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.
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kerala State Drugs &1993 PTD 104 · Kerala High Court · 1990-01-25Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Javed Khaliq1993 PTD 730 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing1993 PTD 179 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Godavari Corpora-Ion Ltd.1993 PTD 980 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-09-10Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs DR. K. George Thoma1993 PTD 823(2) · karnataka High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dhadi Sahu1993 PTD 918 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Chandi Prasad Khaitan1993 PTD 302 · Rajasthan High Court · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bharat Iron and Steel Industries1993 PTD 833 · Gujarat High Court · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd.1993 PTD 892 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bababhai Pitamberdas (Huf)1993 PTD 978 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-08-27Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Anderson Wright & Co.1993 PTD 1484 · Calcutta High Court · 1990-08-29Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax Companies Zone, Lahore. vs Naveed A.PTCL 1993 CL. 31 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl.) vs Ganapathi Raju Jogi , . (1993 PTD 992 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-17Read full judgment →
- Colgate-Palmolive (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Assistant Registrar II of Trade1993 MLD 625 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
- Col. Mahboob Khan vs Abdur Rashid and another1993 MLD 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from a suit for possession through alleged encroachment on land, which was decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. The core legal question concerns the legality of relying on a Local Commissioner's demarcation report prepared without following mandatory High Court Rules and Orders, and on a revenue document (Jamabandi) not formally admitted into evidence. The Lahore High Court held that a demarcation report lacking measurements from fixed permanent points is of no evidentiary value, and that an appellate court cannot base its findings on documents or set-aside reports that do not form part of the legal evidence without following due process for additional evidence. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgments of both lower courts, and remanded the suit for a fresh decision after appointing a new Local Commissioner for proper demarcation in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of a Local Commissioner's demarcation report prepared without fixing permanent points as required by High Court Rules and Orders?
- Can an appellate court rely upon a Jamabandi or document that was not formally produced and admitted as a piece of evidence in the case?
- Is it lawful for an appellate court to take into consideration a previous Local Commissioner's report that has already been set aside?
- What are the legal consequences of basing findings of fact on inadmissible evidence and misdirected procedure in a civil suit?
- Col. (Retd.) Sadiq Hasan Sheikh vs Abdul Rashid and another1993 MLD 486 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale regarding a specific parcel of land, claiming ownership against respondent No. 1. This suit followed multiple unsuccessful rounds of litigation, including ejectment proceedings where the petitioner was found to be a tenant of respondent No. 2. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-open the settled issue of property title based on a recent correction mutation in the Revenue Record, and whether the trial court acted lawfully in summarily dismissing the suit while deciding a stay application. The Court held that the suit was a vexatious, repetitive attempt to re-litigate matters already finalized by the Supreme Court. The Court found the petitioner's documents to be fictitious and the Revenue Record correction irrelevant to the established title. Consequently, the Court dismissed the civil revision, affirming the lower courts' dismissal of the suit. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must summarily reject frivolous, repetitive litigation to prevent the abuse of process and protect the integrity of the judicial system, particularly when parties ignore the doctrine of res judicata.
Questions settled- Can a party re-open a settled title dispute by relying on a subsequent correction mutation in the Revenue Record?
- Is a trial court empowered to summarily dismiss a suit while disposing of an application for a stay order when the litigation is vexatious?
- Does the principle of lis pendens apply to a mutation sanctioned during the pendency of an appeal?
- Can a court initiate contempt proceedings against a litigant and counsel for repeatedly filing frivolous suits on the same subject matter?
- Civil Aviation Authority, Karachi vs M/s. Data International (Data1993 PLD Karachi 700 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from a dispute regarding the cancellation of a licence granted by the Civil Aviation Authority for operating a left-behind luggage facility at Karachi Airport. The core legal question was whether the agreement constituted a lease or a revocable licence under the Easements Act 1882, and whether a suit for declaration and injunction was maintainable in light of bar of jurisdiction and lack of legal right. The Sindh High Court held that the agreement was a revocable licence rather than a lease, since no interest in immovable property was transferred and the licensee lacked the right to assign or transfer without consent, thereby rendering section 60 of the Easements Act inapplicable. The Court laid down the principle that the substance of a written instrument determines whether it is a lease or licence, that a licence creating no property interest is revocable, and that a plaint disclosing no cause of action or barred by law must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to establish a facility on open space create a lease or a licence?
- Whether a licence permitting the construction of a building becomes an irrevocable licence under section 60 of the Easements Act 1882?
- Can documents filed along with the plaint be examined for the purpose of rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a civil court competent to grant an interim injunction restraining the government from taking possession under the Central Government Lands and Buildings Recovery of Possession Ordinance 1965?
- CI Iftikhar Ahmad Khan and another vs The State1993 MLD 84 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-17Read full judgment →
- Chiragh Muhammad Khan vs Mst. Naseeban Bibi1993 SCMR 1308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's revision application and maintaining concurrent decrees in favor of the respondent in a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involved whether the nature of the disputed land had changed due to a non-operating brick-kiln making it non-pre-emptible, and what the effect of a Government notification regarding urban areas was on the pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court held that even if the land was not used for agricultural purposes due to an idle brick-kiln, it remained village immovable property and was therefore pre-emptible under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Furthermore, the Court held that a notification claiming to include the land in an urban area requires proper pleadings, issues, and evidence to establish its applicability to pre-emption suits, and judicial notice alone cannot dispense with the required proof of fact. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether land where a brick-kiln has stopped operating ceases to be agricultural or village immovable property for the purposes of pre-emption?
- What is the effect of an urban area notification on a pre-emption suit when the notification is not properly pleaded and proved through evidence?
- Can judicial notice of a government notification dispense with the requirement of establishing questions of fact regarding the inclusion of disputed land within specific municipal or urban limits?
- Chhathu Ram and others vs Commissioner of Income Tax and others1993 PTD 1616 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
- Chettinad Corporation P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax , . (1993 PTD 1001 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-01-06Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry Muhammad Rafique vs Aman Khan1993 SCMR 2324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed a money decree passed by the trial court in a suit for the recovery of money for the supply of coal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was liable for the price of coal supplied under the contract, despite his plea that a third party responsible for brick burning was liable for the payment. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the two courts below were supported by cogent reasons and documentary evidence, which clearly contradicted the petitioner's plea. Consequently, the Court found no justification for interference and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact supported by documentary evidence will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact affirmed by the High Court?
- Is a party contractually liable for supplies when documentary evidence contradicts their plea of third-party liability?
- Chaudhry Mengh Raj vs Lal Chand and another1993 PLD Queeta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil suit for the recovery of money filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The trial court had referred the dispute to a Panchayat/Hindu Tribunal under Section 11 of the Dastoorul Amal Diwani, Kalat, which subsequently recommended a decree in favor of the petitioner without recording evidence. The primary legal question was whether a simple money suit between members of the Hindu community necessitates a mandatory reference to a Panchayat/Tribunal under the Dastoorul Amal Diwani, Kalat, and whether such a tribunal can issue recommendations without evidence. The Court held that Section 11 of the Dastoorul Amal Diwani, Kalat, is limited to cases involving the interpretation of usage, custom, personal law, or complex community affairs. Simple money suits, governed by the ordinary law of the land, do not require such reference. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that any adjudication must be based on tangible material and evidence. Consequently, the reference was deemed improper, the proceedings were declared defective, and the case was remanded to the Qazi for trial under normal law.
Questions settled- Does a simple money suit between members of the Hindu community require a mandatory reference to a Panchayat or Tribunal under Section 11 of the Dastoorul Amal Diwani, Kalat?
- Can a Panchayat or Tribunal validly recommend a decree without recording evidence?
- Under what circumstances must a civil dispute involving Hindu parties be referred to a Panchayat or Jirga under the Dastoorul Amal Diwani, Kalat?
- Does a Qazi have the jurisdiction to pass a final decree based on recommendations from a Panchayat or Jirga, or must the matter be referred to the High Court?
- Chan Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 468 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
- Chan Shah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1344 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
- Champion Clock Company vs Central Board of Revenue and othersPTCL 1993 CL. 435 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
- Chairman, WAPDA and 2 others vs Syed Jamil Ahmed1993 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent, a former temporary employee of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), challenging his termination. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court and the High Court of Sindh decreed the suit and ordered his reinstatement. The core legal question was whether the West Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1966, qualified as statutory rules of service, and whether their violation could support a civil suit for reinstatement. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that because the rules were framed under Section 18 of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, which leaves terms of service to the sole discretion of the Authority without requiring government approval, the rules lacked statutory force. Consequently, the relationship between the parties was governed by the principle of master and servant, making a suit for reinstatement incompetent and limiting the employee's remedy to damages.
Questions settled- Whether the West Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1966, constitute statutory rules of service?
- Can an employee of a statutory corporation maintain a civil suit for reinstatement if the governing service rules lack statutory force?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of a statutory corporation where the enabling statute leaves the terms of service to the sole discretion of the corporation without government intervention?
- CH.Parvaiz Elahi vs 1. Province of Punjab 2. Mian Manzoor Ahmad WatooK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 849 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. Pervaiz Elahi vs Province of Punjab and others1993 PLD Lahore 518 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-09Read full judgment →
- Ch. Pervaiz Elahi vs Province of Punjab and another1993 PLD Lahore 595 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the dissolution of the Punjab Provincial Assembly by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. The core legal question was whether the Chief Minister, having received a notice of a no-confidence motion, was constitutionally barred from advising dissolution under the Explanation to Article 112(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and whether the dissolution order was mala fide. The Lahore High Court held that the dissolution order was illegal and void, thereby restoring the Provincial Assembly. The Court determined that the notice of no-confidence was served prior to the advice for dissolution, rendering the advice ineffective. Crucially, the Court laid down that the constitutional bar on a Chief Minister advising dissolution upon receipt of a no-confidence notice is absolute. It further established that the phrase 'in the Assembly' for notice service includes service upon the Secretary, and that constitutional immunity under Article 105(2) does not protect mala fide acts, which remain subject to judicial review. The Court affirmed its power to record evidence in constitutional petitions involving fundamental rights.
Questions settled- Does the service of a notice of a no-confidence motion upon the Secretary of the Provincial Assembly satisfy the requirement of 'in the Assembly' under the Explanation to Article 112(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a High Court record evidence in a constitutional petition under Article 199 to determine disputed questions of fact?
- Does the constitutional protection under Article 105(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 immunize an advice for dissolution of an assembly from judicial review if the advice is shown to be mala fide?
- Is a Chief Minister against whom a notice of a no-confidence motion has been served legally competent to advise the Governor to dissolve the Provincial Assembly?
- Ch. Pervaiz Elahi and others vs Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo and others1993 P Cr. L J 1799 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
- Ch. Pervaiz Elahi and another vs Province of Punjab and others1993 CLC 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
- CH. Nazir Ahmad vs Usman KhanK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 83 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad vs Usman Khan and others1993 CLC 937 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
- Ch. Naseer Ahmad and 4 others vs Government of Pakistan through Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities and 7 others1993 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an application for the restoration of a writ petition that had previously been dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioners challenged the High Court's refusal to restore the writ petition, arguing that the absence of their principal counsel was justifiable and that the non-appearance of other counsel should not have been fatal to their case. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion correctly in refusing to restore the petition, particularly given the lack of explanation for the absence of multiple counsel and the underlying merits of the case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient grounds for restoration. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners lacked a substantive legal right to pursue the matter, as the Federal Government had already issued a final order setting aside the decision of the Evacuee Property Trust Board. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as being without force.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a principal counsel justify the restoration of a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution when multiple other counsel were also absent?
- Can a writ petition be restored if the petitioner lacks a substantive legal right to the relief claimed due to a final order by the Federal Government?
- Ch. Muhammad Siddique vs Additional District Judge, Lahore1993 CLC 470 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
- CH. Muhammad Siddique And Other vs (Mst) Walayat Begum And OtherK.L.R.1993 Civil Cases 174 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Siddique and another vs Mst. Walayat Begum and 81993 MLD 121 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged an appellate order of the District Judge, Mirpur, which had set aside a trial court's dismissal of a suit and remanded the matter for decision on merits. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court correctly rejected the plaint for lack of cause of action and whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata due to a previous dismissal. The High Court held that the trial court erred by considering the defendant's written statement and external documents rather than confining its examination to the plaint itself when determining the existence of a cause of action. Furthermore, the Court held that the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply where a previous suit was dismissed on a technical preliminary ground rather than adjudicated on merits. Consequently, the High Court upheld the appellate court's decision to remand the case for trial, affirming that the plaint sufficiently disclosed a cause of action based on the allegations of possessory title and encroachment.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata apply when a previous suit was dismissed on a technical preliminary ground rather than on merits?
- Should a court consider the defendant's written statement or external documents when determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Under what circumstances is the power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exercisable?
- Ch. Muhammad Sharif vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Shafi vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Multan1993 CLC 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Salem and others vs Nazir Ahmad and others1993 MLD 312 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Saleem vs Ch. Yaqoob Hussain and another1993 CLC 281 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Bashir and others vs Mahmood Ahmad1993 CLC 2039 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Akram Bhatti vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and another1993 MLD 627 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
- CH. Mubashir Ahmad-D.S.P., Special Branch, LHR. vs The InspectorK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. Manzoor Elahi vs The Registrar, Cooperative Societies and 3 others1993 SCMR 1518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding a revisional order by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which held the petitioner liable for a loan. The core legal questions were whether the Registrar could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 9-A of the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 upon a party's application rather than suo motu, and whether the matter constituted a 'past and closed transaction.' The Supreme Court held that while Section 9-A(1) limits the Government to suo motu action, Section 9-A(2) confers ordinary revisional jurisdiction on the Registrar, allowing action upon a party's petition. Additionally, because the 1972 amendment introducing Section 9-A was given retrospective effect from the Ordinance's inception, the 'past and closed transaction' doctrine was inapplicable. The Court affirmed that the Registrar's findings regarding liability were based on a valid appreciation of evidence, not misreading, and consequently refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does Section 9-A(2) of the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 require the Registrar to exercise revisional powers only suo motu?
- Can the Registrar exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 9-A(2) of the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 based on a petition filed by an aggrieved party?
- Does the retrospective application of Section 9-A of the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 preclude the application of the 'past and closed transaction' doctrine?
- Ch. Hamid Ali vs Ch. Rehmat Ali and 5 others1993 CLC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
- Ch. Ghulam Rasool and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- Ch. Asghar Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1993 CLC 858 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court challenging an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, which upheld the appointment of a female candidate as Lambardar of Chak No. 180/EB, Vehari, succeeding her deceased father. The petitioner, an advocate claiming eligibility, contended that under the rule of primogeniture a female cannot be appointed as Lambardar and that he was better qualified. The primary legal issue was whether a female heir can be appointed as Lambardar under Rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, and whether 'primogeniture' restricts succession exclusively to male descendants.
The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming the appointment. The Court held that appointment of a Lambardar is an administrative function within the executive purview of revenue authorities and will not be lightly interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction unless there is a jurisdictional error. Furthermore, Rule 19(2) does not bar females from appointment under primogeniture where the female heir is the eldest child, a full owner, and no disqualification exists, consistent with Article 25(2) of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether a female heir can be appointed as a Lambardar under the rule of primogeniture pursuant to Rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968?
- Does the term 'primogeniture' in Rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 strictly restrict succession to male heirs in the absence of a male descendant?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with an administrative decision of the Board of Revenue appointing a Lambardar?
- Ch. Ahmad Khan and 3 others vs Province of the Punjab through District1993 MLD 807 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
- Central Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Naveed Textile Mills Ltd. and others1993 MLD 42 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
- Central Cotton Mills Ltd vs Naveed Textile Mills Ltd. and othersPTCL 1993 CL. 305 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
- Central Board of Revenue and others vs Chanda Motors1993 SCMR 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Central Board of Revenue challenges a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which allowed a constitutional petition and quashed letters rejecting the respondent-firm's claim for a tax set-off under clause 172 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, read with Circular 9 of 1985. The core legal question was whether an assessment in which a reassessment order was passed prior to the issuance of the scheme, but which was pending in appeal, constituted an 'assessment already finalised' under paragraph III(d) of Circular 9 of 1985, thereby disentitling the taxpayer from claiming the benefit of purchasing Special National Fund Bonds. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that original assessments, reassessments, and appellate proceedings form an intrinsic unity as steps in a single series of legal proceedings. Therefore, an assessment is not 'finalised' until all appellate forums are exhausted. The Court concluded that the respondent's case fell under paragraph III(b) pertaining to reopened assessments rather than paragraph III(d), establishing the principle that pending appeals keep assessment proceedings alive and open for statutory investment benefits.
Questions settled- Whether an assessment order attains finality when an appeal against it is pending before an appellate authority?
- Do original assessments, reassessments, and appellate proceedings constitute a single continuous legal proceeding?
- Are taxpayers entitled to claim a tax set-off for Special National Fund Bonds in cases where assessments were reopened and pending in appeal upon the introduction of Circular 9 of 1985?
- What is the legal import and scope of the phrase 'assessments already finalised' under paragraph III(d) of Circular 9 of 1985?
- Central Board of Direct Taxes and others vs Chowgule & Co. Ltd. and others1993 PTD 930 · Kerala High CourtRead full judgment →
- Capt. Raja Ajaib Khan and others vs Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1993 CLC 196 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
- Cantonment Executive Officer, M.E. Section, Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur vs Syed Iqbal Mustafa and 2 others1993 CLC 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal question was whether acquisition proceedings lapse if no action is taken under Section 5 of the Act within one year of the Section 4 notification, specifically in light of Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983. The Cantonment Board argued that only the Provincial Government could withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act, and that a general rule could not effect such withdrawal. The Court held that the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 were framed by the Provincial Government under Section 55 of the Act and are intra vires. The Court determined that Rule 7 operates as a statutory withdrawal from acquisition by the Provincial Government when the prescribed one-year period expires without further action. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed by operation of law, dismissing the appeals and affirming that the Provincial Government may establish such policy-based rules for automatic withdrawal.
Questions settled- Does Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 constitute a valid withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can the Provincial Government issue a general rule for the automatic lapse of acquisition proceedings if no action is taken within one year of the Section 4 notification?
- Are the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 intra vires the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Cantonment Board through Cantonment Executive Officer, Peshawar vs District Sanitary and Food Inspector, Peshawar and 3 others1993 SCMR 941 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Cantonment Board, Peshawar, challenged the dismissal of its constitutional petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had held the petition incompetent on the ground that the Board was not an aggrieved party. The core legal question was whether the N.-W.F.P. Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 (a provincial enactment) and the Cantonments Pure Food Act, 1966 (a federal enactment) could simultaneously operate and be enforced within the Cantonment area, and how to resolve any conflict or overlapping between them under the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of both statutes regarding licensing, authorities, and penalties are inconsistent, irreconcilable, and cannot coexist. Applying Article 143 of the Constitution, the Court ruled that the federal enactment (Cantonments Pure Food Act, 1966) shall prevail, and the provincial ordinance is void to the extent of its repugnancy in the Cantonment area. The Court laid down the principle that where provincial and federal laws overlap and contain irreconcilable provisions regarding the same subject-matter in a Cantonment, the federal legislation prevails under Article 143, and provincial functionaries have no authority to enforce the provincial law within the Cantonment limits.
Questions settled- Whether a Cantonment Board qualifies as an aggrieved party to maintain a constitutional petition against the enforcement of a provincial law within its area?
- What is the test for determining repugnancy between a federal statute and a provincial statute under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 prevail over the Cantonments Pure Food Act, 1966 within the Cantonment area?
- Can provincial food inspectors exercise jurisdiction and enforce the N.-W.F.P. Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 within a Cantonment area?
- Caltex Oil Pakistan Limited vs Mst. Yasmin1993 CLC 1978 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
- Brig. Sadaat Ali Shah vs Muhammad Hanif and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 694 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves Intra-Court Appeals against a single judge's order in writ petitions concerning land consolidation proceedings under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with the orders of consolidation authorities regarding the condonation of delay and the merits of a consolidation scheme, and whether an appeal lies against a consent order in consolidation proceedings. The Division Bench held that the High Court erred in interfering with the orders of the consolidation authorities, which possessed exclusive jurisdiction over the propriety and legality of such schemes. The Court ruled that the Collector had the discretion to condone delay, and such discretion is not amenable to constitutional interference. Furthermore, the Court established that there is no provision in consolidation laws equivalent to Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 that bars appeals against consent orders. Consequently, the Court restored the Collector’s order, affirming that constitutional jurisdiction is limited to cases involving a decrease in entitlement, not mere situational disputes.
Questions settled- Can the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, interfere with the discretion of a Collector in a consolidation matter to condone a delay?
- Does the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 contain a provision equivalent to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 that bars appeals against consent orders?
- Is the non-joinder of a necessary party in a consolidation appeal fatal to the proceedings if the party subsequently consents to the order?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with the orders of consolidation authorities regarding the propriety of a consolidation scheme?
- Brig. Muhammad Muzaffar vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division, Islamabad and 4 others1993 CLC 775 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-02Read full judgment →
- Brig. (Retd.) Mazharulhaq and another vs M/s. Muslim Commercial Bank1993 PLD Lahore 706 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment concerns two appeals challenging the dismissal of applications to set aside an ex parte decree and a subsequent auction sale of mortgaged property. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of service of summons, the legality of the ex parte decree, the presence of material irregularities and fraud in the auction sale, and the applicability of limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants were not duly served, as the plaintiff-Bank failed to provide their correct address despite knowing it, rendering the ex parte decree a nullity. The Court further found that the auction sale was vitiated by numerous material irregularities and fraud, including non-issuance of proclamation of sale, improper description of property, and non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding deposit of purchase money. The Court also determined that the applications to set aside the decree and sale were not time-barred, as Section 18 of the Limitation Act applied due to the fraud and concealment that kept the appellants from knowledge of the proceedings. Consequently, both appeals were accepted, the ex parte decree, the sale, and all consequential orders were set aside, and the suit was remanded for fresh decision.
Questions settled- Can an ex parte decree be set aside if the defendant was not duly served due to the plaintiff's failure to provide a correct address?
- Whether a Banking Court acting under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, is bound to follow the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for service of summons and execution of decrees?
- What are the mandatory requirements for a proclamation of sale under Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and what is the effect of non-compliance?
- Can a confirmed auction sale be set aside on grounds of fraud and material irregularity, even if the application is filed after the usual limitation period?
- Is the deposit of purchase money under Order 21 Rules 84 and 85, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, mandatory, and what are the consequences of non-compliance?
- Bostan and 5 others vs Mst. Sattar Bibi and 11 others1993 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 24 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
- Boota Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
- Bolan Coastal Shipping & Water Transport Industry, Karachi vs Government of Pakistan through Central Board of Revenue, Karachi and 2 others1993 MLD 953 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha_Defendant vs Mehr Ahmed Khan1993 MLD 680 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha vs Muhammad Akram1993 CLC 926 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioner Board's appeal against an ex parte decree in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding a date of birth correction was dismissed. The core legal question was whether ex parte proceedings could lawfully be initiated against a defendant for non-appearance on a date that was not a genuine 'date of hearing'. The Lahore High Court held that dates fixed merely for 'further proceedings and proper orders' or administrative purposes, where no investigation of the controversy is scheduled, do not constitute a 'date of hearing' under the law. Consequently, taking ex parte proceedings and passing an ex parte decree on such a date is void ab initio. The Court laid down the principle that a purely legal plea not raised before the lower appellate court can be permitted in revision, and that ex parte proceedings cannot be sustained if the absence occurs on a date not fixed for the actual hearing or judicial examination of the dispute. The revision petition was accepted, the lower judgments were set aside, and the case was remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Can ex parte proceedings be lawfully initiated against a defendant for absence on a date that is not fixed for the hearing of the case?
- Does a date fixed merely for further proceedings and proper orders constitute a date of hearing?
- Can a purely legal plea be raised for the first time in a revision petition before the High Court if it was not raised before the lower appellate court?
- What is the effect of ex parte proceedings taken on a date that is not a date of hearing upon the subsequent ex parte decree?
- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan through its1993 SCMR 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Lahore High Court which had set aside the trial court's dismissal of an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The appellant Board and the respondent contractor entered into a construction contract containing an arbitration clause (Clause 25-A) requiring disputes to be first referred to the Chairman of the Board for a decision before seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. Disputes arose, and the respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act without properly referring the specific subject disputes to the Chairman as mandated. The trial court dismissed the application for non-compliance with the precondition, but the High Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in finding that the precondition had been fulfilled, as the documents relied upon pertained to entirely different matters rather than the actual disagreements listed in the Section 20 application. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's order dismissing the application, establishing that mandatory preconditions of referring specific disputes to a designated authority under an arbitration agreement must be strictly fulfilled before invoking court intervention under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.
Questions settled- Whether compliance with a contractual precondition requiring prior reference of disputes to a designated authority is mandatory before filing an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act?
- Can an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act be maintained when the specific disputes raised therein were never referred to the designated authority as required by the arbitration clause?
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's order dismissing an arbitration application based on an incorrect appreciation of record regarding prior dispute resolution attempts?
- Bismillah Cotton Factory vs WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others1993 MLD 1478 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
- Bijar And Other vs The StateK.L.R 1993 Shariat Cases 89 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Bhore Khan vs Noor DinK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 124 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
- Bhore Khan vs Noor Din1993 PLD Peshawar 72 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the respondent's suit for possession of a house based on title was decreed pursuant to a special oath taken by the respondent on the Holy Qur'an, following an offer made by the petitioner during the trial. The core legal questions involved whether an oath taken upon a party's offer is governed by sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act 1873 or Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, whether such an oath is binding, and whether the trial court followed proper judicial caution. The Peshawar High Court held that an oath resulting from a voluntary offer by one party and accepted by the other is a special oath governed by sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act 1873—which is distinct from the general oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984—and creates a binding agreement from which a party cannot resile. The Court laid down that special oaths under the Oaths Act 1873 are valid when based on voluntary agreement, and courts must record separate statements of parties to prevent hasty decisions.
Questions settled- Whether an oath taken pursuant to an offer made by the opposing party is governed by the Oaths Act 1873 or Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
- Can a party who voluntarily offers to be bound by an oath taken by the other party subsequently resile from that offer?
- What are the mandatory procedural guidelines for courts when recording a special oath agreement between parties under the Oaths Act 1873?
- Bhooralal vs Ma. Ansari and another1993 MLD 238 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- Bhimappa Jinna Ppa Naganur vs State of Karnataka1993 SCMR 2229 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-02-25Read full judgment →
- Bharat Beedi Works (P.) Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1993 PTD 1564 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Beram Khan- vs District Nazir, District Court, Mianwali and others1993 MLD 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
- Begum Zia Farhat Awan and 2 others vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1993 CLC 365 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the release of securities deposited by the petitioners as sureties for a loan facility granted to a private company, which was subsequently nationalized. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' liability as sureties was discharged, and their securities returnable, following the Federal Government's takeover of both the debtor company and the creditor bank, and the bank's subsequent acceptance of government bonds as sufficient security for the loan. The Court held that the takeover of the debtor company and the creditor bank by the same entity (the Federal Government), coupled with the bank's acceptance of government bonds as valid security and the closure of the company's loan account, effectively discharged the sureties' liability. Applying the principles of frustration of contract under the Contract Act 1872, the Court determined that legislative intervention rendered the original contract incapable of performance, thereby extinguishing the sureties' obligations. Consequently, the Court ruled that the bank's retention of the petitioners' securities was illegal and without lawful authority, directing their immediate return.
Questions settled- Does the nationalization of both a debtor company and a creditor bank by the Federal Government discharge the liability of a third-party surety?
- Can a contract be considered frustrated under Section 56 of the Contract Act 1872 when legislative measures by the State fundamentally alter the obligations of the parties?
- Is a creditor bank legally entitled to retain securities deposited by a surety after the underlying loan liability has been satisfied by government-issued bonds and the loan account has been closed?
- Begum Shireen Bahar Cheema vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division, Islamabad and 14 others1993 PLD Lahore 822 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-28Read full judgment →
- Begum Anwari Khanum Shaikh vs M/s. Passcon (Pvt.) Ltd. and another1993 MLD 1555 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
- Begum Anwar Sultana represented by Legal Heirs vs A.B.M. Associates1993 PLD Supreme Court 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal, which had challenged a Company Judge's decision granting an application under section 183(5) of the Companies Act in winding up proceedings. The predecessor of the appellants had filed a petition for winding up the company and appointed a provisional liquidator, while the Tax Recovery Officer had separately initiated recovery proceedings for income tax dues against the company, resulting in the public sale of the company's ginning factory to respondent No. 6. The core legal questions involved whether the auction sale of the company property by the Tax Recovery Officer after the presentation of the winding up petition was void, and whether prior permission of the Company Judge was required for continuing such government tax recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the tax recovery proceedings and subsequent sale were initiated by the Government and took place prior to any winding up order or appointment of a provisional liquidator, the statutory bars under the Companies Act did not invalidate the sale. The court laid down the principle that government recovery proceedings and sales in respect of company assets prior to a formal winding up order or provisional liquidation do not require the leave of the court under section 171 and are protected under section 232 of the Companies Act 1913.
Questions settled- Whether the sale of a company's property by the Tax Recovery Officer after the presentation of a winding up petition is void without the leave of the court?
- Does the continuation of tax recovery proceedings by the Government against a company require prior permission of the Company Judge under section 171 of the Companies Act 1913?
- What are the legal consequences of statutory provisions regarding dispositions and sales of company property between the date of presentation of a winding up petition and the passing of a winding up order?
- Before Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Templeman, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Sir Robert Megany New Zealand Stock Exchange and another vs Commissioner of Inland Revenue1993 PTD 374 · The Privy Council of England · 1990-03-08Read full judgment →
- Bcci vs Ali Asbestos and others1993 CLC 913 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
- Bashiran Bibi vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 612 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Bashir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Bashir Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. vs C.B.R.1993 PTD 753 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Bashir and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 655 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs Muhammad Siddique and another1993 SCMR 1671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, which was later altered by the Supreme Court to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, Part I, coupled with sentences of imprisonment for life and enhanced fines, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner chose to undergo the default imprisonment instead of paying the fines. Subsequently, the heirs of the deceased sought and obtained a warrant to the Collector for the realization of the fines, an order upheld by the High Court in revision. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a warrant for the recovery of a fine can be issued after the offender has already undergone the full sentence of imprisonment imposed in default of payment. The Court held that under the proviso to section 386(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, once an offender has undergone the whole imprisonment in default, no court shall issue a warrant for the levy of the fine. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the lower court orders, and withdrew the warrant.
Questions settled- Can a court issue a warrant for the levy of a fine after the offender has undergone the full term of imprisonment imposed in default of payment?
- Whether the proviso to section 386(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bars the issuance of a recovery warrant when default sentence has been served?
- Are fines imposed by the appellate court subject to the general provisions relating to the levy and recovery of fines?
- Bashir Ahmed Choudhry vs Muhammad Mushtaq and 2 others1993 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a property dispute where the same vendor executed sale deeds in favor of two competing parties, leading to parallel litigation. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s delayed adjudication of a stay application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which misled the petitioner into failing to produce original evidence in a consolidated suit, constituted a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s failure to decide the stay application at the earliest stage, combined with its conduct in recording evidence in the petitioner's suit and admitting a copy of the sale deed, created a legitimate expectation of consolidation. Consequently, the petitioner was unfairly penalized for not producing the original deed. The Court set aside the High Court and trial court judgments, remanding the case for the appellate court to decide the appeals after granting the petitioner an opportunity to prove his sale deed. The principle established is that a court must decide preliminary issues like stay of proceedings promptly to avoid procedural prejudice and ensure parties are not misled regarding the conduct of their litigation.
Questions settled- Does a trial court's delay in deciding an application for stay of proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute a miscarriage of justice if it misleads a party regarding the conduct of their suit?
- Can an appellate court remand a case for the production of evidence when a party was misled by the trial court's procedural handling of consolidated suits?
- Bashir Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1757 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs S.H.O Mamun Kanjan & 7 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-12Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heir1993 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing a suit for specific performance of a contract regarding immovable property in favour of the respondent. The core legal questions addressed were whether a concluded oral agreement for the sale of property was established by the evidence and the conduct of the parties, and whether an oral agreement for the sale of immovable property is capable of being specifically enforced under the law. The Supreme Court held that an oral agreement, if validly proven and fulfilling all requirements of a valid contract under the Contract Act, is enforceable by law and can be specifically performed. The Court found that concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of the oral agreement, supported by oral testimony, a receipt of earnest money, and the appellant's conduct in handing over title documents, were unexceptionable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the law does not bar the specific performance of oral agreements.
Questions settled- Whether an oral agreement for the sale of immovable property can be specifically enforced under the law?
- Can a receipt of earnest money serve as corroborative evidence to prove an oral agreement of sale?
- Does Section 4 of the Specific Relief Act restrict specific performance exclusively to written contracts?
- Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Hussain and others1993 MLD 1934 · Board of Revenue · 1993-05-27Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence1993 SCMR 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for a disability pension on the ground of non-joinder of the Ministry of Finance as a necessary party. The appellant, a former supervisor in the Pakistan Navy, had his pension claim rejected by the Ministry of Finance after being struck off the strength of his department due to medical reasons. The core legal question was whether the Ministry of Finance was a necessary party under Rule 7 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, in an appeal where the Ministry of Defence was the administrative authority. The Supreme Court held that the Ministry of Defence, being the administrative ministry responsible for issuing the operative order, was the competent authority under the relevant rules. Consequently, the appeal could not be dismissed for non-joinder of the Ministry of Finance. The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision, while permitting the Tribunal to add the Ministry of Finance as a party if it deemed necessary.
Questions settled- Is the Ministry of Finance a necessary party in a service appeal concerning a disability pension claim where the Ministry of Defence is the administrative authority?
- Who constitutes the 'competent authority' under Rule 7 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974 for the purpose of impleading respondents in an appeal?
- Can an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal be dismissed solely on the ground of non-joinder of the Ministry of Finance when the administrative ministry is already a party?
- Bashir Ahmad vs Family Court and another1993 CLC 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad and others vs Sardar Khan and others1993 MLD 2298 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2393 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-16Read full judgment →
- Basharat Iqbal vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 2151 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-21Read full judgment →
- Basharat Iqbal vs Dr. Nargis Rehana and another1993 MLD 571 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed to challenge the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The complainant alleged that the petitioner's brother contracted a second marriage without disclosing his existing marriage, and that the petitioner abetted the offence by signing the Nikahnama as a witness. The core legal question was whether the provisions of abetment under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be applied to a special law like the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and whether a witness to a Nikahnama can be held criminally liable for the groom's failure to obtain permission for a polygamous marriage. The Lahore High Court held that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is a special law which does not incorporate the abetment provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court ruled that only the person contracting the marriage in contravention of the law can be prosecuted, and signing a Nikahnama as a witness does not constitute abetment or shared common intention. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
Questions settled- Can the abetment provisions of Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be applied to offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Whether a person who merely signs a Nikahnama as a witness can be held criminally liable for abetting an illegal polygamous marriage under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Does the signing of a Nikahnama as a witness imply that the witness shares a common intention or assumes responsibility for the truth of the declarations made by the bridegroom?
- Basharat Ali and another vs The State1993 MLD 159 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
- Basharat Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2036 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-20Read full judgment →
- Basharat Ahmad Shaikh, J Muhammad Ismail and 9 others vs Shahbaz1993 MLD 1608 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →