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.
- Manzoor Ahmad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2377 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-18Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad and 2 others vs Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others1993 MLD 310 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenges an appellate order remanding a case to the trial court for framing preliminary issues regarding maintainability and res judicata. The dispute arose from a long-standing property conflict where the respondents, successors to a pre-emptor who failed to deposit pre-emption money, repeatedly filed multiple suits against the petitioner regarding the same subject matter. The trial court had dismissed these suits, but the appellate court remanded the matter. The High Court observed that the respondents were engaging in vexatious and frivolous litigation, repeatedly ignoring the principle of res judicata. The Court held that the appellate order of remand was improper given the clear history of repeated litigation on the same subject matter. It set aside the remand order, accepted the civil revision with costs, and condemned the filing of such suits as an abuse of the process of law. The Court further directed the District Judge to compile a list of all such suits and the counsel involved, noting that facilitating such litigation constitutes professional misconduct that pollutes the administration of justice.
Questions settled- Can a court allow repeated litigation on the same subject matter where the principle of res judicata clearly applies?
- Does the filing of multiple suits regarding the same property by a party constitute an abuse of the process of law?
- Is it professional misconduct for lawyers to draft and file plaints for suits that are clearly barred by the principle of res judicata?
- Manthar and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 417 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Ferozuddin Baweja and 8 others vs Provincial Government1993 CLC 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Mansha Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 246 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mansab Khan vs (Mst) Shazia KausarK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mansab Ali vs Hafizan and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a declaratory suit filed by the respondents seeking cancellation of two sale mutations in favor of the petitioner, asserting that the mutations were fraudulent, inoperative, and obtained via an unauthorized general power of attorney. The petitioner asserted that the power of attorney was validly executed with consent and that one predecessor had personally sanctioned his sale. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the petitioner's regular first appeal. The Lahore High Court examined whether the lower courts failed to frame and determine a material issue regarding the validity and execution of the power of attorney and whether such failure warranted revisional interference. The High Court held that the core controversy turned on the validity of the registered power of attorney; without determining that issue, the findings on fraud and mutations were defective. The Court held that trial courts have a statutory duty to frame correct issues reflecting the real dispute, and failure to do so constitutes illegal exercise of jurisdiction and material irregularity. The revision was accepted, concurrent judgments were set aside, and the suit was remanded for retrial on all issues after framing the necessary issue.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to frame a specific issue on the core controversy in dispute constitute an illegal exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity warranting revisional interference?
- Does the failure of parties to propose or insist upon framing a necessary issue absolve the trial court of its statutory duty to frame issues reflecting the real matter in controversy?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding fraudulent sale mutations be sustained when the validity of the underlying power of attorney was neither put into issue nor tried by the courts below?
- Manicklal Mukherjee (Kali Durga Estate), Calcutta vs Commissioner1993 SCMR 2241 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, Shahi Bottlers (Pvt.) Limited vs The Punjab Labour1993 SCMR 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute regarding the employment status of a Public Relations Officer (PRO) whose services were terminated. The respondent filed a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, claiming to be a 'workman' performing clerical and manual duties. The Labour Court dismissed the petition, finding the respondent failed to prove his status as a workman. The Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, and the High Court declined to interfere, citing the Tribunal's authority to evaluate facts. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the respondent was indeed a workman. The Court held that the burden of proof rested on the respondent to establish that his duties were primarily clerical or manual, which he failed to discharge. The Court found the Tribunal erred in relying on irrelevant summoned documents and failing to properly evaluate the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, restoring the Labour Court's original decision that the respondent was not a workman.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on an employee to establish their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can a High Court interfere in a Labour Appellate Tribunal's finding of fact if the finding is not 'just and proper' based on the evidence?
- Does the term 'just and proper' in Section 25-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance require orders to be in accordance with the law and accurate based on the record?
- Is a Public Relations Officer who assists in litigation and does not perform routine manual or clerical tasks considered a 'workman'?
- Managing Committee, the Punjab, Club, Lahore vs The Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Lahore and AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 188 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mana and 4 others vs Hussain Bakhsh and 5 others1993 CLC 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a suit for perpetual injunction where the plaintiffs sought to withdraw their suit with permission to file a fresh one, citing formal defects. The trial court initially allowed this, but the District Court set it aside, remanding the case. Following a dismissal on merits, the plaintiffs appealed. During the appeal, both parties' counsel consented to the withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh one, leading the First Appellate Court to grant the request. The defendants challenged this order in revision, arguing that the court failed to determine the specific formal defects required for such permission. The High Court held that the impugned order was a consent order, as both parties' counsel had agreed to the withdrawal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one can be granted not only for formal defects but also for other 'sufficient grounds.' Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision, affirming that parties cannot resile from a consent-based commitment.
Questions settled- Can a court grant permission to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one based on 'sufficient grounds' other than formal defects?
- Is a party permitted to resile from a consent order passed by the court based on the statements of their counsel?
- Does the court have jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one if the parties have consented to such an order?
- Malook Hussain alias Maluka and 2 others vs Muhammad Nawaz and 21993 P Cr. L J 1955 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
- Mall Developers (Pvt.) Limited through Director vs Joint Official1993 PLD Lahore 688 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed by a Director of an auction-purchaser company, Mall Developers (Pvt.) Ltd., seeking the cancellation of a previously issued court sale certificate and the issuance of a new certificate in the name of a nominee company, Mall Tanneries and Leather Works (Pvt.) Ltd. The core legal question was whether a court, under the provisions governing auction sales, possesses the authority to issue a sale certificate in the name of a nominee rather than the actual auction-purchaser, or to cancel a validly issued certificate to facilitate such a substitution. The Court held that a sale certificate must be issued solely to the person declared the purchaser at the time of the sale, as mandated by procedural law. The Court emphasized that it lacks the power to substitute names on a sale certificate or cancel a validly issued one for this purpose. The key principle laid down is that a sale certificate is evidence of title issued to the actual auction-purchaser, and any subsequent transfer of interest to a third party must be effected through a formal, registered sale deed, not by altering the court's sale certificate.
Questions settled- Can a court issue a sale certificate in the name of a nominee of the auction-purchaser?
- Does a court have the authority to cancel a validly issued sale certificate to substitute the name of the purchaser with a third party?
- Is a sale certificate considered a title deed or merely evidence of title?
- What is the correct legal procedure for an auction-purchaser to transfer the purchased assets to a third party?
- Messrs Asma Builders vs Government of Sindh and 9 others1993 CLC 326 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of a sanctioned building plan by the Karachi Building Control Authority due to alleged deviations, including the use of under-size reinforcement bars and violation of open space requirements. The core legal question was whether the Building Control Authority or its officers possessed the legal power to cancel an approved building plan on account of such deviations under the relevant statutory framework. The Sindh High Court held that the action of cancelling the approved building plan was unwarranted by law, as neither section 7-A of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979 nor the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 1979 vest the authority with the power to cancel an approved plan for structural deviations. The Court laid down the principle that while unauthorized deviations from a sanctioned building plan entail specific statutory consequences such as demolition or the charging of scrutiny fees, the authority cannot cancel the initial approval granted to the building plan unless expressly empowered by law.
Questions settled- Does the Karachi Building Control Authority have the power to cancel an approved building plan due to deviations or unauthorized construction?
- What actions are legally permissible against a builder who deviates from a sanctioned building plan under the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979?
- Do the words 'without prejudice to any other action' in section 7-A of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979 confer an implied power of plan cancellation?
- Messrs Asad Brothers vs Ibadat Yar Khan1993 PLD Karachi 140 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which decreed a suit filed by the respondent-landlord against the applicant-tenants for damages, compensation for wrongful use and occupation, water charges, and a permanent injunction. The plaintiff alleged that the tenants had committed a breach of the lease agreement, trespassed into common areas, converted a common toilet into a pantry, and created a nuisance that caused other tenants to vacate. The trial court and the first appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff on all issues. Before the High Court, the applicant's counsel challenged only the quantum of damages as excessive relative to the monthly rent. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence are not open to interference in revision unless vitiated by non-reading or misreading of evidence, and noted that the Supreme Court had already affirmed the finding of nuisance in related eviction proceedings. The Court ruled that damages for unauthorized use, nuisance, and discomfort can be exemplary and differ from contractual loss of bargain. The revision was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts can be interfered with under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the measure of damages for nuisance and unauthorized use of premises distinct from damages recoverable for breach of contract?
- Whether exemplary damages can be awarded against a tenant for causing nuisance and unauthorized occupation of common areas?
- Malik Sikandar through Legal Heirs and others vs Muhammad Rafique and others1993 SCMR 2320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the ownership of the roof of a suit shop. The dispute arose between the petitioner, who holds the transfer of the residential unit above the shops, and respondent No. 1, who claims the roof as part of the shop transferred to him. The High Court, relying on the precedent in Nazir and others v. Syed Israr Ahmad etc. (1981 SCMR 829), held that the transfer of a shop inherently includes the roof from ground to sky. The petitioner contends that this precedent is inapplicable because the roof serves as a courtyard for the residential unit transferred to him, citing Muhammad Yaqub v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, etc. (PLD 1973 SC 439) as the governing authority. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court was legally justified in concluding that the roof was transferred along with the shop, noting the potential conflict in the application of established precedents regarding property transfer rights.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of a shop under settlement laws necessarily include the transfer of the roof from ground to sky?
- Is the precedent established in Nazir and others v. Syed Israr Ahmad etc. (1981 SCMR 829) applicable to cases where the roof serves as a courtyard for an adjacent residential unit?
- Malik Shoaib Anwar vs Bashir Hussain Shami and 2 others1993 SCMR 535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute between a landlord and multiple tenants regarding alleged default in rent payments. The Rent Controller had initially struck off the tenants' defense due to a one-day delay in depositing rent for February 1989, as ordered under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. On appeal, the District Judge set aside this order, accepting an affidavit explaining that the delay was caused by the Court Reader returning 102 challan forms late in the day when banks were already closed. The High Court dismissed the landlord's writ petition against this decision. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether this finding was consistent with established case law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the question of default under section 13(6) of the Ordinance depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The Court affirmed that findings based on uncontroverted evidence regarding procedural delays should not be invalidated on hyper-technical grounds, emphasizing that Rent Controllers must decide matters in accordance with natural justice and fairness rather than rigid legalism.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller's finding of default under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 be invalidated on hyper-technical grounds when the underlying facts regarding the delay are uncontroverted?
- Is a hard and fast rule applicable to determine whether a tenant is guilty of default in rent payment under the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Should a court interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact by a lower appellate authority that is based on uncontroverted evidence?
- Malik Sher vs Rab Nawaz and 2 others1993 SCMR 2035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil appeals arising from pre-emption suits where the appellant sought to exercise a right of pre-emption against the respondents, who claimed superior rights as tenants of the disputed land. The core legal question was whether an appellate court could set aside a trial court's judgment based on the doctrine of sinker—where a vendee joins a stranger in a purchase, thereby losing their own superior right—when that plea was neither raised in the pleadings nor framed as an issue before the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court erred in applying the doctrine of sinker in the absence of such a plea. The Court affirmed that Khasra Girdawaris do not carry a presumption of truth and that the status of a tenant must be determined based on the totality of evidence. Furthermore, the Court held that the respondents, having established their status as tenants and subsequently becoming owners in the estate, possessed a superior right to the land. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to restore the trial court's findings.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court apply the doctrine of sinker to a pre-emption suit if the plea was not raised in the pleadings or at the trial stage?
- Do Khasra Girdawari entries carry a presumption of truth regarding the status of a tenant?
- Is a person's status as a tenant exclusively determined by Khasra Girdawari records?
- Malik Salman Khalid vs Shabbir Ahmad, D & S J, Karachi and another1993 SCMR 1873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that, invoking inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Articles 2A and 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, restrained the arrest of a District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner alleged corruption against the respondent judge following the demolition of an unauthorized structure. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent the arrest of a judicial officer when the prosecution appeared to be an abuse of process intended to scandalize the judiciary. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s intervention was justified, as the evidence indicated a mala fide conspiracy to humiliate the judge. The Court affirmed that while inherent powers under Section 561-A must be invoked sparingly and cannot override express statutory provisions, they are sufficiently wide to allow the High Court to intervene to prevent the abuse of the court's process and to secure the ends of justice in extraordinary circumstances where no other remedy is available.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent the arrest of a judicial officer?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court invoke its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of the court?
- Does the existence of an express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court?
- Malik Saifullah vs Ch. Rehmat Ali1993 MLD 542 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
- Malik Qasim Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1364 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-25Read full judgment →
- Malik Noor Ahmad and anothers vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 500 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Lahore High Court addresses a pre-arrest bail petition arising from F.I.R. No. 63 of 1993 registered under Section 324/34 and later converted to Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance at Police Station Gowalmandi, Lahore, involving the murder of Afreedi Khan. The core legal questions involved the consideration of a plea of alibi at the bail stage and the establishment of mala fides or ulterior motives by the complainant or police as a jurisdictional prerequisite for granting anticipatory bail. The court held that pre-arrest bail is ordinarily not granted to an accused named in the FIR with a direct role, but must be granted or confirmed if the intended arrest is tainted with mala fides due to long-standing hostility and if supported by credible alibi evidence. Accordingly, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail of petitioner No. 2 due to established enmity and strong alibi evidence supported by judicial officers, while dismissing the pre-arrest bail of petitioner No. 1 due to direct eyewitness attribution and lack of similar exculpatory circumstances. The key principle laid down is that a defence plea of alibi and evidence of deep-seated previous hostility and mala fide involvement can form the basis for granting pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi and its supporting material be taken into consideration at the bail stage?
- Whether proof of mala fides or ulterior motives is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when there is a long-standing history of civil and writ litigation establishing deep-seated hostility with the complainant?
- Does the involvement of an accused, prima facie supported by eyewitnesses and medical evidence, disentitle him to anticipatory bail?
- Malik Nazar Muhammad vs Haji Abdul Rauf And AnotherK.L.R 1993 Revenue Cases 68 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-20Read full judgment →
- Malik Nayyar Hussain vs Muhammad Saeed and others1993 MLD 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 627 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Qasim vs Ali Bakhsh and another1993 PLD Lahore 265 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Miskeen And Other vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 369 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Abdullah vs Malik Manzoor Elahi and 2 others1993 MLD 2569 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
- Malik Meraj Khalid vs Ashiq Ali Dial and 4 others1993 MLD 1911 · Election Tribunal · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
- Malik Khan Muhammad alias Khanay vs Moulvi Luqman and 3 others1993 CLC 1552 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition before the Balochistan High Court arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by respondent Moulvi Luqman claiming a 1/3rd share in landed property based on a Will executed by late Muhammad Rasool. During the trial, the petitioner offered to have the suit decreed if the respondent's witness, Feroz, swore on the Holy Qur'an, which the witness did, leading the trial court to decree the suit and the Majlis-e-Shoora to dismiss the subsequent appeal. The core legal questions involved the applicability of sections 211 and 213 of the Succession Act, 1925 to Muslim Wills, and the binding nature of an oath taken pursuant to a party's offer under section 9 of the Oaths Act, 1873. The Balochistan High Court held that sections 211 and 213 of the Succession Act, 1925 do not apply to Wills executed by Mohammadans, as Muslim Wills are governed by Muslim Personal Law and do not require probate or letters of administration. The Court further held that a party cannot resile from an unequivocal evidentiary offer made during trial once accepted and acted upon by the opposing party. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether sections 211 and 213 of the Succession Act 1925 apply to Wills executed by Muslims?
- Is it necessary for a Muslim to obtain a probate or letters of administration in respect of a Will under the Succession Act 1925?
- Can a party be permitted to back out from an unequivocal offer made during trial to be bound by the statement of a witness on oath?
- Whether a witness statement made on oath pursuant to a party's offer is treated as conclusive evidence under the Oaths Act 1873?
- Malik Javed Awan vs Saghir Ahmed Qadri, Returning Officer1993 MLD 2471 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-12Read full judgment →
- Malik Anjum Farooq Piracha vs Waqar Zafar Chohan alias Wakki and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 2498 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
- Malik Anjum Farooq Paracha and 7 others vs Manzoorulhaq Chohan1993 P Cr. L J 1056 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition sought the quashment of F.I.R. No. 495, registered against the petitioners, and the subsequent investigation proceedings. The core legal question was whether a second F.I.R., which served as a counter-version to an earlier registered F.I.R. (No. 488) and had already been the subject of a dismissed private complaint, could be legally sustained. The Court held that the second F.I.R. was a mala fide "counterblast" to the initial murder case and constituted an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasized that a second F.I.R. cannot be registered if it is merely a counter-version or defence to an existing F.I.R. regarding the same incident. Furthermore, because a competent court had already dismissed a private complaint based on the same facts, allowing the police to continue the investigation amounted to double jeopardy. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned F.I.R. and all consequential investigation proceedings to be illegal, without lawful authority, and quashed them, asserting that the Court may interfere at the investigation stage if proceedings are mala fide and without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a second F.I.R. be registered if it is merely a counter-version or defence to an existing F.I.R. regarding the same incident?
- Does the dismissal of a private complaint by a Magistrate bar subsequent police investigation into the same facts?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with police investigation proceedings in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the principle of laches bar a writ petition if the delay does not perpetuate injustice?
- Malang Dad vs Mst. Mah Pari and others1993 PLD Supreme Court 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court revision judgment that reversed concurrent lower court decrees in favor of the appellant on the technical ground of non-payment of Rs. 100 costs. The costs were imposed as a condition under Order XXIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the appellant was permitted to withdraw his first suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The core legal question was whether the non-payment of conditional costs automatically invalidates a subsequent suit, or whether the court possesses the inherent power to condone such omission and allow payment at a later stage. The Supreme Court held that while fulfilling the terms of withdrawal is a prerequisite for a competent subsequent suit, the court retains inherent power to condone bona fide delays or omissions. Applying this principle and Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules 1980, the Court allowed the appellant to pay the original costs along with additional costs, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Does the non-payment of costs imposed as a condition for withdrawing a suit with liberty to file fresh render the subsequent suit incompetent?
- Does the court possess inherent power to condone bona fide delays or omissions in paying conditional costs for filing a fresh suit?
- Can the Supreme Court exercise its inherent powers under the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules 1980 to permit the payment of outstanding conditional costs at the appellate stage to prevent a suit from being dismissed on technical grounds?
- Mala vs Hashim and 2 others1993 SCMR 1960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the amendment of a Warabandi (irrigation schedule) concerning the use of 'Nikal' (surplus water). The appellant challenged a High Court judgment that had set aside lower court decrees and upheld an order by the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer allowing the respondent to amend the Warabandi based on a private partition of land. The core legal question was whether the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer was statutorily required to provide notice to the appellant before modifying the Warabandi, and whether the failure to do so rendered the order a nullity. The Supreme Court held that under Section 68(2) of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, the issuance of notice to the affected party is a mandatory statutory requirement. Finding no evidence that such notice was issued or served, the Court ruled that the order was a nullity. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Canal Officer for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Questions settled- Is the issuance of notice to an affected party mandatory under Section 68(2) of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, before modifying a Warabandi?
- Does an order passed by a Canal Officer without the statutory notice required by the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, constitute a nullity in the eye of the law?
- Can a Warabandi be amended by a Canal Officer without affording an opportunity of hearing to the party whose existing irrigation rights are being curtailed?
- Makhdoom Ahmad Ghauns vs Chairman, Town/Municipal Committee,1993 MLD 1987 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the acquisition of the petitioner's land by the Municipal Committee for public purposes, specifically the construction of a Jinnah Hall, water tank, and disposal works. The petitioner contested the validity of notifications issued under sections 4 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging lack of notice, availability of alternative land, mala fide intent, and the absence of genuine urgency to justify the invocation of emergency provisions. The Court held that the publication of a notification under section 4 in the Gazette constitutes sufficient notice to landowners. It further determined that the suitability of land for public schemes is a matter for the acquiring agency, not the court, and that allegations of mala fides require concrete proof, which was absent here. The Court affirmed that the determination of 'urgency' under section 17(4) is the sole prerogative of the government and not subject to judicial review. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquisition proceedings but, based on the respondent's concession that partial land was no longer required, ordered the release of 14 kanals of the 28-kanal tract.
Questions settled- Is the publication of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in the official Gazette sufficient notice to the landowner?
- Is the determination of urgency under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 subject to judicial review?
- Does the failure to specifically declare the nature of urgency in a notification under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 invalidate the acquisition proceedings?
- Can a court interfere with the acquiring agency's decision regarding the suitability of land chosen for a public purpose?
- Makhdoom Ahmad Ghauns vs Chairman Town/Mun1cipal CommitteeK.I R. 1993 Revenue Cases 124 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Makerwal Collieries Ltd. and 2 others vs Government of N.W.F.P. and 111993 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated appeals examine the legality of the cancellation of a mining lease and a prospecting licence in respect of the same area under the N.-W.F.P. Mining Concession Rules, 1976. The core legal question was whether temporary suspension of mining operations constituted a violation of Rule 44 of the Rules, and whether a fresh show-cause notice was mandatory prior to cancelling a lease when an earlier notice had been waived or not acted upon following the execution of a long-term lease. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while a lessee risks lease cancellation for failing to carry out effective mining operations under Rule 44, the licensing authority must issue a fresh show-cause notice and afford an opportunity of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice before revoking a lease, particularly where earlier notices were superseded by subsequent lease execution. The Court laid down that lease terms and statutory rules must be harmonized, and the principle of audi alteram partem is implicitly read into provisions affecting vested rights unless expressly excluded.
Questions settled- Whether temporary suspension of work amounts to violation of Rule 44 of N.-W.F.P. Mining Concession Rules?
- Whether a fresh notice was necessary after having further extended the lease?
- Whether the official respondents had rightly pressed into service Rule 46 for cancellation of the prospecting licence?
- Major-Genl. (Retd.) B.M. Bhattacharjee and anothers vs Russel Estate1993 SCMR 2192 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-04Read full judgment →
- Major V. P. Singh and others vs State of U.P. and others1993 PTD 817 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Major Shujat Yar Khan vs Rana Abdul Waheed and another1993 MLD 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
- Major Muhammad Hayat Tarrar vs District Collector, Gujranwala1993 CLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., New York vs The Assistant1993 MLD 1222 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-04Read full judgment →
- Major Hamid Ali Khan vs Mian Muhammad Anwar1993 MLD 2305 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) Mumtaz Ahmed vs Blase D'Sa and another1993 MLD 1359 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodurrehman vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1729 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
- Mahmooda Regum and Other vs Rao Naeem HaiderK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 189 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mahmooda Begum and 2 others vs Mst. Sakina Begum and 7 others1993 CLC 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mahmood vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the kidnapping and murder of a minor child for ransom. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarding the death sentence as Qisas and Diyat, alongside imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of circumstantial and direct evidence including last-seen evidence, recoveries, an extra-judicial confession, and a ransom letter, as well as the correct legal categorization of the murder sentence under Islamic penal provisions versus Tazeer. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through unimpeachable circumstantial evidence and the ransom letter written by him. However, the Court held that since the evidentiary requirements for Qisas under Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and section 304(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were not met, the conviction must be altered from Qisas to Tazeer under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court consequently dismissed the appellant's appeal with modifications to the sentencing basis and dismissed the State's appeal against co-accused acquittals.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for Qisas under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained without fulfilling the evidentiary requirements of section 304(I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Whether the recovery of a dead body from the exclusive cattle shed of the accused and the authorship of a ransom letter sufficiently establish guilt in a murder and kidnapping case?
- Does the admission of writing a ransom letter obviate the necessity of examining a handwriting expert during trial?
- On what grounds can an appellate court interfere with the acquittal of co-accused persons recorded by a trial court?
- Mahmood Arif vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf1993 PLD Lahore 564 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →
- Mahfoozur Rehman alias Mahfooz Ahmed and 4 others vs The State1993 MLD 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
- Mahboob Ellahi vs The State1993 MLD 2244 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
- Madina Masjid Committee and 3 others vs Anjuman1993 CLC 2227 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts which decreed a suit for declaration, injunction, and possession filed by an unregistered association, Anjuman Ghulaman-e-Mustafa, through its President. The core legal question was whether an unregistered society or association can institute a suit in its own name or through an office-bearer without complying with procedural requirements for representative suits. The Sindh High Court held that an unregistered society lacks legal personality and cannot sue in the name of its office-bearer under the Societies Registration Act 1860, which applies exclusively to registered societies. The Court laid down the principle that a suit by or on behalf of an unregistered association or a large group of persons with a common interest must either implead all members individually or strictly follow the procedure for representative actions under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and dismissed the improperly framed suit.
Questions settled- Can an unregistered society or association file a suit in the name of its President or office-bearer under the Societies Registration Act 1860?
- What is the correct procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for an unregistered association to institute a suit for the enforcement of its rights?
- Does a cause of action belonging to an unregistered association vest in all its members individually?
- Mach Minerals Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs United Minerals1993 SCMR 2078 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court order upholding a status quo injunction in a civil suit regarding mining rights. The core legal questions were whether a civil suit to enforce an arbitration award is competent and whether an assignment of a mining lease without prior permission violates the Balochistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower courts correctly identified a prima facie case for the plaintiff. The Court reasoned that at the interlocutory stage, the plaintiff need not prove success at trial but only raise serious, arguable questions. The Court found that the existence of an agreement and an arbitration award, which the parties had acted upon, provided sufficient grounds for the status quo order to prevent irreparable injury. The Court emphasized that complex questions regarding the validity of the award, the alleged mistake in the agreement, and whether the mining agreement constituted an unauthorized lease assignment were matters to be determined at trial upon the recording of evidence, rather than at the temporary injunction stage.
Questions settled- What is the standard for establishing a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to determine disputes involving mining lease agreements?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an interlocutory order if the lower court's finding of a prima facie case is supported by material on record?
- Ma. Hasnain vs Sheikh Azhar Mahmood1993 MLD 2208 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
- M.S.P. Nadar Sons vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 1668 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
- M.R. Najmi vs The Registrar, Federal Shariat Court, IslamabadK.L.R.1993 Labour & Service Cases 125 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
- M.D. Tahir---Petitiorzr vs Federation of Pakistan1993 MLD 2099 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-28Read full judgment →
- M.A. Qayyum vs MRs, Roshan Sultana and other1993 CLC 1723 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- M. Shaukat Ali vs Election Tribunal and others1993 CLC 2428 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
- M. Sharif and others vs M. Anis Nagi1993 CLC 1123 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-26Read full judgment →
- M. Saeed vs Mst. Sardar Begum and others1993 MLD 446 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
- M. Ramzan vs Abdul Karim Langha, Civil Judge1993 MLD 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
- M. Nazir Inayat Ullah and Company and others vs Punjab Provincial1993 CLC 903 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
- M. Ismail Shaikh vs The State1993 SCMR 1460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of post-arrest bail sought on medical grounds by a Senior Preventive Officer of Customs accused of facilitating the smuggling of a large amount of Pakistani currency out of the country. The core legal question is whether the positive findings and recommendations of a court-constituted medical board regarding an accused's chronic illness can be rejected without challenging the authenticity of the report. The Supreme Court held that where a medical board unanimously opines that the accused suffers from a chronic ailment requiring treatment not feasible in jail, and the report's authenticity is undisputed, the court cannot arbitrarily brush it aside. The ratio laid down is that under the statutory proviso for sick or infirm persons, unchallenged medical board reports establishing severe morbidity warrant the grant of bail in non-bailable offences.
Questions settled- Whether the findings of a court-constituted medical board can be rejected without challenging the authenticity of its report?
- Can an accused suffering from a chronic ailment requiring treatment not feasible in jail be released on bail under the statutory proviso for sick persons?
- Whether bail should be granted on medical grounds in a non-bailable offence when the medical board confirms severe morbidity?
- M. Aslam Butt vs S.P., Traffic1993 MLD 2092 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
- M. Amin Farooq vs Vicechancellor University of Engineering &1993 CLC 474 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Professor against the refusal of study leave by the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore. The petitioner, who had previously been granted study leave twice but could not complete his studies due to family illnesses, sought study leave for a third time, claiming an entitlement to unavailed portions. The core legal question was whether a university employee can claim study leave as of right and whether the refusal of such leave by university authorities constitutes an illegal act warranting constitutional interference. The Lahore High Court held that leave cannot be claimed as of right under the relevant University Ordinances, and the discretion exercised by the authorities to refuse the third study leave in the interest of the university was neither arbitrary nor mala fide. Furthermore, the court held that the non-statutory Ordinances framed by the Syndicate cannot be enforced through a writ petition. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether study leave can be claimed as of right by a university employee?
- Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of non-statutory Ordinances framed by a university syndicate?
- Can university authorities refuse a third-time study leave based on the administrative discretion and interests of the university?
- M s. Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan vs Mohammad Yousaf1993 MLD 469 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
- Lt.Col. (Retd.) Ijaz Ali Khan vs Mst. Shaheen and 2 others1993 CLC 2088 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Guardian Judge and the Additional District Judge, which dismissed the petitioner-father’s application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for the custody of his three minor children. The core legal question concerned whether the father, as the natural guardian, possessed an absolute right to custody, or if the welfare of the minors, considering the father's remarriage and failure to pay maintenance, necessitated their continued residence with the mother. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the welfare of the minors is the paramount and dominant consideration, which overrides the father's natural right of guardianship. The Court affirmed that a father may disentitle himself to custody through conduct, such as failing to maintain his children or creating an environment detrimental to their upbringing. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the mother's right of hizanat is supported by Islamic tradition, and that courts exercising parental jurisdiction must prioritize the minors' best interests, including their educational and emotional stability, over rigid legal presumptions in custody disputes.
Questions settled- Is the father's right to custody of his minor children absolute under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
- Does a father's failure to pay maintenance to his minor children disentitle him from claiming their custody?
- Can a court, in determining custody, prioritize the welfare of the minor over the father's status as the natural guardian?
- Does the presence of a step-mother in the father's household constitute a relevant factor in determining the welfare of the minors for custody purposes?
- Loung vs Yar Ali and another1993 P Cr. L J 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-08Read full judgment →
- Lloyds Bank Export Finance Ltd. vs Commissioner of Inland Revenue1993 PTD 323 · The Privy Council of EnglandRead full judgment →
- LlAQAT vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2573 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Rashid and 3 others vs The Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 3 others1993 CLC 558 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three connected writ petitions challenging land acquisition notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioners sought to invalidate acquisition proceedings initiated in 1982, arguing that the delay between the notification under Section 4 and subsequent notifications rendered the proceedings void under Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act, and alleging mala fide conduct. The core legal questions were whether the 1983 amendment (Rule 7) had retrospective effect on proceedings initiated in 1982, and whether the petitions were barred by laches given the ten-year delay. The Court held that the petitions were liable to be dismissed in limine. The Court affirmed that Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act is not retrospective and does not apply to proceedings initiated prior to its enactment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitions were barred by the principle of laches due to the excessive delay in challenging the notifications, noting that public proceedings enjoy a presumption of regularity and that pending intra-court appeals against previous similar judgments do not negate the persuasive authority of existing High Court decisions.
Questions settled- Does Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act have retrospective effect on acquisition proceedings initiated prior to its enactment?
- Can acquisition proceedings be challenged after a significant delay of ten years on the ground of laches?
- Does the pendency of an intra-court appeal against a previous judgment render that judgment non-binding or without effect in subsequent similar cases?
- Is there a presumption of regularity regarding proceedings conducted by public authorities under the Land Acquisition Act?
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2279 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1737 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs Riaz Ahmed1993 MLD 1856 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali and 6 others vs The Government of the Punjab and another1993 P Cr. L J 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali And 6 Other vs Tul Govt. of the Punjab And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 294 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
- Liaqat vs The State1993 MLD 2212 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Rashid vs CommissionerK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Pervaiz Khan vs Government of the Punjab Through HomeK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 51 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1731 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali alias Liaqu vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1823 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
- Laxmishankar Harishankar Bhatt vs Yashram Vasta by Legal Heirs1993 SCMR 2149 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-26Read full judgment →
- Latif Ahmed vs Mst. RashidanK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 24 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Larkana Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs United Bank Limited1993 MLD 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition Collector No.II, Tarbela Dam, Haripur and another vs Aurangzeb Khan and others1993 PLD Supreme Court 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These direct appeals arise from judgments of the Peshawar High Court enhancing compensation for land acquired for the Tarbela Dam reservoir. The respondents' land in Village Thapla was acquired via an award in 1970. Initially, the respondents filed an objection petition resulting in enhanced compensation determined by the Referee Judge in 1974, which attained finality. Subsequently, the respondents filed further objection petitions seeking a change of land classification and additional compensation, which the Referee Judge partially allowed, and the High Court further enhanced. The core legal question was whether subsequent objection petitions against the same award are barred under Section 11 and Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by virtue of earlier concluded proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent references were barred by constructive res judicata, Section 11, and Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The principle laid down is that landowners cannot split their claims against a land acquisition award into multiple successive references, and the omission of claims from an earlier objection petition debars subsequent petitions on the same cause of action.
Questions settled- Whether subsequent objection petitions against the same land acquisition award are barred under Section 11 and Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to proceedings before the court deciding land acquisition objection petitions?
- Can a landowner file multiple successive references regarding classification and compensation arising from the same land acquisition award after an earlier reference has been finalized?
- Lalkhan vs Election Tribunal Senior Civil Judge Sargodha And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 76 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan vs Additional Sessions Judge and others1993 P Cr. L J 2572 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan vs Additional District Judge, Jhelum and others1993 CLC 731 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had originally filed a civil suit for a declaration regarding a sale-deed and mutation, but subsequently moved an application for unconditional withdrawal of the suit. Later, the petitioner sought restoration and then filed an application under Section 12(2) alleging that the withdrawal was procured through fraud and misrepresentation because the respondents failed to fulfill compromise conditions. The trial court and the revisional court both dismissed the application. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of the suit was vitiated by fraud or required recording of a compromise where the withdrawal was unilateral. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner had unilaterally sought unconditional withdrawal without any compromise being placed before the court, and thus no fraud or misrepresentation was established. The court laid down the principle that where a plaintiff unilaterally withdraws a suit without incorporating or presenting a compromise, the trial court commits no illegality in dismissing the suit as withdrawn without recording compromise terms.
Questions settled- Can an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained on the ground of unfulfilled compromise when the suit was unconditionally withdrawn by the plaintiff unilaterally?
- Is it mandatory for a trial court to record the terms of a compromise when a plaintiff makes a purely unilateral application for the unconditional withdrawal of a suit?
- Whether the High Court will interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction when no jurisdictional defect is pointed out in the concurrent orders of the lower courts?
- Lal Din vs Yousaf Ali and others1993 P Cr. L J 831 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Lal Din Qureshi vs Pak. Scandinavian Friendship and others1993 CLC 743 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
- Lal Din and anothers vs Muhammad Ibrahim1993 SCMR 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from the rejection of an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) seeking to set aside judgments obtained on the basis of an alleged forged public document (a death register entry, Exh.D-1). The lower courts dismissed the application in limine on the ground that decrees cannot be set aside merely for false evidence or perjury, relying on principles of res judicata. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned decisions. The Court held that deliberately presenting a forged statutory public record to obtain a judgment amounts to fraud upon the court, which vitiates solemn proceedings. The Court clarified that while a mere false claim known to a party during proceedings may not routinely reopen litigation, the procurement of a decree through forged public documents falls within the ambit of Section 12(2) C.P.C. The case was accordingly remanded to the District Judge for decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Does obtaining a judgment or decree through the use of a forged public document amount to fraud within the scope of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Does a party's failure to detect forgery or produce unforged evidence during initial trial proceedings preclude them from later invoking Section 12(2) C.P.C. on grounds of fraud?
- Whether every deliberate false representation made to a court constitutes fraud that vitiates solemn judicial proceedings?
- Lahore Municipal Corporation, Town Hall Lahore vs Mian AmiruddinK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 118 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Lady Ranu Mookherjee (Executrix to the estate of Late Sir Biren1993 PTD 652 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
- L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 1411 · Allahabad High Court · 1992-08-31Read full judgment →
- L.Da. vs Mrs. Mussarat Imtiaz1993 PLD Lahore 933 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17Read full judgment →
- L. Hussain vs Mohammad Nawab And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 34 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-30Read full judgment →
- Kusum Ansal vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 520 · Delhi High Court · 1991-03-22Read full judgment →
- Kraft Palace vs Commissioner of Income Tax1993 PTD 830 · Allahabad High Court · 1991-09-19Read full judgment →