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.
- Abid Hussain vs The State1994 PLD Supreme Court 641 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had confirmed his conviction and death sentence for the murder of Israr Hussain. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of the ocular evidence provided by a single witness, given the exclusion of child witness testimony and the acquittal of the appellant's co-accused father. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the ocular testimony of the complainant was consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence and the report of the Fire-Arms Expert regarding the weapon used. However, the Court noted the absence of evidence regarding the immediate prelude to the shooting, suggesting a possible sudden exchange of words between the parties. Applying the principle that in the absence of evidence regarding the immediate circumstances preceding a fatal act, a sentence of death may be commuted to life imprisonment, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the testimony of a single eye-witness if corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
- Does the exclusion of child witness testimony necessitate the acquittal of an accused in a murder case?
- Is a sentence of death appropriate when the prosecution fails to establish the immediate prelude or circumstances leading to the fatal shooting?
- Abid Hussain vs The State =P L.D 1994 Supreme Court 641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the High Court's judgment confirming the appellant's death sentence for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of a single eye-witness's testimony, corroborated by ballistic and medical evidence, to sustain a conviction, and the appropriateness of the death penalty in the absence of evidence regarding the immediate prelude to the crime. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the complainant's ocular testimony reliable and sufficiently corroborated by the ballistic expert's report and medical findings. However, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that while the testimony of a single eye-witness, when corroborated by independent evidence, is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction, the court must consider the totality of circumstances in sentencing. Specifically, where the prosecution fails to establish the immediate circumstances or the prelude to a shooting, the imposition of the death penalty may be mitigated to life imprisonment, acknowledging the possibility of sudden provocation or heat of the moment.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a single eye-witness if corroborated by ballistic and medical evidence?
- Is the death penalty mandatory in murder cases where the immediate prelude to the crime remains unproven?
- Does the exclusion of a child witness's testimony invalidate the remaining ocular evidence provided by another witness?
- Abid Ali vs Mst. Mussarat Bibi1994 MLD 312 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
- Abdus Sattar vs Abdul Ghafoor and another1994 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court granting bail to respondent No. 1, who was suspected of committing the murder of Muhammad Azam over a motive involving suspected illicit intimacy with the respondent's daughter. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondent where co-accused had made confessions without involving the respondent, and where the circumstance that the co-accused were employees of the respondent was insufficient to connect him to the offence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in granting bail under the circumstances, as the material on record did not sufficiently charge the respondent with the commission of the offence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed and bail was not cancelled.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted to an accused suspected of murder should be cancelled when co-accused confessions do not involve him?
- Does the mere fact that co-accused are employees of a respondent suffice to connect the respondent to a criminal offence for bail purposes?
- Under what circumstances is the Supreme Court likely to interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail?
- Abdus Salam vs Additional Secretary, Home and Tas, Department And 41994 PLD Supreme Court 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging a decision by the Home Secretary regarding a property dispute. The core dispute involved a claim for possession of a shop, where the plaintiff alleged that the petitioner, having entered into a partnership agreement, refused to vacate the premises upon the partnership's termination. The matter was initially adjudicated under the FATA Regulation, where a Tribunal and the Assistant Commissioner ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Although an Additional Commissioner initially reversed this, the Home Secretary restored the original decree. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner could challenge the plaintiff's possessory rights after having previously admitted in his written statement that he obtained possession from the plaintiff upon payment. The Court held that the petitioner's attempt to set up a new case regarding ownership was contradictory to his pleadings. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal or the Home Secretary, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by contradicting their own prior admissions.
Questions settled- Can a defendant in a property dispute set up a new case regarding ownership that contradicts their own written statement?
- Does the High Court have grounds to interfere in writ jurisdiction when the findings of a Tribunal and revisional authority are free from illegality?
- Is a party bound by admissions made in their written statement regarding the origin of their possession?
- Abdus Salam vs Additional Secretary, Home and T.As. Department and 4 others1994 PLD Supreme Court 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a writ petition filed against the revisional order of the Home Secretary. The core legal dispute arose from a suit for possession of a shop instituted by the respondent under the FATA Regulation, where a local tribunal rendered a majority award in favor of the plaintiff for the restoration of possession. The Assistant Commissioner decreed the suit, but the Additional Commissioner set it aside on appeal. Upon revision, the Home Secretary restored the Assistant Commissioner's decree, which decision was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner, having entered into possession through the respondent under a partnership and failing to prove his independent purchase of possessory rights, could resist the claim. The Court held that the petitioner's possession was permissive and he could not set up a contradictory case, and that the tribunals' findings suffered from no illegality. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that a person who enters possession through another cannot set up an inconsistent case to deny that party's possessory right.
Questions settled- Whether a person who enters into possession of property through another under a partnership can subsequently set up a contradictory claim of ownership or independent possessory rights?
- Does the decision of a tribunal under the FATA Regulation, upheld in revision, warrant interference in writ jurisdiction without proof of legal illegality or infirmity?
- Abdur Rehman vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 83 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman Siddiqui vs Mst. Naseem Bibi1994 MLD 2188 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
- Abdur Razaq vs District Council, Peshawar Through Chairman, District1994 CLC 1733 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by an auction purchaser challenging the demand by the District Council, Peshawar, to pay Educational Tax in addition to the Export Tax lease amount. The petitioner contended that the Educational Tax was not included in the auction terms and that the demand was arbitrary. The respondents argued that the terms of the lease agreement, which the petitioner signed, explicitly included the Educational Tax. The Court held that the petitioner, having signed the lease agreement, was bound by its terms, and the subsequent auction notice, which omitted the specific reference to Educational Tax, did not override the formal lease agreement. The Court further held that the dispute, being purely contractual in nature and involving disputed questions of fact, was not amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court noted that the agreement contained an arbitration clause, providing an adequate alternative remedy. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the Court declined to enforce contractual obligations or resolve factual disputes through extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a dispute arising from a contractual lease agreement amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
- Can a party challenge the terms of a signed lease agreement in a constitutional petition when an arbitration clause exists?
- Does a subsequent auction notice that omits a specific tax term override the signed lease agreement containing that term?
- Abdur Rauf vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1994 MLD 2074 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid vs Manzoor Ahmed and another1994 SCMR 1677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, Manzoor Ahmad, in a criminal case involving the murder of the deceased, Abdul Majid. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail, given the specific allegations against the respondent. The respondent was accused of attacking the deceased with the blunt side of a hatchet, causing a simple injury on the outer side of the left thigh, while other co-accused were alleged to have caused fatal head injuries. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no illegality or irregularity in the reasoning. The Court held that the nature of the injury attributed to the respondent—being simple and inflicted on a non-vital part of the body—justified further inquiry into his specific role and intent. The principle laid down is that where an accused's specific act is distinct from the fatal injuries caused by co-accused, and the injury attributed is simple, a case for further inquiry is established, warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does the infliction of a simple injury on a non-vital part of the body by one of several co-accused warrant the grant of bail pending further inquiry?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's order granting bail if no illegality or irregularity is found in the reasoning?
- Abdur Rashid alias Muhammad Rashid vs Muhammad Hanif and 2 others1994 SCMR 2035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the revisional court refusing to allow an amendment to a written statement. The petitioner sought to amend his written statement in a civil suit for permanent injunction seven years after its filing, claiming a change in the possession status of the disputed property. The trial court dismissed the application, citing the inordinate delay and the fact that the facts were within the petitioner's knowledge at the time of the original filing. The High Court declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction, noting that the discretion exercised by the lower courts was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that an amendment to a written statement should not be permitted at a belated stage, particularly when the facts were known to the party from the outset and the case had already reached the argument stage. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a court refuse an application for amendment of a written statement if it is filed at a belated stage after evidence has been recorded?
- Is interference in constitutional jurisdiction warranted when lower courts have exercised their discretion to refuse an amendment to a written statement without acting arbitrarily or capriciously?
- Is an Intra-Court appeal competent against the dismissal of a writ petition by a learned Judge in chambers under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Abdulwahab vs Tariq Hassan And Another1994 PLD Supreme Court 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence, specifically regarding the recovery of the weapon and the reliability of ocular and medical testimony. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's case, noting a significant discrepancy between the recovery memo and the parcel sent to the Arms Expert regarding the weapon's identification number. Furthermore, the Court found that the ocular evidence provided by the injured witness failed to implicate the respondent, and the presence of police witnesses was rightly doubted by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was based on sound reasoning and inherent infirmities in the prosecution's evidence. The key principle laid down is that where there are material discrepancies in recovery evidence and the prosecution fails to clarify them, such evidence is rightly discarded, and an acquittal based on such evidentiary weaknesses is consistent with the principles of administering criminal justice.
Questions settled- Does a material discrepancy in the identification number of a recovered weapon between the recovery memo and the forensic parcel justify discarding the recovery evidence?
- Can an acquittal be maintained when the ocular evidence fails to support the prosecution's version of the incident?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with a High Court's acquittal when the lower court has identified inherent infirmities in the prosecution's case?
- Abdullah vs Muhammad Hayat and 2 others1994 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents concerning land purchased by the appellant through a registered sale-deed dated 13-3-1975. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. At the leave stage, the appellant contended that the disputed land was not pre-emptible based on a notification relating to the former Bahawalpur State and the principle established in precedent case-law. The Supreme Court examined the evidence showing that the suit land vested in the Provincial Government at the relevant time and followed the precedent holding that such land is not pre-emptible. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the pre-emption decree suffered from an error of law and set it aside. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The key principle laid down is that land vesting in the Provincial Government at the relevant time is not subject to pre-emption.
Questions settled- Whether land vesting in the Provincial Government at the relevant time is pre-emptible?
- Can a pre-emption decree be maintained in relation to land that is not pre-emptible?
- Abdullah vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir1994 PLC (C.S.) 111 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-05-25Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Khan vs S.H.O, EtcK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 360 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Jan vs The State1994 SCMR 1612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the appellant's conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for possession of five kilograms of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant discrepancies in the evidence regarding the recovery process and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court observed that the recovery witnesses, particularly an ex-police official who acted as a mashir, were unreliable, having suppressed material facts and perjured themselves, a finding previously noted by the Federal Shariat Court. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of independent public witnesses despite the recovery occurring in a busy area, and the credible testimony of defence witnesses supporting the appellant's plea of innocence. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubt. The Supreme Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellant, and established the principle that where prosecution witnesses are proven unreliable and material doubts exist, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to act as credible, independent observers in a narcotics recovery case entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Can a conviction for possession of narcotics be sustained when the recovery witnesses are found to have perjured themselves and suppressed material facts?
- Is the testimony of an ex-police official acting as a recovery witness sufficient to establish guilt in a narcotics case without corroboration from independent public witnesses?
- Abdullah and others vs Muhammad Nawaz and others1994 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over agricultural land, where the appellants, having purchased an undivided share of evacuee property, sought a declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents. The respondents claimed the land had been partitioned by the Settlement Department in 1971. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, but the High Court reversed this, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to examine the validity of the alleged partition. The Court held that if the partition was validly effected by the Settlement Department, the Civil Court could not interfere. However, if the partition was invalid, the Civil Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, particularly following the repeal of evacuee laws in 1974. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine the validity of the partition, allowing for necessary amendments to the pleadings, thereby establishing that civil courts may scrutinize the validity of administrative partitions.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to determine the validity of a partition allegedly effected by the Settlement Department?
- Can a Civil Court effect a partition of land between parties if the Settlement Department's partition is found to be invalid?
- Is a Civil Court barred from reviewing a partition order passed by the Settlement Department after the repeal of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws?
- Abdullah and 5 otherss vs Allah Ditta and another1994 SCMR 1860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, concerning the legal effect of revenue entries in the Khasra Girdawari recording cultivation by a deceased person. The core legal question examined by the court is whether entries in the Khasra Girdawari demonstrating cultivation by the petitioners' deceased predecessor-in-interest can avail the petitioners in claiming a right in allotted land, and whether respondent Allah Ditta was improperly given preference over them, considering that any fault in the entries lay with the Patwari rather than the deceased or the petitioners. The Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions regarding revenue records and land preference.
Questions settled- Whether entries in the Khasra Girdawari showing cultivation by a deceased person can avail the legal heirs for claiming rights in allotted land?
- Whether a respondent can be given preference over petitioners when the defect in revenue entries is attributable to the Patwari rather than the parties?
- Abdul Wakeel Etc. vs Sardar MohammadK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 406 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wakeel and 2 others vs Sardar Muhammad1994 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wakeel And 2 Other vs Sardar Muhammad1994 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs Additional District Judge I, Quetta And 5 Other1994 PLD Quetta 89 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Balochistan High Court addresses whether the amendments introduced to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by Section 10 of the Civil Laws (Reforms) Ordinance 1993, which omitted subsections (2), (3), and (4) and thereby stripped District Courts of revisional powers, operate retrospectively or prospectively. The core legal question was whether pending revision petitions before District Judges abated upon the enactment of the Ordinance. The Court held that the Civil Laws (Reforms) Ordinance 1993 does not operate retrospectively, as there is no legislative intent to that effect in the statute. The Court ruled that filing a revision petition is a procedural privilege rather than a substantive vested right, and pursuant to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897, pending proceedings are governed by the law prevailing at the time the action commenced, preserving the revisional jurisdiction of District Judges over pending matters. The key principle laid down is that procedural amendments removing a forum do not affect pending proceedings or accrued privileges unless the legislature explicitly manifests a clear intention for retrospective operation.
Questions settled- Whether the amendment introduced in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the Civil Laws (Reforms) Ordinance 1993 operates retrospectively?
- Does the filing of a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 create a vested right or a mere privilege?
- How does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 affect pending legal proceedings upon the repeal or amendment of a procedural statute?
- Can a factual controversy regarding the acceptance of costs be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 without convincing material?
- Abdul Waheed And Other vs Noor Mohammad And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 507 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab vs Tariq Hassan and anothers1994 PLD Supreme Court 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the State appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on ocular evidence, medical testimony, recovery of the weapon, and motive. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence, noting significant discrepancies in the weapon recovery memo regarding the pistol's description and number, lack of support from ocular and medical evidence concerning the injuries, and doubts regarding the presence of certain police witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that acquittals supported by cogent reasons based on inherent infirmities in the prosecution case should not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether an acquittal judgment by the High Court can be interfered with when the prosecution case suffers from inherent infirmities?
- What is the legal effect of a material discrepancy in the weapon recovery memo regarding the pistol's number in a criminal case?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against acquittal when the High Court has fully and cogently addressed all contentions raised by the prosecution?
- Abdul Wahab Umer through Legal Heirs vs Evacuee Trust Property1994 SCMR 1949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the order of the Supreme Court dismissing a civil petition relating to an evacuee trust property dispute. The core legal question concerns whether the discovery of a new authentic document demonstrating that the disputed property is not an evacuee trust property warrants a review and reconsideration of the case. The Supreme Court accepted the review petition, set aside its earlier order, granted leave to appeal, and simultaneously accepted the appeal. Consequently, the High Court order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision after considering the newly secured document. The key principle laid down is that the discovery of crucial authentic evidence affecting the foundational nature of the property constitutes sufficient ground to review a prior order and remand the matter for reconsideration to ensure complete justice.
Questions settled- Does the discovery of a new authentic document showing that a disputed property is not an evacuee trust property warrant a review of a dismissal order?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal and simultaneously accept the appeal upon accepting a review petition?
- Under what circumstances may a matter be remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision based on newly secured documents?
- Abdul Wahab Khan vs Government of Punjab, Lahore and 5 others1994 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab Khan vs Government of Punjab, Lahore And 5 OtherP. L D 1994 Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Vakil Malik vs Ashfaq Ahmad Qureshi And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1438 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Subhan vs Raheem Bakhsh and another1994 PLD Supreme Court 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondent, Raheem Bakhsh, of charges under Section 302, P.P.C., overturning his conviction by the trial court. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's reversal was based on a misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to properly evaluate the ocular testimony, which was corroborated by motive, medical evidence, and ballistic reports. The Court emphasized that an appellate court must provide logical reasons when disagreeing with a trial court's findings of fact, rather than ignoring them. The Court found the ocular testimony of the two eye-witnesses to be confidence-inspiring and consistent, despite their relationship to the deceased. It rejected the High Court's reliance on minor discrepancies and misinterpretations of the investigating officer's statements regarding crime empties. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and restored the trial court's conviction and death sentence, finding no mitigating circumstances to justify a lesser penalty.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court set aside a trial court's finding of fact without providing logical reasons for disagreeing with the trial court's reasoning?
- Is it a rule of law that a court cannot rely on the testimony of an interested witness to base a conviction?
- Does the presence of multiple exit wounds corresponding to a single entry wound necessarily indicate the use of a shotgun rather than a rifle?
- Must an appellate court consider the trial court's reasons for believing eye-witnesses before discarding their testimony as 'chance witnesses'?
- Abdul Sattar vs Muhammad Akbar1994 MLD 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs General-Manager, M/s. Bowany Sugar Mills Ltd.,1994 PLC 706 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-05-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar through Legal Heirs and others vs Muhammad Shafiq Khan1994 SCMR 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute concerning the allotment of agricultural land to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, who received an allotment exceeding his verified entitlement by 4551 P.I. Units. The core legal question was whether an allotment of land made in excess of a claimant's entitlement, resulting from an inadvertent mistake by Settlement Authorities rather than fraud or misrepresentation by the allottee, is liable to be cancelled under the relevant settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that such excess allotments are subject to cancellation. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, which had protected the excess allotment, and restored the order of the Settlement Commissioner directing the cancellation of the excess land. The key principle laid down is that the power to cancel an allotment under Section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, is exercisable even where the excess allotment occurred due to a bona fide mistake by the Settlement Authorities, as settlement must be in accordance with the law and cannot be based on an entitlement that does not exist.
Questions settled- Can an allotment of land made in excess of a claimant's entitlement be cancelled if the excess was caused by an inadvertent mistake of the Settlement Authorities?
- Does the power to cancel an allotment under Section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 require proof of fraud or misrepresentation by the allottee?
- Is an allotment of land valid if it exceeds the verified entitlement of the allottee?
- Abdul Sattar Daud Pota vs Haji Jan Muhammad, Managing1994 PLC 191 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and others vs Province of the Punjab through Collector, District Bahawalnagar1994 SCMR 527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the appellants' civil revision by the High Court, which arose from the dismissal of their suit challenging the acquisition of their land for the 5 Marlas Scheme. The core legal question involves the legality of the acquisition under various provincial housing statutes and whether mandatory provisions of law were observed. The Supreme Court held that the appeal must be dismissed solely on the ground that the suit was not filed against the actual allottees for whose benefit the land was acquired, as those necessary parties were not impleaded. The key principle laid down is that a suit challenging land acquisition and subsequent allotment must be instituted against the allottees or beneficiaries in whose favour the land was allotted, failure of which renders the suit unsustainable regardless of the merits of the acquisition itself.
Questions settled- Whether a suit challenging land acquisition for a housing scheme is maintainable without impleading the allottees of the plots as parties?
- Does the failure to sue the actual beneficiaries of land acquisition warrant the dismissal of the suit?
- Can a court decide the legality of a land acquisition scheme when the necessary private parties have not been joined in the litigation?
- Abdul Samad vs Director-General, Pakistan Broadcasting1994 PLC (C.S.) 93 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Samad Khan vs Messrs Pakistan Petroleum Limited, Karachi1994 PLC 349 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Salam vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1994 PLD Peshawar 185 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Salam vs Government of N. W.F.P. And Other1994 PLD Peshawar 185 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Riaz vs Hamidan Begum and 2 others1994 SCMR 2019 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the condition imposed by lower courts requiring the respondent to return six Kanals of land as compensation for the dissolution of her marriage on the basis of Khula. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interfered with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the compensation for Khula. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no legal error. The Court held that because the Family Court had already determined that the respondent was entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage based on other grounds—specifically non-payment of maintenance, failure to perform marital obligations, and cruelty—it was unnecessary to dissolve the marriage on the basis of Khula. Consequently, the condition requiring the return of property, which was gifted by the father-in-law in recognition of services rather than as consideration for the marriage, was legally unsustainable. The principle established is that where a marriage is dissolvable on grounds other than Khula, imposing financial conditions associated with Khula is improper.
Questions settled- Is it necessary to dissolve a marriage on the basis of Khula when other grounds for dissolution have been established?
- Can a court impose a condition for the return of property as compensation for Khula if the property was gifted for services rendered and not in consideration of marriage?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding Khula compensation when the underlying basis for the decree is legally flawed?
- Abdul Rehman vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 569 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs District and Sessions Judge, Bhakkar And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1544 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-12-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman Khan vs Chairman, P.T.C., Islamabad And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 592 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-12-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman And Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner And Other1994 CLC 394 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 130 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman and 2 others vs Shehnaz Begum and another1994 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, examined whether the acquittal of the respondent for the murder of her husband was conjectural and contrary to the weight of evidence. The deceased was killed at night in his house, and the prosecution alleged a conspiracy between the respondent wife and her co-accused paramour, who died before trial. The trial court had convicted the respondent under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the High Court acquitted her on appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable ocular testimony and insufficient circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence, noting that the conduct of the natural witnesses (the sons and brother of the deceased) was inconsistent, that initial reports pointed towards dacoity, and that the direct and circumstantial evidence failed to convincingly establish the respondent's complicity. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal by the High Court suffered from no legal infirmity warranting interference, thereby dismissing the appeal and reaffirming the principle that appellate interference in an acquittal is unwarranted unless the judgment is perverse or arbitrary.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when the view taken by the High Court is a possible view based on the evidence?
- Does the subsequent change of stance by natural witnesses regarding an initial theory of dacoity affect their credibility as eye-witnesses?
- Whether unverified extra-judicial confessions and retracted confessional statements lacking statutory formalities hold sufficient evidentiary value to maintain a murder conviction?
- Can a conviction for murder through conspiracy be sustained solely on weak and unverified circumstantial evidence?
- Abdul Razzaq vs The State1994 MLD 1796 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq vs The State1994 SCMR 989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Abdul Razzaq, sought leave to appeal against his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Saulat Naveed. The trial court had sentenced him to death, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who were relatives of the deceased, was credible despite the defense's arguments regarding the timing of the First Information Report and the witnesses' presence at the scene. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the relationship of the witnesses to the deceased did not inherently detract from their credibility, especially in the absence of prior enmity. The Court rejected the defense's challenge to the timing of the First Information Report as unsubstantiated. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of related witnesses is admissible and reliable when corroborated by prompt reporting and the absence of established enmity, and that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding witness credibility unless a clear error is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony when the First Information Report is recorded promptly after the incident?
- Should an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding witness credibility in a murder case?
- Abdul Razzaq vs Selection Committee Through Chairman_Chairman, Public Service Commission1994 PLD Quetta 34 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq And Other vs Pakistan Agirucltural Storage And Services Corporation Ltd. And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 119 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq and 6 others vs Riasat Ali and 10 others1994 SCMR 1116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside a first appellate court's decision and restored a trial court's dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the appellate court's findings regarding the genuineness of an agreement to sell, given the trial court's initial finding that the document was fictitious. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly identified that the appellate court had failed to properly analyze the evidence regarding the execution of the agreement, specifically noting the lack of corroborating details and the contradictory nature of the plaintiff's evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to dismiss the suit, ruling that the appellate court's reversal was based on an improper reading of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that a second appellate court is justified in interfering with an appellate court's findings when the latter has failed to properly analyze the evidence or has misread the material on record.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with the findings of an appellate court in a second appeal if the appellate court failed to properly analyze the evidence?
- Is a finding of fact by a trial court regarding the genuineness of an agreement to sell subject to interference in second appeal if the first appellate court misread the evidence?
- Abdul Razzak And Another vs M/s. Humera Industries, Karachi1994PLC 126 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-09-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razique Khan vs The Province of Sindh Through The Chief1994 PLD Supreme Court 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding the notification issued by the Acting Speaker of the Sindh Provincial Assembly that declared the appellant's seat vacant due to resignation. The core legal question was whether the Acting Speaker conducted a valid and lawful inquiry to determine the genuineness and voluntary nature of the resignation before giving effect to it. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that an authority receiving a resignation has a mandatory duty to ascertain personally not only that the document bears the member's signature, but also that it is entirely voluntary and genuinely intended to operate as a resignation. Mere comparison of signatures, prolonged absence, or non-appearance after notice do not suffice to prove these legal requirements. The key principle laid down is that courts and statutory functionaries must actively protect democratic processes by ensuring rigorous, substantive inquiries into the voluntary and intentional character of political resignations, particularly in turbulent political environments.
Questions settled- Whether an authority receiving a resignation from a member of a legislative assembly is legally required to verify its voluntary nature and genuine intent beyond merely comparing signatures?
- Can a prolonged absence or non-appearance of a member after notice substitute for a positive inquiry into the authenticity of a resignation?
- What are the essential legal requirements that must be satisfied before a political resignation can be given legal effect by the speaker of an assembly?
- Abdul Razak vs Karachi Building Control Authority and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals with leave of the Supreme Court against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh allowing a constitutional petition filed by neighboring plot owners against unauthorized construction on a residential plot. The builder deviated from approved plans to erect multiple flats on a residential plot, which the Karachi Building Control Authority purported to regularize by compounding the offence. The core legal questions pertained to the interpretation of compounding powers under Section 19 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979 read with Regulation 16(2) and Regulation 25 of the Karachi Buildings and Town Planning Regulations, 1979, and whether discretionary compounding can be exercised in violation of town planning rules to the prejudice of third parties. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court's direction to enforce the Regulations. The Court held that compounding powers only condone criminal liability and do not empower authorities to regularize construction that alters the character of the plot or scheme or prejudices third parties' rights and public health.
Questions settled- Whether the power to compound offences under Section 19 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979 and Regulation 16 empowers the Building Control Authority to regularize unauthorized construction that changes the character and zoning of a plot?
- Whether statutory discretionary powers to regularize or compound building violations can be exercised to the prejudice of third parties and public utility services?
- Whether the word 'or' between clauses (b) and (c) of Regulation 16(2) of the Karachi Buildings and Town Planning Regulations, 1979 is to be construed disjunctively or conjunctively?
- Can a building authority regularize an unauthorized construction on a residential plot without giving reasons and in deviation of sanctioned town planning limits?
- Abdul Razak vs Karachi Building Control Authority And OtherPLD 1994 Supreme Court .512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two civil appeals directed against a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which allowed a constitutional petition filed by neighbouring residents seeking to restrain unauthorised and illegal construction of multi-storeyed flats on a residential plot. The core legal questions involved the scope of the Karachi Building Control Authority's power to compound offences and regularise building violations under the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, and the Karachi Buildings and Town Planning Regulations, 1979, and whether such regularisation can override zoning laws and prejudice third parties. The Supreme Court held that while the Authority has discretion to compound criminal liability or minor regularisable infractions, it lacks the legal authority to regularise major structural breaches that fundamentally change the character of a property—such as converting a residential bungalow site into multi-storeyed commercial flats—in violation of public interest and third-party rights. The Court laid down that statutory discretionary powers vested in public functionaries must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and consistently with the objectives of urban planning and environmental safety.
Questions settled- Whether the Karachi Building Control Authority has the power to regularise building constructions that violate zoning regulations and change the character of a residential property?
- Is the discretion of a public authority to compound building offences subject to the rights of third parties and public safety?
- Can the word 'or' between clauses of a building regulation be construed as 'and' to restrict the regularisation power of a building authority?
- Does a builder who creates a fait accompli during litigation by continuing construction under the cover of a court order retain any equitable right to relief?
- Abdul Rauf vs Abdul Razzak and anothers1994 PLD Supreme Court 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which had decreed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution in favour of the respondent. The core legal questions involved the necessary ingredients to sustain an action for malicious prosecution, specifically whether an order of discharge constitutes termination of prosecution in favour of the accused, and whether malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause were duly established. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the lower courts, as the plaintiff failed to prove that the prosecution terminated favourably (having only been discharged due to unserved witnesses), failed to plead or prove malice, and failed to establish the absence of reasonable and probable cause where the police had submitted a challan after investigation. The key principle laid down is that in a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must affirmatively prove all essential ingredients including malice and want of reasonable and probable cause, and a mere discharge for lack of prosecution witnesses does not establish that the original criminal charge was false or malicious.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients a plaintiff must prove in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
- Does an order of discharge under section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to a termination of prosecution in favour of the accused for the purposes of a malicious prosecution suit?
- Can malice be inferred solely from the fact that an accused person was eventually discharged due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses?
- Is a private individual who lodges a first information report or sends a telegram to the police liable for malicious prosecution when the police independently submit a challan after investigation?
- Abdul Rauf vs Abdul Razzak And Another1994 PLD Supreme Court 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeal arose by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a High Court decree awarding damages for malicious prosecution to Respondent No. 1. The dispute stemmed from a criminal complaint lodged by the appellant via telegram regarding industrial disruption by mill workers. Following police investigation and submission of a challan, the criminal case was dismissed and the accused discharged under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because prosecution witnesses could not be produced after prolonged delay. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the respondent's damages suit, but the High Court reversed them in second appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court decree, holding that to establish malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must strictly plead and prove that the prosecution ended in his favour, was initiated with malice, and lacked reasonable and probable cause. The Court held that discharge due to witness unavailability does not equate to termination in favour, police submission of a challan indicates prima facie reasonable cause, and special damages cannot be granted absent strict proof.
Questions settled- Does an order of discharge under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for want of prosecution evidence constitute termination of criminal proceedings in favour of the accused for maintaining a suit for malicious prosecution?
- Can a suit for damages for malicious prosecution succeed without specific pleadings and affirmative proof of both malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause?
- Does the submission of a challan by the police following investigation create a prima facie presumption of reasonable and probable cause in favour of the complainant?
- Can special damages in a tort action for malicious prosecution be awarded without specific particulars and strict proof on record?
- Abdul Rauf And Others vs Additional District Judge And Other1994 CLC 1807 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Case 15 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1403 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Mst. Saeeda Begum and another1994 SCMR 1888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an order dismissing an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a revisional judgment passed in the absence of the appellant's counsel. The core legal question was whether an application for setting aside or recalling an ex parte judgment or order passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that such an application is maintainable, relying on section 141 and Order IX read with the inherent powers of the court. The Court laid down the principle that procedural provisions relating to the restoration of cases are intended to advance justice, and unless expressly prohibited, procedural remedies such as setting aside ex parte orders remain available in civil proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an application for setting aside or recalling a judgment passed ex parte in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is maintainable?
- Do the provisions of section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 attract the applicability of Order IX to civil revision proceedings?
- Can inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked to restore a revision application dismissed in default?
- Abdul Rashid vs A.C./Collector1994 CLC 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Mirza And 2 Other vs Chairman, WAPDA And 18 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1036 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Jillani vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1994 MLD 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid and others vs The State1994 MLD 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Alias Shida Gadi vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 35 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rasheed vs The State1994 MLD 865 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rasheed vs Hanifur Rahman1994 MLD 955 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahim And Others vs Muhammad Khalid,1994 CLC 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum vs Muhammad Azeem1994 PLD Karachi 319 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an order dismissing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by a tenant during execution proceedings of an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether an alleged fresh tenancy agreement and payment, made without the Rent Controller's permission, could invalidate an existing eviction order or justify setting it aside under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the application was without merit and intended to protract proceedings. It affirmed that under Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, any payment, compromise, or agreement regarding an ejectment order is invalid unless made before or with the express permission of the authority passing the order. The Court established that this statutory requirement is mandatory to prevent fraudulent claims and ensure the smooth execution of rent orders. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the alleged agreement, lacking the requisite judicial approval, could not serve as a shield against eviction or trigger an inquiry into fraud.
Questions settled- Is an alleged compromise or agreement regarding an ejectment order valid if made without the permission of the Rent Controller?
- Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be used to challenge an eviction order based on an unapproved tenancy agreement?
- Does Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 require prior judicial approval for any compromise or payment made during execution proceedings?
- Abdul Qayyum vs Haji Mushtaq Ahmed, Advocate and another1994 MLD 422 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum Badar vs Lahore Development Authority1994 CLC 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum and others vs Mst. Salma Khanam and others1994 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Oayyum vs Evacuee Trust Properties Board and others1994 MLD 358 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Matin vs Chief of the Air Staff, Pay. Air Headquarters1994 PLC (C.S.) 63 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Mateen Chishti vs M/s. Karachi Development Authority1994 PLC 726 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-06-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Malik vs Muhammad Iobal And Another1994 CLC 788 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order of the Civil Judge allowing an amendment of the plaint in a pre-emption suit to include assertions of 'Zaroorat'. The petitioner had initially approached the District Judge in revision, but the District Judge dismissed it for want of jurisdiction following the promulgation of Ordinance XXXIII of 1993, which omitted subsections (2), (3), and (4) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby denuding the District Courts of revisional powers. The Lahore High Court examined the effect of the Ordinance on pending proceedings and held that a change of forum is a matter of procedure and applies retrospectively, meaning the District Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the pending revision and should have returned the petition for presentation before the High Court rather than dismissing it. On the merits regarding the necessity of pleading 'Zaroorat' or 'Zarar' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, the Court noted that subsection (2) of section 6 of the said Act was declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam by the Appellate Shariat Bench of the Supreme Court, and therefore a pre-emption suit cannot be dismissed for failing to plead 'Zaroorat'. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order and dismissed the revision petition.
Questions settled- Whether the omission of subsections (2), (3), and (4) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by Ordinance XXXIII of 1993 deprives the District Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate pending revision petitions?
- What is the correct order to be passed by a District Court when it is denuded of revisional jurisdiction while a revision petition is pending before it?
- Does a change of forum through legislative enactment constitute a matter of procedure having retrospective effect?
- Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed for want of pleading 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar' in view of the judgment of the Appellate Shariat Bench striking down section 6(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Abdul Majid Sandhu And Other vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary, Finance Department And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1330 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid And Others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1994 CLC 898 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-07-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid and 5 others vs Muhammad ASHRAFrespondent1994 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent, challenging the timeliness of the suit. The core legal question was whether the suit was filed within the period of limitation, specifically whether the limitation period commenced from the date of the oral sale (alleged to be 1960) or from the date the mutation was attested (9-10-1970). The petitioners, as vendees, contended that they had taken actual physical possession of the land long before the mutation was attested, citing Khasra Girdawari entries from 1969 as evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court and the trial court, which had rejected the petitioners' reliance on the Khasra Girdawari entries due to the significant delay in their creation relative to the alleged date of sale. Consequently, the Court held that the suit was filed within time, as it was brought within one year of the mutation attestation. The decision reinforces that evidentiary documents created long after an alleged event may be insufficient to establish the date of possession for limitation purposes in pre-emption matters.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit based on an oral sale commence from the date of the alleged sale or the date of mutation attestation?
- Can Khasra Girdawari entries created years after an alleged sale be relied upon to establish the date of physical possession for the purpose of limitation?
- Abdul Majeed vs Mst. Sughran Mai And Other1994 CLC 125 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed Karim vs Messrs Orient Pakistan Ltd. and others1994 MLD 1026 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed Askani vs The State1994 MLD 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif Ansari vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; Muzaffarabad Through Chief Secretary And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 269 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-05-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif And Other vs The District Controller of Stores, Pakistan1994 PLC 411 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Director/Admn. FIA Headquarters, Islamabad And 61994 PLC (C.S.) 1343 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir1994 PLC (C.S.) 374 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-07-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and others vs The State1994 MLD 2023 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and 2 others vs The Province of the Punjab through the Collector, Muzaffargarh and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 334 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and 3 others vs Abdul Razzaq and 2 others1994 MLD 804 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim And 2 Other vs The Province of the Punjab Through The Collector, Muzaffargarh. And Another1994 PLD Lahore 334 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jalil vs Hamid Farooq and others1994 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jalil vs Hamid Farooq And Other1994 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs The State1994 MLD 1429 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haque Azad vs Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Finance1994 PLC (C.S.) 186 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court rejecting the petitioner's bail application. The petitioner was challaned under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 on allegations of abducting the complainant's daughter, Mst. Shumaila Gul, for the purpose of Zina, confining her, and committing forcible rape. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged after a delayed period without proper explanation and that the prosecutrix had contracted a voluntary marriage with him, supported by a Nikah Nama and statements allegedly made before a Magistrate and a lady DSP. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecutrix had gone with the petitioner and contracted marriage of her own free will, considering her status as an educated adult and documentary evidence. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that in view of the background and documentary evidence regarding the alleged voluntary marriage, the petitioner was entitled to bail, thereby setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Sessions Court's order granting bail. The key principle laid down is that where an educated adult prosecutrix's voluntary movement and marriage are supported by contemporaneous documents and statements at the bail stage, further inquiry into her consent warrants the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when an educated adult prosecutrix's voluntary marriage and movement are supported by documentary evidence at the bail stage?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in a Zina case support the grant of bail to the accused?
- Whether the Supreme Court will restore a bail order of the Sessions Court when the High Court has improperly cancelled it in the face of supporting documentary evidence?
- Abdul Hamid vs The State1994 SCMR 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, which had cancelled the pre-trial bail previously granted to the petitioner and dismissed a subsequent bail application. The petitioner was challaned under Section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for allegedly abducting and raping the complainant's daughter. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the unexplained five-month delay in lodging the FIR, the victim's status as an educated adult, and the documentary evidence including a Nikahnama and statements indicating she may have contracted marriage of her own free will. The Supreme Court held that in view of the documentary evidence and the surrounding circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the High Court's orders, and restored the bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The key principle laid down is that where documentary evidence and statements of an educated adult victim raise a plausible plea of free will and marriage, alongside an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt is warranted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained delay of five months in lodging the FIR justifies the grant of bail in a case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does the production of a Nikahnama and a statement by an educated adult victim supporting marriage create a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court interfere with the cancellation of bail by the High Court?
- Abdul Hamid vs Secretary, Ministry of Local Government and Rural1994 PLC (C.S.) 1574 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Province of Punjab1994 MLD 2262 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs M.B.R. And Other1994 CLC 1160 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, claiming to be bona fide purchasers of land, challenged the cancellation of an allotment originally made to their predecessor, Noor Muhammad. The allotment was initially set aside by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner upon discovering it was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and impersonation, as the original allottee had no valid claim. Following remand proceedings, the Notified Officer confirmed the fraudulent nature of the transfer, noting that the original allottee was an imposter. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, could retain title to land derived from a fraudulent allotment. The Court held that since the vendor (the imposter) possessed no valid title, he could not legally transfer any interest to the petitioners, rendering their claim to the land invalid. However, noting that the Board of Revenue had previously permitted some occupants who had raised constructions to purchase their plots at 1985 market rates, the Court disposed of the petition by allowing the remaining petitioners to approach the Board of Revenue for similar equitable consideration regarding their long-standing possession.
Questions settled- Can a purchaser acquire valid title to land from a vendor whose own title was obtained through fraud and impersonation?
- Does a subsequent purchaser of land have a legal right to retain possession if the original allotment to their vendor is found to be fraudulent?
- Can the Board of Revenue exercise discretion to allow occupants of disputed land to purchase their plots at historical market rates?