that an individual employed on a specific, time-bound contractual basis does not qualify as a civil servant for the purposes of invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under the Civil Servants Act.
Questions settled- Does an employee appointed on a temporary, time-bound contract basis qualify as a civil servant?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an employee serving on a contract basis?
- Can an employee whose services are dispensed with due to the expiration of a contract claim the status of a civil servant?
- Alam Zab Khan vs Commissioner, Afghan Refugees, N.W.F.P., Peshawar1994 SCMR 546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the termination of his services as a Village Administrator in the Afghan Refugees Organisation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose employment was terminated on the grounds that his services were no longer required, qualified as a 'civil servant' under the relevant statutory framework, thereby granting him the right to maintain an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the petitioner's appointment was explicitly temporary and on a contract basis for a fixed period of two years. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner did not meet the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and thus lacked the standing to maintain an appeal before the Tribunal. The principle laid down is that an employee engaged on a specific, time-bound contract cannot claim the status or protections afforded to civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
Questions settled- Does an employee appointed on a fixed-term contract basis qualify as a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Is an employee whose services are terminated on a contract basis entitled to maintain an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Alam Khan vs The Manager, Maymar Housing Service Ltd., Karachi1994 PLC 379 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
- Al-Noor Sugar Mills Ltd., Noor Jahanian, District Nausharo Feroze1994 PLC 351 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-01-13Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Muhammad And Other vs The Federation of Pakistan And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 171 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Hussain vs Additional Inspector-General of Police, Sindh, Karachi And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1070 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-01-03Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Hussain NL&Lik vs Province of Punjab And Another1994 CLC 965 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Aslam vs Mst. Mujahida Afzal1994 MLD 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 138 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Ali Mir vs The State1994 MLD 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Ali Javed vs Principal, Quaidiazam Medical College, Bahawalpur1994 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenges the Lahore High Court's order upholding the cancellation of the appellant's admission to Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, for failing to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination within the permissible four chances. The core legal questions involved whether the college's restrictive rule limiting examination chances was ultra vires, discriminatory under Fundamental Right No. 25, or unlawfully retrospective against students admitted prior to its enforcement. The Supreme Court held that the rule was validly issued under Section 15(3) of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975, was incorporated in the 1986-87 prospectus prior to the appellant's admission, and did not infringe fundamental rights or exhibit unreasonableness. The Court distinguished the appellant's case from connected University of Punjab cases where students were admitted prior to the notification date. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the right to continue education is subject to institutional disciplinary rules designed to maintain academic standards.
Questions settled- Whether a rule limiting the number of chances to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination violates Fundamental Rights?
- Can a student who fails to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination within four available chances claim a continued right to study?
- Does the application of a regulation regarding examination attempts to students admitted during the 1986-87 academic year constitute unlawful retrospective penalization?
- Akhtar Ali G. Kazi, J Miss Humera Tayyaba vs Government of Sindh1994 MLD 1461 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-12Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Ali and others vs Municipal Committee, Mandi Bahauddin1994 MLD 589 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Alam and 3 others vs Shabbir and 5 others1994 MLD 201 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Alam And 3 Other vs Shabbir And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 88 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
- Akhlaq Ahmed vs WAPDA Through General Manager, Finance (Ccord), WAPDA, Lahore1994 PLC (C.S.) 1558 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
- Akeel vs The Chairman, Karachi Port Trust, Karachi1994 PLC (C.S.) 844 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
- Akber Ali Khawaja And 3 Other vs Pangrio Sugar Mills Limited, Pangrio1994 PLC 436 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-02-09Read full judgment →
- Akbar Khan (deceased) through Rab Nawaz and others vs Mst. Khair1994 SCMR 1782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether such interference in revision was justified under the law. The holding establishes that the re-appraisal of concurrent findings of fact by a revisional court requires careful scrutiny regarding jurisdictional error or illegality.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
- Under what circumstances is leave to appeal granted against the revisional order of the High Court?
- Akbar Ali Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 164 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali and others vs The State1994 MLD 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
- Ajaib Khan and anothers vs Mst. Sabran Bibi and 2 others1994 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 9 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Ajaib alias Ajba and others vs The State1994 SCMR 1479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Multan, convicting the appellants under section 458 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for house trespass by night and committing Zina-bil-Jabr with two unmarried sisters. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony of the victims and their parents, the explanation for a minor delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the sufficiency of corroborative medical and forensic evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the victims and their parents had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants in such a heinous crime, that the delay in reporting was adequately explained by the socioeconomic reality of needing political intervention to approach law enforcement, and that the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, laying down that natural and consistent eyewitness testimony from victims of sexual assault, supported by medical findings, is sufficient to maintain a conviction despite minor delays in reporting.
Questions settled- Whether delay in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case when adequately explained by prevailing social circumstances?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of victims of Zina-bil-Jabr be relied upon for conviction when found consistent and natural?
- Whether the absence of defence witnesses despite a specific plea of enmity weakens the prosecution case?
- Aitzaz Ahsan And 2 Other vs Municipal Committee, GujratK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 271 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
- Aisha vs Nasir Mehmood And Another1994 CLC 493 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
- Aisha Begum vs Kamran Food- Industry1994 PLC 743 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Ahsan Shabhir Bukhari vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
- Ahsan Eiahi vs Malik Nasrullah1994 CLC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Nawaz vs The State1994 PLD Supreme Court 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition by a convict sentenced to death, challenging the dismissal of his criminal appeal by the Lahore High Court upholding his convictions and sentences under sections 302, 353, and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, assaulting a public servant, and murderous assault on a police party. The core legal question raised was whether the trial conducted by the presiding officer of the Special Court for Speedy Trials was coram non judice on the ground that he lacked the requisite statutory qualifications under section 4(2) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987, as opposed to the earlier Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1987. The Supreme Court held that since the appointment of the presiding officer was validly made while the Ordinance was in force, and section 15(3) of the Act expressly saved appointments made under the Ordinance, the challenge to his qualification was devoid of force. Furthermore, finding no merits or infirmities in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a trial conducted by a judge appointed under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1987 becomes coram non judice due to the subsequent enactment of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987?
- Do the qualifications for a judge under section 4(2) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987 differ from those under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1987?
- Are appointments made under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1987 saved by the provisions of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987?
- Ahmed Hussain And Other vs Muhammad Ramzan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 523 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Yar vs (Mst) Parveen AkhtarK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 418 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- Ahmad vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1994 CLC 484 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Subhan alias Bana and anothers vs The State1994 SCMR 1176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, filed an appeal before the High Court along with an application for suspension of their sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court dismissed the prayer for suspension of sentence. The petitioners then moved the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against the interlocutory order of the High Court and sought suspension of their sentence. The Supreme Court held that the petition was misconceived as the matter was pending before the High Court, which was seized of all aspects of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that approaching it at this stage against an interlocutory order of the High Court was neither warranted nor justified, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained in the Supreme Court against an interlocutory order of the High Court refusing suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- Is it justified to approach the Supreme Court against an interlocutory order while the main appeal is pending in the High Court?
- Ahmad Riaz vs Mst. Qaisera Minhas And Other1994 CLC 2403 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the orders of the Chairman, Arbitration Council, and the District Collector, Lahore, which granted maintenance allowance to respondent No. 1 (his wife) for a past period of 37 months and fixed future maintenance. The petitioner contended that the Arbitration Council lacked jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to award past maintenance, and that he had divorced the respondent. The Lahore High Court examined whether the Arbitration Council could grant past maintenance. The Court held that Section 9 of the Ordinance is a beneficial provision of law aimed at providing an expeditious remedy to a neglected wife. Applying a beneficial construction, and relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court ruled that the Arbitration Council is fully competent to award past maintenance, subject to the limitation period of six years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court also rejected the petitioner's claim of divorce due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirements of Section 7 of the Ordinance, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an Arbitration Council constituted under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 has the jurisdiction to award past maintenance to a wife?
- Which provision of the Limitation Act 1908 governs the limitation period for claiming past maintenance before an Arbitration Council?
- Can a husband escape the liability of maintenance by asserting an oral or unregistered divorce without complying with the notice requirements of Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Can a divorced wife claim maintenance from the Arbitration Council for the period during which the marriage was still subsisting?
- Ahmad Latif Qureshi vs Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 3 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a matriculate student whose mathematics answer book was forcibly confiscated by an inspection team member during the 1st Annual Examination 1993 on unfounded allegations of using unfair means. Although the Appellate Committee subsequently exonerated the petitioner of all charges, the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, refused to award average marks or allow him to be declared as having passed the examination in his first attempt, insisting that his subsequent appearance in the supplementary examination would classify his result as having passed "in parts". The Lahore High Court held that while the petitioner was not entitled to average marks under the Board's rules (as the paper was not lost after submission), he could not be made to suffer for the illegal actions of the authorities. Invoking Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the principle of restoring an injured party to their original position, the Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner's supplementary examination result as part of his first Annual Examination and declare him to have passed in the first attempt.
Questions settled- Can a student be penalized by having their examination result classified as passing "in parts" when they were prevented from completing their paper due to an unfounded accusation of using unfair means?
- Is a student entitled to average marks under the rules of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education if their paper was forcibly confiscated rather than being lost after submission?
- Can the High Court invoke Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to fill a vacuum in statutory rules to prevent an injustice and restore an innocent party to their original position?
- Ahmad Khan vs The State(K.L.R. Revenue Cases 61) · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Khan and others vs The State1994 MLD 101 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Khan And Others vs Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue And Other1994 CLC 446 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Jan vs District and Sessions Judge And Another1994 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in two separate trials on the same date for possession of unlicensed ammunition and narcotics, receiving terms under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The jail authorities treated the sentences as consecutive, whereas the petitioner contended they should run concurrently because both judgments were pronounced on the same day without specifying priority. The core legal question was whether sentences awarded in separate trials on the same day without a concurrent direction should run consecutively or concurrently by default. The Balochistan High Court held that unless a court exercises its discretion to explicitly order sentences to run concurrently, sentences of imprisonment awarded in different cases or trials, even if announced on the same day, must be deemed and treated as running consecutively pursuant to the principles in sections 35 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court established that one judgment necessarily precedes the other in time, making the subsequent sentence subject to consecutive execution unless expressly ordered otherwise.
Questions settled- Whether sentences of imprisonment awarded in separate trials decided on the same date run concurrently or consecutively in the absence of an explicit judicial order?
- Does the High Court have inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to direct separate sentences to run concurrently?
- When a person is convicted in multiple cases on the same day, is a subsequent sentence deemed to commence after the expiration of the previous one under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Ahmad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Din And 2 Others vs Abdul Ghani Through Legal Heirs And Other1994 CLC 1263 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the ownership of land, where two sets of vendees claimed title based on competing sale deeds from the same vendor. The core legal question was whether the appellants had successfully established the valid execution and registration of their sale deed, particularly when the vendor explicitly denied the transaction and the original document was not produced. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It held that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the execution of the sale deed. The court emphasized that when a vendor denies execution, the onus lies heavily on the vendee to prove the transaction. Furthermore, in the absence of the original document, secondary evidence must be scrutinized alongside surrounding circumstances and probabilities to determine the trustworthiness of witnesses, rather than relying solely on oral testimony, which in this instance was found to be contradictory and insufficient to establish the appellants' claim.
Questions settled- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a vendor denies the execution of a sale deed?
- Can a court rely on secondary evidence to prove a sale deed when the original document is not produced?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference in a second appeal?
- How should a court evaluate the credibility of witness testimony in the context of disputed property transactions?
- Ahmad Bakhsh And Others vs Member, Board of RFVFMTF And Other1994 CLC 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and 7 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his promotion prospects. The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer in the Public Works Department of Northern Areas, challenged the recruitment of private respondents as Assistant Executive Engineers, arguing that their appointment violated the 1980 Recruitment Rules, which mandated a 50% quota for promotees. The petitioner contended that the department had consistently exceeded the direct recruitment quota and that a subsequent 1990 notification, which reduced the promotee quota to 20%, should not apply to vacancies that arose prior to its promulgation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the amended recruitment rules of 15-5-1990 apply retrospectively to vacancies that existed or were advertised before the amendment, thereby affecting the petitioner's entitlement to promotion under the previous regime. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the applicability of the amended rules to the petitioner's case, focusing on whether vested rights to promotion under prior regulations can be superseded by subsequent policy amendments.
Questions settled- Does an amendment to recruitment rules apply to vacancies that arose or were advertised prior to the promulgation of the amendment?
- Can a government notification amending recruitment quotas retrospectively affect the promotion entitlement of an employee who qualified under the previous rules?
- Ahmad Ali vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan And 7 Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer in the Public Works Department of Northern Areas, sought leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment regarding his promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to promotion under the Recruitment Rules of 1980, which allocated 50% of such posts to promotees. He argued that the department had exceeded the direct recruitment quota by filling 28 out of 35 posts through direct recruitment, and that subsequent direct recruitments further violated this quota. A central legal issue arose concerning the applicability of a 1990 amendment to the recruitment policy, which reduced the promotee quota to 20%. The petitioner argued that since the vacancies arose and advertisements were issued prior to the May 1990 amendment, the amended rules should not apply to his case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioner's right to promotion is governed by the recruitment rules in force at the time the vacancies arose or by the subsequent amended policy of 15-5-1990.
Questions settled- Does a change in recruitment policy apply to vacancies that arose and were advertised prior to the amendment?
- Is a government servant entitled to be considered for promotion under the rules in force at the time the vacancy occurred?
- Ahmad Ali Solangi vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 999 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali and 2 others vs The State1994 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon leave granted to consider the commutation of the death sentence imposed upon the appellants. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to the commutation of their death sentence to life imprisonment in light of this Court's prior precedent regarding Presidential Amnesty. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence against the appellants was strong and their conviction was not challenged, but relying on the precedent in Eid Muhammad v. The State, appellants No. 1 and 2 were entitled to the concession of Presidential Amnesty. Consequently, the court altered their sentence of death to life imprisonment while otherwise dismissing the appeal. The key principle laid down is that death sentences may be commuted to life imprisonment where applicable under Presidential Amnesty precedents.
Questions settled- Are appellants entitled to commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment under Presidential Amnesty based on precedent?
- Does the dismissal of an appeal against conviction preclude the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Agricultural Engineering Staff and Workers Union, Multan Division1994 PLC 771 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
- Agriauto Progressive Labour Union, (C.Ba.), Karachi vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan at Quetta And Another1994 PLC 182 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
- Agra Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Syed Akhtar Ali and others1994 MLD 1747 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated suits for specific performance regarding agreements to sell agricultural land. The core legal questions involved whether the suits were barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908, whether there was privity of contract between the original owner and the ultimate purchaser, and whether the doctrine of lis pendens applied to subsequent property transfers. The court held that the suits were time-barred, as the plaintiffs failed to institute proceedings within the statutory period following the breach of contract. Furthermore, the court determined that the intermediate purchaser failed to perform his contractual obligations, justifying the original owner's repudiation of the agreement. Consequently, the original owner was legally competent to sell the property to third parties. The court established that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 does not apply to transactions completed prior to the institution of a suit. Additionally, the court affirmed that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish their case independently, and specific performance is a discretionary equitable remedy not available to parties who fail to perform their own contractual duties.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance is barred by limitation if filed more than three years after the date stipulated for performance?
- Does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to property transfers executed before the institution of a suit?
- Is a notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 mandatory for a suit against a cooperative society?
- Can a party claim specific performance if they have failed to perform their own contractual obligations?
- Agha Shafique Ahmed Khan vs Pakistan International Airlines And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 877 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
- Agha Muhammad Ahmed vs Tariq Amin and 6 others1994 SCMR 2032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the Rent Controller's order and ordered the tenant's ejectment from the suit premises. The core legal question concerned whether the landlords bona fidely and in good faith required the premises, consisting of shops and a residential portion, for their personal use. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding of fact regarding the landlords' bona fide personal need was based on a proper appraisal of evidence and was free from any misreading, non-reading, or legal infirmity. The Court laid down the principle that where a landlord's need for rented premises is found to be bona fide, the choice and suitability of the premises are matters for the landlord to determine, and the tenant cannot dictate the manner of its use, particularly when penal provisions exist in the rent statute to penalize landlords who fail to occupy the premises after eviction.
Questions settled- Whether a finding of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide personal need recorded by the High Court is open to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Can a tenant dictate the suitability or manner of use of the premises when the landlord establishes a bona fide personal need?
- Does the landlord's need for premises of a composite nature for residence and business constitute a valid ground for ejectment under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Agha Dilshad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 82) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
- Agha Abdul Majeed vs Inam Waris1994 PLD Karachi 457 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
- Aftabuddin Qureshi vs Mst. Rachal Joseph1994 PLD Supreme Court 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of a High Court Appeal, which had upheld an interlocutory order granting a limited temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance, declaration, permanent injunction, and damages. The plaintiff claimed ownership of trust property based on a sale agreement, whereas the defendant trustee contended that the agreements were merely for the construction of a building and the induction of tenants against 'Pagree'. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss sufficient to warrant a broader temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The Supreme Court held that the unregistered agreement was disputed, the defendant's documents prima facie established a construction and tenancy arrangement rather than a sale, and a trustee could not lawfully sell a place of worship. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that temporary injunctions will be refused where a plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case or irreparable loss, and where the balance of convenience favors the defendant.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance establishes a prima facie case for a temporary injunction based on a disputed, unregistered sale agreement?
- Does the balance of convenience lie in favor of refusing a blanket temporary injunction when restraining the defendant from collecting rent would alter existing circumstances and cause hardship?
- Can a trustee lawfully sell trust property dedicated as a place of worship?
- Aftab-Ud-Din Oureshi vs Mst. Rachal Joseph1994 PLD Supreme Court 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for specific performance, declaration, and permanent injunction concerning a property alleged to be a Synagogue. The petitioner claimed the respondent, a trustee, had agreed to sell the property, while the respondent contended the agreement was merely for construction work and the induction of tenants, with the Trust retaining ownership and rental rights. The High Court, in its chamber and appellate jurisdiction, granted a limited injunction preventing the alienation of the property but declined to restrain the respondent from collecting rent, citing the absence of a prima facie case for the petitioner. The Supreme Court examined the material and affirmed the lower courts' findings. It held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, noting the disputed, unregistered nature of the alleged sale agreement and evidence supporting the respondent's construction-based arrangement. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner could not demonstrate irreparable loss, as any pecuniary harm could be remedied if the suit were ultimately decided in his favor.
Questions settled- Does an unregistered and disputed agreement of sale constitute a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction?
- Can a court grant a temporary injunction restraining the collection of rent when the plaintiff can be compensated for pecuniary loss?
- Is a trustee legally authorized to sell a property designated as a place of worship?
- Aftab Ahmed Khan vs Director, Health Services, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S) 566 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 64) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmad Shahin And Other vs University of the Punjab And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 805 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-23Read full judgment →
- Administrator, Municipal Committee, Dera Ismail Khan and 31994 MLD 2477 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
- Administrator, Market Committee; Kasur and 3 others vs Muhammad1994 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the shifting of an old agricultural produce market in Kasur to a newly established market premises. The respondents, dealers and commission agents, challenged the closure of the old market and the restriction compelling them to operate exclusively in the new market, claiming a fundamental right to conduct business freely. The core legal questions involved whether the establishment of a new market and the consequent prohibition of trade outside its premises under Rule 79 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1979, violated fundamental rights or exceeded statutory powers under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Ordinance, 1978. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the government possesses legitimate police powers to regulate trade, relocate markets in the public interest to mitigate traffic and hygienic hazards, and mandate that transactions occur within designated market premises. The holding establishes that a trader's right to conduct business is not absolute, and reasonable legislative restrictions imposed via a licensing system or market relocation do not infringe upon constitutional guarantees.
Questions settled- Does the relocation of an established agricultural produce market to a new site infringe upon a citizen's fundamental right to conduct trade and business under the Constitution?
- Whether Rule 79 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1979, requiring all transactions of agricultural produce to be conducted within the approved market premises, is ultra vires the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Ordinance, 1978?
- Does a licensee or trader acquire an absolute or vested right to carry on business indefinitely at a specific location within a notified market area?
- Is the government empowered under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Ordinance, 1978, to restrict the purchase and sale of agricultural produce exclusively to newly established market premises in the interest of public welfare and traffic management?
- Adi Jehangir vs Mrs. Parin Jal Kapadia1994 MLD 30 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-17Read full judgment →
- Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs I.M. Patel & Co.1994 PTD 210 · Gujarat High Court · 1976-05-03Read full judgment →
- Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Narayanadas Ramkishan1994 PTD 199 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1974-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer questions regarding the legality of cancelling a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Act for late filing of an income tax return. The core legal question was whether mens rea or a guilty mind is an essential ingredient for the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(a) and whether the burden lies on the revenue to establish that the default was wilful or without reasonable cause. The High Court held that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and that the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in filing the return within time. The revenue must establish that the assessee acted deliberately in defiance of law or with conscious disregard of its obligations. The court concluded that the Tribunal applied the correct legal principles following Supreme Court precedents, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the penal provisions of section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are attracted for the mere delayed filing of a return without establishing mens rea?
- Does the burden lie upon the revenue to prove that an assessee acted without reasonable cause or in deliberate defiance of the law before a penalty can be imposed?
- Whether an Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling a penalty when the revenue fails to produce material showing a wilful default by the assessee?
- Is the levy of interest under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be deemed as an implied grant of time for filing the income return?
- Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Horilal Kunj Behari Lal.1994 PTD 232 · Allahabad High Court · 1975-01-22Read full judgment →
- Adamas Gem Industries Limited and another vs Smt. Neela Krishnan, Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and another1994 PTD 1084 · Bombay High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
- Adam vs The State1994 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the High Court judgment modifying the appellant's conviction from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to section 304, and reducing his sentence from life imprisonment to 14 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, arising from a fatal head injury inflicted with a danda during a sudden altercation over the construction of a house. The core legal question was whether the single blow inflicted during a sudden fight without premeditation or intention to kill warranted a conviction for murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court held that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without premeditation, intention to cause death, or knowledge of likelihood of death amounting to murder, thereby falling under the latter part of section 304, leading to a further reduction of the sentence to 7 years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine and the benefit under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an injury resulting in death is inflicted during a sudden fight without pre-meditation or intention to cause death, the offence falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to section 304 when a fatal injury is inflicted during a sudden fight without premeditation?
- Does a single blow with a danda during a sudden altercation establish an intention to commit murder?
- What is the appropriate quantum of sentence under section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the act is committed without intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death?
- Adam Khan vs Government of N: W.F.P And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals filed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' challenge to a seniority list placing respondents above them. The appellants, Research Assistants in the Agriculture Department, contended that their seniority should be determined based on their earlier date of appointment and subsequent regularization following Public Service Commission selection. Conversely, the respondents argued that the seniority dispute had already attained finality through a previous Service Tribunal judgment (Appeal No. 41 of 1986), which had affirmed the respondents' seniority based on their earlier regularization date. The Supreme Court held that the seniority issue was res judicata, as the appellants failed to challenge the earlier Tribunal decision that had conclusively determined the inter se seniority of the parties. The Court affirmed that once a seniority position is settled by a judicial pronouncement that attains finality, subsequent seniority lists reflecting that same position cannot be challenged through departmental representation or further appeals. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the principle that settled seniority matters cannot be reopened.
Questions settled- Can a seniority list be challenged if the underlying seniority dispute has already been adjudicated and attained finality?
- Does a failure to challenge a Service Tribunal judgment render the seniority position settled?
- Can a subsequent seniority list be challenged if it is in conformity with an earlier, un-challenged seniority list?
- Adam Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P and 4 others1994 SCMR 1323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals by leave of the Court are directed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' appeals challenging a notification determining inter se seniority in the Agriculture Department. The core legal question revolves around the determination of seniority between ad hoc appointees whose services were subsequently regularized, and whether a prior unappealed judgment of the Service Tribunal regarding an earlier seniority list operates as a bar. The Supreme Court held that since an earlier appeal filed by one of the appellants against a prior seniority list reflecting the same relative position was dismissed by the Tribunal and attained finality, subsequent seniority lists in conformity therewith could not be legally challenged. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where a prior decision concerning service seniority attains finality, subsequent challenges to aligned seniority lists are barred.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent seniority list in conformity with an earlier seniority list that attained finality be challenged before the Service Tribunal?
- How is seniority determined under Section 8 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act in cases of regular appointment?
- Does the dismissal of an earlier service appeal regarding seniority bar subsequent appeals against aligned seniority lists?
- Adam Khan Etc vs Mohammad Sadiq(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 125) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
- Abu Saeed A. Islahi vs Mrs. Talat Mir and 2 others1994 MLD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of child custody proceedings initiated by the petitioner father against the respondent mother. The core legal questions involved the citizenship status of the minors born abroad to a Pakistani father, the territorial jurisdiction of the Guardian Judge at Lahore, and whether an ex parte foreign custody decree from the United States operated as res judicata. The Lahore High Court held that the children, being born to a Pakistani father, are citizens of Pakistan by descent under the Citizenship Act, 1951, notwithstanding holding foreign passports. The Court further ruled that foreign custody decrees do not operate as strict res judicata in custody matters, as the paramount and overriding consideration is always the welfare of the minors, which can be re-examined upon a change of circumstances. The impugned appellate judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Additional District Judge for a fresh decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether children born abroad to a Pakistani father are deemed to be citizens of Pakistan by descent under the Citizenship Act, 1951?
- Does an ex parte custody decree passed by a foreign court operate as res judicata to bar an application under the Guardians and Wards Act in Pakistan?
- What is the effect of a foreign court's custody order when determining the custody of minors under Pakistani law?
- Whether a Guardian Judge at Lahore has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a custody petition when the minors were residing within Lahore at the time of institution?
- How does the subsequent removal of minors from Pakistan during pending litigation impact the determination of their custody and welfare?
- Abrar Ahmad Khan Tareen vs Munawar Saeed1994 SCMR 1764 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed in limine as time-barred a first appeal regarding an interim injunction. The underlying matter arose from a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, wherein the trial court had granted an interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, restraining the petitioner from alienating the land or changing its complexion. The Supreme Court declined to enter into the merits regarding the competency of the appeal and the refusal to condone delay by the High Court, noting that the matter pertained to an interim regulatory order operative during the pendency of litigation. The Court held that parties affected by an interim injunction are entitled at any time, upon showing cause, to seek appropriate amendments or modifications, such as requesting the court to require the plaintiff to deposit or guarantee the balance sale price, particularly if there is inordinate delay in concluding the suit. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an interim injunction order passed during the pendency of a civil suit can be modified or amended upon cause being shown?
- Can a party restrained by an interim injunction in a specific performance suit request the court to direct the plaintiff to deposit or guarantee the balance sale price?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to grant leave to appeal against interlocutory interim regulatory orders where the main suit is still pending?
- Abid Masood And 10 Other vs The Government of Punjab-And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 796 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
- Abid Khan vs The Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Karachi and 3 others1994 PLD Peshawar 264 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
- Abid Khan vs The Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Karachi And 3 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 264 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →