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.
- Syed Farasat Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 848 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
- Syed Faqir Hussain Shah Bokhari vs Mst. Asmat Bibi and others1993 CLC 1388 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged an appellate remand order passed by the District Court directing the trial court to re-determine issue No. 2 concerning the proper valuation of the suit for court-fee and jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether an appellate court should remand a case for the decision of a specific issue regarding valuation when sufficient material exists on record for the appellate court to decide the matter finally, thereby avoiding prolonged litigation. The High Court held that unnecessary remands cause undue delay and expense, and appellate courts should make every effort to resolve controversies finally in appellate or revisional jurisdiction rather than sending cases back for open remands. The court set aside the remand order and directed the District Judge to decide issue No. 2 himself along with the other issues on merits, laying down the principle that open remands which entail further rounds of litigation are inexpedient and must be avoided to ensure the quicker administration of justice.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court should remand a case for re-determination of suit valuation when sufficient material is available on record for a final decision?
- Can an appellate court avoid an open remand in favor of resolving an issue regarding court-fee and jurisdiction directly in its own jurisdiction?
- Whether unnecessary remands by appellate courts are deprecated in the interest of a quicker administration of justice?
- Syed Bashir Hussain Shah and anothers vs Administrator, Thal1993 CLC 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises two first appeals arising from suits for declaration and possession filed by the appellants concerning land lots granted under a tubewell sinking scheme, which the Thal Authorities had attempted to cancel through a communication later alleged to be fraudulent. The trial court decreed the suits in favour of the appellants. During the pendency of the first appeals, third parties who had been allotted the same lots as affectees of another project applied to be impleaded as necessary parties, and the lower appellate court allowed the applications, setting aside the decrees and remanding the cases for a de novo trial. The core legal question examined was whether an appellate court possesses the power to implead a person as a party in an appeal who was not a party to the original suit. The Lahore High Court held that Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not exhaustive, and appellate courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 and Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead necessary parties even if they were not arrayed in the primary suit. The appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court has the power under the Code of Civil Procedure to implead a person as a party in an appeal who was not a party to the original suit?
- Are the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure exhaustive regarding the impleadment of parties in an appeal?
- Can an appellate court utilize its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to add a necessary party after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal?
- What is the effect on a suit or appeal if a necessary party is omitted from being impleaded?
- Syed Azhar Hussain Shah vs D.S.P.1993 P Cr. L J 2618 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
- Syed Ashfaq Ali Shah vs Syed Akhtar Ali Shah and others1993 MLD 889 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil revisions challenging the dismissal of applications to set aside ex parte decrees. The core legal questions were whether the substituted service effected by the trial court was legally valid and whether the application to set aside the ex parte decree was time-barred. The court held that the trial court acted with material irregularity by ordering substituted service without exhausting ordinary modes of service or conducting a proper inquiry into the process-server's report, which lacked required witness attestation and compliance with procedural rules. Furthermore, the court clarified that where an ex parte decree is passed during an adjourned hearing rather than the first hearing, the limitation period for an application to set it aside is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 (three years) rather than Article 164. Consequently, the ex parte decrees were set aside, and the cases were remanded for trial on merits. The principle established is that procedural requirements for service must be strictly construed, and ex parte proceedings based on defective service are void.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period under Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed at an adjourned hearing?
- Can a court order substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without first exhausting ordinary modes of service or conducting a proper inquiry into the process-server's report?
- Is an application to set aside an ex parte decree governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the decree was passed during an adjourned hearing?
- Does an appellate or revisional court have the power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pass orders benefiting a party who did not file an appeal or revision?
- Syed Amir Hyder Abidi vs Muhammad Iqbal1993 CLC 481 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
- Syed Ali Shah Alias Shahji vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 477 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Ali Shah alias Shahji vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the appellant's conviction and sentence for murder under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including alleged illicit intimacy, abscondence, the recovery of a blood-stained mattress and weapons, and a retracted judicial confession. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence and the self-exculpatory retracted confession were sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the confession was inadmissible and unreliable due to delay, lack of procedural precautions by the magistrate, and its self-exculpatory nature. The court further found the remaining circumstantial links—abscondence, recoveries, and motive—unproven or legally insufficient, and noted that incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted on the principle of benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be based solely on circumstantial evidence when a vital link in the chain of evidence fails?
- Is a retracted judicial confession that is self-exculpatory in nature sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
- What is the legal effect of failing to put incriminating circumstances to an accused person during their examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does evidence of mere abscondence, standing alone, suffice to prove guilt in a capital case?
- Syed Ali Raza Asad Abadi vs Wasim Sajjad1993 MLD 2494 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
- Syed Ali Imam Zaidi and 2 others vs Haji Usman Bhai1993 CLC 538 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
- Syed Akbar Ali and 5 others vs Pakistan Steel Mills Ltd., Karachi through its Chairman and 2 others1993 MLD 1759 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Ahmad Hassan Shah vs Additional District Judge, Multan and others1993 MLD 180 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Abdul Qadeer vs Mst. Naseem Akhtar1993 MLD 2512 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
- Syed ()Urban Ali Shah vs Anis Ahmed Khan and 10 others1993 CLC 849 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1992-12-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This election petition was filed under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, challenging the results of the election for Constituency NA-174, Tharparkar-I, held on October 24, 1990. The petitioner alleged widespread corrupt practices, including the unlawful denial of National Identity Cards to 2,500 voters, intimidation of polling staff, and procedural irregularities by the Returning Officer. The core legal question was whether these irregularities, particularly the non-issuance of identity cards and the Returning Officer's failure to comply with mandatory counting procedures, invalidated the election. The Tribunal found that while the allegation of a conspiracy between the respondent and registration officials was not proven, the non-delivery of identity cards to a significant number of voters, coupled with the Returning Officer's failure to examine rejected ballot papers and consolidate votes as mandated by law, materially affected the election outcome, given the narrow margin of victory. Consequently, the Tribunal declared the entire election void, holding that mandatory statutory duties regarding vote counting and consolidation cannot be bypassed, as such non-compliance undermines the integrity of the electoral process.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a Returning Officer to examine rejected ballot papers and consolidate votes as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1976, constitute a ground to declare an election void?
- Can an election be declared void if the number of voters disenfranchised due to administrative failure exceeds the margin of victory?
- Is a Returning Officer legally obligated to examine ballot papers excluded by the Presiding Officer before announcing final election results?
- Surraya Begum vs Muhammad Latif and others1993 P Cr. L J 30 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
- Supreme Court of Pakistani Bashir and 3 others vs The State1993 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for the murder of Riasat Ali. The petitioners were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the lower courts properly appreciated the evidence and adhered to the principles of safe dispensation of criminal justice. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no merit in challenging the conviction itself, as the prosecution evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports confirming the cause of death, was consistent and reliable. The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction but granted the petitioners' request for the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, acknowledging their period of pre-trial detention. The key principle laid down is that while appellate courts must ensure the safe dispensation of criminal justice, they may exercise discretion to extend the benefit of statutory provisions regarding the set-off of pre-trial detention against substantive sentences where appropriate.
Questions settled- Can the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended to convicts who remained in custody during the trial?
- Does the appellate court have the authority to modify a sentence to include the period of pre-trial detention?
- Sunny Woollen Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of the Punjab1993 MLD 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
- Sunni View Cooperative Housing Society vs Irshad Hussain and others1993 CLC 2336 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition was filed against the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner sought to challenge a judgment and decree on the ground of collusion. The trial court had dismissed the application solely because the petitioner was not a party to the original suit and was affected by the principle of lis pendens, having purchased the property during the pendency of the litigation. The High Court examined whether a pendente lite purchaser has the standing to challenge a decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of collusion. The High Court held that under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, a purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit is entitled to challenge a decree obtained through collusion under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court concluded that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction by dismissing the application summarily. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the trial court for a decision on the merits after framing issues and recording evidence.
Questions settled- Can a purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit challenge a decree obtained in that suit on the ground of collusion under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the principle of lis pendens bar a pendente lite purchaser from filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge a collusive decree?
- Is a trial court required to frame issues and record evidence before deciding an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when collusion is alleged by a third-party purchaser?
- Sultana Qamar vs Mst. Rasulan1993 MLD 425 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-17Read full judgment →
- Sultan Muhammad vs Commandant Pishin Scouts, Chaman.PTCL 1993 CL. 182 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-12-24Read full judgment →
- Sultan and others vs Nazar Sultan1993 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
- Sultan and others vs Muhammad Sharif1993 MLD 326 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2267 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
- Suleman and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2116 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-21Read full judgment →
- Sufibat Ullah Khan vs Pirzada Noorul Baser and others1993 PLD Peshawar 90 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
- Sufi Zaheer Ahmad vs Langa And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 150 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
- Sufi Zaheer Ahmad (deceased) through Legal Heir vs Chief Settlement1993 MLD 195 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns multiple settlement revisions and a writ petition challenging the cancellation of land allotments by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The core issue was whether the cancellation of allotments, originally secured by the petitioner Sufi Zaheer Ahmad through a bogus claim, was legally sustainable, and whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with such cancellations. The petitioners, including subsequent purchasers, argued that the proceedings violated natural justice and that they were bona fide purchasers for value. The Court held that the initial allotment was obtained through fraud, rendering the subsequent titles void. Relying on established precedents, the Court ruled that its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction is intended to foster justice and right wrongs, not to protect rights derived from fraud or to perpetuate illegalities. Furthermore, the Court clarified that protections under the Transfer of Property Act do not apply to evacuee property within the compensation pool. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, as the Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction in aid of an allotment established to be fraudulent.
Questions settled- Does the High Court's discretionary constitutional jurisdiction extend to protecting rights derived from fraudulent allotments?
- Are the protections under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 applicable to evacuee property forming part of the compensation pool?
- Can a petitioner successfully challenge a settlement order in the High Court if the underlying claim for the allotment is proven to be bogus?
- Does the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 remove the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Sufi Habib Ullah Havi vs Muhammad Rafiq1993 MLD 332 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
- Subedar Pensioner Dauran Khan vs Dr. Nazir Ahmad through Legal Heirs1993 MLD 2427 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
- Subedar (Retd.) Malik Ghulam Hussain vs Jamil Ahmed Khan and 7 others1993 MLD 521 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged an order attaching the petitioner's immovable property following an inquiry into the affairs of a Cooperative Housing Society. The core legal questions were whether the Registrar possessed the authority to assess damages under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, during an inquiry, and whether the attachment of the petitioner's property without a show-cause notice was legally sustainable. The Court held that while the Registrar is empowered under Section 44-B of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, to exercise powers under Section 50-A during an inquiry, the specific attachment order against the petitioner was unlawful. The Court ruled that the action violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the maxim audi alteram partem, as the petitioner was neither a party to the initial proceedings nor granted an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against orders passed without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies or claims of laches, as the attachment constituted a continuous cause of action.
Questions settled- Does the Registrar have the power to exercise assessment of damages under Section 50-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, during an inquiry conducted under Section 43?
- Is an attachment order issued against a person without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing violative of the principles of natural justice?
- Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against an order passed without jurisdiction, even if the petitioner has not exhausted alternative statutory remedies?
- Does an order of attachment of property constitute a continuous cause of action for the purpose of determining laches in a writ petition?
- Subbago vs Tiie State1993 P Cr. L J 1934 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
- Suba vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Suba KHAN/Plaintiff vs Muhammad Bashir1993 MLD 1958 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of agricultural land, which was dismissed by both the trial court and the appellate court due to the plaintiff's failure to prove the timely performance of Talb-i-Ishhad. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff satisfied the mandatory statutory requirements for Talb-i-Ishhad under Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, dismissing the revision. The court held that the right of pre-emption is a 'feeble right,' necessitating strict adherence to all prescribed formalities. Specifically, the court affirmed that Talb-i-Ishhad must be executed through a registered notice attested by two truthful witnesses, and failure to provide documentary evidence of such service is fatal to the claim. Furthermore, the court emphasized that where a statute mandates a specific procedure for an act, that procedure must be followed precisely. Consequently, as the plaintiff failed to establish compliance with the statutory notice requirements and the prescribed timeline, the suit was rightly dismissed for want of a valid pre-emptive demand.
Questions settled- Is the requirement of sending a registered notice attested by two witnesses for Talb-i-Ishhad mandatory under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil revision if there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does the failure to strictly observe the formalities required for the exercise of the right of pre-emption result in the dismissal of the suit?
- Sub. Major (R) Meer Badar Ud Din vs Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, AdvocateK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 75 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10Read full judgment →
- Sterling Foods vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 1201 · Kerala High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
- State/Government of Sindh through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi1993 SCMR 585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose out of two appeals filed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trials, Sukkur and Larkana Divisions at Sukkur, acquitting the respondent of the charge of murder under Section 302, PPC. The prosecution alleged that the respondent visited the complainant's house, went to the roof with the deceased minor girl, and inflicted fatal knife injuries before fleeing. The core legal questions pertained to the evidentiary value of an identification test where physical features of the accused were omitted from the FIR and police statements, the reliability of ocular testimony fraught with contradictions, and the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that an identification test lacks evidentiary value when the accused's description is omitted from the initial report. Furthermore, interference in an acquittal appeal is only justified where there is gross misreading of evidence causing a miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade when the description and features of the accused are not provided in the FIR or initial police statements?
- Can in-court identification of an accused by witnesses dispense with the requirement of holding an identification parade in murder cases where the accused was initially a stranger?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- State vs Zulfikar Ali Malik1993 P Cr. L J 932 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- State through Secretary, Ministry of Interior vs Ashiq Ali Bhutto1993 SCMR 523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed by the State against the summary acquittal of the respondent in a corruption case. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a trial court is legally justified in acquitting an accused person under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) without first recording prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court held that the legislature, by using the phrase "at any stage" in both provisions, did not intend for the recording of prosecution evidence to be a condition precedent for acquittal. The Court clarified that a trial court possesses the discretion to acquit an accused at any stage of the proceedings—whether initial, middle, or late—if it determines that the charge is groundless or that there is no probability of conviction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial court acted within its legal authority. The judgment establishes the principle that the power to acquit under these sections is not contingent upon the prior recording of prosecution evidence.
Questions settled- Is the recording of prosecution evidence a condition precedent for acquitting an accused under Section 249-A or Section 265-K of the Cr.P.C.?
- Does the phrase "at any stage" in Sections 249-A and 265-K of the Cr.P.C. allow for acquittal before the recording of evidence?
- Can a trial court acquit an accused person if it determines there is no probability of conviction without hearing prosecution witnesses?
- State Through Deputy Attorney-General. vs Naeem Raza WirkPTCL 1993 CL. 551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State filed a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed in limine the State's criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, Nadeem Raza. The respondent was apprehended while transporting goods, including a weapon and ammunition, in a vehicle belonging to the Narcotic Control Board. The trial court acquitted the respondent, reasoning that the C.I.F. value of the seized goods, when divided between the two accused persons, fell below the threshold of Rs. 10,000 required for the court to take cognizance of the offence. The High Court upheld this acquittal. Before the Supreme Court, the Deputy Attorney-General contended that the lower courts erred in law by dividing the liability among the accused to determine jurisdiction and cognizance, arguing that the accused should be held jointly liable for the total value. Finding that the contention raised a significant question of law regarding the interpretation of statutory jurisdiction and public importance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and issued bailable warrants against the respondent.
Questions settled- Can the value of seized goods be divided among multiple accused persons to determine if the minimum threshold for taking cognizance of an offence is met?
- Are accused persons jointly liable for the total value of seized goods for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction and cognizance under the Customs Act?
- State through Deputy Attorney-General, Peshawar vs Banda Gul and 21993 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals arose from two judgments of the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the acquittal of the respondents on the ground that the prosecution failed to serve them with a written notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, detailing the grounds of their arrest and the seizure of foreign-origin goods. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether non-compliance with Section 171 is fatal to the prosecution. The Court held that the purpose of Section 171 is to inform the accused of the allegations against them, and it is not a condition precedent for launching a prosecution. Substantial compliance is achieved if a recovery memo detailing the grounds of seizure is prepared in the presence of the accused or otherwise brought to their notice. Since the statute does not prescribe nullification as a consequence for non-compliance, the provision is not mandatory in a fatal sense. Furthermore, under Sections 156(90) and 187 of the Act, the burden of proof lies on the accused to show lack of knowledge of the smuggled goods, and non-production of the case property is not invariably fatal if other evidence establishes its foreign origin. The appeals were accepted, the impugned judgments set aside, and the cases remanded for de novo trials.
Questions settled- Is the service of a written notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, a mandatory condition precedent whose non-compliance is fatal to the prosecution?
- Can the requirement of notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, be substantially complied with through the preparation and tendering of a recovery memo?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie under the Customs Act, 1969, to show lack of knowledge regarding the smuggling of seized contraband goods?
- Is the non-production of the seized case property before the trial court invariably fatal to a prosecution under the Customs Act, 1969?
- State through AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Muhammad Iqbal1993 P Cr. L J 945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the State challenges the acquittal of two accused, Muhammad Iqbal and Said Hakim, by the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Peshawar, regarding charges of murder, attempted robbery, and firing at police officials during a bank heist. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, despite the trial court's rejection of evidence due to procedural concerns regarding the First Information Report (FIR) and the apprehension of the accused. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading of evidence and an erroneous assessment of the facts. The Court found that the immediate apprehension of the accused with weapons, corroborated by forensic reports and the testimony of bank employees and injured police officials, established their guilt conclusively. The Court affirmed that while procedural irregularities in lodging an FIR should be avoided, they do not automatically invalidate a case when overwhelming evidence exists. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside, and the accused were convicted and sentenced to death and imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does the fact that an accused remained in police custody for a period of time automatically invalidate a judicial confession?
- Under what circumstances can a superior court interfere with an acquittal judgment in a criminal case?
- Does a procedural irregularity in the registration of an FIR necessarily vitiate the entire prosecution case when other evidence is overwhelming?
- State Life Insurance'corporation of Pakistan, Karachi vs M/s.1993 PLD Karachi 642 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a landlord's appeal arising from an eviction application filed on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant committed a default in paying rent for the period beginning January 1985, and whether the modes of tender utilized by the tenant—including an offer of cash payment and dispatch through a postal money order—constituted valid payment under the law. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of a written tenancy agreement, the tenant was entitled to a grace period totalling seventy days to clear the rent. The Court further ruled that cash tenders made within this period and the subsequent dispatch of a postal money order—which carries statutory presumptive value under the relevant ordinance and the Qanun-e-Shahadat—validly absolved the tenant of default. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that established statutory grace periods and prescribed alternative modes of payment protect a tenant against eviction for default when utilized bona fide.
Questions settled- What is the total grace period available to a tenant for the payment of monthly rent in the absence of a written agreement under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does a postal money order receipt constitute valid proof of rent payment under section 10(4) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 without necessarily requiring the examination of the postman?
- What modes of rent payment are expressly contemplated under section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the presumption attached to official acts under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to the dispatch of a postal money order for rent?
- State Life Insurance Corporation vs Mamoor Khan1993 CLC 790 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for the recovery of an insured sum under a life insurance policy filed by the plaintiff against the defendant insurance corporation. The core legal question was whether the life insurance policy was voidable on the ground of fraudulent suppression of material facts regarding the insured's health at the time of the proposal. The trial and appellate courts concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The Peshawar High Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the suit, holding that the defendant insurance corporation had successfully established through cogent documentary and surveyor evidence that the deceased insured had deliberately suppressed material facts concerning a pre-existing advanced illness (cancer/lympho sarcoma) at the time of obtaining the policy. The court laid down the principle that insurance contracts are governed by utmost good faith, and an insurer is legally entitled under section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, to repudiate liability and call in question a life insurance policy within the statutory two-year period if material facts were fraudulently concealed by the policy-holder.
Questions settled- Can an insurer repudiate a life insurance policy on the ground of suppression of material facts under section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938?
- Whether a plaint or written statement can be treated as substantive evidence if the plaintiff or defendant fails to appear as a witness at the trial?
- Does the deliberate concealment of information in a proposal form constitute sufficient ground for avoiding a contract of insurance?
- Is an insurance policy vitiated when the policy-holder suppresses a pre-existing serious ailment like cancer at the time of obtaining the insurance?
- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi vs The Board1993 SCMR 726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses appeals filed by the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan against the dismissal of its constitutional petitions by the High Court, which had upheld the determination that unpaid commissions and dues of field workers located in former East Pakistan were 'abandoned property' under the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the general balance amount of agents' commissions and related liabilities taken over by the Corporation from nationalized insurance companies constituted abandoned property belonging to 'specified persons' who ceased to be Pakistani citizens after 16 December 1971. The Supreme Court held that the statutory definitions under the Abandoned Properties Act encompass such liabilities, superseding ordinary civil laws of contract and frustration arising from a state of war. The Court laid down the principle that special statutes governing abandoned properties and nationalization entirely control the rights and liabilities concerning affected assets and dues, overriding common law defenses of contract frustration, and that accounting difficulties do not exempt the statutory corporation from accountability to the abandoned property authorities.
Questions settled- Whether the balance amount of an agent's commission lying in the accounts of taken-over insurance companies constitutes abandoned property?
- Do special statutory provisions regarding abandoned property override ordinary civil law principles concerning contract frustration during a state of war?
- Does the absence of individual itemized accounts or the presence of a running account exempt a statutory corporation from surrendering dues payable to specified persons?
- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Pakistan National1993 CLC 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the judgment of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent for premises occupied by the appellant in Muhammadi House, Karachi. The respondent sought an enhancement of rent, citing increased maintenance costs, inflation, and the imposition of betterment taxes. The appellant contested the enhancement, arguing that the proposed rates were unreasonable and that the application was a counterblast to separate eviction proceedings. The core legal question concerned the criteria for determining fair rent under the Sindh Rented Premise Ordinance. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rent Controller correctly exercised discretion by considering current market rates, inflationary impacts, and the substantial increase in construction costs. The Court established that rental rates from stagnant, decade-old lease agreements do not constitute a valid benchmark for fair rent. Instead, the Rent Controller may properly rely on recent lease agreements within the same building as evidence of equitable value. Furthermore, a landlord's failure to initiate rent enhancement proceedings against all tenants does not bar them from seeking fair rent against a specific tenant.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller determine fair rent based on recent lease agreements within the same building?
- Does a landlord's failure to file for rent enhancement against some tenants preclude them from seeking fair rent against others?
- Are rental rates from decade-old lease agreements a valid benchmark for determining current fair rent?
- Must a Rent Controller consider inflationary trends and rising maintenance costs when fixing fair rent?
- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Mercantile Mutual1993 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from appeals challenging a judgment of the High Court of Sindh concerning proceedings under the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972. The core legal question is whether an appeal is maintainable before the High Court against an order of the Insurance Appellate Tribunal passed under Article 22 of the Order, particularly in light of the incorporation of section 110 of the Insurance Act via Article 40-A. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the introduction of Article 40-A incorporated the powers under section 110 of the Insurance Act—including the right of appeal under subsection (12) subject to certification by the Tribunal—thereby conferring a substantive right of appeal to the High Court against decisions of the Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that where a statute confers a substantive right of appeal and specifies the forum, the designated court possesses jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal in the absence of any express legislative exclusion, and amending provisions must be harmonized and construed together with the original statute.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal is maintainable before the High Court against an order passed by the Insurance Appellate Tribunal under the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972?
- Does Article 40-A of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order incorporate the right of appeal provided under section 110(12) of the Insurance Act?
- How are original statutory provisions and subsequent amendments to be construed and harmonized together?
- What is the effect on jurisdiction when a substantive right of appeal is conferred without explicit exclusion of the court's jurisdiction?
- State Bank of Pakistan, through Assistant Director, BankingK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 94 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- State Bank of Pakistan vs M/s Raza Enterprises And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 13 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
- State and anothers vs Sajjad Hussain and others1993 SCMR 1523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the jurisdictional reach of the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) regarding trials under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether the FSC possessed appellate jurisdiction over FATA, given the exclusionary effect of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court) Order, 1984 (P.O. 5 of 1984), and Article 247(7) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the FSC’s jurisdiction is governed by Chapter 3-A of the Constitution, specifically Article 203-A, which holds supremacy over other constitutional provisions. The Court determined that P.O. 5 of 1984, being a sub-constitutional instrument post-revival of the Constitution, cannot override the FSC’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, Article 247(7) expressly excludes the Supreme Court and High Courts but does not mention the FSC. Consequently, the FSC’s exercise of jurisdiction was upheld. Additionally, the Court affirmed that judicial stay orders operate from the moment of issuance, rendering subsequent proceedings in violation of such stays void, regardless of whether the order was formally communicated to the lower court.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Shariat Court have jurisdiction over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas?
- Does the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court) Order, 1984, override the jurisdiction granted to the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-A of the Constitution?
- Does Article 247(7) of the Constitution exclude the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court in relation to Tribal Areas?
- Does a judicial stay order become effective only upon its formal communication to the lower court, or from the time it is passed?
- Standard Triumph Motor Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 1652 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-25Read full judgment →
- ST. Joseph Textiles vs Union of India and another1993 SCMR 2198 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
- Sona vs Returning Officer/Ac and another1993 CLC 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
- Sohan Singh Bast and another vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner1993 PTD 494 · Delhi High Court · 1991-08-06Read full judgment →
- Sohail Zia Butt vs Ch. Muhammad Saeed1993 MLD 2503 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-07Read full judgment →
- Sohail Iqbal vs The State1993 SCMR 2377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the conviction and sentence of death imposed upon the appellant for murder. The core legal question examined was whether, given the circumstances of the case, including the absence of previous enmity, a sudden quarrel over a petty matter, and the early youth of the petitioner, the extreme sentence of death was appropriate or if an alternate sentence should be awarded. The Supreme Court held that due to discrepancies in recording the appellant's age and giving him the benefit of doubt regarding his adolescent status at the time of the offense, the death sentence was not warranted. Consequently, the Court partially accepted the appeal, set aside the sentence of death, and substituted it with imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that where ambiguity exists regarding the young age or adolescent status of a convict at the time of the commission of a capital crime, the benefit of the doubt should be extended in favor of mitigating the sentence from death to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether the sentence of death should be commuted to life imprisonment on the ground of the convict's young age?
- How should discrepancies in recording the age of an accused person be resolved in capital sentencing?
- Does a sudden quarrel over a petty matter without previous enmity justify mitigating the death penalty?
- Sohail Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2446 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
- Sohail Ahmad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 273 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
- Society for Conservation and Protection of Environment (Scope), Kara_cd3f2c781993 MLD 230 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-12Read full judgment →
- Smt. Thakamma Mathew vs M. Azamathullah Khan and others1993 SCMR 2397 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit filed by the appellant seeking cancellation of an agreement to sell and recovery of possession of immovable property. The trial court decreed the cancellation, but the High Court, in appeal, reversed this decision, invoking its discretionary power under Order 7 Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant specific performance in favor of the defendant. The core legal question was whether the High Court could grant specific performance when the limitation period for such a suit had expired and the statutory requirements under the Specific Relief Act 1963 were not satisfied. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting specific performance, as such discretionary power cannot override statutory limitations regarding limitation and the necessity of proving readiness and willingness under Section 16, Specific Relief Act 1963. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court improperly reversed findings on part performance under Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act 1882 without adequate evidentiary review. The matter was remitted for reconsideration.
Questions settled- Can a court grant specific performance under Order 7 Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the limitation period for filing such a suit has expired?
- Does the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act 1882 require that the possession be exclusively referable to the contract?
- Is a party seeking specific performance required to prove readiness and willingness under Section 16, Specific Relief Act 1963 even if the relief is granted as a discretionary measure?
- Smt. Krishna Gupta vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1993 PTD 593 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1992-03-04Read full judgment →
- Smt. Indramani Bai and another vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl.)1993 PTD 988 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding the taxability of profits derived from a land transaction. The appellants, two individuals, purchased a plot of land in December 1963 and sold it in divided plots shortly thereafter, realizing a profit. The Income Tax Officer treated this profit as income from an 'adventure in the nature of trade,' a classification contested by the assessees. While the Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the assessees, finding the purchase was for investment purposes, the High Court reversed this decision, concluding the transaction constituted a trade adventure. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The Court found that the Tribunal had made unwarranted assumptions regarding the assessees' background without proper elucidation. The Court held that the rapid subdivision and sale of the land shortly after purchase were circumstances more consistent with a commercial venture than a passive investment. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the transaction was indeed an adventure in the nature of trade subject to income tax.
Questions settled- Whether the profit derived from the purchase and subsequent subdivision and sale of land constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade?
- Can an appellate tribunal's findings be overturned if they are based on unwarranted assumptions regarding the taxpayer's background?
- What factors determine whether a land transaction is an investment or an adventure in the nature of trade?
- Tahir Bashir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 119 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
- Smt. Chandravati Atmaram Patel vs Commissioner of Wealth-Tax1993 PTD 1286 · Gujarat High Court · 1992-07-28Read full judgment →
- Smt. Anantkuverba (Legal Representative of H.H. Maharaja Sri1993 PTD 1523 · Gujarat High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
- Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited And Other vs FerozsonsK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 112 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din and 3 others vs Sardar Khan and 2 others1993 SCMR 745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from pre-emption suits filed by tenant appellants under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972. After initial civil court decrees were set aside for lack of jurisdiction, the suits were transferred to the revenue forum, where the Additional Commissioner decreed in favor of the appellants and directed them to deposit purchase money within 15 days. Instead, the appellants sought to adjust amounts previously deposited in the civil court. The Board of Revenue and High Court ruled against the appellants, holding that time could not be extended and the right to pre-empt was lost. On appeal, the Supreme Court interpreted the deeming clause in paragraph 25(8) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972, holding that while revenue forums exercise the powers and procedure of a Civil Court, this statutory fiction is limited and does not make previous deposits in civil courts automatic satisfaction. However, because the Additional Commissioner's decree lacked the mandatory penal clause required by Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 stipulating dismissal upon non-payment, the suit could not be dismissed for non-deposit. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Collector to pass a proper decree.
Questions settled- Does the deeming provision in paragraph 25(8) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 allow a deposit made in a Civil Court to automatically count as purchase money deposited under a revenue court's pre-emption decree?
- Is a pre-emption decree valid and capable of entailing dismissal for non-payment if it fails to include the mandatory direction under Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 specifying dismissal upon default of deposit?
- Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed for non-deposit of purchase money when the decree itself does not contain the mandatory penal clause prescribed by law?
- Sindh Quality Control Board of Drug and anothers vs Ws. Pioneer1993 SCMR 1177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenges a High Court judgment that allowed a Constitution petition filed by the respondents and declared criminal proceedings initiated against them under the Drugs Act, 1976 to be without lawful authority due to issues regarding the notification date of the Drug Inspector. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether it is proper for the High Court to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash criminal proceedings when adequate alternative remedies, such as seeking acquittal or dismissal under the Code of Criminal Procedure or before the Drug Court, are available. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its writ jurisdiction to short-circuit the normal course of a criminal trial, as objections regarding the competency of proceedings or cognizance should properly be raised before the trial court. The key principle laid down is that High Courts should decline to exercise constitutional or extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with or quash ongoing criminal proceedings where the relevant statute and the Code of Criminal Procedure provide adequate remedies and forums for raising legal objections.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court should exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to quash criminal proceedings when statutory remedies are available?
- Can an accused challenge the competency of criminal proceedings before the Drug Court rather than filing a constitutional petition in the High Court?
- Is it proper for the High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction to short-circuit the normal procedure of a criminal trial provided by law?
- Sindh Industrial Trading Estates vs Sindh Employees' Social Security1993 MLD 1258 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-21Read full judgment →
- Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. vs Provincial Ombudsman and others1993 SCMR 15 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition filed by the Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. (S.I.T.E.). The petitioner contested a notice issued by the Provincial Ombudsman, arguing that it did not qualify as an "Agency" under section 2(1) of the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Act, 1991. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a corporate body, fell within the statutory definition of an "Agency," which includes departments, commissions, offices, or institutions established or controlled by the Provincial Government. The Supreme Court, relying on its previous judgment in Central Board of Revenue v. S.I.T.E., held that the petitioner functioned as a department of the Provincial Government despite its corporate incorporation. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the petitioner fell within the ambit of the definition of "Agency" under the Act. The principle laid down is that where a corporate entity is found to perform functions essentially as a department of the Provincial Government, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Ombudsman.
Questions settled- Does the Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. qualify as an 'Agency' under the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Act, 1991?
- Can a corporate body be considered a department of the Provincial Government for the purpose of statutory definitions?
- Is the definition of 'Agency' under the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Act, 1991, wide enough to include institutions controlled by the Provincial Government?
- Sindh Engineering & Bangle Works Hyderabad through 4 Partners vs Habib Bank Ltd1993 PLD Karachi 38 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges a judgment and decree passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, which decreed a recovery suit filed by the respondent bank against the appellant firm for a loan with interest. The core legal questions involved whether a suit based on a promissory note is maintainable when the loan is also secured by hypothecation and equitable mortgage, and whether non-presentation of a promissory note under Section 67 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defeats a recovery claim upon default of instalments. The court held that a promissory note provides an independent cause of action, and securing a loan by a mortgage does not bar a creditor from suing on the promissory note, subject to the procedural restrictions of Order XXXIV Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, Section 67 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not apply when an independent installment agreement dictates that default on a single installment matures the entire balance payable on demand. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Is a suit on the basis of a promissory note maintainable when the loan is additionally secured by the hypothecation of stock and machinery and an equitable mortgage of property?
- Does the failure to present a promissory note for payment under Section 67 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 bar recovery when default occurs on structured installments?
- Can a creditor enforce a promissory note independently of a mortgage executed for the same loan facility?
- Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution vs Messrs Cowasjee and Sons1993 SCMR 1433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding whether the Lighters division of M/s. Cowasjee and Sons was liable for social security contributions under the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The appellant argued that because the parent partnership was notified for coverage, all its business units, including the Lighters division, fell under the notification's scope. The core legal question was whether a notification issued under Section 1(3) of the Ordinance, which specifies particular establishments, could be interpreted to include separate business units owned by the same partnership, despite those units not being explicitly named. The Supreme Court held that the notification was specific to the establishments listed. The Court determined that the notification treated the partnership's various activities as distinct entities, evidenced by the separate listing of other units. Consequently, the Court ruled that common ownership is not the sole test for coverage; rather, the specific commercial activity identified in the notification governs liability. The principle laid down is that notifications under the Ordinance must be interpreted based on the specific establishments identified, and cannot be extended to include separate business units merely based on shared proprietary interest.
Questions settled- Does a notification issued under Section 1(3) of the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, covering a parent partnership automatically extend to all its separate business units?
- Is common ownership sufficient to treat distinct business units as a single establishment for the purposes of social security contributions?
- How should a notification issued under Section 1(3) of the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, be interpreted when it lists specific establishments?
- Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution and anothers vs M/s.1993 SCMR 1656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed a Constitution petition filed by the respondent. Although the constitutional petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust an alternate statutory remedy, the petitioners (Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution) felt aggrieved by certain observations made by the High Court regarding the interpretation of provisions of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, arguing that those points were neither raised nor argued. The core legal question concerns the propriety of a court adjudicating an issue on merits while dismissing a petition on a preliminary point without hearing arguments from the parties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that leave to appeal should be granted specifically on the question of whether it was proper to pass a judgment on merits when the merits had not been argued, while declining to grant leave on the substantive interpretation of the statute at this preliminary stage so that the High Court may first express a considered opinion on pending matters.
Questions settled- Whether it is proper for a court to adjudicate an issue on merits while dismissing a petition on a preliminary point without hearing arguments from the parties?
- Does the amount of wages under the Sindh Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 relate to the date of initial appointment or subsequent dates?
- Sindh Employees Social Security Institution vs Habib Sugar Mills1993 PLD Karachi 61 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application impugned an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, rejecting an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in a suit valued at one thousand rupees. A preliminary question arose regarding the appropriate forum for the revision application in light of the amendment to section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code conferring concurrent revisional jurisdiction on District Courts. The Sindh High Court held that while both the High Court and the District Court possess concurrent jurisdiction to entertain revision applications, the analogy of section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code read with section 18 of the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 and section 115(2) of the Civil Procedure Code requires litigants to approach the court of the lowest grade competent in the first instance, which in this case was the District Court. Consequently, the High Court ordered the return of the revision application to the applicants for presentation before the District Judge, Nawabshah.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court and the District Court have concurrent revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply by analogy to regulate the choice of forum for filing a revision application?
- Should a revision application against an order in a suit within the appellate jurisdiction limits of the District Judge be filed before the District Court first?
- Sindh Employees Social Security Institution vs Aishama InternationalK.L.R.1993 Labour & Service Cases 109 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-05Read full judgment →
- Sikandar vs The S.D.M., Rohri and others1993 P Cr. L J 2292 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
- Sikandar vs M. Asif1993 MLD 2320 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hayat vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1867 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
- Shyam Sunder Dhoot vs Wealth Tax Officer1993 PTD 1355 · Rajasthan High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
- Shukar Din and others vs Nazir Ahmed and others1993 CLC 1367 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from consolidated suits regarding land measuring 31 kanals and 17 marlas, originally mortgaged in 1916. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of absolute ownership by efflux of time, while the respondents filed a parallel suit for redemption. The trial court decreed the petitioners' suit and dismissed the respondents', but the lower appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing redemption and dismissing the declaration suit. The petitioners challenged this on two grounds: first, that failure to separately appeal both decrees rendered the unchallenged decree final; and second, that a preliminary decree in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ought to have been passed. The Lahore High Court held that a composite judgment and decree sheet were lawfully issued, meaning a single challenge sufficed to address both suits without procedural defect. Furthermore, under Section 3 of the Punjab Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964, redemption of mortgages under specific monetary and area thresholds is permissible, and the civil court can grant such relief. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to file separate appeals against distinct decrees arising from consolidated suits and a composite judgment is fatal to the appeal?
- Does a composite judgment and decree sheet cure technical defects regarding separate challenges to consolidated suits?
- Can a civil court grant redemption of a mortgage on the principles embodied in Section 3 of the Punjab Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964?
- Shoukat Ali Shahani vs Senior Supdt of Police S.R.P. Sukkur And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 31 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Shiv Shanker Sita Ram vs Commissioner of Income Tax1993 PTD 819 · Allahabad High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Shireen Dil Khan Niazi and 3 others vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence1993 MLD 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
- Sherzada vs The State1993 SCMR 149 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a driver, was convicted by the trial court under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for transporting seven kilograms of heroin in a vehicle, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether the prosecution's failure to account for the four-day gap between the dispatch and receipt of samples by the Chemical Examiner vitiated the conviction, whether the appellant could claim immunity under Section 27 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as a mere driver, and whether conscious possession was established. The Court held that the technical gap in custody does not invalidate the prosecution's case where the accused denies recovery entirely. It further clarified that Section 27 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is inapplicable to the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Regarding conscious possession, the Court ruled that knowledge is inferred from circumstances; by denying the recovery and fabricating a defense, the appellant failed to rebut the inference of conscious possession. The Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment, citing the appellant's role as a carrier.
Questions settled- Does the failure to account for the transit period of samples sent to a Chemical Examiner automatically invalidate a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Is the definition of possession under Section 27 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable to offenses under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Can conscious possession of contraband be inferred against a driver who denies the recovery of the items entirely?
- Does a false defense regarding the recovery of contraband preclude a claim of lack of knowledge regarding the presence of such items?
- Sherwani Member-II Hamid Jamil vs Mir Afzal Khan And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 10 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1992-03-04Read full judgment →
- Sherin Bacha and others vs Namoos Iqbal and 3 others1993 PLD Supreme Court 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a land dispute between closely related parties. Following the delivery of possession of the disputed property in 1986, the respondents filed a complaint for criminal trespass under Section 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The complaint was initially filed as not proved, but subsequently revived, leading to a revision petition before the Government which was allowed on the basis that possession had already been delivered. The respondents challenged this in the High Court, which accepted the writ petition and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the plea of autrefois acquit, as the appellants had already been tried and acquitted by a Magistrate for the same trespass and theft under sections 447/427/188/148/149 of the PPC. The Supreme Court held that since the acquittal judgment had attained finality and remained unchallenged, the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the General Clauses Act bar the re-trial of an accused for the same offence. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be re-tried for the same offence of criminal trespass if they have already been tried and finally acquitted of that offence by a competent court?
- Does an unchallenged judgment of acquittal by a Magistrate bar subsequent trial on a private complaint based on the same continuous trespass?
- Whether the High Court can validly remand a criminal case for a fresh trial when the accused has already been acquitted of the same transaction by a competent criminal court?
- Sheraz Ata Ullah Khan And Another vs Messrs Shahjahan Khan And OtherK.L.R.1993 Revenue Cases 19 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sheraz Ata Ullah Khan (minor) through his real maternal uncle vs Nazir1993 CLC 945 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a pre-emption suit filed by two co-plaintiffs claiming superior pre-emptive rights. The trial court decreed the suit, and the lower appellate court reduced the sale price and fixed a deadline for depositing the decretal amount. Before the deadline, the plaintiffs filed a review petition stating that one co-plaintiff wished to withdraw and the remaining petitioner sought a decree for the entire land while offering to deposit the full amount. The appellate court initially permitted the petitioner to deposit his share but later dismissed the review petition and the entire suit for failure to deposit the total sum within the original deadline. The Lahore High Court held that a right of pre-emption is individual and independent, meaning the withdrawal of one co-plaintiff does not defeat the suit as a whole, and the remaining plaintiff is entitled to pre-empt the entire property. The Court further held that a litigant cannot be penalized for failing to deposit money due to a pending court application or act of the court. The revision was accepted, the dismissal set aside, and a decree granted to the petitioner alone upon depositing the balance sum.
Questions settled- Whether the withdrawal of one co-plaintiff in a pre-emption suit results in the dismissal of the suit in toto or whether the remaining plaintiff can pre-empt the entire property on the strength of an independent right?
- Does a pre-emption decree abate or fail entirely when co-plaintiffs fail to deposit the total decretal amount due to a pending review application and court orders?
- Can an appellate court extend the time for depositing the balance of pre-emption money while deciding a review petition or upon dismissal of an appeal?
- Does an act or omission of the court regarding the postponement of a deposit obligation prejudice the litigant's right to maintain a pre-emption suit?
- Sherali vs Mst. Seema Begum1993 CLC 2368 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-18Read full judgment →
- Sher Zaman vs Muhammad Amir and 5 others1993 P Cr. L J 2519 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Zaman vs Muhammad Amir And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 502 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Samand Khan vs Additional District Judge, Bhakkar and 3 others1993 SCMR 1565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two petitions for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over land measuring 286 Kanals, 9 Marlas. The respondent, Mst. Sher Khanum, challenged a general power of attorney and subsequent sale deeds as forged, and her suit was decreed in her favour by the first appellate court and upheld by the High Court. In a parallel proceeding, the petitioner challenged the setting aside of a civil court decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which had made an arbitrator's award a rule of the court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that both the first appellate court and the High Court correctly found the power of attorney to be a forged document. The Court rejected the petitioner's objection regarding the competency of the suit filed by the respondent's husband, noting that the objection was not raised in the written statement and no issue was framed. The Court further held that since the civil court decree was procured by fraud and misrepresentation, it fell within the mischief of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Can a party raise an objection regarding the competency of a suit on the basis of an attorney's authority if such an objection was not raised in the written statement and no issue was framed?
- Does a civil court decree procured by fraud and misrepresentation fall within the scope of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Sher Qadir Khan vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Barkat Bibi and others1993 MLD 692 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 90 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad And Another vs Ghulam MuhammadK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 98 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad and 4 others vs Saeed Akhtar Tatla and 2 others1993 MLD 2064 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad alias Shera vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 474 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad alias Shera vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 484 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →