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.
- Sher Khan and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2168 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-25Read full judgment →
- Sher Dil Khan and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
- Sher Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 281 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
- Sher Ahmad Accused vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 104 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal matter arises from a petition for bail filed by Sher Ahmad, who was apprehended by the Railway Police aboard the Khushal Express train with one hundred forged currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination recovered from his shirt pocket. The core legal question was whether the act of possessing such forged notes while travelling constituted trafficking under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendering the offence non-bailable, or mere possession under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is bailable. The Peshawar High Court held that in the absence of evidence of trade, commerce, sale, or exchange, the case fell prima facie under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court laid down the principle that when an offence is punishable with fine only or fine alongside imprisonment, the accused is generally entitled to bail as of right to avoid double jeopardy resulting from pre-trial detention, and consequently granted bail to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the mere possession of forged currency notes while travelling on a train constitute trafficking under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an offence punishable with fine or alternative imprisonment bailable as of right?
- Does refusal of bail leading to prolonged detention amount to double jeopardy when the conviction might ultimately result only in a fine?
- When does transportation of forged currency notes amount to trading or trafficking?
- Sher Afzal Khan vs Basharat Ahmed Khan and another1993 P Cr. L J 933 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
- Sheikhupura Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 580 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Tariq vs Muhammad Sharif, S.I./S.H.O., Police Station Model1993 P Cr. L J 2065 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Salim Ali vs Syeda Sitara Zaidi1993 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muzaffar Rashid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2262 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Nasim vs Haji Mohiuddin and 3 others1993 MLD 1802 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-15Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Aslam vs Samira Aamer and 2 others1993 CLC 208 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf and anothers vs Sub.Mjor (Retd.) Mir Badar Din1993 SCMR 2323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the petitioners, which resulted in an eviction order subsequently upheld by the Appellate Court and the High Court. The petitioners challenged these orders, contending that the premises in dispute were evacuee property and thus the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners had obtained the premises on lease from the respondent, and therefore, were estopped from challenging the landlord's title. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners, not claiming any title to the premises themselves, lacked the standing of an aggrieved person to contest the ownership status or the character of the property. The Court also highlighted that the petitioners had no right to urge arguments on behalf of third parties regarding the property's character. Consequently, finding no merit in the petitioners' contentions and noting that possession had already been delivered in execution of the decree, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is a tenant estopped from challenging the title of their landlord?
- Does a tenant have the right to challenge the character of a property as 'evacuee property' if they do not claim title to the premises themselves?
- Can a person who does not claim title to the premises in dispute be considered an 'aggrieved person' entitled to challenge a decree?
- Sheikh Faqir Muhammad vs Muhammad Din1993 SCMR 1955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a pre-emption suit. The trial court decreed the appellant's suit, and the District Judge dismissed the respondent's first appeal. The respondent then filed a revision petition in the High Court, which was accepted and the suit was dismissed. Leave was granted to examine whether the revision petition was maintainable given that a second appeal lay to the High Court. The Supreme Court held that since the suit was instituted in 1979, the law applicable at the time governed the vested right of appeal under Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, meaning a second appeal lay rather than a revision petition under Section 115. Treating the revision as a second appeal would involve factual inquiries regarding limitation and condonation of delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and remanded the matter for re-hearing.
Questions settled- Whether a revision petition is maintainable against an appellate judgment and decree where a second appeal lies to the High Court?
- Does the right of appeal governed by the law at the time of the institution of a suit constitute a vested right?
- Can a revision petition be treated as a second appeal without examining the question of limitation and condonation of delay?
- Sheikh Abdul Rahim vs Noor Muhammad and 8 others1993 CLC 1059 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a suit for rendition of accounts regarding rental income from a jointly owned property. The trial court initially granted a preliminary decree, but the first appellate court set aside this decision, ruling the suit not maintainable in its present form. Consequently, the appellate court remanded the matter under Order 41, Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint to seek recovery of a specific amount. The defendant challenged this remand order, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to order an amendment without a formal application and that the claim had become time-barred. The High Court upheld the remand order, holding that under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, courts possess the authority to direct necessary amendments to pleadings at any stage, including the appellate stage, to determine the real controversy, regardless of whether a formal application is filed. The Court further affirmed that such amendments are permissible even if the limitation period has expired, provided they do not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court direct the amendment of a plaint to correct a formal defect without a formal application from the parties?
- Does the expiration of the limitation period for a claim automatically bar the court from allowing an amendment to the pleadings?
- Does an amendment of a plaint to change the relief from rendition of accounts to recovery of a specific amount fundamentally alter the nature of the suit?
- Sheen Akbar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1997 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- Sheeda Khan and others vs Administrator, Market Committee, Kasur1993 CLC 2046 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2041 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- Sharu and 2 others vs Mst. Fatima and others1993 CLC 625 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment regarding the inheritance of landed property left by a deceased Muslim owner who died in 1936. The core legal questions involve whether the family was governed by custom or Shariat law in matters of inheritance, and whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by time and adverse possession. The Lahore High Court held that the documentary evidence established that the family followed Shariat law rather than custom, rendering the 1937 mutation excluding female heirs illegal. The Court further held that upon the death of a Muslim owner, the estate immediately vests in the legal heirs automatically, making them co-sharers in joint possession, thereby negating any pleas of limitation or adverse possession by other co-heirs. The key principles laid down are that Islamic law of inheritance applies retrospectively to Muslim estates under the relevant statutory provisions, that a wrong mutation confers no title, and that possession by one co-sharer is deemed possession for all co-sharers.
Questions settled- Whether female heirs are entitled to inherit under Shariat law despite a historical mutation sanctioning inheritance under custom?
- Can a plea of adverse possession be successfully raised by a co-heir against other co-heirs in joint property?
- Does the estate of a deceased Muslim vest automatically in the legal heirs immediately upon death without any interregnum?
- Are the provisions relating to Shariat law of inheritance under Ordinance 13 of 1983 retrospective in nature?
- Sharif-Ul-I-Iaq vs The State1993 MLD 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Sharif and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 629 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
- Shamsuddin vs Province of Punjab and others1993 CLC 200 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
- Shamir, through Legal Heirss vs Faiz Elahi, through Legal Heirs1993 SCMR 145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a challenge to the Lahore High Court's judgment, which had restored the trial court's dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration against a decree for specific performance. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants alleged that the decree for specific performance was obtained fraudulently and was void due to non-compliance with Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, as prior permission of the Collector was rejected. The core legal questions pertained to whether an agreement to sell violated Section 19 of the Act and whether specific performance could be ordered. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal. Relying on settled precedents, the Court held that an agreement to sell is not hit by Section 19 of the Act. Furthermore, documentary evidence established that proprietary rights had already been acquired prior to the agreement. Lastly, allegations of fraud and undue influence must be proven through strong and independent evidence, which was absent here as the plaintiff failed to testify.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell violate Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 in the absence of Collector sanction?
- Can a decree for specific performance be declared void under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 where proprietary rights have already been acquired?
- Is a party's failure to depose on oath regarding allegations of fraud and undue influence fatal to proving such allegations in civil litigation?
- Shamir Khan And 2 Other vs Muhammad Ismail And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 78 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-03-21Read full judgment →
- Shamas-Ud-Din and 4 others vs Mst. Sitran Begum alias Sitara Begum1993 MLD 962 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
- Shamas Ud Din, Alias Shamsoo vs Province of Punjab And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 136 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
- Shakila Begum vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 133 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
- Shakil Ahmed vs Ashfaq Ahmed1993 CLC 1669 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Akhtar and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2421 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1993 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition challenges the conviction of the petitioner under sections 354 and 450 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question raised was whether house-trespass committed with the intent to commit an offence punishable with up to twenty-five years' imprisonment under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 falls within the scope of section 450 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which applies to offences punishable with imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that since imprisonment for life is practically equivalent to twenty-five years, an offence carrying a maximum sentence of twenty-five years' imprisonment is covered by the phrase 'offence punishable with imprisonment for life' under section 450. Furthermore, the Court noted that the conviction could alternatively be sustained under sections 451 or 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Does house-trespass committed to commit an offence punishable with twenty-five years' imprisonment fall under section 450 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an offence punishable with twenty-five years' imprisonment be equated with imprisonment for life for the purposes of house-trespass?
- Whether the conviction under section 450 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when the intended crime carries a maximum sentence of twenty-five years?
- Shaireen Abdullah vs Mehmood Akhtar1993 PLD Lahore 466 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the recovery and custody of her two minor children, aged 3-1/2 and 2-1/2 years, from her former husband. The respondent father contended that the petitioner had surrendered her right of Hizanat pursuant to an agreement executed at the time of divorce and argued that custody disputes should be determined by the Guardian Court under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The High Court considered whether it could issue directions regarding minor custody under Section 491 Cr.P.C. when the minors are detained or kept away from their lawful guardian. The High Court held that under Mohammadan Law, the mother possesses the natural right of Hizanat over children of tender age, which cannot be defeated except by her misconduct. Ordering that custody of both minors be handed over to the mother immediately in the interest of their welfare, the Court clarified that the parties remain free to seek final adjudication regarding guardianship before the Guardian Court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore custody of minor children of tender age to the mother?
- Does a mother retain her right of Hizanat over infant children under Mohammadan Law after the dissolution of marriage?
- Can an agreement surrendering the right of Hizanat deprive a mother of the custody of minors of tender age where their welfare requires her care?
- Shaikh Mushtaque Ali vs Mrs. Rahat Abbas1993 MLD 208 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Sher vs Asghar Ali1993 MLD 190 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Iqbal. vs Saira Bano1993 CLC 1761 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and others1993 CLC 795 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a civil suit filed by respondents seeking a declaration of title and cancellation of a registered sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner after initial service reports indicated an incomplete address and subsequent substituted service via newspaper proclamation was effected. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree within thirty days of acquiring knowledge, along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The trial court accepted the application and set aside the decree, finding the initial service defective and fraudulent. However, the revisional court reversed this order. The Lahore High Court held that the revisional court erred in setting aside the trial court's discretionary order, noting that there is no legal bar to relying on original court records and process-server reports regarding service. The High Court established that where a defendant is not duly served and an ex parte decree is obtained through an incomplete address, the period of limitation runs from the date of knowledge, and the trial court's discretionary relief setting aside the ex parte decree ought not to be interfered with lightly.
Questions settled- Can a court rely on the order-sheet and process-server reports on the original file when deciding the question of a defendant's service without formally exhibiting them in evidence?
- Whether the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree commences from the date of knowledge of the decree when the defendant was not duly served?
- Is an order for substituted service via newspaper proclamation valid when procured on the basis of process-server reports showing an incomplete and vague address?
- Should a revisional court interfere with a discretionary order passed by a trial court setting aside an ex parte decree in the absence of legal error?
- Shaikh Muhammad Afzal vs Virbai through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 1702 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant, directing him to vacate the premises due to alleged default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could order eviction when the relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed and the landlord's title to the specific demised premises was not established. The High Court held that the Rent Controller's order was unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the respondent failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship, as the respondent's title to the specific portion occupied by the appellant remained unproven, particularly in the absence of a demarcation plan for the allotted property. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving the landlord-tenant relationship lies initially on the landlord. The key principle laid down is that a Rent Controller lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed questions of title; where a landlord's title is genuinely disputed, the landlord must first establish their ownership through a competent Civil Court before seeking ejectment proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of title regarding the demised premises?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant when the tenant denies the landlord's title?
- Can a landlord maintain an ejectment application against a tenant without first establishing title to the specific property in a Civil Court when that title is disputed?
- Shaikh Abdul Hamid vs Khurshid Ahmad1993 SCMR 1071 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a pre-emption suit where the defendant's defense was struck off under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the suit was decreed without recording any evidence. The core legal question examined was whether a suit can be decreed without recording evidence upon the striking off of a defense. The Supreme Court acknowledged that ordinarily a decree cannot be passed without recording evidence under such circumstances. However, upon examining the merits of the case and inquiring into the appellant's actual defense in the pre-emption suit, the appellant's counsel conceded that the respondent possessed an admittedly superior right of pre-emption under the applicable repealed law and that no sustainable defense existed. The Court held that since the appellant had no valid defense on merits, remanding the matter would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the leave to appeal was withdrawn and the appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Questions settled- Can a suit be decreed without recording any evidence after striking off the defense of a defendant under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Will the Supreme Court withdraw leave to appeal and decline to remand a case where the appellant has no valid defense on the merits of the pre-emption suit?
- Shahzado Langah , vs The Secretary Labour and TransportK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 92 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Shahzadi Begum vs Suleman Khan and 3 others1993 CLC 1753 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
- Shahid Muhammad Khan and 2 others vs The State and another1993 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Shahid Bawani vs Government of Sindh through Home Secretary and another1993 P Cr. L J 2528 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-11Read full judgment →
- Shahi Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1993 SCMR 1370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition against the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision, which had reinstated a Public Relations Officer (respondent No. 3) after setting aside his termination. The core legal question was whether respondent No. 3 qualified as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether his duties primarily entailed manual or clerical work, or were administrative/legal in nature. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof lay heavily on the employee to establish that he performed purely clerical and manual duties, which he failed to discharge satisfactorily through the insufficient and unsatisfactory evidence produced. The Court ruled that the Labour Appellate Tribunal erred in relying on unproduced and irrelevant documents to reverse the factual findings of the Labour Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and restored the original order of the Labour Court dismissing the grievance petition.
Questions settled- Whether an employee designated as a Public Relations Officer qualifies as a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the nature of duties performed in a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact by labor tribunals if the decision is not in accordance with the evidence on record?
- Shahbaz Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2308 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the Special Court for Speedy Trial for the murder of Zulfiqar Ali. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with guns, participated in the killing by inflicting butt blows on the deceased after he had been shot by an absconding co-accused and injured by another co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence, primarily consisting of testimony from interested witnesses without independent corroboration, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the context of a pre-existing blood feud. The Court held that the prosecution failed to produce reliable, independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of the complainant and his brother. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellants' use of gun butts rather than firearms suggested a lack of murderous intent, or alternatively, that the prosecution's attribution of weapons was unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of interested witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration?
- Does the use of gun butts by an accused, when firearms are available, negate the intention to commit murder?
- Is the prosecution required to produce independent evidence when the case rests on the testimony of witnesses with a history of enmity toward the accused?
- Shahbaz Ahmad vs The State1993 MLD 2487 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-12Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Afghan vs The State1993 SCM R224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a convict sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment, whipping, and a fine for an offense under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of narcotics including charas, opium, and heroin. The petitioner sought relief on three grounds: the trial court's failure to grant the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898; the Federal Shariat Court's failure to grant the same; and a request for leniency based on the petitioner's repentance (Tauba). The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to further mitigation of sentence based on these grounds. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had already received adequate relief, as the Federal Shariat Court had significantly reduced the sentence initially imposed by the trial court. The Court affirmed that while the principle of considering repentance (Tauba) in sentencing is valid unless prohibited by law, it did not warrant interference in this specific case given the heinous nature of the crime and the leniency already extended by the appellate court. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can the principle of repentance (Tauba) be applied to mitigate sentences in criminal cases under laws where it is not expressly prohibited?
- Is the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences awarded under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence that has already been significantly reduced by the Federal Shariat Court in a narcotics case?
- Shahamand Ali And Other vs SHO P.S. Gogera Distt. Okara And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 5 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
- Shahamand Ali and 6 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Gogera, District1933 P Cr. L J 2256 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
- Shahabuddin vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-24Read full judgment →
- Shahab Matloob vs Government of Province of Sindh through Chief1993 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged the Sindh Government's nomination of four students to reserved seats at the Balochistan Engineering College, Khuzdar. The petitioners, who possessed superior academic marks, contended that the nominations were arbitrary, mala fide, and ignored merit. The core legal question was whether the government possessed unfettered discretion in these nominations or was bound by merit-based criteria. The Court held that the nominations were without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It found that the college prospectus explicitly mandated merit-based selection. Furthermore, the Court determined the nominations were mala fide, as the selected candidates were related to high-ranking government officials and had significantly lower marks than the petitioners. The Court affirmed that while Principles of Policy under the Constitution are not directly enforceable, they serve as vital aids for interpreting legal instruments to ensure merit-based access to professional education. Consequently, the Court directed the government to reconsider the nominations strictly on merit.
Questions settled- Whether the government has unfettered discretion to nominate students against reserved seats in an educational institution when the prospectus mandates merit-based selection?
- Can the Principles of Policy under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be used as an aid to interpret legal instruments?
- Does the nomination of candidates based on personal connections rather than merit constitute a mala fide exercise of executive power?
- Shahab Din and another vs The State1993 MLD 379 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
- Shah Zaman vs Sher Afzal Khan and another1993 PLD Peshawar 155 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of orders passed by a Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge, whereby an accused person employed abroad was exempted from personal appearance during trial under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether employment and physical absence abroad constitute an 'incapability' of appearing before the court justifying exemption under Section 540-A, or if such incapability is strictly confined to sickness or infirmity. The Peshawar High Court held that the term 'incapability' under Section 540-A is not restricted to sickness or physical infirmity, but extends to circumstances where an accused is unable to attend due to employment abroad, provided the trial court's satisfaction is based on objective considerations in the facts of the case. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether the term incapability under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is strictly restricted to sickness or physical infirmity?
- Can an accused person employed abroad be exempted from personal appearance during a criminal trial under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What constitutes objective consideration for a trial court's satisfaction while granting exemption from appearance to an accused under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shah Zaman and 9 others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1993 MLD 1186 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-03-13Read full judgment →
- Shah Wali and anothers vs The State1993 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction of two individuals for narcotics possession under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question addressed is whether the prosecution successfully established possession when narcotics were recovered from a vehicle occupied by two individuals who both denied ownership and failed to provide any explanation for the presence of the contraband. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved joint possession and ownership, as the accused failed to offer any truth or explanation despite having the opportunity to testify. The Court emphasized that under the current legal and constitutional framework, an accused person is expected to assist the court in discovering the truth rather than relying on total denial. The key principle laid down is that while an accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence, they have a duty to assist the court in finding the truth, particularly by appearing as a witness, and failure to do so may negatively impact sentencing outcomes, such as the loss of potential mitigation for those acting merely as carriers.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an accused to testify or provide an explanation for incriminating evidence affect the court's determination of possession?
- Can an accused person be held liable for joint possession of narcotics found in a vehicle occupied by them?
- Does the current legal framework in Pakistan impose a duty on the accused to assist the court in discovering the truth?
- Shah Nawaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2538 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Saeed Tetla, S.H.O.1993 P Cr. L J 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Administrator1993 CLC 902 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2306 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before the Deputy Commissioner and S.D.M., Karachi (East), arising from an F.I.R. registered under Section 188/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant was accused of removing sand in violation of an order promulgated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the court could take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a complaint filed by a Station House Officer (S.H.O.) rather than the public servant whose order was allegedly violated or their superior. The High Court held that the proceedings were illegal because they violated the mandatory requirements of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which restricts cognizance of such offences to complaints filed by the specific public servant concerned or their superior. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire proceedings against all accused, establishing the principle that failure to adhere to the statutory complaint procedure under Section 195 constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Questions settled- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on an F.I.R. lodged by a police officer?
- Who is authorized to file a complaint for the violation of an order promulgated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to comply with the complaint requirements of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the quashment of criminal proceedings?
- Shah Mohammad Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 340 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
- Shah Jehan vs Imtiaz alias Papache and another1993 P Cr. L J 683 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
- Shah Din And Other vs (M/s.) Hajveri Cooperative Society Ltd. AndK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-03Read full judgment →
- Shah Alam Khan vs Vicechancellor, Agriculture University, Peshawar1993 PLD Supreme Court 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a constitutional petition filed by a student challenging his expulsion from the N.-W.F.P. Agriculture University, Peshawar, for violating a Supreme Court directive and a mandatory undertaking prohibiting students from indulging in politics in educational institutions. The core legal question concerned whether the expulsion of the student for political activities and disruption of university administration was justified, and whether the institutional authorities could exercise parental jurisdiction by forgiving a repentant student. The Supreme Court held that while indiscipline must be curbed strictly, educational institutions also possess a parental jurisdiction wherein forgiving and forgetting, akin to the Islamic principles of forgiveness and repentance, are vital corrective components alongside punishment. The Court laid down that institutional heads exercising disciplinary or contempt-like corrective powers are not bound to impose harsh punishments in every instance of defiance, but may wisely exercise discretion, leniency, and forgiveness when genuine remorse and a solemn undertaking of good conduct are demonstrated by the student.
Questions settled- Whether educational authorities are bound to impose harsh punishment in every case of institutional defiance or whether they can exercise parental discretion to forgive a repentant student?
- Can a student expelled for violating an undertaking against indulging in politics be reinstated upon showing genuine remorse and submitting a fresh undertaking to the court?
- Does the disciplinary jurisdiction exercised by educational institutions partake elements of corrective and contempt jurisdiction allowing for expediency and propriety?
- Shafqat Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2517 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
- Shafqat Ali Khan vs Mahboob Alam1993 MLD 219 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a rent dispute where the landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on grounds of rent default, unauthorized subletting, and unauthorized structural alterations. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application, finding no evidence to support the allegations. On appeal, the landlord abandoned the default claim but pressed the grounds of subletting and structural impairment. The High Court examined whether the tenant’s act of allowing a nephew to reside in the premises constituted subletting and whether adding a wooden screen to a balcony impaired the premises' value or utility. The Court held that subletting requires the tenant to part with exclusive possession and control of the property, which was not established here as the relative was a family member. Furthermore, the Court held that minor structural changes, such as adding a screen, do not constitute grounds for ejectment unless they materially impair the property's value or utility, a burden the landlord failed to meet. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that mere permissive occupation by family members does not constitute subletting.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a relative residing with a tenant in rented premises constitute unauthorized subletting?
- What is the legal test to determine whether a tenant has sublet the premises to a third party?
- Does the addition of a minor structural modification, such as a balcony screen, automatically constitute grounds for ejectment based on impairment of value or utility?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a tenant's structural modifications have materially impaired the value or utility of the rented premises?
- Shafique Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
- Shafi Muhammad alias Muhammad Shafi vs Government of Sindh1993 PLD Karachi 401 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
- Shafaqat Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2586 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
- Shafaat Begum and 11 others vs Amjad Hamid and 10 others1993 SCMR 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from a pre-emption suit where the respondents' suit was initially dismissed, but an appeal to the Lahore High Court was allowed, and the case remanded. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court on the specific ground that no pre-emption decree could be passed after June 30, 1986. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, thereby setting aside the High Court's decision to remand the case for a pre-emption decree. The Court affirmed that no pre-emption decree could be passed after the specified cut-off date. However, it was noted that the respondents retained the right to file an application under Section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, before the trial court, which, if filed, would be processed according to law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption decree be passed after June 30, 1986?
- Do respondents in a pre-emption suit have the right to file an application under Section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, before the trial court?
- Shabihul Hassan Rizvi vs Director General_Commissioner Excise and Taxation, Sindh, and 2 others1993 CLC 765 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain and others vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dera Ghazi Khan and others1993 MLD 26 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain and 2 others vs Muhammad Ayub1993 P Cr. L J 1670 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain alias Shabba vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2332 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
- Shabbir and 2 others vs Mujeebur Rehman1993 CLC 173 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Shabbir and 2 others vs Abdul Hamid1993 PLD Karachi 486 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Shabbir And 2 Other vs Mujeebur RehmanK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 196 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmed vs Mst. Ghulam Sakina and 2 others1993 CLC 1880 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-02Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmed Alias Pappu vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad and others vs Khushi Muhammad and others1993 CLC 2316 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for permanent injunction regarding land originally allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the agreement of sale was void under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1958, while the appellate court held the agreement was not void but that its execution was not established and a suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court's findings regarding the non-execution of documents were based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, and that an agreement of sale executed by an allottee cannot be avoided under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1958. Furthermore, the High Court held that instead of dismissing the suit on technical grounds, it was a fit case to exercise powers under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale upon payment of the remaining consideration and making good the deficiency in court-fee.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement of sale executed by an allottee is void under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1958?
- Can an appellate court grant a decree for specific performance under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the original suit was framed as one for permanent injunction?
- When does limitation start to run for filing a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale concerning government land allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands Act?
- Does the non-appearance of a plaintiff who is of advanced age and physically incapacitated justify drawing an adverse inference against him?
- Shabbir Ahmad and anothers vs Chena1993 SCMR 1685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a pre-emption claim over resumed land. The petitioners challenged the status of a grantee of resumed land, arguing that such a grantee does not qualify as an owner, that the grant was conditional and occurred after the pre-emption suit was instituted, and that the Record of Rights still identified the State as the owner. The Court, in its initial judgment, had held that the grant was complete and that conditions such as non-alienation or requirements for proper cultivation were merely restrictive covenants that did not detract from the grantee's ownership status. In the review proceedings, the Court reiterated that pre-emptors must maintain their superiority of right up to the date of the decree. Finding that no contrary law was cited to challenge the legal principles established in the impugned judgment and noting that a rehearing is outside the scope of review jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that restrictive covenants do not negate the transfer of ownership.
Questions settled- Do restrictive covenants, such as non-alienation clauses, in a land grant negate the grantee's status as an owner?
- Must a pre-emptor maintain their superiority of right until the date of the decree?
- Does a review petition allow for the rehearing of a case on its merits?
- Shabbir Ahmad alias Pappu vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2383 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
- Shaafi Woollen Industries Limited, Lahore and 5 others In the matter of vs Not1993 PLD Lahore 691 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
- Sh. Riazuddin vs Aoilurrehman Siddiqui and 4 others1993 PLD Supreme Court 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of applications by the Lahore High Court seeking a refund of court fees paid on a plaint and an appeal, following the withdrawal of the suit due to an out-of-court settlement. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to order the refund of court fees when a suit or appeal is withdrawn before a final adjudication, despite the absence of express statutory provisions in the Court Fees Act, 1870. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing the refund. The Court determined that requiring payment of court fees when parties have compromised and withdrawn proceedings, thereby saving judicial time, contradicts the constitutional mandate to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice. Consequently, the Court ruled that it is incumbent upon the judiciary to adopt interpretations that further constitutional objectives rather than negate them. The appeal was allowed, and the issuance of a certificate authorizing the refund of court fees paid on the plaint and memo of appeal was ordered.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have inherent jurisdiction to order the refund of court fees upon the withdrawal of an appeal due to an out-of-court settlement?
- Is Section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, exhaustive regarding the grounds for refunding court fees?
- Does the constitutional mandate for inexpensive and expeditious justice require the refund of court fees when judicial time is saved by the withdrawal of proceedings?
- Sh. Rashid Ahmad vs The Election Tribunal Comprising MR. Justice Mian1993 PLD Lahore 791 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by an elected candidate challenging an interim order of the Election Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the election petitioner's application under Section 64/65 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 to summon certain witnesses with records through the Court, despite their names not being in the original election petition and affidavits not being annexed. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to summon private persons or witnesses not listed in the petition under the special procedure prescribed by the Election Commission under Section 62(1) of the Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 64 of the Act, the Tribunal possesses the powers of a Civil Court, and under paragraph 6 of the relevant Election Commission Notification, it holds the authority to examine witnesses if required. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are meant to advance justice rather than entrap litigants, and Constitutional writ jurisdiction is not maintainable against interim orders of the Tribunal since an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal under Section 67.
Questions settled- Does an Election Tribunal have the jurisdiction to summon witnesses whose names and affidavits were not appended to the original election petition?
- Can an Election Tribunal exercise the powers of a Civil Court under Section 64 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 to summon witnesses through the process of the court?
- Is a Constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable against an interim order passed by an Election Tribunal when appellate remedies are available under Section 67 of the Representation of the People Act 1976?
- Sh. Muzaffar Ali Jawa, Chairman Town Committee Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad vs Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and 2 others1993 CLC 304 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muzaffar Ali Jawa vs D.C. and others1993 MLD 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Ilyas vs Malik Muhammad Shaft and others1993 MLD 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Arif and 3 others vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and another1993 CLC 872 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
- Sh. Fayaz Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2592 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
- Sh. Allah Rakha (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs U.P. Church and others1993 MLD 2126 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts decreeing the plaintiff church's suit for a declaration that a Registrar's order directing compulsory registration of a sale-deed in favour of the defendant was void, and that the plaintiff was the owner of the property based on a prior consent decree. The core legal question concerned whether the Registrar's order for compulsory registration was without jurisdiction due to being based on a time-barred appeal, and whether the plaintiff's declaratory suit could override the prior sale. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, limitation is mandatory and jurisdictional, meaning a time-barred appeal cannot legally be entertained, rendering the Registrar's order for compulsory registration without jurisdiction. However, the Court also found that the plaintiff's consent decree was collusive and an attempt to commit fraud to defeat the defendant's validly executed sale-deed. The key principle laid down is that the requirement of limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act goes to jurisdiction, prohibiting waiver, and a discretionary declaratory relief cannot be granted to a plaintiff who attempts to benefit from fraud and collusion.
Questions settled- Whether a defect of limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 is jurisdictional or merely procedural?
- Does an appellate authority have the jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred appeal under the Registration Act 1908?
- Can a discretionary declaratory decree be granted to a plaintiff whose suit is based on collusion and fraud?
- What is the effective date of a registered sale-deed under Section 47 of the Registration Act 1908?
- Sh. Allah Ditta vs Mst. Zainab Begum and 4 others1993 CLC 234 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
- Sh. Abdul Majid vs Settlement Department1993 CLC 1121 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-09Read full judgment →
- Seth Rasesh N. Mafatlal vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1993 PTD 657 · Bombay High Court · 1990-06-07Read full judgment →
- Seth Nisar Ahmad vs Tassawar Hussain and another1993 MLD 2316 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
- Semco Salvage Pte Limited vs m.v. Kaptan Yusuf Kalkavan and another1993 SCMR 593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding a claim for salvage services filed by the appellant against the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant sought to amend the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to align the claim with a subsequent arbitration award and to clarify proceedings in a foreign court. The trial court allowed the amendments, but the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the amendments changed the nature of the suit. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the amendments did not alter the nature of the suit in form or substance, as the original cause of action remained based on salvage services. The Court emphasized that technicalities should be avoided to ensure a just decision and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's order allowing the amendments, affirming that the proposed changes were directly connected to the original cause of action and did not introduce inconsistent pleas.
Questions settled- Does an amendment to a plaint to incorporate a subsequent arbitration award change the nature of the suit?
- Should technicalities be allowed to obstruct the just decision of a case regarding the amendment of pleadings?
- Is an amendment of a plaint permissible if it is directly connected to the original cause of action and avoids multiplicity of proceedings?
- Seith Muhammad Iqbal vs Collector, Lahore District1993 SCMR 2363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a constitutional petition filed before the High Court challenging an order of the Collector declining to renew the petitioner's money-lender licence and directing the registration of a criminal case under the West Pakistan Money Lenders' Ordinance, 1960. While the High Court declared the direction for registering a criminal case without lawful authority, it refused to order the renewal of the licence on the ground that the Punjab Money Lenders' Ordinance ceased to have effect from 30 June 1992 following the Federal Shariat Court's judgment in Dr. Mahmood-ur-Rehman Faisal v. Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that an appeal against the Federal Shariat Court's judgment was pending before the Shariat Appellate Bench, thereby keeping the Ordinance in force by operation of the proviso to Article 203D(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the contention required examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the pendency of an appeal before the Shariat Appellate Bench keeps an impugned law in force by operation of the proviso to Article 203D(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a Collector refuse to renew a money-lender licence based on a Federal Shariat Court judgment while an appeal against it is pending?
- Sehbat Ullah Khan vs Pirzada Noorul Wahid and others1993 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Ministry of Religious. Affairs and Minorities and 2 others vs Syed Abdul Majid1993 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave challenges a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which dismissed an application filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The underlying dispute concerns a plot of land claimed by the Evacuee Trust Property Board, which had been transferred through various parties to the respondent. The Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board passed an order under Martial Law Regulation (MLR) 57 declaring the transfer illegal, which was initially challenged successfully by the respondent in a Constitution petition before the High Court. Subsequently, the appellants filed an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction due to the bar under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, as the order was passed under MLR 57. The High Court dismissed the application under a misconception of facts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that provisions of the C.P.C. apply to Constitution petitions, and an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. is competently filed in the court that passed the final order. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court for decision on merits, noting that if the transfer is hit by MLR 57, the occupants may retain rights by paying the present market price.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. can be invoked in respect of an order passed in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- In which court should an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. be filed when a civil petition for leave to appeal against the judgment has been dismissed by the Supreme Court?
- Do superior courts have jurisdiction to entertain a Constitution petition against an order passed under a Martial Law Regulation if the order is alleged to be void, without jurisdiction, mala fide, or coram non judice?
- Whether an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. can be dismissed under a misconception of material facts concerning the pleadings and the record?
- Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and anothers vs Syed1993 SCMR 2298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which allowed the respondent's appeal and ordered that his upgradation to Basic Pay Scale 17 (BPS-17) be reckoned from 8-8-1983 with consequential seniority. The respondent, an Economic Investigator, was denied retrospective upgradation to BPS-17 from 8-8-1983—the date when similar posts held by other employees were upgraded—on the ground that he lacked a Master's degree pursuant to a subsequent administrative amendment. The Supreme Court held that the initial notification dated 8-8-1983 governing the upgradation did not prescribe a Master's degree as a prerequisite, and a subsequent amendment could not nullify accrued benefits already granted to incumbents. The Court further ruled that the petition did not involve any question of law of public importance to warrant interference, and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an employee is entitled to retrospective upgradation from the date of the initial notification when similarly situated incumbents were granted such benefit?
- Can a subsequent administrative amendment nullify a benefit already granted under an earlier notification?
- Does a service matter concerning individual upgradation without a question of law of public importance warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and anothers vs Malik Riaz Ahmad1993 SCMR 1014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, an Executive Engineer, was dismissed from service following allegations of misappropriation. After the Punjab Service Tribunal set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement, it directed that the intervening period be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Subsequently, the respondent sought to have this period counted towards increments and pension. The department refused, leading to a second appeal before the Tribunal, which ruled in the respondent's favor. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the core legal question was whether the period of extraordinary leave could be counted towards increments and pension under the relevant Civil Service Rules. The Supreme Court held that while the competent authority has discretion under Rule 4.9 of the Civil Service Rules to count extraordinary leave towards increments if the absence was beyond the servant's control, no such discretion exists regarding pension under Rule 2.7 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules. Consequently, the Court allowed the period after the respondent reported for duty to count towards increments but disallowed the entire period for pension purposes, as the law strictly excludes extraordinary leave from qualifying service for pension.
Questions settled- Can a period of extraordinary leave be counted towards increments for a civil servant?
- Does the competent authority have the discretion to count extraordinary leave towards pension under the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules?
- Is a civil servant entitled to count a period of absence towards increments when the absence was caused by the department's refusal to allow them to resume duty?