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.
- Rodney William Walsh vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 94 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-21Read full judgment →
- Rodney William Walsh vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 602 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-21Read full judgment →
- Rizwanullah Lodhi vs Messrs United Bank Limited and another1993 CLC 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd vs The Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore and 3 others1993 CLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
- Riffat Akram vs The Chairman, Admission Board/Principal, King1993 CLC 1508 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
- Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Limited vs Chairman, SindhK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 68 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Riaz Muhammad vs Government of Balochistan, through Secretary1993 PLD Queeta 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-08-19Read full judgment →
- Riaz Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29Read full judgment →
- Riaz Akhtar alias Jajji vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmed Etc. vs Lal Khan Etc.K.L.R 1993 Revenue Cases 50 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmed Arain And Another vs Secretary, Govt. of Sindh & Another1993 KLR Labour & Service Cases 234 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-07-13Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Multan1993 MLD 1885 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad Malik vs Mst. Ghazala Riaz Malik and another1993 CLC 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-16Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali and 2 others vs Mahmood Ahmad1993 CLC 120 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from an ex parte decree for damages in a suit for malicious prosecution. The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their time-barred appeal by the District Judge. The core legal questions were whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal should be computed from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree, whether the delay in collecting certified copies was excusable, and whether a purportedly void decree is exempt from limitation periods. The Court held that the period of limitation for obtaining certified copies is calculated up to the date the copies are ready for delivery, not when they are actually collected, unless the litigant proves they were not informed of the preparation date. The Court further held that even void orders must be challenged within the prescribed limitation period. As the petitioners failed to explain the delay in collecting copies and failed to establish the decree as void, the Court dismissed the revision, affirming that the appeal was correctly dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Is the period of limitation for filing an appeal computed from the date of knowledge of an ex parte decree?
- Does the period requisite for obtaining certified copies extend to the date of actual collection or the date the copies were ready for delivery?
- Must a void order be challenged within the prescribed period of limitation?
- Can a court condone a delay in filing an appeal without a specific explanation for each day of delay?
- Rehmatullah vs The State1993 MLD 526 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ullah and others vs Mukhtar Ahmad and others1993 MLD 202 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ullah And Other vs District Judge SheikhupuraK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 100 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a Special Court for Speedy Trials, challenged the validity of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance XXXVIII of 1991 and subsequent re-enactments, arguing that the President lacked the constitutional authority to re-enact lapsed Ordinances. The core legal question was whether the President of Pakistan is competent under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to re-enact an Ordinance after its expiry. The Court held that the President is fully competent to re-enact Ordinances, even if the subsequent text is identical to the preceding one. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner, having participated in the trial and appeal process without raising jurisdictional objections until after conviction, was estopped by his conduct from challenging the legality of the forums in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that a party who acquiesces to a tribunal's jurisdiction and participates in proceedings in expectation of a favorable outcome cannot later invoke extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to challenge that same jurisdiction, especially when no injustice is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Is the President of Pakistan competent to re-enact an Ordinance after its lapse under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a petitioner who participated in trial proceedings without objection later challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court in a constitutional petition?
- Does the re-enactment of an Ordinance that is verbatim identical to a lapsed Ordinance constitute a valid exercise of legislative power?
- Rehmat Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 61 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali vs Farooq Ahmad Hashmi Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 207 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-14Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali vs Akbar and another1993 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, Akbar, who was accused in a case involving double murder and multiple injuries under sections 302, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent was alleged to have inflicted a firearm injury on the thigh of one of the deceased. The High Court had granted bail primarily on the grounds of the accused's advanced age (70 years), the specific nature of the injury attributed to him, and the lack of recovery from his possession, concluding that the case warranted further inquiry. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that the High Court failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Specifically, the petitioner argued that the High Court granted bail without recording a prima facie opinion regarding the existence of reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offense. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court's order conformed to the statutory requirements for bail.
Questions settled- Does an order granting bail satisfy the requirements of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it fails to record a prima facie opinion on the existence of reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
- Is the advanced age of an accused and the lack of recovery sufficient grounds to grant bail in a case involving non-bailable offences without further analysis?
- Rehmat Ali and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 289 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali alias Rehman vs The State1993 MLD 2032 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Rehman. vs Noora1993 SCMR 1933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises out of a pre-emption suit where the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the concurrent findings or decisions regarding pre-emption. The core legal question is whether the respondent pre-emptor has successfully proved his relationship with the vendors based on the submitted pedigree tables. The court held that the question of relationship between the vendors and the respondent requires further examination and scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to consider the matter on merits, establishing the principle that where pedigree tables relied upon by a pre-emptor require deeper analysis regarding disputed relationships, leave to appeal is warranted to prevent potential miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a pre-emptor to prove relationship with the vendors warrants leave to appeal?
- Does the examination of pedigree tables in a pre-emption suit require further scrutiny by the appellate court?
- Rehma vs Muhammad Yaqoob and others1993 PLD Lahore 479 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
- Rehma vs Muhammad Yaq00b and others1993 PLD Lahore 479 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
- Regum Z1a Farhat Awan And Another vs Haji Abdul RashidK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 64 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
- Registrar of Companies vs CH. Ali Muhammad & CH. M. Saleem And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 230 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
- Reckitt & Colman (U.K.) PLC vs Sheikh Soap Factory and another1993 PLD Supreme Court 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The core legal question concerned the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court to hear an appeal against an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks whose office is situated in Karachi and where the underlying proceedings took place. The Supreme Court held that the Lahore High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, determining instead that the High Court of Sindh at Karachi possessed the requisite jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 does not confer jurisdiction based merely on the residence of a party or the nationwide authority of the Registrar, but rather follows the forum where the impugned order was passed and proceedings were conducted, distinguishing it from provisions under other statutes like the Copyright Ordinance 1962.
Questions settled- Which High Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks?
- Does the mere residence of a petitioner confer territorial jurisdiction on a High Court under the Trade Marks Act 1940 in the absence of a specific statutory provision?
- Does the existence of a branch office or nationwide jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trade Marks empower any High Court in Pakistan to entertain an appeal against an order passed in Karachi?
- Razia Sultana vs Water & Powr Development Authority1993 MLD 477 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
- Razia Sultana Bano and 4 others vs Muhammad Sharif and 9 others1993 SCMR 804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal and petition arose from a transaction where the deceased, Hasan Muhammad, executed an agreement in 1964 to sell verified land units to the appellants' predecessor. After land was subsequently allotted, the appellants filed a suit for specific performance in 1971, seeking enforcement only for a part of the total land (119 Kanals out of 191 Kanals), while other portions had been sold to third parties. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court on revision held the suit was within time yet refused specific performance due to the appellants' conduct and partial enforcement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, a contract must be performed in its entirety unless it falls under the exceptions of Sections 14, 15, or 16. The Court ruled that partial specific performance cannot be granted for an indivisible contract, and the discretionary relief under Section 22 was rightly refused due to the appellants' long delay, acquiescence to other sales, and conduct.
Questions settled- Can a court direct the specific performance of only a part of a contract under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- What are the statutory exceptions to the general rule prohibiting partial specific performance of a contract?
- Does the specification of shares of individual vendees in a single contract make that contract divisible for the purpose of specific performance?
- Under what circumstances can a court exercise its discretion under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 to refuse the relief of specific performance despite the contract being lawful?
- Raza Muhammad and others vs Mst. Jammati and others1993 CLC 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Rasta Baz Khan vs Nasrullah JanK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bux Bhugro vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 602 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-17Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bakhsh vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bakhsh alias Shoobi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
- Rasool Ahmad vs Abdul Hafeez1993 PLD Karachi 488 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-28Read full judgment →
- Rashmin and anothers vs Abdur Rahim and others1993 PLD Peshawar 239 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
- Rashid Khan and 8 others vs M. Murtaza Khan and 12 others1993 CLC 1989 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
- Rashid Farooq Dar, Manager, Technical, Aklasc, Muzaffarabad vs Muhammad Rashid Chaudhry, Deputy Manager, (Production), Aklasc, Mirpur (A.K.) and 5 others1993 MLD 2090 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-07-28Read full judgment →
- Rashid Asghar Khokhar vs Habib Bank Limited, Multan City1993 CLC 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmed Degree holder vs Messrs Taj Company1993 CLC 1099 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-13Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 519 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
- Rao Tasawar Ali Khan vs Muhammad Tufail and others1993 P Cr. L J 2435 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
- Rao Tasawar Ali Khan vs Muhammad Tufail and AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 366 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
- Rao Shamsher Ali Khan vs Government of the Punjab and others1993 SCMR 1692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from applications concerning promotion and seniority disputes. The core legal question addressed is whether the protection afforded to senior officers under the service rules ought to have been denied when a junior officer was promoted prior to a senior one. The Supreme Court held that promotion and seniority are distinct matters, and Explanation III to rule 8(4) specifically contemplates situations where a junior officer is promoted before a senior officer, thereby granting protection to the senior officer. The Court concluded that no case for suo motu review was made out and dismissed the applications, laying down the principle that the statutory protection regarding seniority must be extended to senior officers despite the prior promotion of their juniors.
Questions settled- Are promotion and seniority considered two different matters under service jurisprudence?
- Does Explanation III to rule 8(4) envisage a situation where a junior officer is promoted prior to a senior officer?
- What grounds are necessary to make out a case for suo motu review in promotion and seniority matters?
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2370 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
- Ranmal Samat and others vs State of Gujarat1993 SCMR 2227 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
- Ranjah and others vs Commissioner, Gujranwala and others1993 PLD Revenue 25 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
- Rana Shamshad Ali Khan vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Multan (now Collector, Lodhran) and 4 others1993 SCMR 1473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court in a pending civil revision application, whereby a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the suit premises and report on whether it suffered damage from seasonal rains and required immediate repairs. The core legal question concerns the competence of the High Court to appoint a Commissioner in revision proceedings or to modify an existing status quo order when circumstances so demand. The Supreme Court held that the High Court possessed the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pass incidental orders, such as appointing a Commissioner to inspect a site, to do complete justice between the parties, even if Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was strictly inapplicable. The key principle laid down is that procedural rules are designed to advance the course of justice and cannot be used to obstruct it, and courts retain inherent powers to make necessary incidental orders to meet the ends of justice in the absence of explicit statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the inherent power to appoint a Commissioner to inspect a site in civil revision proceedings?
- Can a court modify an interim status quo order to permit necessary repairs to a dilapidated property?
- Can the absence of a specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 debar the High Court from exercising inherent powers under Section 151 to do complete justice?
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and 31993 CLC 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Akram Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2044 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-06Read full judgment →
- Rana Khalid Sohail vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 328 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
- Rana Khalid Sohail vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1596 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
- Rana Khalid Mahmood vs Chairman, Zila Council, Gujranwala, District Gujranwala and others1993 CLC 1132 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
- Rana Khalid Hussain vs Abdul Haq, S.D.O., WAPDA and another1993 MLD 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
- Rana Gulzar Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Jhang and 2 others1993 CLC 277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
- Ramzan vs The State1993 MLD 557 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
- Rampur Finance Corporation Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax1993 PTD 678 · Allahabad High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Rambai Manjanath Nayak and others vs Union of India and others1993 PTD 1579 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
- Rajalakshmi Narayanan vs Margaret Kathleen Gandhi and others1993 PTD 1591 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-08-14Read full judgment →
- Raja vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
- Raja Pehlwan Khan vs Raja Abdul Ghafoor1993 MLD 2517 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Yasin vs Zaitoon Begum and others1993 CLC 2448 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a Regular Second Appeal and a Civil Revision arising from consolidated suits filed by the appellant, Raja Muhammad Yasin, seeking a declaration of ownership of property based on an alleged oral gift and acknowledgement deed from his deceased brother, and a declaration that the deceased's widow was divorced. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suits, finding the gift unproven and the divorce invalid. The core legal questions were whether the alleged gift was a genuine, completed transaction and whether the divorce was legally effective. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, ruling that the appellant failed to prove the gift or the divorce. It held that the transaction was a sham designed to disinherit the deceased's lawful heirs, which is contrary to Islamic law. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a divorce must be processed through the Union Council to be effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence and probabilities are valid considerations in determining the existence of a fact, particularly when direct evidence is unreliable or suspicious.
Questions settled- Is a gift transaction valid if its primary object is to disinherit lawful heirs?
- Can a divorce be considered effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, if it is not routed through the Union Council?
- Does the definition of 'proved' under the Evidence Act allow a court to rely on probabilities when considering the matters before it?
- Can a written statement filed by co-defendants admitting a claim be accepted as evidence if it appears to be procured by the plaintiff to the detriment of other heirs?
- Raja Maroof Ahmad vs Qamar Zaman and another1993 MLD 933 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
- Raja Iqbal Hussain vs Secy: Board of Revenue, NWFP and Two OtherK.L.R.1993 Labour & Service Cases 199 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
- Raja Gohar Zamir Khan and 6 others vs WAPDA through its Chairman and 3 others1993 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal arises from a land compensation case where the appellants sought recovery of damages caused to their agricultural lands and water mills due to the construction of Khanpur Dam by WAPDA, which altered the course of River Haro and obstructed water flow. The trial court partially decreed the suit, awarding compensation, but the High Court reduced the amount on the grounds that the damaged land remained in the appellants' ownership and could still be put to other uses or reclaimed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants offered to surrender the useless land to WAPDA in exchange for the full compensation awarded by the trial court, an offer which the respondents could not oppose. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' unequivocal surrender of the land justified the trial court's original assessment of compensation. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's judgment was restored subject to the condition that the land stands surrendered to WAPDA.
Questions settled- Whether compensation for land rendered useless by dam construction should be assessed at full market value when the owners surrender the land to the authority?
- Can an appellate court reduce a trial court's awarded compensation without accounting for the complete destruction of the utility of the land?
- Whether an offer to surrender damaged land to the acquiring authority justifies restoring the trial court's original compensation decree?
- Raja Dil Nawaz Khan vs Muhammad Siddique and 6 others1993 MLD 1495 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
- Rai Faqir Muhammad vs Deputy Superintendent of Police and others1993 P Cr. L J 1701 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
- Rahmat Khan vs Abdul Razzaque1993 CLC 412 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, challenged an order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant-landlord's ejectment application against the respondent-tenant for a commercial shop on grounds of default in rent payment, unauthorized construction, nuisance, and personal bona fide need. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant committed a wilful default in rent payment and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal need for the premises, alongside the interpretation of 'mutual agreement' under the Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant failed to prove either a mutual agreement for advance rent or a wilful default, as the tenant had tendered rent and subsequently deposited it before the Rent Controller in accordance with the law, and further failed to establish a bona fide personal need. The court laid down that the expression 'mutual agreement' under section 15(2)(ii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, does not require a written agreement, and that allegations of default must be carefully scrutinized when coupled with other unproven eviction grounds.
Questions settled- Whether the expression 'mutual agreement' for the payment of rent under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, requires a written agreement?
- Does an admission by a tenant of offering rent in advance for certain months suffice to prove a mutual agreement for advance rent?
- Whether a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal need is required to explain the availability of alternative premises and the specific details of such need?
- How should a Rent Controller scrutinize allegations of default in rent payment when brought alongside multiple unproven grounds for eviction?
- Rahim Jan & Company vs Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi1993 SCMR 858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the appellant's miscellaneous appeal regarding social security contributions demanded for trainee chartered accountant students. The core legal questions are whether trainee students under the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961 qualify as "employees" under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, whether a training contract constitutes a contract of service or apprenticeship, and whether stipends paid to them constitute "wages". The Supreme Court held that trainees serving under a training contract perform regular work and are bound to serve the establishment, thereby creating an employer-employee relationship and an apprenticeship under a contract. The Court ruled that the stipends paid fall within the definition of wages, and that their status as students under the Chartered Accountants Ordinance does not exclude them from being employees under the Social Security Ordinance. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether trainee students receiving a stipend under a training contract can be classified as employees under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Does the payment of a token stipend or pocket money to articled clerks fall within the definition of wages under Section 2(30) of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Does the existence of student status under the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961 preclude an individual from being an employee for social security purposes?
- Whether a training contract requiring a trainee to serve an establishment for a fixed term constitutes a contract of service or apprenticeship?
- Rahim Dad And 3 Other vs Abdul Kareem And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 344 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
- Rahat Mahmood vs Tariq Rashid and another1993 PLD Karachi 648 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two applications in a civil suit: an application for an interim injunction by the plaintiff and an application for the rejection of the plaint by defendant No. 1. The core legal question involves whether a subsequent civil suit seeking specific performance and claiming ownership on a benami basis is barred by the final adjudication of a prior rent case and appeal ordering the tenant's eviction, and whether the principles of res judicata apply. The Sindh High Court held that although Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not strictly apply because the prior decision was rendered in rent proceedings rather than a suit, the general principles of res judicata do apply to decisions of tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the plaintiff, claiming through a benamidar bound by the prior eviction proceedings, was precluded from relitigating title and that the plaint was barred by law. The key principle laid down is that a final decision on title in rent proceedings by a forum of exclusive jurisdiction operates as res judicata, barring a subsequent civil action, and plaints that constitute an abuse of the court process must be rejected at the outset.
Questions settled- Does a final decision on title in rent proceedings operate as res judicata in a subsequent civil suit?
- Can the doctrine of res judicata be invoked based on decisions of courts or tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction outside Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when it is barred by the general principles of res judicata and previous binding adjudications?
- RAFIULLAHs vs Muhammad Ashfaq and others1993 SCMR 2056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the convictions and life sentences of the respondents for murder, while dismissing the complainant's revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question was whether the appellate and revisional courts should interfere with the trial court's discretion regarding the quantum of sentence, specifically the decision to impose life imprisonment instead of the death penalty due to the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive. The Supreme Court held that the assessment of the quantum of sentence falls within the domain of the trial, appellate, and revisional courts. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the lower courts' findings, noting that no significant principle of law was involved to warrant such intervention. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the quantum of sentence determined by lower courts unless a specific principle of law is involved, as the sentencing discretion primarily resides with the trial and appellate forums.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the quantum of sentence determined by lower courts in the absence of a legal principle?
- Is the assessment of the quantum of sentence primarily within the domain of the trial and appellate courts?
- Can a conviction be maintained even if the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive?
- Rafique Jabir vs Superintendent of Police and 2 others1993 CLC 1751 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for damages filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, following the death of the plaintiff's son in a road traffic accident caused by a water tanker. The core legal question was the determination of the quantum of compensation payable to the beneficiaries (the parents) for the loss of their unmarried son, considering his potential future earnings and the expected duration of dependency. The court held that in the absence of controverting evidence from the ex parte defendants, the plaintiff's averments regarding the deceased's qualifications and potential career trajectory were accepted, though claims regarding current income from private tuitions were rejected. The court established that for an unmarried victim, it is reasonable to expect them to contribute half of their future earnings to their parents. Applying a multiplier approach, the court calculated the dependency period by deducting the years the deceased would have spent in further education and accounting for future family obligations. The suit was decreed for Rs. 4,68,000, representing the calculated loss of dependency.
Questions settled- What is the reasonable proportion of an unmarried victim's earnings that can be expected to be contributed to their parents in a fatal accident claim?
- How should the period of dependency be calculated when the deceased was a student expected to pursue higher education?
- Can a court accept uncontroverted averments in an ex parte suit regarding the potential future earnings of a deceased victim?
- Rafique alias Pheeki and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trial-II, Lahore, which convicted the appellants for robbery and the murder of a rescuer during the commission of the offence. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony given alleged discrepancies between the FIR and trial statements, the validity of the identification parade, and the admissibility of joint recoveries of stolen property. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the convictions. The Court held that minor variations between an FIR and trial testimony, particularly when the witness is a victim of a traumatic crime, do not render the testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that objections to identification parades require positive evidence of prior exposure, rather than mere assertions by the accused. While acknowledging that joint recovery of stolen property is legally impermissible, the Court found the remaining evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions. The judgment reinforces the principle that independent, impartial eyewitnesses, whose presence is corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, provide a sound basis for conviction despite procedural irregularities in investigation.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between an FIR and trial testimony regarding the number of shots fired automatically render an eyewitness unreliable?
- Can an objection to an identification parade be sustained based solely on the bald statement of the accused?
- Is a joint recovery of stolen property legally permissible under the law?
- Does the procedural irregularity of a joint recovery invalidate the entire prosecution case?
- Rafique Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
- Rafique Ahmad Awan vs The State1993 MLD 832 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Rafiq Ahmad Awan, regarding an F.I.R. registered under Sections 148, 365, 380, 427, 506/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Article 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question is whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when the prosecution appears to be mala fide, abusive of the court's process, and unlikely to succeed. The Court held that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated for mala fide reasons to harass him, as evidenced by his absence from the F.I.R., the falsity of allegations regarding his presence at the scene, and his exoneration in a departmental inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings specifically against the petitioner while allowing the trial to continue against the co-accused. The principle laid down is that the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of the court's process and do not serve the ends of justice.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if the prosecution is found to be mala fide and an abuse of the court's process?
- Does the failure to invoke the remedy under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction for the quashment of a criminal case?
- Is it legally permissible for the High Court to partially quash criminal proceedings against one accused while allowing them to continue against co-accused?
- Rafaqat Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2204 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
- Raeesuddin vs Dr. Aftab A. Khan and 5 others1993 MLD 1704 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-17Read full judgment →
- Raeesa Begum vs Syed Ali Zafar Naovi1993 MLD 404 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-26Read full judgment →
- Raees Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 585 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz vs Mehmood Khan1993 SCMR 2318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed on 26-07-1989 on the grounds of co-ownership and contiguity under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The trial court and appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that Section 15 was declared null and void as violative of Islamic Injunctions after 31-07-1986. Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the suit could proceed under the new dispensation as the plaint satisfied the requirements of the Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance 1990 and the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that under Section 6(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991, the right of pre-emption is exercisable only in cases of 'Zaroorat' or to avoid 'Zarar'. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this view, holding that 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar' are essential questions of fact that must be expressly pleaded in the plaint, and their absence cannot be assumed or left to be raised merely as a defence by the vendee.
Questions settled- Whether the requirements of 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar' under Section 6(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 must be expressly pleaded in the plaint?
- Can a pre-emption suit filed under the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 proceed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 if the plaint lacks pleadings on 'Zaroorat' or 'Zarar'?
- Is the condition of 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 a qualification of the pre-emptor that must be pleaded, or is it merely a defence to be raised by the vendee?
- Rab Nawaz Khan and others vs Muhammad Sharif1993 MLD 435 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 343 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2511 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
- R.K. DEO vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1993 PTD 171 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
- Qutab Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and others1993 CLC 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
- Qureshi Industries vs Karachi Development Authority, Civic Centre, Karachi through its Director General1993 PLD Karachi 553 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arose from a dispute regarding the unilateral cancellation of an industrial plot allotment by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA). The applicant had been allotted a plot by the KDA's governing body and had paid the full occupancy value. Subsequently, the KDA cancelled the allotment without notice, citing internal re-planning. The trial court decreed in the applicant's favor, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Upon review, the High Court held that the KDA could not unilaterally cancel an allotment after the governing body had approved it and the allottee had paid the full occupancy value, as this created a vested right. The Court established that a formal allotment letter is a mere formality once the governing body approves the allotment. Furthermore, the KDA was precluded from introducing new pleas at the appellate stage that were not raised in the original pleadings. The Court concluded that the cancellation was illegal, void, and mala fide, and restored the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Can the Karachi Development Authority cancel an allotment of an industrial plot after the governing body has approved it and the full occupancy value has been paid?
- Is the issuance of a formal allotment order a mandatory prerequisite for the creation of an interest in an allotted plot, or is it a mere formality?
- Can a party raise a new plea in an appeal that was not included in the original pleadings or issues framed by the trial court?
- Does an allottee of a plot acquire a vested right in the property upon payment of the full occupancy value?
- Quresh Ali vs The State and others1993 PLD Karachi 424 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-30Read full judgment →
- Qurban Hussain vs Border Area Allotment Committee and others1993 CLC 201 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-07Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali vs Muhammad Rafique and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 268 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali Khan vs IV Civil & Family Judge (Central), Karachi and another1993 PLD Karachi 159 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging orders passed by a Family Court in an execution application for the recovery of a dower amount, whereby attachment of the judgment-debtor's property was ordered. The core legal question was whether a Family Court is exclusively restricted to recovering money decrees as arrears of land revenue under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, or whether it possesses wider powers including following the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Sindh High Court held that section 13(3) of the Act is an enabling provision vesting a discretionary power in the Family Court to direct recovery as arrears of land revenue through the phrase 'if the Court so directs', and this does not oust the general powers of the Family Court to execute decrees through other appropriate judicial methods. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that Family Courts have broad powers in executing money decrees beyond solely relying on land revenue recovery.
Questions settled- Whether a Family Court is legally bound to execute a money decree exclusively as arrears of land revenue under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Does the phrase 'if the Court so directs' under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 confer discretion upon the Family Court regarding the mode of execution?
- Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 completely barred in proceedings before a Family Court by virtue of section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Can a Family Court adopt modes of execution other than land revenue recovery when enforcing a money decree?
- Quetta Town Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Karachi1993 CLC 787 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-06Read full judgment →
- Quetta Hindu Panchayat vs Mst. Dilshad Akhtar and 5 others1993SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Quetta Hindu Panchayat, challenged a High Court judgment that had set aside an order of the Member, Board of Revenue declaring the disputed property to be non-evacuee. The core legal question was whether the property, historically used as a cremation ground and owned by the Hindu Panchayat whose members did not migrate, could be treated as evacuee property and allotted to claimant displaced persons. The Supreme Court held that since the owners did not migrate and the property was never validly declared as evacuee property prior to the target date under the relevant legislation, the property was non-evacuee and could not be made part of the compensation pool. Consequently, the allotment and subsequent transfers were declared without lawful authority and coram non judice. The key principle laid down is that property belonging to a religious community whose members remain in Pakistan cannot be treated as evacuee property, and any allotment thereof by settlement authorities is a nullity in law.
Questions settled- Whether property belonging to a religious community whose members did not migrate to India can be treated as evacuee property?
- Can an allotment of land made by settlement authorities in the absence of valid evacuee declaration be sustained?
- Whether the Board of Revenue acting under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 has the jurisdiction to determine if a property is non-evacuee?
- Quarban Ali vs The Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab1993 CLC 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
- Quaid Johar and 2 others vs Asghar Ali and 2 others1993 MLD 2173 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →