Latest 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.

• Alhaj Shahzadi Mumtaz Jahan vs Aquila Parveen and others1993 PLD Revenue 3 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
• AlHaj Raees Ahmed Qureshi vs Secretary, Chief Minister's Secretariat, Lahore and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Aley Nabi and others vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Court and another1993 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-26
  labour lawindustrial relationsright of appealincorporation by referencestanding orderslabour court jurisdictiongrievance procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment regarding the competency of an appeal against orders passed by a Labour Court under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether such orders are final or if an aggrieved party may exercise a right of appeal under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court held that an appeal is indeed competent. The Court reasoned that the legislative incorporation of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, into Standing Order 12(3) necessarily imports the procedural framework of the former, including the appellate mechanism. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that when jurisdiction is conferred upon an established court, the ordinary incidents of procedure, including the right of appeal, automatically attach to its decisions unless expressly excluded. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, confirming that the right of appeal under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, remains available for grievances adjudicated under the Standing Orders.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Labour Court under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, subject to an appeal under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does the incorporation of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, into Standing Order 12(3) include the right of appeal provided under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • When jurisdiction is conferred upon an established court, do the ordinary incidents of procedure, including the right of appeal, attach to its decisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan and 3 others vs The State1993 MLD 536 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Al-Athar Limited and 4 others vs Sajjad Hussain1993 MLD 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18
  recovery suitpleadingsAmanatadvance paymentbreach of contractcivil appealscope of pleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for the recovery of Rs. 150,000, which the respondent claimed was deposited as "Amanat" (trust) with the deceased defendant during negotiations for the purchase of company shares. The defendants contended the sum was an advance payment for the sale. The trial court found the amount was indeed an advance payment, not "Amanat," yet still decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, holding the defendants liable. The core legal question was whether a court may grant a decree based on a theory of liability—such as breach of contract—that was never pleaded by the plaintiff, particularly after the trial court rejected the specific factual basis asserted in the pleadings. The High Court held that a party cannot advance a case inconsistent with their pleadings. Since the respondent failed to establish the "Amanat" claim, and no case of breach of contract was pleaded, the trial court erred in granting relief. The court established that a suit must be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to prove their pleaded case, as courts cannot grant relief on unpleaded grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a decree based on a theory of liability that was not pleaded by the plaintiff?
  • Does a failure to prove the specific case pleaded in a suit necessitate its dismissal?
  • Is a party entitled to the refund of an advance payment if they fail to prove the money was given as a trust (Amanat)?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Al Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1993 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-03
  Income Tax Ordinance 1979reopening assessmentSection 65 noticeapplication of mindSection 7 guidanceabdication of authorityconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory remedySection 136 referencenon-joinder of necessary parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court decision dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order. The core legal questions pertained to whether an Income Tax Officer (ITO) can reopen an assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 at the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC), the proper interpretation of Section 7 regarding superior guidance, and the maintainability of a constitutional petition when a statutory reference under Section 136 is available. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that Section 7 does not permit an ITO to abdicate statutory duties or compromise the hierarchical integrity of appellate forums. However, an ITO's notice under Section 65 issued at the behest of a superior officer is not invalid per se, provided the ITO independently applied their mind. Furthermore, a litigant who has utilized the statutory appellate hierarchy up to the Tribunal cannot arbitrarily switch to constitutional jurisdiction midway without compelling and justifiable reasons, such as a palpably void or mala fide order.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 7 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 permit an Income Tax Officer to abdicate their statutory functions and rely entirely on superior directions?
  • Is a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 rendered invalid merely because it was initiated on the direction of a superior officer, provided the assessing officer applied an independent mind?
  • Can a party who has pursued remedies within a statutory appellate framework switch to constitutional writ jurisdiction midway without compelling or justifiable reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhter Ali Shah vs M/s. Singer Sewing Machine Company through1993 MLD 1817 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Shah and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2556 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain and 4 others vs The State1993 SCMR 1522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-06
  Constitutional LawOrdinance RepromulgationPresidential PowersConstitutional InterpretationLeave to Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of petitions brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the constitutional validity of the repromulgation of Ordinances. The core legal question presented for the Court's consideration is whether the President of Pakistan possesses the authority under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to repromulgate an Ordinance that has already stood repealed by operation of law under clause (2) of the same Article. The judgment highlights a significant conflict in judicial interpretation, noting that while the Sindh High Court aligned with the precedent established in Maulvi Tamizuddin Ahmad v. Province of East Bengal, the Lahore High Court adopted a contrary position in Rehmat Khan v. Federation of Pakistan. Recognizing that the issue involves a matter of general legal importance requiring an authoritative interpretation of constitutional provisions, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the conflicting views held by the High Courts. The Court did not issue a final ruling on the merits in this order but formally acknowledged the necessity of settling this constitutional controversy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the President have the power under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to repromulgate an Ordinance that has already stood repealed under clause (2) of Article 89?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali Monga vs Tul Chief Secretary Govt of the Punjab, Lahore &K.L.R 1993 Labour & Service Cases 222 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali G. Kazi, J Union Texas Pakistan Inc. vs Assistant1993 MLD 1859 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-10Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Alam and 3 others vs M/s. Hindustan Sanitary and Drainage1993 PLD Karachi 469 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Abbas vs Niaz Ahmad and another1993 MLD 383 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
• Akbar Zaman vs The State1993 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-20
  narcoticssentencing mitigationleave to appealcriminal justiceconfessionduty of accusedcarrier
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a narcotics convict seeking a reduction in his sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal question addresses whether an accused, by abandoning a stance of total denial and admitting to acting as a 'carrier' at the appellate stage, is entitled to sentencing mitigation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner’s admission, supported by his confession and other evidence, warranted reconsideration of his sentence. The Court laid down the principle that the archaic notion of an accused being entitled to lie to divert judicial inquiry is incompatible with the current constitutional and juridical framework. Instead, an accused has a duty to assist the court in discovering the truth. The Court emphasized that adopting a truthful stance, such as admitting to a lesser role like a carrier, can open avenues for sentencing leniency, whereas persistent denial often deprives an accused of such legitimate benefits. This judgment promotes a new philosophy of sentencing rooted in truth and accountability.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused person have a legal duty to assist the court in discovering the truth?
  • Can an accused's admission of being a 'carrier' in a narcotics case at the appellate stage justify a reduction in sentence?
  • Is the traditional notion that an accused is entitled to lie to the court still valid under the current Pakistani legal system?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2294 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-17Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan and another vs Muhammad Sharif and 2 others1993 MLD 2288 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Superintendent, District Jail Faisalabad1993 P Cr. L J 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Goraya vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 310 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Goraia vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and 4 others vs Mst. Hameeda Sahaf1993 CLC 290 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Badshah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 738 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-11Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan vs Zulfiqar and another1993 P Cr. L J 2002 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan Versus Zulfiqar And Another Ajab Khan vs Zulfiqar And AnotherK.L.R 1993 Criminal Cases 457 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ainuddin Khan vs The Collector, Lahore District, Lahore1993 MLD 690 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Aimas Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2072 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali Khan Jatoi vs Liaquat Ali Khan Jatoi1993 SCMR 2350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-03
  election candidatesloan defaultnomination papersinterim reliefconstitutional petitionelection processretrospective legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This order by the Supreme Court of Pakistan deals with three petitions for leave to appeal concerning election candidates whose names were omitted from the list of contesting candidates because they appeared on a list of loan defaulters published by the Banking Council pursuant to amendments introduced by Ordinance No. XVI of 1993 and Ordinance No. XX of 1993 to the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The core legal questions involved the constitutional validity of the amending Ordinances, their retrospective application, the separation of powers, and the bar under Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan against interfering with the ongoing election process. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine the weighty constitutional questions raised. However, concerning interim relief, the Court held that a law must be presumed valid until declared otherwise, and since the petitioners' names appeared on the statutory defaulter list for amounts exceeding the prescribed limit, interim relief was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether amending ordinances imposing loan default disqualifications for election candidates are ultra vires the Constitution?
  • Does Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar constitutional petitions regarding matters arising during the ongoing election process?
  • Whether interim relief can be granted to suspend the operation of an election law presumed to be valid until declared otherwise?
  • Does the disqualification for non-payment or writing off of bank loans violate the constitutional protection against retrospective punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ahmed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1968 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-25Read full judgment →
• Ahsanullah A. Memon vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary1993 SCMR 982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-06
  civil servantdeputationistretrospective absorptionseniorityservice tribunaljurisdictionequitable powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal against the retrospective permanent absorption of respondent No. 4 as an Executive Engineer in the Education Department of the Government of Sindh. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government could validly exercise its powers under section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 to absorb a deputationist permanently with retrospective effect from the date of his initial joining, thereby affecting the seniority and promotion prospects of existing civil servants. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the Government possesses wide discretionary powers under section 24 to deal with cases in a just and equitable manner, such powers cannot be exercised to the detriment or prejudice of the vested rights or statutory privileges of other civil servants. The Court laid down the principle that retrospective absorption of a deputationist in violation of statutory rules and to the disadvantage of existing civil servants is not sustainable in law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Provincial Government can pass an order of retrospective absorption under section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 in violation of statutory rules?
  • Does a civil servant have locus standi to challenge a departmental notification that indirectly affects his seniority and service terms?
  • Can a person on deputation from a university be considered a civil servant prior to permanent absorption for the purposes of invoking section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Whether the exercise of residual equitable powers under section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act can impair or prejudice the statutory rights of other civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Saleem vs Government of the Punjab and others1993 PLD Lahore 118 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax ()1993P T D 1328 · Bombay High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahmed Sipra, Mst. Nazeeran Bibi vs The State1993 MLD 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Sipra, Abdul Rehman vs Muhammad Yaqub and 21 others1993 MLD 2256 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali vs Muhammad Muhmood Alam and another1993 CLC 339 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Abbasi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1925 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmed (deceased) and others vs Sheikh Abdullah and others1993 CLC 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Zaman Khan, Barrister vs Government of Punjab through Collector, Multan and 2 others1993 CLC 1327 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06
  mandatory injunctionnecessary partiescivil revisionabuse of processrevenue record correctionstriking off defencediscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a plaintiff in a civil suit for mandatory injunction and damages, sought to delete one of the defendants (the Tehsildar) from the suit, which the trial court refused. The petitioner argued that a plaintiff has the absolute right to control the array of defendants. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that while a plaintiff initiates litigation, the Court controls the proceedings to prevent abuse of process. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff cannot unilaterally delete necessary parties, especially when the relief sought (declaration of exclusive ownership and correction of revenue records) affects the rights of third parties (co-owners) who must be impleaded. Furthermore, the Court held that the suit was improperly framed as a mandatory injunction rather than a suit for declaration and injunction. The Court also set aside the order striking off the defence of the government defendants, emphasizing that cases should be decided on merits rather than technicalities, and directed that they be allowed to file written statements upon payment of costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaintiff have an absolute right to unilaterally delete a defendant from a suit?
  • Can a court allow a defendant to file a written statement after their defence has been struck off?
  • Is a suit for mandatory injunction the appropriate remedy for seeking a declaration of exclusive ownership of land?
  • Are co-owners of land necessary parties in a suit seeking to correct revenue records to show exclusive ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sipra, Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1993 MLD 360 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sipra, Ghulam Rasool vs S.H.O., P.S. Qadirpur District, Jhang1993 MLD 277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 307 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nadeem vs Assia Bibi and another1993 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15
  dissolution of marriageKhulaconstitutional petitionappellate jurisdictionwria jurisdictionfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the husband to challenge the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge, Rajanpur, which reversed the decision of the Family Court and dissolved the marriage between the parties on the basis of Khula. The core legal question was whether the appellate court had the jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal of the suit and dissolve the marriage on the principle of Khula where the wife demonstrated a fixed aversion and refusal to live with the husband. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the right of a wife to seek dissolution on the ground of Khula is equal to the husband's right to pronounce Talaq, and a court cannot force a wife to live with her husband if she has developed a settled hatred towards him and the parties cannot live within the limits ordained by Allah. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court exercising jurisdiction in family matters acts as a Qazi with powers to assess the possibility of a harmonious marital union, and where the wife shows a determined aversion coupled with prolonged separation, dissolution of marriage on the principle of Khula is fully justified.

  Questions settled

  • Can a marriage be dissolved on the principle of Khula if the wife exhibits a fixed aversion towards her husband?
  • Does an appellate court acting within the hierarchy of family laws possess the status and powers of a Qazi to assess marital discord?
  • Can a writ petition be entertained for the reappreciation of evidence regarding the dissolution of marriage?
  • Is a wife to be forced to live with her husband if she has developed hatred and cannot observe the limits of Allah?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Province of Punjab and others1993 MLD 1467 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 452 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain vs Muhammad HusainK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain Shah vs Mst. Taj Bibi and another1993 CLC 2152 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Badar Din1993 CLC 817 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 888 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 997 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and 4 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1768 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali and 4 others vs The State and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 46 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan through Chairman, Islamabad vs Sheikh Siraj-Ud-Din and 2 others1993 MLD 2381 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Agha Ghulam Ali vs The State and 3 others1993 P Cr. L J 1135 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-05Read full judgment →
• Agaria Amir Ali vs Abdul Majid1993 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-24
  leave to appealdefault in payment of rentpersonal needejectmentlandlord and tenantburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner-tenant sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had reversed the Rent Controller's order and granted eviction on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal need. The respondent-landlord had filed an ejectment application concerning three shops, alleging non-payment of rent for 28 months and a requirement of the premises for his business as a building contractor. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the tenant took contradictory stands regarding security deposits for rent adjustment and failed to discharge the burden of proving no default, while also establishing the landlord's bona fide personal need. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the evidence and held that the High Court's findings were consistent with the evidence and established legal principles. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, while granting four months to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can set up a plea of rent adjustment against a security deposit not pleaded in the written statement?
  • What is the burden of proof on a tenant when alleging no default in rent payments?
  • Must a landlord provide the fullest possible description of personal use in an ejectment application?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 455 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• Aftab Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 41 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 828 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Saeed vs Federation of Pakistan and others1993 CLC 2022 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01
  storage chargesKarachi Port Trustconfiscated goodsCustoms Actvesting in Federal Governmentdetention certificateimport policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court arose from the detention and subsequent confiscation of imported scrap goods by Customs Authorities, which were later ordered to be restored to the petitioners by the Collector of Customs on appeal. The petitioners faced a dilemma when the Karachi Port Trust (K.P.T.) demanded heavy storage charges for the release of the goods. The core legal questions involved the applicability of specific storage charge provisions under the Karachi Port Trust Act and liability for storage charges when goods remain confiscated under section 182 of the Customs Act. The court held that while Note 8 of the K.P.T. Notification specifically governs goods subject to a Customs Detention Certificate, under section 182 of the Customs Act, confiscated goods vest in the Federal Government. Consequently, the Federal Government, and not the innocent petitioners, is liable for storage charges accruing during the period of wrongful confiscation, though the K.P.T. retains a statutory lien over the goods until dues are satisfied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Note 6 or Note 8 of the Karachi Port Trust notification applies to goods held under a Customs Detention Certificate?
  • Does the Federal Government become liable for storage charges when imported goods are wrongfully confiscated by Customs Authorities under section 182 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Does the Karachi Port Trust have a lien over goods for unpaid dues despite the goods being under confiscation by the Federal Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 882 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-05Read full judgment →
• Adnan Tariq vs Vice-Chancellor of the University of Punjab1993 PLD Lahore 341 · Lahore High Court
  medical educationuniversity regulationemergency powersretrospective applicationvested rightsacademic councilsyndicate approval
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, medical students, challenged a regulation framed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Punjab on April 13, 1992, which barred candidates failing to clear the First Professional M.B., B.S. Examination in four chances (availed or unavailed) from further medical education. The petitioners contended that the Vice-Chancellor lacked jurisdiction under his emergency powers to frame the regulation without the Academic Council's recommendation and Syndicate's approval, and that the regulation could not apply retrospectively to students admitted before its passage. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that any initial procedural defect in the regulation's framing was cured when the Academic Council and Syndicate subsequently approved it. Furthermore, the Court ruled that students do not possess a vested right to be examined under the regulations in force at the time of their admission, and that the regulation was reasonable and aligned with the directives of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council.

  Questions settled

  • Does the subsequent approval of a university regulation by the Academic Council and the Syndicate cure any initial jurisdictional defect in its framing by the Vice-Chancellor?
  • Do medical students have a vested right to be examined under the regulations that were in force at the time of their admission?
  • Can a university regulation validly count unavailed examination chances as failures to determine a student's eligibility for further education?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator, Market Committee, Kasur vs Muhammad Sharif and 171993 SCMR 2322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-17
  leave to appealagricultural produce marketprospective operationmarket rulesinterim suspension
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal, directed against an order of the High Court concerning the application of market rules. The core legal question for consideration is whether Rule 79 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1979 operates prospectively and thus does not affect vegetable markets already in existence prior to its enforcement. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the operation of the impugned order of the High Court shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeals. The key principle established is that substantial questions regarding the prospective or retrospective operation of statutory rules governing agricultural produce markets warrant a full review by the apex court, during which interim suspension of lower court orders may be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Rule 79 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1979 is only prospective in nature?
  • Does Rule 79 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1979 affect vegetable markets already in existence before it came into force?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator of Auqaf, Department of Auqaf, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad vs Ghulam Abbas and 19 others1993 MLD 2086 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Adil Jiha vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1115 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• Adil Jaffar and another vs Mrs. Farida Muhammad Ali and 2 others1993 MLD 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-03Read full judgment →
• Adeel Usmani and 3 others vs Mirza Nasim Baig1993 MLD 2558 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• Adeeba Musharraf vs Muhammad Ishaq and another1993 SCMR 2354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10
  bona fide personal requirementejectment applicationCantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963notice of transfermala fidepaggrilandlord's prerogativevacant possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by a tenant against the High Court's judgment ordering her eviction from a commercial shop on the ground of the landlords' bona fide personal requirement. The trial court had dismissed the landlords' ejectment application, but the High Court reversed that decision in appeal. The petitioner contended that the landlords' requirement was mala fide because their initial notice omitted the claim of personal need, an unproven demand for 'Paggri' was allegedly made, the landlords owned other premises, and business could be run from the upper storey. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that omitting personal requirement in an initial notice of purchase does not impute mala fide, bald allegations of 'Paggri' without positive proof cannot defeat an eviction claim, and installing machines elsewhere does not bar eviction under Section 17(4)(b)(ii) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The Court reaffirmed that the landlord has the prerogative to choose suitable business premises. The petitioner was granted six months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of a claim for personal requirement in an initial intimation notice of property purchase establish mala fide on the part of the landlord?
  • Can uncorroborated oral statements by a tenant alleging a demand for 'Paggri' defeat a landlord's claim for bona fide personal requirement?
  • Does the installation of machines in another property bar a landlord from seeking eviction under Section 17(4)(b)(ii) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Can a tenant dictate that a landlord should conduct business from the upper storey of a premises rather than seeking eviction of the ground floor?
  Read full judgment →
• Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax vs United Motor Transport1993 PTD 518 · Allahabad High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Badri Prasad Kashi Prasad1993 PTD 1393 · Allahabad High Court · 1992-08-10Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others1993 SCMR 1798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-27
  constitutional jurisdictionalternative remedyincome tax reassessmentwrit petitioninsurance company accountsconcealment of incomestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the Karachi High Court's dismissal of constitutional petitions filed by insurance companies challenging income tax reassessment orders. The appellants contested the Income Tax Officer's decision to reopen finalized assessments under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, arguing that the reassessments were based on a mere change of opinion and that the 'provision for taxes' in their accounts could not be treated as taxable income. The High Court had dismissed the petitions in limine, holding that the appellants had an adequate alternative remedy via the statutory appellate hierarchy. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the High Court's discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution to refuse jurisdiction when an alternative remedy exists is a settled practice. The Court held that once a party invokes statutory remedies, they cannot abandon them to seek constitutional relief without compelling reasons, especially when the impugned orders are not palpably without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the appellants must pursue their grievances through the prescribed appellate and reference procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party that has already invoked statutory appellate remedies abandon them mid-process to seek relief through a constitutional petition?
  • Is the High Court's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction justified when an adequate alternative remedy is available under the relevant tax statute?
  • Does the issuance of a notice under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, constitute a jurisdictional defect if it is based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer?
  • When is the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction justified despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 867 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abu Saeed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-17Read full judgment →
• Abrar Hussain vs Mst. Tasneem Akhtar and 2 others1993 MLD 174 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
• Abid Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 190 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2042 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs The Government of the Punjab, through HomeK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 447 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs The Government of the Punjab through Home Secretary, Lahore1993 P Cr. L J 135 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-15Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 763 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-26Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 59 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and 3 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2381 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzak vs Muhammad Yasin1993 MLD 224 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzak & Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf vs Muhammad Saleem and others1993 P Cr. L J 886 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 374 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Ansari vs Abu Zahid Qari Hafeezullah1993 CLC 831 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid alias Muhammad Rashid and 5 others vs Muhammad1993 CLC 214 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07
  limited estatecustomary successionadverse possessionlimitation periodsuit for possessiongift mutationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for possession of agricultural land and perpetual injunction filed by the respondent, challenging a gift mutation executed by his father's issueless widow, who held the property as a limited owner under custom. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by time and held the widow to be a full owner, but the first appellate Court reversed this decision and decreed the suit. The Lahore High Court upheld the appellate judgment, ruling that the widow held only a limited estate for maintenance under custom, which terminated by operation of law. The Court held that a suit for possession by a lawful heir upon the termination of a limited estate is governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act rather than Article 14, and that no limitation period runs against the rightful heir unless adverse possession is established. Furthermore, the Court noted that under section 4 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975, a person claiming through an alienation from a refugee female limited owner cannot plead adverse possession. The civil revision was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an issueless widow holding property under custom possesses a limited estate or full ownership?
  • What limitation article governs a suit for possession filed by a legal heir upon the termination of a female limited estate?
  • Can a defendant claiming title through a gift mutation plead adverse possession against a lawful heir of the last male holder?
  • Does section 4 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975 bar the plea of adverse possession against the lawful heir of the last male holder?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahman vs Tanweer Usmani1993 CLC 1849 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim and others vs The State through Border Area Committee1993 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-28
  land settlementallotment of landevacuee propertysubsistence holdingMartial Law RegulationBorder Area Committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a land settlement dispute where appellants sought additional land allotment under Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959, claiming that the repeal of evacuee laws via the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, did not affect their entitlement. The appellants argued that because 1,256 Kanals of their original allotment were found not to be evacuee land and subsequently excluded, they were entitled to compensation through further allotment. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to additional land allotments despite the repeal of certain settlement laws and existing land holding limits. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the appellants' legal premises regarding the applicability of the laws were correct, they failed to meet the essential conditions for further allotment. Specifically, the Court found that the appellants already possessed land exceeding the prescribed subsistence holding limits under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, and the scale limitations set by Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959. The principle established is that eligibility for land allotment is strictly subject to maximum holding limits and specific statutory conditions, regardless of the repeal status of the underlying settlement laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of evacuee laws under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 automatically entitle an allottee to additional land if their original allotment is reduced?
  • Are land allotments under Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959 subject to the subsistence holding limits defined in the Land Reforms Regulation 1972?
  • Can an applicant claim further land allotment if their existing holdings already exceed the statutory limits prescribed by the relevant settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah through Legal Heirs vs Barkat Ali through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 820 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 51993 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-14
  landlord and tenantejectmentcompromise decreetenancyrent enhancementexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a long-standing land dispute between a landlord and a tenant concerning rent enhancement and the tenant's potential ejectment. The core legal question was whether a compromise agreement, entered into by the parties before the High Court, which stipulated the payment of enhanced rent and arrears, effectively created a new tenancy and precluded the execution of a prior ejectment decree. The Supreme Court held that the compromise, by explicitly providing for the payment of arrears and future rent at an enhanced rate, clearly indicated an intention to continue the tenancy relationship. The use of the term 'thereafter' regarding future rent payments confirmed that the parties intended to supersede the previous ejectment order. Consequently, the Court ruled that the compromise established a new tenancy, rendering the previous ejectment decree unenforceable. The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the application for the execution of the ejectment decree was dismissed, thereby preserving the tenant's possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a compromise agreement between a landlord and tenant regarding enhanced rent and payment of arrears effectively create a new tenancy?
  • Can a prior ejectment decree be executed after the parties have entered into a subsequent compromise agreement regarding the continuation of the tenancy?
  • How should the term 'thereafter' in a settlement agreement between a landlord and tenant be interpreted regarding the continuation of a tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan and 2 others vs Sheikh Mahboob Sabir and 5 others1993 PLD Peshawar 55 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Abdullah (Deceased) through Legal Heir and anothers vs Mst. Rasool1993 SCMR 1884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-07
  restoration of writ petitionnon-prosecutionHigh Court Rules and Ordersoutside counselnotice of hearingdismissal in defaultinterest of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals against orders of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed applications for the restoration of writ petitions previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellants, whose writ petitions regarding land allotment were dismissed due to the absence of their counsel, sought restoration on the grounds that their counsel, practicing outside Lahore, had not received the customary notice of the hearing date. The core legal question was whether the High Court was obligated to provide personal notice to counsel practicing outside Lahore under the High Court Rules and Orders. The Supreme Court observed that while the relevant High Court Rules did not strictly mandate such notice for cases not yet admitted to regular hearing, the appellants' counsel had historically received such notices and relied upon that practice. In the interest of justice, the Court allowed the appeals and remanded the cases to the High Court for hearing at the stage they were in prior to dismissal. The principle established is that where a consistent practice of providing notice to outside counsel exists, reliance on that practice may justify restoration of a case dismissed for non-prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court required to provide personal notice to counsel practicing outside Lahore for cases not yet admitted to regular hearing?
  • Does the failure of a court to follow a historically established practice of notifying outside counsel constitute sufficient grounds for the restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Are parties and their advocates required to attend court on the days their cases are set down regardless of whether specific notice is received?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2254 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-29
  post-arrest bailpreparation for dacoitycriminal procedurebail applicationrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Wahid, who was charged under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly preparing to commit dacoity. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was apprehended by police based on intelligence that he and others were armed and preparing for a robbery. The applicant sought bail after his initial application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. During the proceedings, the State counsel conceded that the available material did not sufficiently demonstrate that the applicant had made the necessary preparations to commit an offence under Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, it was noted that the applicant had already been granted bail in a separate case concerning the recovery of the same weapon (a T.T. Pistol) used as evidence in the present matter. Finding merit in the submissions, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding the essential ingredients of the charged offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused with a weapon, without further evidence of preparation, satisfy the requirements of Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Should bail be granted when the State concedes that the material available does not support the essential ingredients of the charged offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and others vs Addl. Settlement Commissioner1993 CLC 1114 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and 5 others vs Noor Muhammad and 7 others1993 PLD Lahore 552 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-23
  temporary injunctionspecific performanceagreement to selldiscretionary jurisdictionpendente lite alienationimposition of termscivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arises from an order of the trial court dated 15-3-1993 passed in a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, wherein the trial court restrained pendente lite alienation of the disputed land subject to the condition that the plaintiffs deposit the balance price within two months. The core legal question was whether a civil court possesses the authority under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to impose terms, such as the deposit of the balance consideration, as a condition for granting a temporary injunction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that injunctive relief is discretionary and the court has the competent authority to regulate its exercise of discretion by imposing terms to protect the legitimate rights of all parties. The key principle laid down is that a court granting a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance may lawfully impose equitable conditions, including the deposit of the balance sale price, to balance the interests of the litigants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial Court can impose terms, such as the deposit of balance consideration, when granting a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is injunctive relief of a discretionary nature allowing a court to regulate its exercise of discretion to protect the legitimate rights of parties?
  • Does the bare text of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exclude the power of a court to attach conditions to an injunctive order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid alias Babu vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1431 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid alias Abdul vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1739 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Zubaida and another1993 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 666 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Bajwa vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1382 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →