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.
- Javaid Hussain Sheikh vs Mst. Fehmida Qaisar and others1993 CLC 649 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
- Javaid Hassan Sheikh vs (Mst.) Fehmida Qaisar Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Ciyil Cases 46 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
- Jane Margrete William through General Attorney M. Nawaz Kasuri, Advocate vs Abdul Hamid Mian1993 SCMR 1325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a property dispute between Jane Margrete William and Abdul Hamid Mian. Several complex questions of law arise for consideration, including the legal definition and nature of a Benami transaction, whether such a transaction is recognized in Islam, and whether the transaction in the instant case qualifies as Benami. Additionally, the case examines the propriety of a Single Judge of the High Court suo motu granting the relief of possession without a formal amendment of the plaint, particularly where such inclusion alters the jurisdictional value of the matter to exceed Rs. 2,00,000, thereby impacting the appellate competence of a single bench versus a division bench. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these questions, confirmed the interim order previously granted, directed the appeal to be heard on the existing record with liberty to file further documents, and ordered security to be furnished.
Questions settled- What in law constitutes a Benami transaction and is it recognized in Islam?
- Can a Single Judge of the High Court suo motu grant the relief of possession without the plaintiff seeking an amendment of the plaint?
- Does the inclusion of the relief of possession affecting the jurisdictional value alter the competency of a Single Bench to hear the appeal?
- Jan Muhammad vs The General Manager, Karachi Telecommunication1993 SCMR 1440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal against his compulsory retirement. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of compulsory retirement could be validly imposed upon a civil servant under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 without following the mandatory enquiry procedure prescribed by Rule 6. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal along with the retirement order, and directed the appellant's reinstatement with back benefits. The Court held that where a formal enquiry is ordered under Rule 5, the procedure under Rule 6—requiring the framing of charges, examination of witnesses in support of the charges with an opportunity for cross-examination, and defense evidence—must be complied with in letter and spirit. Conducting an enquiry merely by directing the accused official to answer a questionnaire without examining witnesses fails to meet statutory requirements and vitiates the penalty imposed.
Questions settled- Whether an order imposing a major penalty of compulsory retirement can be sustained where the enquiry procedure laid down in Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 is not followed in letter and spirit?
- Is the examination of witnesses in support of charges mandatory when a formal enquiry is conducted under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does conducting an enquiry by issuing a questionnaire without recording witness evidence satisfy the statutory requirements for imposing a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Jan Muhammad vs Muhammad Ismail and others1993 P Cr. L J 907 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad and others vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1993 CLC 1067 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, D.I. Khan, which transferred a disputed house to the respondents. The petitioners, whose predecessor-in-interest had previously been denied entitlement to the property by the Supreme Court, sought to challenge the transfer, arguing the property should have been disposed of via public auction. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, having been previously declared disentitled to the property, possessed the locus standi to challenge the transfer of the property to the respondents under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court held that the petitioners were not 'aggrieved persons' within the meaning of Article 199, as they had no legal interest in the property following the Supreme Court's prior judgment. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners lacked the standing to invoke constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a party who has been judicially determined to have no entitlement to a property cannot maintain a writ petition to challenge the subsequent transfer of that property to another party, as they do not qualify as an 'aggrieved person'.
Questions settled- Does a party previously declared disentitled to a property by a final judgment have locus standi to challenge the subsequent transfer of that property to another party?
- Is a revision petition maintainable against an order passed by a Notified Officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975?
- Can a party who is not an 'aggrieved person' invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Jan Muhammad and anothers vs Abdur Rashid and 5 others1993 SCMR 1463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising out of a suit for declaration and alternative joint possession concerning land in Khasra No. 3671. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of 1 Kanal 5 Marlas out of 2 Kanals 8 Marlas on the basis of an attested mutation. The defendants/petitioners contested the suit claiming exclusive ownership and adverse possession via a registered sale-deed from their vendors based on an alleged private partition, having constructed a house thereon. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it in favor of the plaintiffs, which was upheld by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court affirmed that the alienation in favor of the petitioners was hissadari (co-sharer basis) and subsequent revenue records reflected co-sharing rather than exclusive ownership. The Court held that possession of one co-sharer is in law the possession of all, and a transferee merely steps into the shoes of the transferor co-sharer without extinguishing joint ownership. Petition was dismissed with directions that petitioners' constructed portion be retained until formal partition.
Questions settled- Whether the possession of one co-sharer of joint property operates in law as the possession of all co-sharers?
- Whether an alienation of specific land by a co-sharer in possession extinguishes the joint ownership or co-sharing status of the remaining co-owners?
- What rights does a transferee acquire when purchasing a specific portion of joint property from a co-sharer prior to formal partition?
- How should a constructed portion built by a purchasing co-sharer with the acquiescence of other co-sharers be treated upon partition of the joint property?
- Jan Muhammad alias Jani and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad Alias Jani And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1933 Criminal Cases 236 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
- Jamshed Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Jamshed Ali . vs The State1993 MLD 2242 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Jamil Ahmad vs The State1993 MLD 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
- Jamil Ahmad Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 750 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-17Read full judgment →
- Jamat Ali And Other vs BahadurK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
- Jamat Ali and 7 others vs Bahadur1993 PLD Lahore 9 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
- Jamaluddin vs Saghir Ahmed Warsi1993 MLD 1809 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-16Read full judgment →
- Jamaluddin vs Muhammad Anwar1993 MLD 876 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- Jamal Din vs Hassan Din and another1993 MLD 796 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
- Jamal Din and 2 others vs Nawab Muhammad Khan1993 MLD 787 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
- Jamait Ali Shah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1547 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
- Jam Pallo vs Bashir Ahmad and another1993 PLD Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant (vendee) regarding agricultural land sold by respondent No. 2 (the pre-emptor's father). The appellant contended that the transaction was an exchange rather than a sale, and that the pre-emptor was estopped from suing because the suit was allegedly filed for the benefit of the vendor, who had assisted in obtaining revenue records. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding it was for the vendor's benefit, but the first appellate court reversed this decision. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that since the appellant failed to challenge the trial court's finding on the 'exchange' issue before the first appellate court, he was precluded from raising it in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court ruled that waiver must be proved by cogent, unequivocal evidence, and merely obtaining certified copies of revenue records does not establish that a suit was filed for the vendor's benefit.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new factual issue in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if they failed to urge it before the first appellate court?
- What standard of proof is required to establish the waiver of a right of pre-emption?
- Does the mere act of a vendor obtaining certified copies of revenue records for a pre-emptor establish that the pre-emption suit was filed for the vendor's benefit?
- Jalees Ahmed Khan vs MRs, Shamim Sarwar and 7 others1993 CLC 2232 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
- Jalal vs Allahyar and another1993 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals against a High Court order granting bail to respondents facing trial for double murder under Section 302 PPC, based on the expiry of the statutory two-year period for trial conclusion. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail despite the trial court's finding that the accused were 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminals, thereby invoking the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the mere nature of the offence, absent evidence of prior criminal history or exceptionally brutal conduct (such as mutilation or indiscriminate firing), does not automatically classify an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminal. The Court held that the statutory right to bail upon the expiry of the two-year period is a significant consideration, and the fourth proviso must be applied based on concrete evidence of criminal character or extreme brutality, rather than speculative assumptions about the nature of the offence alone. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the mere commission of a murder offence automatically classify an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.?
- Can a court grant bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. if there is no evidence of previous criminal involvement or exceptionally brutal conduct?
- What factors should a court consider when determining if an accused is a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminal for the purpose of denying bail?
- Jalal Din vs Muhammad Sharif and another1993 P Cr. L J 2178 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
- Jalal Din through Legal Heirs vs Hassan Din and others1993 SCMR 2033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the validity of a gift deed executed by Khair Din in favor of his son-in-law, Mehraj Din, in 1955. The plaintiff, Jalal Din, challenged the gift, and lower courts initially decreed the suit in his favor, finding that the donor had failed to deliver possession of the land to the donee, as a tenant was allegedly cultivating the land at the time of the gift. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, finding that the lower courts had grossly misread the evidence, specifically the Khasra Girdawari, which showed the tenant only occupied the land from 1957, two years after the gift. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the lower courts' findings were based on a factual error regarding the evidence. The Court held that the High Court correctly re-evaluated the evidence to determine that delivery of possession had occurred in accordance with the law, thereby validating the gift. The appeal was consequently dismissed, emphasizing the necessity of accurate evidentiary assessment in determining the validity of gifts.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fact by lower courts be set aside if it is based on a gross misreading of documentary evidence?
- Does the presence of a tenant on land at a date subsequent to a gift invalidate the delivery of possession at the time of the gift?
- Is the High Court empowered to re-examine evidence in a second appeal to correct a misreading of facts by lower courts?
- Jaindar vs Station House Officer, Police Station Jamshoro and another1993 PLD Karachi 366 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
- Jaffer vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Jaffar alias Sawalla and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 869 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
- Jaffar Ali Shah vs The State1993 MLD 2221 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
- Jaffar 1Bqal and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1749 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Jafar Khan and another vs Vice-Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur and 28 others1993 MLD 1083 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the decision of the Islamia University, Bahawalpur, to strike off the petitioners' names from the rolls due to short attendance, alleging discriminatory treatment compared to other students who were readmitted. The core legal questions were whether a second writ petition is maintainable after the unconditional withdrawal of a previous one on the same facts without seeking permission to file afresh, whether non-statutory university regulations are enforceable via writ jurisdiction, and whether the petition was barred by laches and the suppression of material facts. The Court held that the petition was barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the petitioners withdrew their previous petition without reserving the right to file a new one. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioners guilty of suppressing material facts and laches, noting that the academic session had concluded. The Court also affirmed that non-statutory university admission regulations are generally not enforceable through constitutional petitions unless they violate natural justice. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a second writ petition maintainable if the first one was withdrawn unconditionally without permission to file a fresh one?
- Can non-statutory university admission regulations be enforced through a constitutional petition?
- Does the suppression of the fact of a previously withdrawn petition disentitle a petitioner to equitable relief in writ jurisdiction?
- Can a delay of one year in filing a constitutional petition constitute laches sufficient to dismiss the petition?
- Jafar Hussain Shah and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1900 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
- J.S. Jadhav vs Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf and others1993 SCMR 2132 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
- J.F.C. Gollaher vs Samad Khan1993 MLD 726 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This arbitration suit arose from disputes between a member and the Sindh Club regarding election rules, management practices, and room tariff revisions. The core legal questions concerned the arbitrator's reliance on personal knowledge, the court's jurisdiction to interpret club rules, and the validity of tariff enhancements. The Court held that while arbitration is a quasi-judicial process, an arbitrator cannot rely on personal knowledge to the exclusion of evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that club rules constitute a contract between members and the management, and courts retain the jurisdiction to interpret such contracts, regardless of any finality clause in arbitration agreements. The Court ruled that tariff revisions must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and based on actual necessity rather than targeting specific members. Consequently, the Court remitted the award for reconsideration regarding election procedures—specifically ballot secrecy and the role of scrutineers—and tariff calculations, while upholding the remainder of the award. The judgment establishes that an arbitrator’s failure to decide all referred disputes or reliance on extraneous personal knowledge constitutes misconduct, necessitating judicial intervention under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Questions settled- Does the court have jurisdiction to interpret the rules and bye-laws of a private club when they constitute a contract between members?
- Can an arbitrator rely on personal knowledge to adjudicate disputes without supporting evidence on the record?
- Does the failure of an arbitrator to decide all cardinal points referred to them vitiate the arbitration award?
- Is a tariff revision by a club committee valid if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, or lacks a basis in necessity?
- Izzat Khan and another vs Ramzan Khan and others1993 MLD 1287 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing applications under Order XII, Rule 6 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question involved whether a judgment on admission can be passed under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a deposition made by a general attorney in previous proceedings, and whether such admissions are conclusive. The Sindh High Court held that admissions of fact are not conclusive proof and can be shown to be wrong, and that an admission wrong in fact or made in ignorance of a legal right has no binding effect unless it operates as an estoppel under section 115 of the Evidence Act 1872. Furthermore, judgments upon admission are a matter of discretion and not of right. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether admissions made in previous proceedings are conclusive proof of the matters admitted?
- Are judgments upon admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a matter of right or judicial discretion?
- Under what circumstances does an admission become binding and conclusive on the party making it?
- Izhar Hussain vs Secretary, Ministry of Industries and 4 others1993 SCMR 2258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal regarding the assignment of seniority. The core legal question concerns whether the failure of the department to strictly follow the sequence of filling promotion-quota vacancies before direct-recruitment-quota vacancies vitiates a subsequent promotion and whether a direct recruit can claim seniority over a promotee of the same year who was previously junior. The Supreme Court held that a promotee cannot be penalized for administrative delays or lapses by the department in filling vacancies, and officers promoted to a higher grade as a regular measure in a particular year rank senior as a class to those appointed by direct recruitment in the same year. The court laid down the principle that under the established service rules and general principles of seniority, promotees of a given year take precedence in seniority over direct recruits joining in the same year, and a civil servant who opts to enter a higher grade via direct recruitment cannot override the statutory and rule-based seniority advantage granted to departmental promotees of the same year.
Questions settled- Does a department's failure to fill promotion-quota vacancies before direct-recruitment-quota vacancies vitiate a subsequent departmental promotion?
- Whether officers promoted in a continuous arrangement as a regular measure in a particular year are senior as a class to direct recruits appointed in the same year?
- Can a civil servant who applies and is appointed through direct recruitment claim seniority over a promotee of the same year based on prior inter se seniority in a lower grade?
- Ittehad Chemicals vs Islamic Republic Of Pakistan Through AddititonalPTCL 1993 CL. 620 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing a review application in a writ petition. The appellant challenged the demand and recovery of short-levied sales tax and excise duty initiated via a show-cause notice dated 5 February 1980 issued by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs regarding assessable values of Caustic Soda. The primary legal questions were whether freight and octroi charges were includable in assessable value under Section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, and whether the Deputy Collector had lawful jurisdiction under the Sales Tax Act 1951 to issue a show-cause notice for short-levied sales tax prior to notifications under Section 5(2). The Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of freight and octroi for excise duty valuation but held that the Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction to levy or reassess sales tax prior to the statutory notification of 1 July 1981, and even under that circular, the Deputy Collector functioned as an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, not a Sales Tax Officer. The appeal was allowed in part.
Questions settled- Does a notification under the Sales Tax Act 1951 authorizing the Central Excise Department to collect sales tax confer jurisdiction on its officers to assess or reopen assessments for short-levied sales tax in the absence of an appointment under Section 5(2)?
- Can an officer appointed as Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax under Sales Tax Circular No. 7 of 1981 exercise the powers of a Sales Tax Officer to issue a show-cause notice for escaped assessment under Section 28 of the Sales Tax Act 1951?
- Can the High Court decline to exercise constitutional jurisdiction on equitable grounds where an impugned tax demand is levied entirely without statutory jurisdiction?
- Ittehad Chemicals vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Additional1993 PLD Supreme Court 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal with leave of the Court challenges the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a review application arising from a writ petition. The appellant company manufactured Caustic Soda and was subjected to show-cause notices by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs for short levy of central excise duty and sales tax, based on the non-inclusion of freight and octroi charges in the assessable value under section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector to issue a demand for sales tax arrears. The Supreme Court examined whether the Deputy Collector possessed the legal competence under the Sales Tax Act, 1951 and notifications issued thereunder to issue the notice. The Court held that neither the proviso to section 3(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 nor the collection notifications conferred jurisdiction on the Deputy Collector to issue the show-cause notice for sales tax assessment, as the process of levy and assessment differed from mere collection, and powers were vested specifically in designated Sales Tax Officers. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, declaring the demand for sales tax without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs was competent to issue a show-cause notice for short levy of sales tax prior to the notification dated July 1, 1981?
- Do freight and octroi charges form part of the assessable value for computing excise duty and sales tax under section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Is there a distinction between the process of levy and assessment of sales tax and the process of collection of sales tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that interference would not foster the cause of justice where a tax has been levied without jurisdiction?
- Ismail and 3 others vs Mst. Aisha and 7 others1993 MLD 977 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-06Read full judgment →
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan, through General Manager, Pakistan1993 PLD Lahore 277 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Islamia University, Bahawalpur through Vice Chancellor vs Dr.1993 PLD Lahore 141 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court decided three Intra-Court Appeals and two writ petitions concerning administrative actions taken by the Vice-Chancellor of Islamia University, Bahawalpur against Associate Professors. The Vice-Chancellor had transferred the professors to non-academic posts, suspended them, appointed an authorised officer, and initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Employees Efficiency and Discipline Statute, 1976, claiming authority under Sections 15(3) and 15(4) of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975, alongside delegated powers from a former Chancellor Committee under Section 50. The core legal questions involved the scope of the Vice-Chancellor's emergent powers, whether 'assignment' under Section 15(4)(vi) includes inter-departmental transfers, the survival of transitional delegations, and the susceptibility of such executive actions to judicial review. The High Court held that all discretionary and emergent powers are subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that Section 15(4)(vi) does not authorise transferring specialist faculty across disciplines, that appointing authorised officers and initiating formal disciplinary actions fall exclusively within the Syndicate's jurisdiction under Section 25, and that the 1981 delegation expired upon the Syndicate's constitution. Consequently, the appeals by the University were dismissed, while the petitions filed by the professors were accepted.
Questions settled- Are the emergent and administrative powers exercised by a University Vice-Chancellor under the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act 1975 subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does the power to direct employees to take up assignments under Section 15(4)(vi) of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act 1975 include the authority to transfer specialist academic faculty from one department to another?
- Can a Vice-Chancellor initiate full formal disciplinary proceedings and appoint an authorised officer under Section 15(3) of the Act without prior authority from the Syndicate?
- Does a delegation of statutory authority granted by a transitional Chancellor Committee under Section 50 of the Act survive after the permanent Senate and Syndicate are duly constituted?
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal filed after the normal limitation period saved by Section 4 of the Limitation Act if filed immediately following the High Court's summer vacation?
- Islamia University Bahawalpur through ViceChancellor and 2 others vs Prof. Dr. Muhammad Bilal and 4 others1993 CLC 2066 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- Islam Badshah and 2 others vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Peshawar High Court arose against convictions and sentences under Sections 304(1) and 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellants challenged their culpability for the deaths and injuries arising out of a broad daylight firearm shooting. The primary legal question considered by the High Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically examining the consistency and compatibility of the ocular testimony and site plan distances with the forensic medical evidence regarding firearm firing ranges and wound characteristics.
The High Court held that the ocular account directly conflicted with the medical evidence. While eyewitnesses and the site plan placed the assailants at distances ranging from 25 to 45 feet, the victims' entry wounds displayed scorched and blackened margins, which medically only occur from close range (1 to 3 feet). Given this irreconcilable discrepancy, an unmatched crime empty, and an inadequate motive, the Court granted the benefit of the doubt, accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- Whether ocular evidence placing the shooter at a distance of 25 to 45 feet can be accepted when medical evidence establishes scorched margins only possible from a range of 1 to 3 feet?
- Does an irreconcilable conflict between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony regarding the firing range create reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal?
- Can a conviction be sustained when a recovered firearm empty fails to match any of the shotguns recovered from the accused, suggesting an unrecovered weapon was used?
- Ishtiaq vs Vakeel Ahmed and another1993 P Cr. L J 739 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Ishfaq Hussain Rana vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture, Punjab and 38 others1993 SCMR 1326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the implementation of an order passed by the Chief Minister regularising his service and granting him seniority. The core legal question was whether an executive order passed by a competent authority, which was neither communicated to the civil servant nor formally implemented, loses its legal efficacy. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Minister was fully competent under the applicable constitutional provisions to exercise executive authority and pass the regularisation order. The Court clarified that non-communication does not detract from the efficacy of an executive order, distinguishing the concept of finality from efficacy as cited in earlier precedent. Concurrently, since the subsequent administration had not withdrawn or recalled the Chief Minister's order despite the appellant's repeated representations, the appellant could not be deprived of its benefit. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, and directed the implementation of the Chief Minister's order.
Questions settled- Does an uncommunicated executive order passed by a competent authority lose its legal efficacy?
- Can a civil servant be denied the benefit of an order passed by the Chief Minister if it was not formally implemented or communicated?
- Does the lack of formal communication affect the finality of an executive order in the same manner as its legal efficacy?
- Ishaque Masihp vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Shariat Cases 30 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-04Read full judgment →
- Ishaque Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2594 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-04Read full judgment →
- Ishaque Masih And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 86 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-21Read full judgment →
- Ishaq Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition for bail after being denied relief by the two lower courts in a case involving charges under the Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner, facing trial alongside two co-accused, argued that there was no evidence on record to establish his involvement in the alleged robbery or that he possessed knowledge that the recovered golden bangles were stolen property. Counsel for the petitioner contended that, at most, the petitioner's actions would fall under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a maximum punishment of three years. The State, represented by the learned counsel, did not oppose the grant of bail. Finding merit in the submissions, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and admitted the petitioner to bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds in the amount of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Questions settled- Is bail appropriate when the prosecution does not oppose the application?
- Can a petition for bail be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court?
- Does the absence of evidence regarding knowledge of stolen property warrant the grant of bail in a Hadd case?
- Ishaq Masih vs The State1993 SCMR 1322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent refusal of bail by the lower courts to the petitioner, who was facing trial alongside co-accused under Section 20 of the Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary material available at the pre-trial stage. Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no record indicating the petitioner's involvement in the alleged robbery or that he possessed knowledge that the recovered golden bangles were stolen property, suggesting that the case, at its highest, fell under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a maximum sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment. The Advocate General of Sindh did not oppose the bail application. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the submissions, converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, admitting the petitioner to bail upon the furnishing of a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail when the evidence does not clearly link them to the primary offence of robbery?
- Does the absence of opposition from the State influence the grant of bail in criminal proceedings?
- Can a case involving the possession of stolen property be considered bailable when the maximum punishment is three years' imprisonment?
- Isac Bashir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 44 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-02Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ullah vs Board of Technical Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another1993 CLC 826 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-26Read full judgment →
- Irshad Muhammad alias Dadai vs The State1993 SCMR 904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a murder conviction where the Peshawar High Court had overturned the trial court's conviction under Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, convicting the appellant instead under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellant's actions constituted a complete right of private defence, or if the incident fell under the ambit of a sudden fight, thereby necessitating a modification of the conviction. The Supreme Court observed that the occurrence involved a sudden quarrel without premeditation, where both parties inflicted injuries upon each other. The Court held that the circumstances did not warrant a conviction for murder, as the appellant's actions fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 and altered it to Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that where injuries are sustained by both parties during a sudden, unpremeditated fight, the offence is appropriately categorized under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Does a sudden fight without premeditation fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases of sudden fights?
- Is the failure of the prosecution to place medical evidence of injuries on an accused's person a bar to the court determining the nature of the occurrence?
- Irshad Ali and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 441 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-05Read full judgment →
- Irfanullah Khan vs Ahmed Hussain1993 MLD 1431 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
- Irfan Ahmad alias Papa Dar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1751 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
- Industrial Finance Corporation and others vs Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta and others1993 SCMR 2163 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-16Read full judgment →
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs National Engineering1993 MLD 1344 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Indus Glass Works Limited vs Government of Sindh through Secretary1993 MLD 856 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
- Induprasad Chunibhai Patel vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and others1993 PTD 1078 · Gujarat High Court · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
- India Finance and Construction, Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs B.N. Panda, Deputy1993 PTD 1495 · Bombay High CourtRead full judgment →
- Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and anothers vs Chairman, Fourth Wage Board and Implementation Tribunal Fornewspaper Employees, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1993 SCMR 1533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These cross-appeals arise from a Sindh High Court judgment rendered in constitutional jurisdiction concerning an award made by the Fourth Wage Board under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973. The core legal questions involved whether the Wage Board possessed unbridled authority under Section 2(h) of the 1973 Act to declare Haj expenses, study and research allowances, car and petrol allowances, pension, and gratuity as 'wages', and whether an employer contributing to a Provident Fund could be exempted from paying gratuity under Standing Order 12(6) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Supreme Court held that statutory power conferred on a public body must be exercised reasonably, objectively, and within constitutional limits, keeping in view the financial capacity of the industry, Article 19 (freedom of press), and Article 38(a) of the Constitution. The Court struck down the inclusion of Haj expenses, study allowance, and car/petrol allowances as wages. It further held that under Section 17 of the 1973 Act read with the proviso to Standing Order 12(6), an employer contributing equally to a Provident Fund is not liable to pay gratuity, as there is no estoppel against law.
Questions settled- Does Section 2(h) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 empower the Wage Board to declare any monetary benefit or grace payment as wages without limit?
- Is an employer obligated to pay gratuity under Section 17 of the Act read with Standing Order 12(6) if the employer contributes to an equal Provident Fund?
- Can a party be stopped from challenging an illegal award provision on grounds of laches or prior acquiescence?
- Can employees claim both gratuity and pension simultaneously as retirement benefits under a Wage Board decision?
- Income-Tax Officer and anothers vs M/s. Chappal Builders1993 SCMR 1108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals arose from a dispute where the Income Tax Department sought to reopen the respondents' assessments, which had been completed under the self-assessment scheme (1984-1985) read with Section 59(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance. The department issued notices under Section 65 of the Ordinance after nearly three years, asserting that the declared purchase price of a plot of land was below the market rate, relying on the prices of other plots in the same locality. The High Court quashed the notices, holding that assessments consciously completed cannot be reopened without definite information. The Supreme Court affirmed this holding, clarifying that 'definite information' in the context of reopening a self-assessment requires much more than mere difference of opinion, further reasoning, or logical deductions. It must be direct, definite information that does not require a regular trial or further inquiry to establish its credibility. However, noting that the respondents had approached the High Court directly without exhausting statutory remedies, the Supreme Court ultimately withdrew the leave grant order.
Questions settled- What constitutes 'definite information' required for the Income Tax Department to reopen a completed self-assessment?
- Can an income tax assessment be reopened under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance merely on the basis of a change of opinion regarding the market price of property?
- Is the Income Tax Department permitted to reopen a self-assessment based on information that requires further inquiry, reasoning, or a regular trial to establish its credibility?
- Income-Tax Officer and another vs M/s. Chappal Builders1993 PTD 1108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addressed whether the Income Tax Department could reopen assessments made under the Self-Assessment Scheme based on allegations that declared property purchase prices were below market value. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of "definite information" required to justify reopening an assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the department failed to establish the existence of "definite information." The Court clarified that "definite information" requires more than mere material, reasonable belief, or logical inferences derived from comparing prices of other plots. It necessitates direct, credible evidence that does not require further trial or inquiry to substantiate. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that a mere change of opinion or further reasoning by tax authorities does not constitute sufficient grounds to reopen a completed self-assessment. While the Court noted that the respondent bypassed statutory remedies by approaching the High Court via writ jurisdiction—a practice the Court generally discourages in tax matters—it ultimately dismissed the appeals due to the lack of substantive "definite information" justifying the reopening of the assessments.
Questions settled- What constitutes 'definite information' for the purpose of reopening an assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance?
- Can an assessment made under the Self-Assessment Scheme be reopened merely on the basis of a change of opinion or further reasoning by the tax authorities?
- Is it permissible for the Income Tax Department to reopen an assessment without being in possession of direct, credible evidence regarding the alleged undervaluation of assets?
- Income Tax Officer vs Rulia Ram Dewan Chand Thanesar and others1993 PTD 299 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah vs C.C.Cumchairman, District Zakat Committee and 21993 PLD Supreme Court 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a controversy regarding the eligibility of a government school teacher to be elected as the Chairman of a Local Zakat Committee under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980. The core legal question centered on the interpretation of the statutory exemption for a 'teacher of a local school' from the general bar disqualifying salaried government or local authority employees from serving on Local Zakat Committees. The Supreme Court held that salaried employees of the government, local authorities, or corporations are generally barred from membership, and the exception allowing a teacher of a local school applies only when such an employee belongs to a local authority rather than the government directly. Since the appellant was a salaried employee of the government and not of a local authority, he was disqualified from being a member of the Local Zakat Committee. The key principle laid down is that while teachers of local schools enjoy an exception from disqualification as salaried employees, this exemption requires employment under a local authority rather than the provincial or federal government.
Questions settled- Whether a salaried employee of the Government who is a teacher of a local school is eligible to be a member or Chairman of a Local Zakat Committee under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980?
- Does the exception for a teacher of a local school under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980 apply to government-employed teachers or only to those employed by local authorities?
- Is permanent residence in the locality a mandatory requirement for a person to be selected as a member of a Local Zakat Committee?
- What are the essential statutory qualifications and disqualifications for a person to be chosen as a member of a Local Zakat Committee?
- Inayatullah & Co through Managing Partner and another vs Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1993 MLD 2066 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
- Inayat Ullah & Co. And Another vs Secy. Local Govt, And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
- Inayat Khan and another vs Muhammad Saleem Khan and 15 others1993 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 4 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-01-13Read full judgment →
- Inayat Bibi vs Zafar and another1993 MLD 513 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Inayat Ali alias Inayat Hussain and others vs Muhammad alias Tota and others1993 MLD 2367 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
- Inamul Haque vs Mst. Sharifan Bibi and 2 others1993 CLC 46 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an ex parte decree for the dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the respondent on the basis of Khula. The petitioner alleged that the trial court proceedings were without jurisdiction due to lack of proper service and that he was unaware of subsequent court orders requiring his personal appearance. The High Court declined to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction, noting that the petitioner's contentions regarding service and lack of knowledge involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, which are impermissible in constitutional proceedings. Furthermore, the Court observed that the trial court had provided multiple opportunities for the petitioner to explain his non-appearance, which he failed to utilize. The Court held that when marital relations are so strained that spouses cannot live within the limits prescribed by God Almighty, it is appropriate to annul the union to prevent further agony. Given that the respondent had already contracted a second marriage and expressed a firm refusal to live with the petitioner, the petition was dismissed as meritless.
Questions settled- Can a High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a constitutional petition an appropriate remedy to challenge an ex parte decree where the petitioner failed to appear despite opportunities to explain his absence?
- Does the fact that a wife has contracted a second marriage after a dissolution decree influence the court's decision to maintain that decree?
- In re: Succession Certificate of MRS. Parveen Akhtar (deceased) vs1993 PLD Karachi 280 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of a power of attorney executed abroad by the petitioner, which had been stamped in Pakistan prior to its dispatch. The core legal question was whether such a document, having been stamped in Pakistan before execution abroad, required fresh stamping upon its receipt in Pakistan under the Stamp Act 1899. The Court held that the power of attorney did not require restamping. It reasoned that Section 17 of the Stamp Act 1899 mandates stamping at the time of execution for documents executed within Pakistan, while Section 18 is an enabling provision for documents executed abroad, allowing them to be stamped within three months of receipt. The Court determined that Section 18 does not prohibit the pre-stamping of documents intended for execution abroad. Consequently, a document already bearing the requisite stamp duty under Pakistan law remains valid and admissible without further stamping upon its return. The Court allowed the application, accepting the bonds and directing the issuance of the succession certificate to the petitioner's attorney.
Questions settled- Does a power of attorney stamped in Pakistan prior to its execution abroad require fresh stamping upon its receipt in Pakistan?
- Is Section 18 of the Stamp Act 1899 an enabling provision or a mandatory prohibition against pre-stamping documents executed abroad?
- What is the rule of interpretation for fiscal statutes regarding ambiguity and the burden on the subject?
- In re: Petition for Succession Certificate in Respect of Certain Assets1993 PLD Karachi 619 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for the extension of a Succession Certificate regarding newly discovered assets belonging to the estates of two deceased individuals. The core legal question addressed was whether the Court could extend a previously granted Succession Certificate to include additional assets when some of the original next-of-kin had passed away after the grant but before the distribution of the estate, and whether strict adherence to procedural requirements regarding the substitution of legal representatives could be relaxed. The Court held that while procedural rules and the principle of prudence suggest that separate proceedings should be initiated for deceased next-of-kin, the Court possesses the discretion to relax these technicalities to prevent cumbersome, repetitive litigation and to alleviate the hardship of elderly and infirm survivors. The Court granted the extension of the certificate to cover all assets, provided that the petitioners subsequently regularize the beneficial interests in pending related matters. The key principle laid down is that the Court may exercise its discretion to advance the ends of justice and avoid a fetish of technicalities when no adverse claims exist.
Questions settled- Can a Succession Certificate be extended to cover newly discovered assets when some of the original next-of-kin have died after the initial grant?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to relax the requirement of furnishing a bond with sureties under Rule 400 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)?
- Is it permissible for the Court to grant an extension of a Succession Certificate to avoid the necessity of filing multiple, cumbersome applications for the same estate?
- In re: Nadir Shah Borab II Sidhwa vs Not1993 CLC 1850 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
- In Re: Mehr Shahadat Khan vs Not1993 CLC 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Rafi Butt _ vs The Income Tax Officer1993P T D 265 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz and anothers vs The State1993 SCMR 2285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was convicted of murder, though his sentence was reduced from death to life imprisonment by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the occurrence as alleged—that the deceased was shot in a village square—or if the defence version, claiming the deceased was shot while trespassing inside the petitioner's house, was credible. The Supreme Court noted that the absence of drag marks on the deceased's body, despite the prosecution's claim that the body was dragged over a hundred yards, significantly undermined the prosecution's narrative and supported the defence version. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner, finding the conviction potentially unsupportable. Regarding the complainant's petition for the restoration of the death sentence, the Court refused it, holding that the deceased's prior seduction of the petitioner's sister provided a motive that rendered the death penalty inappropriate.
Questions settled- Does the absence of physical evidence, such as drag marks, contradict a prosecution narrative involving the movement of a body?
- Is the seduction of a family member a relevant factor in mitigating a sentence of death for murder?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the prosecution's version of the occurrence is contradicted by physical evidence?
- Imtiaz Ali and anothers vs The State1.993 P Cr. L J 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
- Imran Ayub vs Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development1993 MLD 622 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-16Read full judgment →
- Imperial Chemical Industries PLC, England vs The Registrar of Trade1993 MLD 1349 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
- Imdad Khan vs Settlement Commissioner1993 MLD 1665 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Imdad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 98 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
- Imamuddin vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1398 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
- Imam Din vs The Province of Punjab and others1993 CLC 2055 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
- Imam Bakhsh vs Government of Balochistan, through Secretary1993 PLD Queeta 24 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Imam All G. Kazi, Sindh Industrial Trading Estates (Gteed) Ltd. vs Provincial Ombudsman and 3 others1993 MLD 1852 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
- Ismail and 22 others vs Rehmat Ali and 15 others1993 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents seeking a declaration of ownership and consequential relief of possession over mortgaged land, on the ground that the mortgage had not been redeemed for over sixty years. The appellants resisted the suit contending that the respondents were dispossessed during consolidation proceedings and that a suit for ownership was incompetent because the respondents could only seek foreclosure. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first and second appeals preferred by the appellants were dismissed. The Supreme Court examined whether the extinguishment of the mortgagor's right of redemption under the law of limitation entitles a mortgagee to a declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Court held that failure to redeem the property within the statutory sixty-year limitation period extinguished the mortgagors' right to redeem, conferring title upon the mortgagees through adverse possession and entitling them to seek declaration of ownership and recover possession even if dispossessed. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a mortgagor to redeem mortgaged property within sixty years extinguish their title and right to redeem under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a mortgagee who remained in possession for over sixty years maintain a suit for a declaration of ownership and recovery of possession after being dispossessed?
- Does the loss of the right to redeem under Article 148 read with Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 entitle a mortgagee in possession to a declaration of title?
- Ilahi Bakhsh and others vs Fazalurrehman and others1993 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the lower appellate court and the High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to prove they were owners of the estate because their land was not assessed to land revenue. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiffs qualified as owners of the estate and whether a pre-emptor must own the entire estate to exercise the right of pre-emption. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the land in question was indeed assessed to land revenue, noting that omissions in certain records were likely inadvertent. The Court held that the judgments of the lower courts were erroneous. Crucially, the Court laid down the principle that under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, a pre-emptor is not required to own the entire estate; it is sufficient to demonstrate the required qualification of owning land within the estate. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments, and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the appellants.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emptor need to own the entire estate to exercise the right of pre-emption?
- Is it sufficient for a pre-emptor to show they possess the required qualification of owning land in the estate?
- Can the Supreme Court consider documents not placed before the lower courts in a civil appeal?
- Ikramullah vs City Superintendent, Post Offices, Peshawar and others1993 SCMR 2327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an officiating clerk in the postal department, challenged his removal from service through a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the departmental proceedings and subsequent punishment of removal from service suffered from any legal infirmity. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner was removed after a proper inquiry, the departmental proceedings were free from infirmity, and the punishment of removal was well-justified given the established allegations of misconduct, misbehaviour, and unauthorized absence. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless. The key principle laid down is that where departmental proceedings are conducted in accordance with law and establish charges of misconduct, the resultant penalty of removal from service warrants no interference by the courts.
Questions settled- Whether departmental proceedings conducted after a proper inquiry and opportunity of defense warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does the reduction of punishment from dismissal to removal from service in a departmental appeal preclude the dismissal of a subsequent service tribunal appeal?
- Whether unauthorized absence and misconduct constitute sufficient grounds for removal from service?
- Ikramullah and 2 others vs Muhammad Tufai L1993 CLC 2005 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
- Ikramullah alias Zafar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2273 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
- Ijaz and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2492 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
- Ihsan Ullah vs Abdul Rehman1993 MLD 1925 · Board of Revenue · 1993-05-22Read full judgment →
- Ihsan Ellahi vs Abdul Sattar1993 CLC 1243 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Iftikharullah Mallhi vs Chief Secretary And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 162 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-04-08Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1946 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary, J.Shabbir Ahmad vs Chairman, District1993 MLD 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-08-20Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar alias Kala and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →