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.
- Abdul Wahad and others vs Consolidation Staff and others1993 PLD Revenue 48 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1714 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Suttar And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 509 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Deputy Collector Of Customs, Karachi And AnotherPTCL 1993 CL. 732 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar Siddiqui and another vs District Magistrate, Badin and 31993 CLC 9 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar Shah Zaidi vs University of Karachi and another1993 CLC 2026 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 614 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar And Other vs SH. Mohammad Akram And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 95 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar alias Billa vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Samad vs The State1993 MLD 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Samad Hashmi vs Syed Muhammad Yaqoob1993 MLD 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehmat Abbasi vs Malik Muhammad Asadullah and another1993 MLD 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman and anothers Muhammad Ishaque vs Income Tax Officer, Mirpur Circle, Mirpur and another1993 CLC 1101 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals arise from writ petitions filed by income-tax assessees challenging assessment orders and demand notices. The appellants bypassed the available departmental appellate hierarchy, directly invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the existence of an adequate alternate remedy constitutes a jurisdictional bar to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeals, affirming that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The Court held that the existence of an adequate alternate remedy is a rule of law that ousts the High Court's jurisdiction, rather than a mere regulatory practice. It clarified that unlike previous constitutional frameworks, the current provisions explicitly condition the issuance of writs on the absence of other adequate remedies. Consequently, the High Court cannot entertain writ petitions against fiscal orders unless the petitioner demonstrates that the departmental remedy is inadequate, which the appellants failed to establish in this instance.
Questions settled- Does the existence of an adequate alternate remedy constitute a jurisdictional bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974?
- Is the rule requiring the exhaustion of alternate remedies merely a regulatory practice or a rule of law barring the High Court's jurisdiction?
- Can a High Court entertain a writ petition directly against an income tax assessment order without the petitioner first exhausting departmental appellate remedies?
- Abdul Rehman and 3 others vs Government of Balochistan and 2 others1993 SCMR 2269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arose from the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dismissing constitutional petitions against the cancellation of land allotments under Martial Law Order No. 16 and Martial Law Order No. 46. The land had originally been allotted for agricultural purposes, subsequently sold, converted to non-agricultural status, and utilized for industrial plants. Following cancellation of allotments by the Martial Law Administrator due to political influence, transferee-petitioners sought constitutional relief. The High Court suggested favorable consideration for regularization of land where operational factories had been established. During appellate proceedings, regularization was granted to appellants who had constructed functioning industries upon paying an enhanced rate per acre. For the remaining appellant who had not yet erected an industry, the Supreme Court considered whether equitable relief of regularization could still be extended. The Court held that regularization could be granted on equitable terms similar to other transferees, provided additional safeguard conditions were imposed to protect the public exchequer, including payment at a significantly higher rate and forfeiture of profits to the State if sold without setting up an industry.
Questions settled- Can state land allotments cancelled under Martial Law Orders be regularized on equitable grounds for industrial development?
- What conditional safeguards must be imposed when regularizing vacant public land to prevent commercial speculation and protect the public exchequer?
- Will an appeal be dismissed as time-barred where the appellant fails to demonstrate extraordinary grounds for condonation of delay?
- Abdul Razzaq vs Mst, Rehana Akhtar and another1993 CLC 1538 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs The State1993 P Cr. R J 1928 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Chief Minister, Sindhh, Karachi And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Castes 59 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1992-11-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razaq and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1603 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf And Another vs Ghulam Mohammad And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 222 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs The State1993 MLD 2276 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2416 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Tawakal Hussain Khan1993 CLC 2268 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Khan vs Muhammad Aqil and another1993 CLC 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2579 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid alias Shida Gadi vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 801 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rafiq alias Qasoo vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1378 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum vs The SHO P. S. Shalimar Town, LahoreK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 123 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence and another1993 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal concerns the denial of higher pay scale benefits to a civil servant who was assigned to perform the duties of a higher post. The core legal question is whether a civil servant, when officiating in a higher post, is entitled to the pay scale of that post, and whether the government possesses absolute discretion to deny all such benefits. The Court held that while the government may fix a lesser amount under Fundamental Rule 35, it cannot deny all benefits entirely if the civil servant is qualified and eligible for the higher post. The ratio establishes that a civil servant discharging the full duties of a higher post is generally entitled to the minimum pay of that scale, unless they suffer from specific disqualifications or ineligibility. The Court clarified that while eligibility and qualifications are prerequisites, the government must exercise its discretion reasonably rather than through total denial. The case was remanded to the competent authority to determine the appellant's entitlement in light of these principles, including whether the specific post's nature or the appellant's qualifications warrant a reduced or nominal benefit.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to the pay scale of a higher post when they are assigned to perform the duties of that post?
- Does Fundamental Rule 35 grant the government absolute discretion to deny all pay benefits to a civil servant officiating in a higher post?
- Can a civil servant claim higher pay benefits if they suffer from ineligibility or lack the necessary qualifications for the higher post?
- Does the rule of entitlement to higher pay apply when a person is assigned additional duties without being promoted to officiate in or hold the higher post?
- Abdul Qayyum vs S.H.O., Police Station Shalimar, Lahore1993 P Cr. L J 91 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the recovery of three individuals allegedly held in illegal police confinement. The core legal question was whether the police acted lawfully under Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in arresting the detenu without a warrant. The Court found the detention illegal, ruling that the police failed to demonstrate "credible information" or "reasonable suspicion" as required by the statute. The investigation was based on vague allegations in an untraced case, which did not constitute sufficient grounds for arrest. The Court held that police powers under Section 54 must be construed strictly to safeguard the constitutional liberty of citizens. Furthermore, the Court cautioned that Magistrates must exercise judicial discretion when granting remand under Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to prevent the misuse of police authority. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the detenus and imposed costs on the responsible Assistant Sub-Inspector for the illegal detention.
Questions settled- Does an arrest under Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, require tangible evidence or reasonable suspicion rather than mere surmise?
- Can police officers conduct roving inquiries into untraced cases by arresting individuals without definite clues?
- Is a Magistrate required to apply their judicial mind before granting remand under Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What constitutes 'credible information' for the purpose of a warrantless arrest under Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Abdul Qayyum Beg vs Rehmat Wali and 4 others1993 PLD Supreme Court 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a writ petition regarding a land dispute in the Chitral District. The core legal question concerned the validity and sanctity of a settlement of a land dispute through the administration of oath, a traditional mode of dispute resolution in the area, and whether a competent decision based on such oath could be lawfully annulled by higher revenue or administrative forums. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the initial decision based on the oath taken by the appellant was lawful and possessed sanctity, and could not be set aside by higher forums. The Court laid down the principle that the traditional Islamic mode of resolving land disputes through oath-taking is legally sound and binding, and a decree or decision based on such an oath cannot be arbitrarily annulled without valid legal grounds.
Questions settled- Whether a decision in a land dispute based on the administration of oath to a party can be lawfully annulled by higher administrative or revenue forums?
- Is the Islamic mode of resolving land disputes through oath-taking recognized as a lawful method in the absence of formal land records?
- Can a party resile from an offer of oath once the opposing party has accepted and fulfilled the terms of the oath?
- Abdul Qadir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2438 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Matin Khan and 2 others vs N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and 21993 PLD Supreme Court 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from service appeals involving a Civil Judge whose promotion to NPS-18 was deferred due to a pending departmental inquiry. After the inquiry was dropped, the High Court recommended his promotion, but the Provincial Selection Board refused, citing unsatisfactory service records. The Service Tribunal subsequently ordered his promotion effective from 1984. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether a Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate promotion matters. The Court held that under Section 4(b)(i) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, no appeal lies to a Tribunal regarding the fitness of a person for appointment to a higher post or grade, as such matters constitute promotion. Consequently, the Court allowed the Government's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. Furthermore, the Court observed that allowing the executive to override the High Court's assessment of its own subordinate judiciary in promotion matters threatens the independence and separation of the judiciary. Recognizing this as a significant constitutional issue involving Article 175 and the Objectives Resolution, the Court initiated separate public interest litigation proceedings under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals regarding the fitness of a civil servant for promotion to a higher post or grade?
- Does the placement of a civil servant in a higher pay scale constitute a promotion?
- Can the executive branch override the High Court's assessment of its subordinate judicial officers in matters of promotion?
- Abdul Maroof vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Malik BADRUDDINt vs Grosvenor Casino Limited1993 PLD Karachi 449 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from execution proceedings concerning a foreign decree passed by a court in England. The appellant challenged the execution, raising various objections, including the lack of proper certification and the decree's failure to meet natural justice standards. The Single Judge dismissed these objections solely because the appellant failed to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security, invoking Order XXI, Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court examined whether this rule applies to foreign decrees executed under Section 44-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that Section 44-A is a self-contained code governing the execution of foreign decrees, and the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not applicable to such proceedings. Consequently, the Court ruled that the executing court must hear and adjudicate upon the judgment-debtor's objections regarding the validity of the foreign decree, particularly those under Section 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, without requiring the prior deposit of the decretal amount or security. The appeal was allowed, and the objections were remanded for proper inquiry.
Questions settled- Does Order XXI, Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the execution of foreign decrees under Section 44-A?
- Is Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a self-contained provision for the execution of foreign decrees?
- Can a judgment-debtor raise objections under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the execution of a foreign decree without depositing the decretal amount?
- Abdul Majid vs Sher Zaman and others1993 MLD 2075 · Election Tribunal · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs Muhammad Afzal Khokhar1993 SCMR 1686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns a suit for declaration and possession where the trial court dismissed the suit on merits due to undervaluation, rather than following the mandatory procedure for rejecting a plaint. The core legal question was whether a trial court can dismiss a suit for undervaluation without first providing the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the valuation and pay the requisite court fee, and whether the court's procedural error excuses a litigant's filing of an appeal in the wrong forum. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by failing to follow the procedure under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which requires the court to grant the plaintiff time to correct the valuation and make up the deficiency in court fees. The Court established the principle that the act of the court shall prejudice no one, ruling that the appellant should not be penalized for filing an appeal in the wrong forum due to the trial court's failure to properly record the valuation in the decree sheet. The case was remanded for fresh determination.
Questions settled- Can a trial court dismiss a suit for undervaluation without first directing the plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the deficient court fee?
- Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 preclude the filing of a fresh suit?
- Does the principle that the act of the court shall prejudice no one apply when a litigant files an appeal in the wrong forum due to the court's procedural error?
- Abdul Majid vs Ghulam Hussain and another1993 MLD 679 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs Election Tribunal1993 MLD 2523 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by an Election Tribunal directing a recount of votes in a Local Council election. The petitioner, a successful candidate, argued that the respondent had withdrawn all objections, including those regarding vote counting, and that the relief of recounting was not explicitly listed under the relevant election rules. The Lahore High Court examined whether the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction. The Court held that the respondent had merely waived certain allegations of corrupt practices while maintaining the challenge regarding the illegal rejection and acceptance of votes, which necessitated a recount. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a request for a recount is a procedural step to substantiate the substantive relief of declaring an election void, rather than an independent relief itself. The Court affirmed that an Election Tribunal possesses the inherent authority to order a recount to resolve disputes concerning the validity of ballot papers, a power explicitly supported by the governing election rules. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Questions settled- Is a request for the recounting of votes a distinct relief or a procedural mechanism to support a claim that an election is void?
- Does an Election Tribunal have the authority to order a recount of ballot papers to resolve disputes regarding the illegal rejection or acceptance of votes?
- Can an Election Tribunal order a recount if the petitioner has withdrawn other allegations of corrupt practices but maintained the challenge regarding the counting of votes?
- Abdul Majid Karim vs M/s. Orient Pakjstan Ltd.1993 CLC 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid and others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1993 CLC 665 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid and another vs The State1993 MLD 2054 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs Mian Alauddin alias Lal Mian and another1993 CLC 2525 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed Soomro vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 461 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed Shahid vs Syed Abdul Bashir1993 CLC 148 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Sindh High Court resolves two first rent appeals concerning the ejectment of tenants from commercial shops on the ground of personal bona fide use. The landlord sought eviction of the tenants to amalgamate adjacent shops to run a general store with his brothers, asserting that his current business premises shared with his father were insufficient. The tenants contested the claim, alleging mala fides, demands for increased rent, and Pugree, and argued that the relevant statute did not permit eviction for the requirement of brothers. The core legal questions centered on whether a landlord can seek ejectment for the requirement of brothers under the applicable statute, and how the burden of proof regarding 'good faith' or bona fides is discharged. The Court held that while the statute limits personal requirement grounds to the landlord, spouse, or children, the landlord in this case sufficiently established an honest, independent intent to start his own business. The Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that a demand for higher rent does not negate bona fide need if independently proved, and that the landlord's consistent evidence discharged the initial burden of good faith.
Questions settled- Whether the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 permits the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement for the landlord's brothers?
- Does a demand for higher rent by itself cast doubt on the personal bona fide requirement of leased premises by a landlord?
- How is 'good faith' established under section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the landlord have to state the specific nature of the intended business in an ejectment application?
- Abdul Majeed Memon vs Mst. Attiya Rehman1993 CLC 1350 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller in favor of the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant. The eviction was originally granted on grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide personal requirement. During the appeal, evidence was introduced showing the respondent had since obtained possession of another property (a bungalow) in Latifabad, which she was occupying. The appellant argued this rendered the ground of personal requirement invalid. The Court held that an appellate court may consider subsequent events occurring during the pendency of litigation. Finding that the respondent had failed to establish the unsuitability of the bungalow she now occupied, the Court ruled that the ground of personal requirement was no longer available. Regarding the alleged default, the Court found that the tenant had tendered rent via bank drafts within the statutory grace period, which the landlord had refused. Consequently, the Court held that no default occurred. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court take into consideration subsequent events that occur during the pendency of a rent appeal?
- Does a landlord's acquisition of another property during the pendency of eviction proceedings invalidate the ground of personal requirement?
- Is a tenant liable for default in rent payment if the landlord refuses to accept rent tendered via bank draft within the statutory grace period?
- Abdul Majeed Khan and anothers vs Member, Board of Revenue1993 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the disposal of urban evacuee land in District Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue possessed the authority to direct the sale of disputed urban evacuee property to specific respondents at a fixed market rate, bypassing statutory disposal requirements. The Supreme Court held that following the repeal of evacuee laws, the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, mandated that such properties be transferred to the Provincial Government for disposal under specific schemes. The Punjab Government’s 1977 Scheme for the management and disposal of available urban properties explicitly required that vacant building sites be disposed of through unrestricted public auction. The Court found that the Board of Revenue’s letter authorizing a private sale at a fixed price contradicted this statutory scheme. Consequently, the High Court’s order, which relied on the Board’s letter, was set aside. The principle laid down is that administrative directives from the Board of Revenue cannot override the mandatory disposal procedures prescribed by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and the associated provincial schemes.
Questions settled- Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to order the sale of urban evacuee property at a fixed market rate contrary to established schemes?
- What is the mandatory method for disposing of vacant urban evacuee building sites under the Scheme for the management and disposal of available urban properties 1977?
- Do administrative letters from the Board of Revenue override the statutory disposal requirements mandated by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Abdul Latif vs Syed Najaf Hussain ShahK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 64 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Syed Najaf Hussain Shah and others-,1993 MLD 881 · Board of Revenue · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Syed Akhtar Ali and others1993 CLC 1951 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal impugns an order of eviction passed against the appellant tenant on the ground of personal requirements of the respondent landlords. The core legal questions involved whether the demised premises were commercial or residential, whether landlords can seek commercial eviction for residential premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, whether a respondent can challenge adverse findings without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objections, and whether the tenant proved payment of rent. The court held that the premises were shops based on PTOs, that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 does not distinguish between commercial and residential premises, that a respondent in whose favour the order stands can agitate adverse findings without a cross-appeal, and that the tenant failed to prove payment of rent, thereby committing a default. The key principles laid down are that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 makes no distinction between commercial and residential premises for eviction purposes, and a non-aggrieved respondent can support an eviction order by challenging adverse findings without filing cross-objections.
Questions settled- Whether the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 recognizes any distinction between commercial and residential premises for seeking eviction?
- Can a respondent-landlord agitate findings decided against them by the Rent Controller without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objections when the final order is in their favour?
- Does the initial onus to prove default lie upon the landlord, and does it shift to the tenant once the landlord alleges non-payment of rent?
- Can unexhibited PTOs whose veracity cannot be challenged be looked into by the court for deciding the nature of demised premises?
- Abdul Latif vs Muhammad Rafiq and others1993 CLC 2331 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif Khan and another vs Gul Rehman and 2 others1993 MLD 643 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif and 9 others vs Riazul Haq1993 CLC 26 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif and 5 others vs Manzoor Ahmad and others1993 MLD 177 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arises from the concurrent dismissal of a suit and rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court and appellate court rejected the plaint on the ground that the dispute had already been adjudicated by the High Court in an earlier writ petition, constituting an abuse of the process of law. The core legal questions involved whether the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is strictly confined to the averments in the plaint or admits exceptions when judicial records show prior adjudication, and whether a claim of adverse possession remains tenable in light of Islamic injunctions and the Limitation Act 1908. The Lahore High Court held that while plaints are generally evaluated solely on their averments, an exception applies when material demonstrates that the dispute is already concluded by a superior court, rendering the suit an abuse of process. Furthermore, claims of adverse possession are contrary to the Injunctions of Islam and Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 ceased to have effect from July 1, 1986. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is strictly limited to the averments in the plaint or admits exceptions when prior adjudication is established?
- Can a suit be dismissed as an abuse of the process of law if the controversy raised therein has already been adjudicated upon by a superior court?
- Is a claim of ownership based on adverse possession tenable in view of the Injunctions of Islam and the cessation of effect of section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Abdul Khalique vs The State1993 MLD 1414 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq vs The Secretary Education Department Govt. of Sindhh, Karachi And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 1 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1993 MLD 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and 2 others1993 MLD 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Deputy Settlement CommissionerK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and another1993 CLC 678 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Ali Zaman and another1993 MLD 1481 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and 9 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1803 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Kalam Azad vs Mst. Shaheenah and others1993 CLC 619 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Kadir Darvesh through his Legal Heirs vs M/s. G.B. Construction1993 MLD 406 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 104 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 964 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Khan & 3 Other vs Govt. of Sindhh Through the ChiefK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 208 · OtherRead full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar and others vs The State1993 SCMR 2379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for the murder of the deceased under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of the ocular testimony, the alleged conflict between medical and ocular evidence, and the reliability of the identification of the accused during a nighttime occurrence. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences, finding that the prosecution's case was consistent. The Court held that the testimony of eye-witnesses, who lacked any prior enmity toward the accused, was credible and corroborated by medical evidence indicating the use of two distinct weapons. The Court further determined that the illumination of the petrol pump at the scene of the crime rendered the identification of the accused reliable, rejecting arguments of mistaken identity. Additionally, the Court ruled that minor delays in lodging the First Information Report do not inherently undermine the prosecution's case when the eye-witnesses are deemed trustworthy. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the trial court's findings.
Questions settled- Does the absence of prior enmity between witnesses and the accused enhance the credibility of ocular testimony?
- Can the illumination of a crime scene at night negate claims of mistaken identity?
- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Is medical evidence confirming the use of multiple weapons sufficient to corroborate an ocular account of a murder?
- Abdul Jabbar and another vs Secretary Education and another1993 MLD 676 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar and 2 others vs Nizam Khan and another1993 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought the quashment of a criminal case pending before the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Hyderabad, involving an alleged offence under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction and that the complaint was a malicious counterblast to prior litigation. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings at a preliminary stage. The Court held that while it possesses the jurisdiction to quash proceedings in a Special Court, the application was premature because the petitioners had failed to first seek acquittal before the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed the principle that inherent powers are intended to prevent abuse of process, not to stifle prosecution, and that allegations of false implication based on prior litigation are evidentiary matters to be determined during the trial, not at the preliminary quashment stage.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings pending before a Special Court?
- Is an application for quashment of criminal proceedings premature if the accused has not first moved the trial court for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should criminal proceedings be quashed at a preliminary stage based on allegations of false implication arising from previous litigation?
- Abdul Jab Bar vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hussain and 2 others vs The Fourth Rent Controller, South1993 CLC 1809 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Ga. Madhwalla & Co. and another1993 MLD 1741 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid and 3 others vs The State1993 SCMR 2284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from a challenge to a conviction, where the petitioners contended that their trial was vitiated because the trial court allegedly failed to provide them the option to appear as their own witnesses under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the failure to re-ask an accused if they wished to testify on oath after the recording of subsequent evidence renders the trial invalid. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court found that the appellants had indeed been asked about their option to testify on oath and had declined. Furthermore, the Court held that even if there were an omission to inform the accused of this right, it does not automatically vitiate the trial or necessitate a retrial unless the accused can demonstrate actual prejudice to their defense. Relying on the principle established in Ameer Khatun's case, the Court concluded that no prejudice was shown, and consequently, the leave to appeal was withdrawn and the petition dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to re-ask an accused if they wish to testify on oath after the recording of additional evidence vitiate the trial?
- Is a retrial mandatory if the court omits the duty to elicit the option from the accused to testify on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Must an accused demonstrate actual prejudice to their defense to challenge a conviction based on an alleged procedural omission regarding the right to testify on oath?
- Abdul Hameed vs Mahmood and others1993 SCMR 1334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his High Court appeal, which had challenged the refusal of his review application and application under section 12(2), C.P.C., concerning a suit for accounts, injunction, and removal of a Mutwali. The core legal question was whether a suit for accounts and removal of a trustee regarding a trust property is barred by time under the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that under Section 10 of the Limitation Act, suits against persons in whom property has become vested in trust for a specific purpose—including Muhammadan religious or charitable endowments and their managers—for following the property or for an account are not barred by any length of time. The key principle laid down is that no period of limitation applies to suits filed for accounts and removal against trustees or managers charged with the management of trust property.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for accounts and removal of a Mutwali regarding trust property is barred by limitation?
- Does Section 10 of the Limitation Act apply to property comprised in a Muhammadan religious or charitable endowment?
- Can a suit for accounts be filed against the legal representative of a trustee without a bar of limitation?
- Abdul Hakeem vs Govt. of Sindhh, through Chief Secretary, KarachiK.L.R 1993 Labour & Service Cases 220 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-07-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hakeem and others vs Additional Commissioner1993 MLD 800 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hai Siddiqui and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 446 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves applications for pre-arrest bail arising out of a criminal case registered under sections 360, 361, 363, 120, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged kidnapping and removal of a minor child out of Pakistan in violation of court-ordered compromise terms. The core legal questions relate to whether the applicants had direct complicity or shared a criminal conspiracy in the offence, the scope of pre-arrest bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the direct maintainability of a bail application before the High Court without first approaching the Court of Session. The Sindh High Court held that mere knowledge or approval without active cooperation does not constitute criminal conspiracy under section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and that arrest for ulterior motives or harassment warrants pre-arrest bail where evidence is lacking. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants, laying down that bail is the rule and jail the exception in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that approaching the High Court directly in matters of concurrent jurisdiction is a question of propriety rather than an absolute jurisdictional bar.
Questions settled- Whether mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval without cooperation is sufficient to constitute a criminal conspiracy under section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is apprehension of arrest for ulterior motives and unjustified harassment a valid consideration for the grant of pre-arrest bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a bail application filed directly before the High Court without first approaching the Court of Session suffer from an absolute jurisdictional bar?
- What is the general rule regarding the grant of bail for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Abdul Hafiz vs The State1993 MLD 541 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hadi and 4 others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Karachi and 3 others1993 MLD 600 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Abdul Ghafoor. and others1993 MLD 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani and others vs Commissioner and others1993 MLD 270 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani and anothers vs Mumtaz Hussain Aamer1993 SCMR 2346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent, Mumtaz Hussain Aamer, against the appellants, Abdul Ghani and others, who had purchased land from the respondent's father. The trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court had previously ruled in favor of the pre-emptor, allowing the suit. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the son of a vendor is entitled to pre-empt a sale made by his father. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had misapplied the law regarding the right of pre-emption in such circumstances. Relying on the principle established in Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad (PLD 1984 SC 402), the Court held that the respondent, being the son of the vendor, was not entitled to pre-empt the sale made by his father. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgments and decrees that had favored the pre-emptor. The judgment reinforces the limitation on a vendor's son exercising the right of pre-emption against his father's transaction.
Questions settled- Is the son of a vendor entitled to pre-empt a sale made by his father?
- Can a pre-emption suit be maintained by a vendor's son against a sale executed by the father?
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1993 MLD 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
- Arif vs The State1993 MLD 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1784 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Judge Family CourtK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 110 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Election Tribunal1993 MLD 2525 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor through Legal Heirs and 3 others vs Muhammad Fazil1993 SCMR 1465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises out of a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns whether a pre-emption suit based on both tenancy and co-ownership grounds before a civil court must be transferred to the Collector pursuant to the amendment of paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115 by the Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, or whether the plaintiff can abandon the tenancy ground to maintain the suit in the civil court. The Supreme Court observed a conflict of judicial opinion among the judges of the Lahore High Court on this issue and noted that there is no direct authoritative pronouncement by the apex court. Consequently, the court held that the question requires an authoritative pronouncement and granted leave to appeal to resolve the matter.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit based on tenancy and co-ownership must be transferred to the Collector upon the amendment of paragraph 25 of MLR 115?
- Can a plaintiff abandon the ground of tenancy in a pre-emption suit to maintain jurisdiction in the civil court after the Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976?
- Do civil courts retain jurisdiction over pre-emption suits involving mixed grounds of tenancy and co-ownership?
- Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 184 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction of the appellants under sections 489-B and 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the possession of forged currency notes. The core legal question was whether mere possession of forged currency is sufficient to sustain a conviction under these provisions, or if the prosecution must establish the accused's knowledge or reason to believe the notes were forged and an intent to use them as genuine. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove these essential ingredients. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery evidence unreliable, noting that the Mashirnamas were prepared at the police station and the recovered items were not sealed, casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court held that mere possession does not constitute an offence without proof of guilty knowledge or intent to defraud. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove circumstances leading to an irresistible inference of criminal intent.
Questions settled- Is mere possession of forged currency notes sufficient to sustain a conviction under sections 489-B and 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving that an accused had knowledge or reason to believe that currency notes in their possession were forged?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the recovery of forged currency is not supported by reliable, sealed evidence and the Mashirnamas were prepared at the police station?
- Abdul Ghafoor and 4 others vs Ghulam Hussain and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 401 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Muhammad Sharif1993 CLC 1779 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against a tenant for default in the payment of rent. The tenant resisted the application, claiming he had incurred repair expenses with the landlord's written consent, which were agreed to be adjusted against future rent. The Rent Controller held the tenant in default, disbelieving the plea and noting the landlord's denial of his signature on the disputed document. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is legally bound to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 (or section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872) even if no formal request or expert opinion is sought by the parties. The Sindh High Court held that Article 84 is an enabling provision empowering the court to compare handwriting or signatures to do complete justice, and where an expert opinion is absent, the court must do so rather than fail to determine the genuineness of a crucial document. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Whether a court or Rent Controller is bound to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures in the absence of an expert opinion?
- Does Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 empower a court to compare handwriting or signatures to reach a proper conclusion?
- Can a tenant avoid eviction for default in rent by claiming adjustment of repair costs against future rent without proving the landlord's consent?
- Abdul Ghaffar and 2 others vs Malik Muhammad1993 CLC 2437 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from a suit for pre-emption concerning the sale of land. The trial court had partially decreed the suit, dividing the land between the pre-emptors and the vendee, both of whom were co-owners. The appellate court, however, dismissed the suit in its entirety, invoking Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the pre-emptors had satisfied the mandatory requirements for Talb-e-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, finding that the pre-emptors failed to perform Talb-e-Ishhad in the specific manner prescribed by Section 13(3) of the Act, which requires notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses sent via registered post. The court held that when a statute mandates a specific procedure, it must be strictly followed, and oral compliance is insufficient. Consequently, the failure to plead and prove the performance of Talb-e-Ishhad in the prescribed manner proved fatal to the claim of pre-emption, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.
Questions settled- Is oral compliance with the requirements of Talb-e-Ishhad sufficient under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
- Must the performance of Talb-e-Ishhad be expressly pleaded in the plaint for a pre-emption suit?
- Does the failure to follow the specific mode of notice prescribed by Section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, extinguish the right of pre-emption?
- Abdul Fateh vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 149 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-08-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Fareed Khan vs Ferozuddin1993 CLC 515 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →