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.
- Fauja vs Mst. Karim Khatoon and 6 others1993 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which decreed the respondents' suit for possession of land. The core legal question centered on whether an oral sale mutation of immovable property, unaccompanied by a written contract and physical possession, could be protected under the doctrine of part performance or if it was void under the statutory provisions requiring registration. The Lahore High Court held that the transaction did not satisfy the mandatory prerequisites of section 53-A, as there was no written contract signed by the transferor, and mutations merely serve fiscal purposes rather than acting as documents of title. Consequently, the oral sale violated section 54 and was void ab initio, conferring no title upon the appellant. The key principle laid down is that invoking the protection of part performance under section 53-A strictly requires a written, signed contract and actual delivery of possession, and a revenue mutation does not constitute a document of title.
Questions settled- Whether an oral sale mutation of immovable property without a written contract can attract the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Does a revenue mutation operate as a document of title or create and extinguish property rights?
- Is delivery of physical possession a mandatory prerequisite to invoke the equity of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Can an admission made by a guardian in a previous pre-emption suit create an estoppel against minor plaintiffs regarding a void transaction?
- Fatima and 3 otherss vs Ishaque1993 MLD 1807 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- Fateh Shah and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- Fateh Shah And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 300 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Administrator, T.D.A., Bhakkar and others1993 MLD 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad (deceased) through Muhammad Afzal and others vs Additional Commissioner and others1993 CLC 1248 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Settlement and Revenue authorities rejecting the petitioners' forms for the transfer of evacuee plots under Scheme No. VIII and Scheme No. IX framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The Deputy Administrator and the Additional Commissioner had rejected the petitioners' claims on the ground that they were tenants of a respondent mosque, having paid sums recorded as rent. The High Court observed that the authorities had misread and failed to properly appraise the evidence regarding the construction of the structures. The Court found that the receipts issued were for 'Attia' (donations) and that the respondent mosque failed to produce any account books showing construction expenses. Additionally, the Court held that an erroneous admission of tenancy made under a mistake of fact or law does not bind the maker. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petitions, declared the impugned orders to be without lawful authority, and directed the transfer of the plots to the petitioners according to their possession.
Questions settled- Whether an admission made erroneously or in ignorance of one's legal rights under a mistake of fact is binding on the maker?
- Can a religious institution claim title or rent over evacuee property where there is no independent evidence of it having raised construction on the land?
- Does the payment of donations characterized as 'Attia' establish a landlord-tenant relationship for the purpose of transferring evacuee property?
- Fateh Khan vs The State1993 MLD 2357 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-11Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan vs Manzoor and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arises from a pre-emption suit jointly filed by two brothers, which was dismissed as withdrawn based on statements made by one co-plaintiff and the joint counsel. The petitioner, the other co-plaintiff, filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 alleging fraud and misrepresentation, which was dismissed by the trial court and subsequently upheld in revision by the District Judge. The Lahore High Court examined whether the withdrawal of a suit by a counsel acting under a duly executed Wakalatnama constitutes fraud or misrepresentation warranting proceedings under section 12(2). The Court held that a counsel's authority to withdraw or compromise a litigation is inherent in their engagement and governed by the terms of the Wakalatnama, the Powers of Attorney Act 1882, and the Contract Act 1872. Any improper exercise of such power gives rise to liabilities inter se between counsel and client, but does not constitute fraud under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the withdrawal of a suit by a counsel acting under a Wakalatnama can constitute fraud or misrepresentation under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the engagement of a counsel inherently include the authority to withdraw or compromise a litigation?
- Can an improper exercise of power by a counsel under a Wakalatnama furnish a ground for relief under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Fateh Khan And Other vs (Mst.) Begum Jan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
- Fateh Ali and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1124 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicants, Fateh Ali and Abdul Rehman, moved the Sindh High Court for post-arrest bail after being charged in a case involving the recovery of 10,000 tolas of gold from a vehicle in which they were travelling. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature and gravity of the offence under the Customs Act, 1969, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court held that while applicant Fateh Ali, claiming ownership of a massive quantity of gold intended for smuggling, fell within the prohibitory clause and was denied bail, co-accused Abdul Rehman was merely a carrier whose case attracted a lesser sentence not falling within the statutory prohibition, thus entitling him to bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is prima facie shown to be the owner and principal actor transporting a massive commercial quantity of smuggled gold, bail will be refused, whereas a mere carrier facing a lesser statutory penalty may be granted bail if their case falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497.
Questions settled- Whether an accused found transporting a massive commercial quantity of gold is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does a co-accused acting merely as a carrier of smuggled goods stand on a different footing for the grant of bail compared to the principal owner?
- When does an offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 attract the prohibitory bar of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Fateh Alam Siddiqui vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1573 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
- Fasihur Rehman Alvi and others vs Inamur Rehman Alvi1993 PLD Karachi 33 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
- Fasihuddin vs Khawar Latif Butt and others1993 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals filed by an Airports Security Force (ASF) officer against the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his appeals. The Tribunal had summarily dismissed the cases, holding that the appellant ceased to be a "civil servant" following the 1984 amendment to the Airports Security Force Act, 1975, which subjected ASF personnel to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The core legal question was whether this legislative amendment effectively removed ASF personnel from the definition of "civil servant" under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, thereby barring the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the amendment only subjected ASF personnel to the Army Act for specific disciplinary purposes and did not alter their fundamental status as holders of civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation. Consequently, the Court ruled that ASF personnel remain civil servants entitled to seek redress before the Federal Service Tribunal. The principle established is that subjection to the Army Act for disciplinary matters does not divest a government employee of their status as a civil servant. The appeals were allowed and remanded for adjudication on merits.
Questions settled- Does the subjection of Airports Security Force personnel to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, for disciplinary purposes strip them of their status as civil servants?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals from Airports Security Force personnel regarding disciplinary actions?
- Are officers and members of the Airports Security Force considered to hold civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation?
- Do the Airports Security Force (Discipline) Rules, 1977, remain applicable after the 1984 amendment to the Airports Security Force Act, 1975?
- Farzand Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2548 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-18Read full judgment →
- Farzand Ali vs Aziz Bibi1993 CLC 1309 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent landlady against the appellant tenant concerning a residential property rented out for commercial purposes, seeking eviction on the grounds of default, personal need, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment on personal need and property damage, and the lower appellate court dismissed the tenant's appeal. The core legal question was whether a residential building let out for commercial use can be recovered by the landlord for personal residential use, and whether the landlady's choice of suitability of premises can be challenged merely because other premises fell vacant. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that a landlord is entitled to seek the ejectment of a residential property regardless of its temporary commercial use, and that determining the suitability of premises is the exclusive prerogative of the landlord. The key principle laid down is that the original residential nature of a building permits its recovery for residential use despite a past commercial tenancy, provided the landlord's personal need is bona fide.
Questions settled- Whether residential premises let out for commercial purposes can be got vacated by the landlord for personal residential use?
- Does the fact that a landlord has got another premises vacated bar them from seeking ejectment on the ground of personal need?
- Is the determination of suitability and occupation of premises the exclusive prerogative of the landlady?
- Does the use of a residential building by a tenant for commercial purposes permanently alter the legal character of the building?
- Farzand Ali alias Fandi and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
- Farrukh Sultana vs Latif Ahmad1993 MLD 1811 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
- Farooq Hassan vs Mst. Rizwana Syed1993 CLC 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
- Farooq Azam vs Additional District Judge1993 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-27Read full judgment →
- Farooq Aslam vs Muhammad Riaz and others1993 P Cr. L J 182 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
- Farooq Aslam vs Muhammad Riaz And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
- Farooq Ahmad vs The Rent Controller, Lahore and 4 others1993 CLC 1024 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Fariduddin and anothers vs Muhammad Usman and another1993 CLC 1827 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
- Faridud Din Masood vs Air Marshal (Rtd.) Muhammad Asghar Khan and 5 others1993 MLD 227 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a suit for damages where the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, which the trial court dismissed, holding it time-barred and asserting that such applications must be filed on the next date of hearing following the ex parte order. The core legal questions were whether the application was time-barred and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application without framing issues or allowing evidence. The High Court held that the trial court acted illegally and with material irregularity. It ruled that an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside ex parte proceedings is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, providing a three-year limitation period, and can be filed at any time prior to the passing of an ex parte decree. The Court emphasized that the law favors adjudication on merits over technical knockouts and remanded the case for trial on merits.
Questions settled- What is the limitation period for filing an application to set aside ex parte proceedings under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an application to set aside ex parte proceedings be filed at any time prior to the passing of an ex parte decree?
- Is a trial court required to frame issues and allow evidence when determining the sufficiency of cause for non-appearance in an application to set aside ex parte proceedings?
- Farid Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 500 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a bail application filed by Fareed Khan, who was detained for an offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, in connection with the alleged recovery of gold pieces from his shoes at the airport. The core legal question concerns whether the failure of the seizing officer to comply with the mandatory provisions regarding the option of search before a magistrate or gazetted officer under section 159 of the Customs Act, along with inherent contradictions in the prosecution's case regarding the baggage search, entitles the accused to further inquiry and bail. The Sindh High Court held that non-compliance with section 159 renders the search illegal and that material contradictions regarding the search of a passenger without baggage in the departure lounge create reasonable doubt, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that the requirement to inform an accused of the option to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer under section 159 of the Customs Act is mandatory, and mechanical compliance or failure to do so vitiates the search, rendering the recovered evidence inadmissible and entitling the accused to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions settled- Whether the non-compliance with the provisions of section 159 of the Customs Act, 1969 renders the personal search of an accused illegal?
- Does a mechanical or false compliance with the requirement of offering a search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer vitiate the trial or warrant bail?
- Whether contradictions regarding the checking of a passenger's baggage in the departure lounge create a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Farid Akhtar Hadi vs Muhammad Latif Ghazi1993 CLC 2015 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of Rs. 2,20,400 based on a promissory note executed by the defendant. The court granted leave to defend, and the defendant raised defences of forgery, lack of consideration, fraud, and the inadmissibility of the promissory note under the Stamp Act 1899 due to improper cancellation of stamps. The core legal questions pertained to the execution of and consideration for the promissory note, as well as whether an instrument admitted in evidence can subsequently be challenged for being insufficiently stamped. The High Court found that the defendant admitted his signatures on the note and failed to prove fraud or rebut the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Holding that once a document is admitted in evidence, Section 36 of the Stamp Act 1899 creates an absolute bar against challenging its admissibility on stamping grounds, the High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Can a document once admitted in evidence be subsequently challenged on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped or that the stamps were not properly cancelled?
- Who bears the burden of proof when an execution of a promissory note is admitted but fraud and lack of consideration are alleged?
- Does Section 36 of the Stamp Act 1899 bar a court from questioning the admissibility of an instrument on stamping grounds after it has been marked as an exhibit?
- Faquir Muhammad and 48 others vs Province of Punjab through Collector_Deputy Commissioner and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 439 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, which accepted an appeal against a temporary injunction order and simultaneously rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal questions involved the competency of a duty Additional District Judge to hear and decide matters under section 22 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, the fatal effect of failing to implead necessary co-plaintiffs in an appeal, and the mandatory requirement of accompanying a memorandum of appeal with a decree-sheet under section 96 and Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that a duty Additional District Judge is fully competent to decide urgent matters such as temporary injunction applications and the maintainability of plaints during the absence of a regular incumbent. However, the High Court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, ruling that the non-joinder of necessary co-plaintiffs renders the appeal incompetent, and that an appeal filed without a certified copy of the decree-sheet is fundamentally flawed and barred by limitation if supplied subsequently. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as incompetent.
Questions settled- Whether a duty Additional District Judge is competent to decide urgent matters and examine the maintainability of a plaint during the absence of the regular incumbent?
- Does the failure to implead necessary co-plaintiffs as parties in an appeal render the appeal incompetent?
- Is the requirement of accompanying a memorandum of appeal with a copy of the decree-sheet mandatory?
- Can an appellate court entertain an appeal that is filed without a copy of the decree-sheet?
- Faqir Muhammad vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima1993 CLC 283 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad Khan and 18 others vs Gaulam Elahi and others1993 PLD Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration of title and challenging a previous consent decree and subsequent land mutations. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs should have filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 instead of a regular suit, as the decree was challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court, relying on the Supreme Court of Pakistan's precedent, set aside the lower courts' decisions. The High Court held that procedural laws are meant to advance justice rather than stifle proceedings on technicalities. It ruled that if a court concludes that a suit is incompetent and an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is the appropriate remedy, the court has the power to convert the plaint into an application under Section 12(2) (and vice versa) at any stage of the proceedings before final decision, rather than dismissing the suit outright.
Questions settled- Can a civil suit challenging a decree be converted into an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the court finds a regular suit is incompetent?
- At what stage of the proceedings can a court convert a plaint into an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Should a civil court dismiss a suit on technical grounds if the plaint contains the necessary ingredients of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Faqir Bakhsh vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 312 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
- Faqir Bakhsh vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 379 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
- Faqeeria vs The State1993 MLD 2473 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-04Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher vs The State1993 MLD 2475 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher vs Mohammad Mumtaz And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 62 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-04Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2365 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
- Fakhar Alam and others vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 1818 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
- Faiz vs Sh. Nizamuddin1993 MLD 1753 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-24Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad vs Karam Abbas Shah1993 MLD 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad vs Ghulam Mustafa and 4 others1993 CLC 1897 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
- Faisal Spinning Mills Limited, Karachi vs State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi1993 PLD Karachi 360 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the State Bank of Pakistan's refusal to extend exchange risk coverage benefits to the petitioner, a cotton yarn spinning unit. The petitioner had exercised its option for exchange risk coverage under FE Circular No. 60 and No. 7, which the respondent initially accepted. Subsequently, the respondent issued FE Circular No. 75, which modified the calculation formula, effectively withdrawing benefits previously available to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the respondent could retrospectively apply this new circular to deprive the petitioner of a vested right. The Court held that once the petitioner exercised its option and the respondent accepted it, a vested right accrued. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court ruled that executive authorities cannot, through subsequent notifications or circulars, retrospectively take away or abridge rights that have already vested in citizens. Consequently, the Court declared the respondent's action to be without lawful authority, affirming that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits under the earlier circulars, as the subsequent modification could not operate retrospectively to the petitioner's detriment.
Questions settled- Can an executive authority retrospectively take away rights that have vested in a citizen through a subsequent notification?
- Does a circular issued by the State Bank of Pakistan create a vested right once an option is exercised and accepted?
- Is the discretion vested in an executive officer circumscribed by the scope and object of the law that creates it?
- Faisal Habib vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of Faisal Habib for the murder (Qatl-e-Amd) of Muhammad Sarwar and the theft of his motorcycle, alongside the State's appeal against the acquittal of his co-accused brother, Zulfiqar Habib. The core legal questions involved the reliability of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, and the sentencing implications for a minor convicted of Qatl-e-Amd under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court held that while the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and their testimony was discarded, the conviction was sustained based on the dying declaration, the 'last seen' evidence, and the recovery of the stolen motorcycle. Regarding the appellant's minority, the Court clarified that a minor convicted of Qatl-e-Amd is not exempt from Tazeer imprisonment merely because they are ineligible for Qisas. The principle established is that the minority of an offender does not preclude a sentence of imprisonment as Tazeer for Qatl-e-Amd where the requirements for Qisas are not met, and that dying declarations remain admissible and reliable even when recorded by the police, provided they are consistent and corroborated.
Questions settled- Does the minority of an offender preclude a sentence of imprisonment as Tazeer for Qatl-e-Amd?
- Can a dying declaration recorded by an investigating officer be considered reliable evidence?
- Does the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased automatically invalidate their testimony?
- Is a minor offender liable for Tazeer punishment for Qatl-e-Amd if they are not liable for Qisas?
- F.M.C. Corporation vs The Deputy Registrar Trade Marks, Government1993 PLD Karachi 24 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Ewan Khan vs Election Tribunal and others1993 MLD 2519 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
- Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Allah Rakha and others1993 CLC 1766 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
- Escorts Ltd. and others vs Union of India and others1993 PTD 846 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-10-22Read full judgment →
- Emirates Bank Ltd. vs M. Irfan Monno O and another1993 CLC 2430 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
- Emirates Bank International vs United Exports Limited and 8 others1993 PLD Karachi 661 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for condonation of delay in filing applications for leave to appear and defend a summary suit instituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The core legal questions revolved around the validity and effect of service of summons by publication under Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980, the necessity of a formal order holding such service good to trigger limitation, and whether delay in filing supporting affidavits for leave to defend could be condoned. The Sindh High Court held that service by publication under Rule 8 cannot be considered effective unless an order holding such service good has been formally passed by the Court or the Registrar, from which date limitation begins to run. The Court further laid down that the discretionary powers under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow for the acceptance of belated affidavits to prevent parties from being unjustly debarred from their defense in summary suits.
Questions settled- Whether service of summons by publication under Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980 becomes effective without a formal order of the Court or Registrar holding such service good?
- Can the time for filing an application for leave to appear and defend under Order 37 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 run from the date of publication if no formal order declaring service good has been passed?
- Is the court empowered to accept a belated affidavit filed in support of an application for leave to defend in a summary suit?
- Whether Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980 is intra vires the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 and the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Emirates Bank International Limited, Karachi vs Adamjee Industries1993 CLC 489 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for recovery where interim injunctions were issued restraining the defendant from disposing of assets. An intervenor bank, claiming a pledge over certain goods, subsequently sold them, leading to applications for punitive action for contempt. The core legal questions were whether Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to disobedience of injunctions issued under Order 39, Rule 1, and whether the court could invoke inherent powers under Section 151 to address such breaches. The Court held that Order 39, Rule 2(3) encompasses disobedience of orders under both Rules 1 and 2, and that Section 151 allows the court to address procedural lacunae to ensure justice. The Court affirmed that knowledge of an order suffices for contempt liability, regardless of formal service. Consequently, the Court ordered the intervenor to deposit the sale proceeds of the goods into the court, pending further adjudication on the contempt applications and the underlying ownership of the assets, emphasizing that restoration of the status quo ante is a valid judicial exercise in such circumstances.
Questions settled- Does Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the disobedience of an injunction granted under Order 39, Rule 1?
- Can the court exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to address the breach of an interim injunction?
- Is formal service of a court order a prerequisite for establishing liability in contempt proceedings, or is knowledge of the order sufficient?
- Can a court order the restoration of the status quo ante or the deposit of sale proceeds as a remedy for the breach of an interim injunction?
- Emirate Bank International vs Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills1993 MLD 54 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted for the recovery of Rs. 59,516,984.73 by the plaintiff bank under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, naming a principal borrower and several guarantors as defendants. The core legal questions involved whether Article 181 or Article 159 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act applies to applications for leave to appear and defend suits filed under the Ordinance, whether service by publication under Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules requires proof of actual knowledge by the defendant, and whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay. The Sindh High Court held that Article 159 governs the period of limitation for leave to defend applications under the Ordinance, that service by publication under Rule 8 is valid and effective without needing to prove the defendant read the specific newspaper, and that the defendants failed to provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Court established that the residuary Article 181 applies strictly to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, while summary suits under the special Ordinance are strictly bound by the ten-day limitation period under Article 159.
Questions settled- Whether Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies to applications other than those under the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Does Article 159 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act apply to suits filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Is service by publication under Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980 dependent upon the defendant avoiding service or having actual knowledge of the newspaper publication?
- What is the binding effect of conflicting judgments rendered by Benches of varying numerical strength in the Supreme Court?
- Emil Webber vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 1002 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-19Read full judgment →
- Elite D. Silva vs Dilawar Hussain1993 CLC 361 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The applicant contended that the trial court erroneously accepted a waiver of notice from an unauthorized advocate, leading to an ex parte decree without proper service. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the applicant's appeal solely for failing to serve a pre-admission notice under Order 43, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the trial court failed to address the merits of the applicant's claim regarding the unauthorized appearance and lack of service. Furthermore, the High Court ruled that the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality, as the respondent's appearance upon the court's pre-admission notice cured the defect of non-service. Emphasizing that procedural forms should not defeat the ends of justice where the substance is satisfied, the Court set aside both lower orders and remanded the matter to the trial court for a decision on the merits of the application to set aside the ex parte decree.
Questions settled- Does the appearance of a respondent upon a court-issued pre-admission notice cure the failure to serve a prior notice under Order 43, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal solely on the technical ground of non-service of pre-admission notice when the respondent has already appeared?
- Is an ex parte decree sustainable when the trial court accepts a waiver of notice from an advocate who was not authorized to represent the defendant?
- Election Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary, Islamabad vs M.P. Bhandara1993 PLD Supreme Court 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning electoral rolls and the categorization of the Sansi community for National Assembly seats reserved for non-Muslims under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether the High Court could summarily direct the Election Commission to group Sansi voters with Hindus and scheduled castes without impleading the affected voters and contesting candidates, and without determining their status. The Supreme Court held that issues affecting the rights, faiths, and electoral privileges of individuals cannot be determined without affording them an opportunity of being heard and making them parties to the proceedings. The Court laid down the principle of natural justice that no adverse order affecting voting rights and community classification can be passed without necessary parties being impleaded and heard.
Questions settled- Can a High Court alter electoral rolls and categorize a community into scheduled castes without impleading the affected members as parties?
- Whether an order affecting voting rights and electoral classification can be passed without affording a hearing to the persons concerned?
- Were scheduled castes legally defined and recognized by a subsisting schedule or statute under the constitutional framework of Pakistan at the relevant time?
- Elahi Bakhsh vs Muhammad AzamK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
- Ejaz Hussain vs Abbas Ali1993 CLC 2478 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges the decision of the original court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant had initially filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating property subject to an agreement to sell, and subsequently instituted a suit for specific performance while withdrawing the first suit. The trial court rejected the plaint, holding that the second suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code. The Lahore High Court examined whether a suit for specific performance is barred when preceded by an incompetent suit for perpetual injunction based on the same cause of action, and whether Order II, Rule 2 applies to contemporaneous suits. The Court held that since the initial suit for perpetual injunction was barred under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 due to the availability of an equally efficacious remedy, the subsequent suit for specific performance was not hit by Order II, Rule 2. Furthermore, the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 apply to subsequent suits rather than contemporaneous ones. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the case remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance is barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when preceded by an incompetent suit for permanent injunction?
- Does Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to contemporaneous suits or only to subsequent suits?
- Is a suit for permanent injunction competent under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 when an equally efficacious remedy like specific performance is available?
- Ejaz Ahmad Cheema vs Javed Mahmood Ghuman, Ex-M.Pa. and another1993 MLD 2507 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-07Read full judgment →
- Ejaz Ahmad alias Ejaz Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1154 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
- Eitbar Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-10Read full judgment →
- Eid Muhammad and another Muhammad Riaz Muhammad Anwar vs The State1993 PLD Supreme Court 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions addressing the true scope and effect of clause (a) of the Presidential Commutation Order dated 7-12-1988, issued on 8-12-1988, which commuted all death sentences awarded by military or other courts up to 6-12-1988 to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether this amnesty applied to condemned prisoners whose death sentences passed by Sessions Courts were still awaiting confirmation by the High Court or were pending in appeal or mercy petitions, or was restricted only to cases where death sentences had already attained finality through confirmation. The Supreme Court held that the initial departmental construction of the amnesty order was correct and that the benefit extended to all convicts sentenced to death by any court up to 6-12-1988, regardless of whether their sentences were awaiting confirmation by higher courts. The Court laid down the principle that amnesty orders must be interpreted based on their own specific text rather than by importing conditions from older, distinguishable amnesty provisions, and that a sentence of death awarded by a Sessions Judge constitutes a valid sentence for the purpose of such executive commutation.
Questions settled- What is the true scope and effect of clause (a) of the Presidential Commutation Order dated 7-12-1988?
- Whether the general amnesty granted by the President on 7-12-1988 was available only to prisoners whose death sentences had already been confirmed by the High Court?
- Does the expression 'awarded the sentence of death' differ in connotation from 'awaiting the execution of death sentence'?
- Did the commutation order of 1988 extend to convicts sentenced by ordinary courts or was it strictly limited to political prisoners and persons convicted by Military Courts?
- Ehtisham Abbas Kazmi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1299 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
- Ebtisam Ashour Naqvi vs Syeda Saeeda Bano Naqvi and others1993 SCMR 1690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Lahore High Court, which had declined relief on the ground that the dispute pertained to guardianship. The core legal question concerns the custody of the minor daughter born of the marriage between the petitioner and her husband, whose custody was left with the paternal grandmother in Pakistan while the father resided in the Middle East. The Supreme Court converts the petition into an appeal and accepts it, granting the custody of the minor daughter to the mother (appellant), taking note of a decree passed in her favour by an Egyptian Court and her undertaking to bring the child to Pakistan once a year to meet the grandmother and step-brothers. The holding establishes that maternal custody of a minor may be granted in such circumstances, subject to appropriate visitation undertakings.
Questions settled- Whether a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable for the custody of a minor?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and grant custody of a minor?
- Whether the mother is entitled to the custody of her minor daughter when the father is residing abroad and the child is left with the paternal grandmother?
- Ebrahim Rehman Bhai Presswala vs Mst. Saifiya Bai and 3 others1993 CLC 1720 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
- Dr. Samina Mansoor vs P.M.D.C. and others1993 CLC 2346 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqi vs Government of Punjab, Lahore1993 SCMR 2017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking the implementation of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered on 21 November 1990 in Civil Appeal No. 673 of 1990, relying on the provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan. The core legal question concerned the enforcement and execution of apex court judgments pursuant to constitutional powers. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition with observations regarding the implementation mechanism provided under the law. The holding clarifies the application of the court's constitutional powers for enforcing its prior decrees and orders.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can issue orders for the implementation of its judgment under Article 187(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- How is a petition for the implementation of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court handled?
- Dr. Muhammad Latif vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department and 2 others1993 CLC 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Aslam vs The State1993 SCMR 2288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail in a criminal case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, given the investigative findings regarding his alleged involvement. The Court observed that two separate Deputy Superintendents of Police, who had investigated the matter, concluded that the petitioner was innocent. Furthermore, the police official presenting the case record before the Court confirmed these findings. Finding prima facie force in the contention that the petitioner's participation in the offence was doubtful, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and accepted it. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot. The judgment reinforces the principle that where investigative reports consistently point towards the innocence of an accused, such material constitutes valid grounds for the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does a consistent finding of innocence by multiple investigating officers constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal to grant bail?
- Dr. Mrs. Azra Ali vs Arif Ali1993 PLD Karachi 683 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-15Read full judgment →
- Dr. Moula Bux Jamali vs Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing1993 CLC 740 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
- Dr. M. A. Mahboob and another vs Mrs. Nawab Begum1993 MLD 1276 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
- Dr. Iqbal Ahmad Chaudhry vs Muhammad Inayat through Legal Heirs and another1993 SCMR 1477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding two plots of land in Multan, initially claimed as agricultural land but later identified as urban building sites. The core legal question is whether the plaintiff established the existence of a custom of pre-emption in the specific area of Taraf Ismail, as required by the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, particularly for land located in an extended urban area. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of such a custom. The Court held that for urban immovable property, the pre-emptor must prove the custom of pre-emption existed since the commencement of the 1913 Act. It affirmed that extensions or outgrowths of a town do not automatically inherit the custom of pre-emption from the original town; rather, the plaintiff must positively prove the custom's existence in that specific area. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that 'urban immovable property' does not include agricultural land, and failure to prove the land's character or the custom is fatal to the suit.
Questions settled- Must a pre-emptor prove the existence of a custom of pre-emption in an extended urban area to succeed in a pre-emption suit?
- Does the existence of a custom of pre-emption in an original town automatically extend to its subsequently developed areas?
- Is agricultural land considered urban immovable property for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- From what date must a pre-emptor prove the existence of a custom of pre-emption for urban immovable property under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Dr. Hanif Arif vs Secretary Health, Government of Punjab and another1993 PLD Lahore 286 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
- Dr. Arslan Razzaq vs Ali Hussain1993 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a Civil Revision and a First Appeal from Order arising from a Senior Civil Judge's decision to consolidate an eviction petition filed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 with a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether a court possesses the inherent power to consolidate proceedings of a rent eviction petition with a civil suit, and whether a court can mandate the deposit of the full sale consideration as a condition for granting an injunction. The Court held that under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a court has the inherent power to consolidate such matters to prevent the abuse of process and ensure a fair trial, as the procedure is not prohibited by law. However, the Court set aside the order requiring the petitioner to deposit the full sale consideration, noting that such a condition was inappropriate where the underlying agreement was disputed. The judgment affirms that procedural rules exist to facilitate justice rather than obstruct it.
Questions settled- Does a court have the inherent power under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to consolidate an eviction petition under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 with a civil suit for specific performance?
- Can a court condition the grant of an injunction on the deposit of the full sale consideration when the validity of the underlying agreement to sell is disputed?
- Is the consolidation of proceedings permissible where one matter is a rent eviction petition and the other is a civil suit?
- Dr. Anwar Mahmud Ijaz vs The University of the Punjab through ViceChancellor and 2 others1993 CLC 1143 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
- Dr. Afzal Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Anwari Begum1993 MLD 1710 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Dr. Abdul Malik Irfani vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islam abad1993 CLC 867 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Abdul Hayee vs Mir Yar Muhammad Rind and others1993 CLC 1090 · Election Tribunal · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Abdul Aziz Khan Babar vs Salahuddin Khan and another1993 SCMR 1475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his application for restoration of a dismissed constitutional petition, which had originally challenged an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a criminal appeal or petition could be dismissed for default in the absence of the appellant without deciding the case on merits, and whether sufficient grounds existed for the restoration of the dismissed matter. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether a criminal appeal can be legally dismissed for default rather than being decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, noting established jurisprudence on the matter.
Questions settled- Can a criminal appeal be dismissed for default in the absence of the appellant?
- Whether a Magistrate lacking jurisdiction can pass an order of acquittal under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a revision petition maintainable against an order of acquittal where an appeal lies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Dost Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1465 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-08Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs Station House Officer, Police Station1993 PLD Lahore 403 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs S.H.O., P.S. FarooqabadK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 324 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs Anwar and 5 others1993 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad alias Dosso vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 388 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed before the Lahore High Court against the judgment dated 09-10-1991 passed by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Bahawalpur, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions pertained to the validity of a trial conducted after remand without framing a fresh charge, the total omission to record the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the failure to obtain signatures or thumb impressions on the accused's testimony under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the failure to record the examination of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. deprived him of an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, causing serious prejudice and rendering the trial a nullity. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and remanded the case to the trial court for a lawful retrial.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to record the statement of an accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. vitiate the trial and conviction?
- Is a conviction sustainable where the trial court fails to frame a fresh charge after remand and omits proper recording of the accused's statements?
- What is the effect of an unsigned statement of an accused recorded under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. on the legality of the trial?
- Dooso alias Dost Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 394 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
- Doctor Raza Ahmed Gorsi vs A.K. Government of the State of Jammu1993 MLD 1489 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
- Ditta Khan vs Muhammad Zaman and others1993 MLD 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the pre-emption suits on the ground that the plaints were deficiently stamped based on the ostensible sale price, treating it as the jurisdictional value. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed this finding, calculated the jurisdictional value as 15 times the net profits under the Suits Valuation Act rules, held that the plaints could not be rejected without an opportunity to make up the deficiency in court-fee, and decreed the suit in favour of the pre-emptors. The vendee challenged this appellate decree through a civil revision before the High Court, contending that the appeal before the District Judge was incompetent due to the trial court's valuation. The Lahore High Court held that where the trial court determines a valuation for jurisdiction, that valuation governs the appellate forum; thus, the appeal before the District Court was without jurisdiction. However, exercising its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary hardship, the High Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts and decreed the pre-emption suit upon payment of the sale price within the stipulated time.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdictional value of a pre-emption suit for land not permanently assessed to land revenue is to be determined on the basis of market value or fifteen times the net profits under the Suits Valuation Act rules?
- Can a plaint be rejected straightaway for being deficiently stamped without first determining the exact amount of court-fee and affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to make up the deficiency?
- What determines the forum of appeal when the trial court modifies or determines the valuation of the subject-matter for the purposes of jurisdiction?
- Whether the High Court can bypass remanding a matter and instead exercise its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary hardship?
- District Sargodha vs Government of the Punjab through District1993 MLD 930 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Distribution Officer, Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.1993 SCMR 1282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed in limine a writ petition challenging the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal had reinstated the respondent, holding him to be a 'workman' under the law, reversing the Labour Court's finding that he was an officer/supervisor. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the respondent's status as a workman was a question of fact concluded by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, could determine if an employee is a 'workman'. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that administrative or quasi-judicial tribunals are not the final judges of facts constituting the foundation of their jurisdiction. The status of a 'workman' is a jurisdictional fact that the High Court can and should examine by appraising the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case for a decision on the respondent's status.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction can examine and appraise evidence to determine if an employee is a 'workman'?
- Whether an administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal is the final judge of facts that constitute the foundation of its jurisdiction?
- What is the true criterion or test for determining whether an employee falls within the definition of a 'workman'?
- Directorate of Small Industries, Government of Balochistan through Sales Manager, Karachi Airport, Karachi vs Civil Aviation Authority through Director General and another1993 MLD 1836 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
- Din Muhammad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-13Read full judgment →
- Din Muhammad and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1383 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
- Dilip Kumar Mitra through Legal Heir vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1993 PTD 1085 · Calcutta High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
- Dildar Khan and 5 others vs Hamid Ali Khan and 22 others1993 SCMR 1887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of their Constitution petition against an appellate order relating to property allotments. The core dispute arose from two rival groups claiming to be the legal heirs of Shadi Khan, deceased, and obtaining separate land allotments based on different verified claim forms. The Additional Settlement Commissioner had resumed the land allotted to the appellants based on a Central Record Office report alleging interpolation and fraud, while confirming the allotment of the rival group, a decision upheld up to the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the fundamental question of who the legitimate legal heir of Shadi Khan was had not been properly adjudicated by the authorities, and such a crucial determination could not rest solely on an unverified conflicting record report. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and orders, remanded the case to the Notified Officer to determine the true legal heir and related issues, and allowed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of evacuee property can be cancelled without first determining the genuine legal heirs of the deceased owner?
- Can the question of inheritance and conflicting claim forms be decided solely on the basis of a report from the Central Record Office without proper verification?
- Whether a civil court is competent to entertain a suit involving an interest in evacuee property?
- Dilbar Hussain alias Hidayatullah and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-26Read full judgment →
- Dilawar Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2340 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
- Dilawar Hussain and 6 others/DecreeHolders vs The Province of Sindh1993 PLD Karachi 578 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This execution proceeding arises from a long-standing land acquisition matter dating back to 1960 for the establishment of Korangi Township in Karachi, which culminated in a final determination of enhanced compensation by the Supreme Court in 1987. The core legal question concerns whether the decree-holders are entitled to the benefit of intervening statutory amendments—specifically the 15% per annum solatium under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 introduced by the Land Acquisition (Sindh Amendment) Ordinance 1984, and the rate of interest under section 28—during the execution stage. The Sindh High Court held that while an executing Court generally cannot go behind a decree, it is competent to take cognizance of changed circumstances, mould relief, and apply self-executory mandatory statutory provisions like section 28-A that do not require prior judicial intervention. The court laid down the principle that section 28-A creates an absolute, mandatory right to a solatium that applies prospectively to pending proceedings, provided it does not reopen past and closed transactions where compensation was already fully paid prior to the amendment.
Questions settled- Can an executing Court take into consideration a change in law or intervening statutory amendments when executing a decree?
- Whether the solatium introduced under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is self-executory and payable without a formal prior order of the Court?
- Do amendments introduced via the Land Acquisition (Sindh Amendment) Ordinance 1984 apply to pending proceedings and unclosed transactions?
- To what extent can past and closed transactions involving compensation already paid prior to an amendment be reopened in execution?
- Diamond Foods Industries Limited vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade1993 CLC 2196 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Dharampal and others vs Smt. Ramshri and others1993 SCMR 2393 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-01-07Read full judgment →
- Derbyshire County Council vs Times Newspapers Ltd. and others1993 SCMR 1380 · House of LordsRead full judgment →
- Deputy Commissioner, Pishin vs Abdul Salam and others1993 PLD Queeta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of several civil revision petitions filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pishin, challenging concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts in favour of respondents who claimed to be allottees of plots situated at Pishin Bazar. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the revision petitions on the point of limitation under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 following its amendment by Act XI of 1992, the applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 to such revisions, the legal effect of orders alleged to be void, and the validity of the concurrent findings regarding the allotments. The Balochistan High Court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to revision petitions under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by virtue of section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908, that limitation runs against illegal or so-called void orders if known to the affected party, and that official negligence does not constitute a valid ground for condoning statutory delay. However, exercising its suo motu revisional jurisdiction to rectify material irregularities, the Court examined the merits and found that decrees in favour of certain respondents were passed without evidence or proper consideration of lease cancellations, leading to the allowance of most petitions and setting aside of the impugned orders, while dismissing others.
Questions settled- Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to revision petitions filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does limitation run against an order alleged to be void or without jurisdiction when it is within the knowledge of the adversely affected party?
- Can the High Court exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a revision petition filed by a party is barred by time?
- Does length of departmental procedure and official negligence furnish sufficient ground for condoning statutory delay on behalf of government functionaries?
- Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Peshawar and 2 others vs Premier Tobacco Industries Limited Peshawar1993 SCMR 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether cigarettes of the same tobacco quality but sold in different packings constitute different varieties for excise duty purposes under section 4(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondent manufacturer introduced "K-2 Economy Plain 20's" at a lower retail price than "K-2 plain 20's" due to cheaper packaging without cellophane wrapping. The Department treated this as duty evasion, arguing that identical tobacco quality meant the same variety, and demanded duty based on the higher price. The High Court accepted the manufacturer's writ petition, prompting the Department's appeal. The Supreme Court held that the retail price includes packaging costs, and variations in packing and labeling create a commercially distinct "variety" for consumers. Since "K-2 Economy" and "K-2 Plain" were offered as different varieties with distinct retail prices, the Department could not arbitrarily apply the higher price. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does a difference in packaging material and cost between two packs of cigarettes of the same tobacco quality constitute a different "variety" under section 4(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Can the Central Excise Department levy excise duty on the higher retail price when a manufacturer fixes different retail prices for different varieties of the same brand of goods?
- Is the determination of whether goods constitute the same or different varieties to be judged from a scientific analysis of their contents or from the commercial angle of the general body of consumers?
- DepartmentAssessee vs AssesseePTCL 1993 CL. 135 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →