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.
- Shamsuddin vs Imamuddin1992 SCMR 1239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the appellant's Letters Patent Appeal regarding a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of a preliminary decree regarding the period for which accounts were to be rendered, the applicability of section 37 of the Partnership Act 1932, and whether the partnership deed constituted a 'contract to the contrary'. The Supreme Court held that the relevant clause in the partnership deed constituted a contract to the contrary under section 37 of the Partnership Act 1932, and that the clarifying order of the High Court correctly left the legal effect of section 37 open. However, based on an equitable undertaking given by the respondent, the parties agreed to a final settlement involving the payment of six percent profit from the date of dissolution until the date of deposit. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in terms of the agreed settlement.
Questions settled- Whether the Letters Patent Bench in its impugned judgment correctly interpreted the order of its predecessor Bench regarding the scope of the preliminary decree as to the period for which the rendition of accounts was to be carried out?
- Whether an outgoing partner is entitled to rendition of accounts up to the time when their share has been paid under section 37 of the Partnership Act 1932 in the presence of a contract to the contrary?
- Does a specific clause in a partnership deed vesting assets absolutely in one partner upon dissolution constitute a 'contract to the contrary' excluding the application of section 37 of the Partnership Act 1932?
- Shamsher Ali vs Shaikh Ahmed Din and 5 others1992 CLC 1762 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
- Shams Ud Din vs Province of PunjabK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 210 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
- Shamman vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 590 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Shamir Khan vs SH. Mohammad Iqbal And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 31 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-03-21Read full judgment →
- Shamir Khan vs Muhammad Ismail And OtherK.L.R 1992 Revenue Cases 181 · Board of Revenue · 1990-03-21Read full judgment →
- Shamir Khan vs Member, (Cons.) Board of Revenue; Punjab, Lahore And 8 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court order dismissing a writ petition against consolidation proceedings regarding land used for commercial purposes. The core legal question is whether land that has lost its character as agricultural land due to commercial or residential development can be subjected to consolidation proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The Supreme Court held that the consolidation process is intended for agricultural land redistribution to reduce plot numbers, not for properties that have undergone a fundamental change in use. Since the disputed land had been used as a petrol pump for over twenty years and was surrounded by built-up areas, it was no longer 'land' amenable to consolidation jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the remedy for joint owners of such non-agricultural property lies in partition through a competent civil court, not consolidation. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and excluded the specific Khasra numbers from the consolidation operation, declaring them joint property of the parties.
Questions settled- Can land that has been converted to commercial or residential use be subject to consolidation proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960?
- Does the definition of 'land' under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, include property used for commercial purposes?
- Is the remedy for joint owners of non-agricultural property to seek partition through a civil court rather than consolidation proceedings?
- Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to exclude land from consolidation proceedings only under Section 9-A, or can it be excluded on the basis of lacking jurisdiction due to the nature of the land?
- Shamimurrahman vs Fauji Foundation, Rawalpindi and another1992 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition challenged the Supreme Court’s judgment in Fauji Foundation and another v. Shamim-ur-Rahman (PLD 1983 SC 457), which upheld the validity of Presidential Order No. 22 of 1972. The petitioner contended that the Order was subordinate legislation rather than a legislative instrument, and that the validation provided by the Interim Constitution of 1972 ceased on April 17, 1972, rather than April 21, 1972. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the substance of the Order, not its label, established it as a legislative instrument emanating from the same source as Martial Law Regulation No. 103. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the validation under the Interim Constitution extended to April 21, 1972, and that review proceedings cannot be utilized to conduct a retrial of foundational issues previously settled. The Court emphasized that protecting trust funds justifies stringent measures and that legislative immunity is not negated by the nature of the legislative body. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must prioritize substance over form in characterizing legislative instruments.
Questions settled- Whether Presidential Order No. 22 of 1972 constitutes a legislative instrument or subordinate legislation?
- Does the validation of legislative measures under the Interim Constitution of 1972 extend to April 21, 1972?
- Can a review petition be used to conduct a retrial of fundamental issues settled in the original judgment?
- Does the legislative immunity of a one-man legislature differ from that of a fully representative democratic institution?
- Shamim Bibi vs Allah Ditta1992 CLC 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
- Shamim Ahmed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2228 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
- Shamas-Ud-Din vs Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Irrigation And Power, Lahore And 3 Other1992 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a learned Single Judge's dismissal of a constitutional petition concerning the restoration of a dismantled watercourse. The core legal questions revolved around the Divisional Canal Officer's (DCO) power to review an earlier order under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, and the interpretation of conditions precedent for such an order. The Court held that the DCO's initial order, which directed interim restoration of a watercourse, was ultra vires and without jurisdiction because the DCO had neither conducted the mandatory inquiry himself nor afforded a hearing to the affected parties. Consequently, the DCO possessed inherent power to review and set aside this void order. The Court affirmed that the power to conduct an inquiry and grant a hearing under Section 68-A cannot be delegated. An order made without fulfilling these conditions precedent is without jurisdiction and not protected by the finality clause, thus being amenable to challenge in civil courts. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the DCO's subsequent order that set aside the initial illegal order.
Questions settled- Can a Divisional Canal Officer delegate the power to conduct an inquiry or hear parties under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873?
- Does a Divisional Canal Officer have the inherent power to review an order made without jurisdiction under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873?
- Is an order passed under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, without fulfilling conditions precedent (inquiry and hearing), considered an order without jurisdiction?
- Can an order made without jurisdiction under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, be challenged in a Civil Court despite statutory finality clauses?
- What is the relationship between an interim order under Section 68-A and a final settlement under Section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873?
- Shamas-Ud-Din vs Province of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
- Shaman And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-20Read full judgment →
- Shama Zari Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh1992 PLC 733 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
- Shakil Hassan Rashi vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 449 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- Shakil Hassan Rashdi vs The State1992 MLD 99 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- Shakeel And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-26Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2618 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
- Shahzar Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 394 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged with murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds that medical evidence and the site plan contradicted the ocular version, that the investigating officer had exonerated him, and that the incident was a cross-case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the existence of reasonable grounds for believing he committed the offence. The Court held that the opinion of an investigating officer regarding an accused's innocence is not binding when it lacks a sound evidentiary basis and relies merely on statements from interested parties or 'secret information.' Furthermore, the Court determined that the alleged cross-case did not qualify as such due to discrepancies in the time of occurrence and the absence of the petitioner's name in the counter-FIR. The key principle laid down is that the investigating agency cannot exonerate an accused based on unsubstantiated pleas of alibi or local influence, and the Court must independently assess the material on record to determine if reasonable grounds exist to refuse bail.
Questions settled- Is the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the Court during bail proceedings?
- Can an accused be granted bail based on a plea of alibi supported only by statements of local villagers?
- Does the mere registration of a separate FIR against the complainant party automatically constitute a cross-case justifying bail?
- Shahzado vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1985 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-04Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Mumtaz vs N.E.D. University of Engineering & Technology, Karachi through Registrar and 4 others1992 CLC 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
- Shahidullah vs The State1992 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a minor, for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial in a Special Court for Speedy Trials. The core legal questions concern the reliability of a retracted confession, the necessity of investigating allegations of custodial torture, and the impact of failing to charge an accused under the principle of common intention. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the appellant was picked up alone, undermining the theory of conspiracy, and found the confession to be involuntary, likely extracted under duress. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a trial court acts as a court of inquiry and should have investigated the appellant's specific allegations of custodial sodomy and coercion. The absence of a charge under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing that serious allegations of custodial abuse require judicial inquiry to ensure a fair trial.
Questions settled- Does a trial court have a duty to investigate allegations of custodial torture made by an accused during trial?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to charge the accused under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding common intention?
- Is a retracted confession that appears to have been extracted under duress a sufficient basis for conviction?
- Shahid Raza and anothers vs The State and another1992 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These cross-appeals arose out of a murder case where the appellant-convict challenged his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder, while the complainant sought an enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question involved evaluating conflicting versions of the occurrence, the assessment of motive based on the accused's own detailed statement regarding past humiliation and sodomy, and the corroboration of ocular testimony through material recoveries including the deceased's shalwar and matching firearms. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that despite both sides introducing falsehoods to protect their respective interests, the court must sift the grain from the chaff to discover the truth. The Court found the eyewitness account corroborated by medical and investigative evidence and the recovery of incriminating articles. Consequently, the appeal of the convict was dismissed, and the complainant's appeal for enhancement was also dismissed on the ground that the extreme provocation and humiliation suffered by the young accused constituted strong mitigating circumstances warranting the lesser sentence of life imprisonment, while granting the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Questions settled- Whether a court can sift the truth from conflicting versions when both parties introduce falsehoods to protect their respective interests?
- Does the recovery of incriminating articles and the deceased's clothing at the instance of the accused furnish sufficient corroboration of the ocular testimony?
- Are humiliation and extreme provocation arising from past acts considered mitigating circumstances for awarding the lesser sentence of life imprisonment in a murder case?
- Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C. is applicable to a convict sentenced to life imprisonment under the circumstances of the case?
- Shahid Muhammad Fazal vs Principal, Quaidiazam College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Peshawar and`2 others1992 CLC 2030 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
- Shahid Iqbal Butt vs The State and another1992 SCMR 813 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of pre-trial bail by the High Court. The petitioner, Shahid Iqbal Butt, was directly charged with firing at an injured person in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Additional District Judge initially granted bail based on the injured person's exoneration and the police finding of innocence, which the High Court subsequently cancelled due to the presence of injured eyewitnesses implicating the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the effect of a subsequent police report and Magistrate's order cancelling the case and discharging the petitioner on a previously cancelled bail order. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the subsequent order of the Magistrate discharging the petitioner rendered the High Court's bail cancellation order inoperative, thereby restoring the petitioner's liberty without prejudice to the correctness of the Magistrate's discharge order. The key principle laid down is that the discharge of an accused person by a Magistrate via a cancellation report supersedes prior orders regarding bail.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of a case and discharge of an accused by a Magistrate affect a prior order cancelling bail?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court?
- What is the effect of a Magistrate's order accepting a cancellation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on pending bail matters?
- Shahid Iqbal And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
- Shaheen Akbar and 5 others vs Pakistan Air Force Welfare Trust and 31992 SCMR 1441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by Shaheen Akbar and others against an order of the High Court refusing to restrain respondents from interfering with the alleged possession of acquired lands. During the course of arguments, the parties reached a mutually agreed compromise. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners could be protected in their possession pending the final decision of the intra-court appeal pending before the High Court. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and disposed of it in terms of the written compromise signed by the learned counsel for both parties, whereby the petitioners agreed not to be disturbed from their possession of specific land areas comprising a dairy farm and a house until the final decision of the pending intra-court appeal. The court laid down the principle that matters can be amicably resolved and disposed of in terms of lawful compromises arrived at between contesting parties during judicial proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be disposed of in terms of a compromise arrived at by the parties during arguments?
- Whether parties can mutually agree to protect possession of disputed land pending the final decision of an intra-court appeal?
- Shaheen Airport Services, Karachi vs Sindh Employees' Social Security1992 PLC 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz vs The State1992 SCMR 1903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court which declined to suspend the petitioner's life imprisonment sentence under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner contended that because his appeal had been pending for nearly four years, he was entitled to statutory bail under clause (c) of Section 426(1-A). The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the distinction between Section 426(1-A) and Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while Section 497(1) limits judicial discretion to deny bail to pre-conviction detainees unless they fall under specific statutory exceptions, Section 426(1-A) grants appellate courts broader discretion to refuse suspension of sentence for any just and proper reason recorded in writing, as the applicant is already a convicted person. Since the petitioner was involved in a series of retaliatory counter-murders, the High Court's exercise of discretion to deny bail to prevent further offenses was proper. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- What is the distinction between the court's discretion to grant bail under Section 426(1-A) and Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the expiration of the statutory period mentioned in Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create an absolute right to suspension of sentence?
- What types of reasons may an appellate court record to decline the suspension of a sentence under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shahbaz Alias Raja vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1737 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
- Shahalam vs Matloob Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 587 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
- Shahabuddin and 5 others vs Liaquat Ali and 2 others1992 CLC 1434 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaza appellant vs The State1992 SCMR 1583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction of the appellant, a Senior Clerk and Cashier, for offences under sections 409 and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, which was upheld by the High Court of Sindh. The core legal questions involved whether the conviction and sentence were sustainable when multiple offences of the same nature were tried under a single charge allegedly in contravention of section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether offences under sections 409 and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, being of different natures, could be tried together. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts are distinct offences, they may be tried together under section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they arise out of the same transaction. Furthermore, the court held that any formal defect in framing a joint charge is a curable irregularity under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless it causes prejudice or a failure of justice.
Questions settled- Can offences of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts be tried together in a single trial?
- Whether the combination of multiple items of criminal breach of trust into a single charge violates section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a defect in the framing of a charge vitiate the trial in the absence of prejudice or failure of justice?
- When do offences of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts fall within the scope of the same transaction under section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shah Nawaz vs Shaikh Sajjad Hussain and 2 others1992 CLC 1446 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz vs Civil Judge, Rahimyarkhan and 3 others1992 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Khan Junejo vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 242 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Alias Shano vs The StateK.L.R.1992 Criminal Cases 328 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
- Shah Jahan vs Special Judge Anti-Corruption and another-1992 P Cr. L J 1982 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This transfer application was filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the transfer of a pending corruption case from the Court of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur, on the grounds of alleged bias, hostility, and unfair treatment by the trial judge towards the applicant and his counsel. The core legal question was whether sufficient and substantiated grounds of bias or apprehension of a non-fair trial existed to warrant the transfer of the criminal case. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the allegations of bias were vague, general, and unsupported by necessary documentation or affidavits, and that material facts concerning prior unsuccessful legal proceedings and deliberate attempts to delay the conclusion of the trial had been suppressed. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking the transfer of a case must approach the court with clean hands, and vague allegations of judicial bias unsupported by specific evidence, coupled with deliberate suppression of relevant material, do not constitute valid grounds for transferring a criminal trial.
Questions settled- Whether vague and general allegations of bias against a trial judge are sufficient to warrant the transfer of a criminal case under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the suppression of material facts and prior proceedings disentitle an applicant from seeking discretionary relief like the transfer of a case?
- Whether the failure to place supporting documents or personal affidavits on record regarding alleged courtroom incidents weakens an application for case transfer?
- Shah Behram vs Akbar Khan And Another1992 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision addresses whether a fresh pre-emption suit can be instituted after a previous pre-emption suit is dismissed for failing to comply with an order to furnish a bank guarantee under section 24 of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The plaintiff filed two pre-emption suits, failed to furnish the required bank guarantee within the statutory thirty-day limit, and suffered dismissal of those suits. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed fresh suits on the same cause of action, which were dismissed by both lower courts on the grounds of res judicata and incompetence under the 1987 Act. The Peshawar High Court held that while the principle of res judicata strictly speaking did not apply because the previous suits were not decided on merits, the fresh suits were nonetheless incompetent. The Court reasoned that allowing a second suit after dismissal under section 24(2) of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 would bypass the strict mandatory timelines and defeat the legislative intent of the modern Islamic pre-emption law, which differs significantly from the repealed 1950 Act. Consequently, the revision petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff file a fresh pre-emption suit after the first pre-emption suit is dismissed under section 24(2) of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 for failure to deposit the sale price or furnish a bank guarantee?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply when a previous suit or proceeding is dismissed for non-compliance with a procedural order rather than being adjudicated on the merits?
- Are the provisions of Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to the dismissal of a pre-emption suit ordered under section 24(2) of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987?
- Does a court have the power under the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 to extend the period for depositing pre-emption money or furnishing a bank guarantee beyond thirty days from the filing of the suit?
- Shagufta Andleep vs Abdul Razzaq And Another1992 P Cr. L J 2168 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, concerned the alleged improper detention of a 2.5-year-old minor daughter by her father, the respondent, who had forcibly removed her from the mother's custody. The core legal question was the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in matters of minor custody, particularly when the father is the natural guardian. The Court held that it possesses extraordinary, efficacious, speedy, and appropriate jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus for the recovery of minors, especially when custody has been disturbed illegally or improperly. This remedy is available without prejudice to the rights of parties to have the matter finally adjudicated by a Guardian Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Court directed that the custody of the minor daughter remain with the applicant mother, subject to any future decision by a competent Family Court/Guardian Judge.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to order the recovery of a minor from the custody of a parent?
- Can the High Court interfere in minor custody disputes under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, even if the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, provides an ordinary remedy?
- What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the custody of a minor?
- Is the remedy under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for minor custody considered efficacious, speedy, and appropriate?
- Does the High Court's decision on minor custody under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, prejudice the rights of parties to seek final adjudication from a Guardian Judge?
- Shafqat Sultan vs Kursheed Ahmed and 2 others1992 SCMR 1461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning the promotion rights of a civil servant. The appellant, an Assistant in the Bureau of Emigration, was transferred abroad under a condition that he would not be considered for promotion during his posting but would retain seniority. Upon his return, the Departmental Promotion Committee promoted a junior colleague, citing the appellant's ineligibility due to his foreign posting and his status on leave at the time of the committee meeting. The core legal question was whether the condition imposed in the transfer memorandum, which restricted the appellant's right to promotion, was legally valid. The Supreme Court held that the condition was illegal, as the appellant was transferred in the exigency of service, not on deputation, and his terms and conditions of service could not be unilaterally abridged. The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, affirming that a civil servant's seniority and promotion rights are protected by law and cannot be curtailed by administrative conditions contrary to the Civil Servants Act 1973 and established rules.
Questions settled- Can an administrative department impose a condition in a transfer order that restricts a civil servant's statutory right to be considered for promotion?
- Does a civil servant on authorized leave remain eligible for consideration for promotion by a Departmental Promotion Committee?
- Under the Supreme Court Rules, what constitutes sufficient service of notice upon a respondent who is posted abroad?
- Shafqat Rasool vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary1992 PTD 889 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-14Read full judgment →
- Shafqat Rasool vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan Etc.K.L.R 1992 Tax & Custom 70 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
- Shafique Ahmad and others vs Shakeela Begum and others1992 MLD 744 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
- Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Habib-Ur-Rehman and another1992 PLC 1065 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Shafiq Ahmad vs Khurshid Ahmad1992 CLC 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
- Shafi Muhammad vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 55 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-21Read full judgment →
- Shafey Ali vs Asrar Beg And 2 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the conviction of the respondent Asrar Beg from section 302 to section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence from death to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, while dismissing the petitioner's revision against the acquittal of Islam Beg. The core legal question was whether the infliction of a fatal stab wound on the buttock, which severed the illiac artery, established the requisite intention or knowledge for murder under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or justified a lesser conviction under section 304, Part II. The Supreme Court held that the assailant had intentionally avoided vital parts of the body and that the fatal result stemmed from the weapon penetrating deeper than intended, meaning the requisite knowledge or intention for murder could not be attributed. Consequently, the Court found that leave to appeal had been improvidently granted and ordered the withdrawal of the leave grant order, dismissing the appeal. The key principle laid down is that the location of an injury on a non-vital or borderline area such as the buttock must be evaluated based on the specific circumstances to determine the assailant's intention and knowledge.
Questions settled- Does an injury inflicted on the buttock that severs the illiac artery necessarily attract a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court be withdrawn upon a re-evaluation of the medical and factual details of the case?
- How is the intention and knowledge of an assailant determined when a weapon causes unexpected fatal damage to a vital blood vessel from a blow delivered to a non-vital part of the body?
- Shabbir Hussain, And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2240 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Al Imad vs Khalid Mehmood And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2392 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-13Read full judgment →
- Sh. T.P. Srivastava vs Messrs National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd.1992 PLC 564 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-10-11Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Shafique And Another vs Abdul Hamid And Another1992 P Cr. L J 229 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of criminal and transfer applications involving a dispute over a consignment of agricultural pesticide medicines. The first petitioner dispatched goods which were received by the respondent, leading to criminal cases and civil suits between the parties. The parties had previously referred their disputes to arbitration, resulting in an award and subsequent agreements under which the respondent executed a pronote and made partial payments. Thereafter, the respondent filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which the petitioners sought to quash. The Lahore High Court examined the scope of its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent abuse of court processes. The court held that where a dispute is fundamentally of a civil nature and criminal proceedings are initiated as a counterblast or pressure tactic to achieve an improper end rather than to vindicate rights, it constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal complaint against the petitioners.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the underlying dispute is of a civil nature?
- Whether initiating criminal proceedings as a counterblast to exert pressure constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
- Does acting upon an arbitration award and executing a pronote preclude a party from subsequently sustaining criminal complaints on the same settled subject matter?
- Sh. Muhammad Saleem vs Messrs Obey Rai Cooperative Sports Ltd. and 4 others1992 CLC 286 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Khalid vs Fakhruddin1992 CLC 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from execution proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, concerning an eviction order granted for personal use. The core legal question is whether a landlord can evict a tenant for personal use from premises spanning two plots, where one plot is owned by the landlord and the adjacent plot by his son, and whether the statutory definition of "landlord" in the context of personal use includes persons merely authorized to collect rent. The Court held that while the general definition of "landlord" is broad, the specific provisions regarding "personal use" under Sections 14 and 15(2)(vii) restrict the term to the actual owner of the premises. Consequently, the Court confirmed a stay of execution regarding the portion of the property owned by the landlord's son, while permitting execution for the portion owned by the landlord. The key principle established is that the right to seek eviction for personal use is tied to ownership, and the statutory definition of "landlord" must be interpreted contextually, excluding mere rent collectors from invoking personal use grounds.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'landlord' in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for the purpose of 'personal use' eviction, extend to persons merely authorized to collect rent?
- Can a landlord invoke the right to evict a tenant for personal use under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, if the premises are owned by a third party, such as the landlord's son?
- Is the definition of 'landlord' in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, subject to the context of the specific provision in which it is used?
- Sh. Muhammad Hanif And Another vs Bank of America National Trust1992 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
- SH. Mohammad Iqbal Etc. vs Talib Hussain Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 171 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-01-10Read full judgment →
- Sh. Jan Muhammad vs Mst. Rabia Begum and 7 others1992 CLC 78 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second rent appeal arose from concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and lower Appellate Court directing the ejectment of the appellant-occupant from a non-residential shop on the ground of bona fide personal use by the respondents. The core legal questions involved whether a second appeal is competent in pending proceedings under the amended Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether the omission to frame an issue on the relationship of landlord and tenant vitiated the proceedings where such relationship was admitted in the written statement and supported by evidence. The Lahore High Court held that a right of further appeal conferred or restored during the currency of litigation applies to pending proceedings unless expressly excluded, but dismissed the appeal on merits, finding that the appellant had unequivocally admitted the tenancy and was estopped from denying title, and that the finding of personal need was a pure question of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence. The key principle laid down is that while substantive rights of appeal existing at the institution of a lis are preserved, a newly conferred or restored right of appeal applies to pending proceedings unless the statute dictates otherwise, and a tenant who admits the tenancy in pleadings cannot subsequently defeat eviction by a belated denial of title.
Questions settled- Whether a right of second appeal conferred or restored during the currency of litigation is available to the parties in pending proceedings?
- Does the omission to frame a specific issue on the relationship of landlord and tenant vitiate ejectment proceedings where the tenancy is admitted in the written statement?
- Can a tenant who has acknowledged the landlord and deposited rent be permitted to subsequently deny the landlord's title in rent proceedings?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the bona fide personal requirement of a premises by the lower courts susceptible to review in a second appeal?
- Sh. Inayatullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2101 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-24Read full judgment →
- Sh. Fazal Hussain vs Abdul Waheed and others1992 SCMR 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer of an evacuee residential property in Faisalabad under settlement laws. Both contesting parties, who were claimant displaced persons and close relatives, had been in long-standing possession of separate portions of the double-storey house since 1947-1948 and sought transfer of the entire premises. Protracted litigation involving multiple rounds before settlement authorities and the High Court ensued regarding the divisibility of the property and prior possession. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the parties reached a mutual agreement to resolve the decades-long dispute amicably. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal by consent, setting aside all post-1960 orders and restoring the equitable horizontal division originally ordered by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on July 18, 1960, whereby the ground floor and first floor were allocated to the respective parties and common areas designated for shared use. The key principle laid down is that where litigating parties who are close relatives have peacefully occupied separate portions of an evacuee property for decades, courts and settlement authorities should adopt practical, equitable solutions—such as horizontal division—rather than permitting one party to dislodge the other.
Questions settled- Whether an evacuee residential property occupied in portions by rival claimant displaced persons for decades can be subjected to horizontal division?
- Can the High Court set aside a settlement commissioner's order regarding property transfer in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- Whether the Supreme Court can restore an earlier equitable settlement order to end protracted litigation between relatives over evacuee property?
- Sh. Faiz Rasool vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and 2 others1992 SCMR 1059 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's Constitution petition on the ground of inordinate delay and laches in re-filing after the petition was returned for minor office objections. The core legal question was whether the High Court office was justified in returning a writ petition for minor defects such as lack of flagging and page-marking, and whether the consequent delay in re-filing constituted fatal laches. The Supreme Court held that the defects pointed out were minor and could have been rectified in the office, and the office was at fault in returning the petition rather than having it cured on the spot. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the writ petition for disposal according to law, establishing that minor procedural office objections should not be used to defeat a cause through the imposition of unwarranted laches.
Questions settled- Whether a Constitution petition can be dismissed for laches due to delay in re-filing caused by the return of the petition for minor office objections?
- Are defects such as lack of flagging and page-marking of an index grounds for returning a writ petition to the counsel?
- What is the duty of the High Court office when minor procedural defects are found in a filed Constitution petition?
- Sh. Asghar Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- Sh. Amjad Ali vs Additional District Judge, Multan and 2 others1992 CLC 2267 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-15Read full judgment →
- Sh. Amar Maftoon vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary1992 SCMR 1869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment regarding the entitlement of a civil servant to the pay and allowances of a higher post held on an officiating basis. The appellant, a Senior English Teacher (NPS-16), was posted as a Subject Specialist (NPS-17) "on his own pay and grade" before being regularly promoted. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to the pay of the higher post during the officiating period and whether his promotion could be ante-dated. The Supreme Court held that the departmental condition restricting the appellant to his original pay and grade was inconsequential. The Court affirmed that an employee officiating in a higher post involving greater responsibility is entitled to the pay attached to that post. However, the Court declined to grant retrospective regular promotion, holding that determining fitness for promotion remains the exclusive domain of departmental authorities. Consequently, the Court directed that the appellant’s pay be fixed in the higher grade at the stage next above his substantive pay, including annual increments.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to the pay of a higher post when posted to it on an officiating basis?
- Can a government department restrict a civil servant to their original pay and grade while they perform the duties of a higher post?
- Does the court have the authority to grant retrospective regular promotion to a civil servant?
- How should the pay of a civil servant be fixed when they are posted to a higher grade while holding a substantive lower grade?
- Sh. Abdul Hamid vs Muhammad Malik alias Mikki and another1992 SCMR 966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondent of charges under sections 302 and 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with the abduction and murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the 'last seen' theory with a significant time gap, the definition and ingredients of abduction with intent to murder, and the principles governing interference with an order of acquittal by an appellate court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's acquittal was based on a proper appraisal of evidence, noting the absence of direct proof of murder, failure to establish inducement by the respondent for abduction, lack of evidence showing the requisite intent to murder at the time of taking the deceased, and an unexplained time gap precluding any definitive presumption of guilt. The key legal principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings of the lower court are arbitrary, fanciful, or perverse.
Questions settled- Whether an accused can be convicted for abduction under section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of evidence showing inducement by him and an intent to murder?
- Does a time gap of several hours between the time a person is last seen and the time of death raise an automatic presumption of guilt against the person last seen with the deceased?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a High Court?
- Sewa vs Mst. Santi and others1992 SCMR 1306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a second appeal concerning the rejection of a plaint for non-payment of court-fee. The appellant filed a civil suit for declaration and consequential joint possession of land, valuing the suit for court-fee at Rs. 200. The trial court ordered the appellant to pay a higher court-fee based on the sale price of the land. Upon the appellant's failure to pay and subsequent dismissal of his time-extension application, the trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court on the ground that the interlocutory order had become final. The core legal questions involved the appealability and finality of interlocutory orders under Section 105(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the court could interfere with the plaintiff's valuation of a suit for declaration with consequential relief under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. The Supreme Court held that an interlocutory order not subject to a direct appeal can be challenged in an appeal from the final decree or order, and that in a suit for declaration and consequential relief, the plaintiff has the discretion to value the relief which the trial court cannot arbitrarily interfere with. The appeal was accepted and the suit was remanded for disposal in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Can an interlocutory order that is not independently appealable be challenged in an appeal from the final decree or order?
- Whether a trial court can interfere with the plaintiff's valuation of a suit for declaration with consequential relief for purposes of court-fee?
- Does the failure to challenge an interlocutory order immediately render it final and unchallengeable in subsequent proceedings?
- Sevenup Company vs Assistant Registrar of Trade Marksii and another's1992 CLC 694 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated appeals challenging the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to dismiss oppositions filed by the appellants, Seven-Up Company and Canada Dry Corporation, against the registration of the trade mark "7-Spot". The appellants contended that the use of the numeral "7" and the word "Spot" in the respondent's mark infringed upon their existing registered marks, "7-Up" and "Hi-Spot", potentially causing public confusion. The core legal question was whether the respondent's mark "7-Spot" so nearly resembled the appellants' marks as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion under the Trade Marks Act. The High Court upheld the Assistant Registrar's decision, holding that the marks were visually and phonetically distinct. The Court affirmed that common components like a numeral or a generic word, when not separately registered, do not grant an exclusive monopoly. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that for goods of everyday character, consumers typically exercise specific choice, reducing the likelihood of confusion. The ratio establishes that trade marks must be considered in their entirety rather than by dissecting individual common elements, and that likelihood of confusion is a question of fact dependent on the overall impression.
Questions settled- Whether the use of a common numeral or word in a trade mark, when not separately registered, constitutes infringement of an existing mark?
- Does the likelihood of confusion between two trade marks require a bit-by-bit comparison of their components?
- Is the popularity of a product a relevant factor in determining the likelihood of consumer confusion in trade mark registration cases?
- Service Industry Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore .K.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 21 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Hyderabad vs Syed1992 PLC 1125 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sindh vs Syed Tasneem Hussain and others1992 PLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-24Read full judgment →
- Saulat Hussain Shah By His Legal Heirs And Another vs _W.Amanat Ali And 4 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal arises from the acceptance of a First Appeal by the High Court, which set aside a trial court decree in favour of the appellants/pre-emptors and dismissed their pre-emption suit regarding land measuring 855 Kanals 5 Marlas. The core legal question involves whether the pre-emption suit was filed in collusion with the vendors—who were closely related to the pre-emptors—in light of previous protracted litigation concerning the same transaction, and whether a minor pre-emptor stands on a higher footing. The Supreme Court held that while pre-emptors possess an independent statutory right of pre-emption, courts retain the power to examine whether the suit is collusive based on the circumstances and close relationship of the parties. The Court further held that a minor litigant cannot claim a higher right than otherwise permissible simply due to minority where the litigation is part of a dishonest attempt to obstruct an earlier, affirmed transaction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a close relationship between a vendor and a pre-emptor permit the court to examine the issue of collusion in a pre-emption suit?
- Can a minor pre-emptor claim greater substantive rights or be insulated from the consequences of collusive litigation initiated by family members?
- Whether previous judicial findings regarding the conduct of parties in related litigation can be used to determine the bona fides of a pre-emption suit?
- Sarwar Shah. vs Mst. Manzoor Bib! and others1992 CLC 627 · Board of Revenue · 1990-08-15Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Shah vs Mst. Manzoor Bibi, Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 87 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-08-15Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Shah vs (Mst) Manzoor Bibi, EtcK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 173 · Board of Revenue · 1990-08-15Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Khan vs The State1992 MLD 588 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
- Sarwar and 3 others vs Muhammad Saeeduddin Khan alias Saadatuddin1992 CLC 2323 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Ali Khan vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Sindh, Karachi And Another(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 64) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sarja vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 906 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Alias Sarwar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 555 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Ahmed vs Government of Sindh and others1992 CLC 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a student, challenged the denial of admission to an M.B.,B.S. program at Chandka Medical College, Larkana, arguing that the Selection Committee failed to include 20 marks for his National Cadet Corps service as required by the National Guards Act 1973 and the college prospectus. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to admission based on merit after the inclusion of these marks, and whether the prospectus rules created a vested right to admission. The court held that while the prospectus rules, issued under the Sindh Medical Colleges Act 1987, have statutory force and the petitioner was indeed entitled to the additional marks, the petition must be dismissed. The holding rested on the procedural failure of the petitioner to implead nine other candidates who ranked higher than him on the merit list, rendering the court unable to grant the requested relief. The court affirmed that while rules governing admission create vested rights once a final selection list is published, procedural requirements regarding necessary parties must be strictly observed.
Questions settled- Do rules contained in a medical college prospectus issued under a statute have statutory force?
- Does a candidate whose name appears in the final selection list for a medical college acquire a vested right to admission?
- Can a court grant relief in a constitutional petition challenging a merit list if the petitioner fails to implead other candidates who ranked higher on that list?
- Sardar Wjhammad vs S.H.O., Police Station Kot Nainan, Tehsil1992 P Cr. L J 322 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
- Sardar vs Mst. Nehmat Bi and 8 others19925 SCMR 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the inheritance rights of the children of a predeceased daughter following the termination of a life estate under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. The core legal question was whether the devolution of property upon the termination of a life estate, which refers to succession under 'Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)', includes the application of Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, thereby allowing grandchildren to inherit from a predeceased parent. The Supreme Court held that the children of the predeceased daughter are entitled to inherit the share their mother would have received had she been alive at the time of the opening of succession. The Court reasoned that 'Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)' is a comprehensive term encompassing all laws relating to personal matters of Muslims, including the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Consequently, the Court established the principle that statutory provisions must be harmonized to ensure that succession, upon the termination of a life estate, opens with reference to the last full owner, incorporating the per stirpes inheritance rights provided by the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
Questions settled- Does the term 'Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)' include the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 for the purpose of succession?
- Are the children of a predeceased daughter entitled to inherit the share their mother would have received if she were alive at the time of the opening of succession?
- Does the termination of a life estate under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 require succession to be determined with reference to the last full owner?
- Sardar Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2432 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan vs Conciliation Court/Onion Council and another1992 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-24Read full judgment →
- Sardar Anwar Ali Khan and 10 others vs Sardar Baqir Ali through Legal1992 SCMR 2435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants filed a declaratory suit claiming joint ownership of property, alleging that their names were omitted from revenue records due to fraud and collusion by the respondents. The trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the suit, finding that the appellants failed to prove their status as collaterals or joint owners. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the documentary evidence. Upon review, the Court held that the burden of proof lay heavily on the appellants to establish their lineage and joint ownership, which they failed to discharge through any credible oral or documentary evidence. Furthermore, the Court observed that even the pedigree-table relied upon by the appellants indicated that their alleged ancestors had previously sold their proprietary rights. Additionally, the Court noted that the suit was filed after a century of unchallenged revenue entries in favor of the respondents, rendering it time-barred. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact, noting no jurisdictional error or misreading of evidence, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on the plaintiff to establish joint ownership when revenue records consistently show the defendant as the exclusive owner?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be challenged in the Supreme Court without demonstrating jurisdictional error or misreading of evidence?
- Is a suit for declaration of title maintainable after a century of unchallenged revenue entries in favor of the defendants?
- Sardar Ali and 16 others vs Karamat Ali Khan and 3 others1992 CLC 1861 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses whether a second or successive review petition is competent under the Land Reforms Rules when the relevant statutory provision does not expressly bar it. A mutation sanctioned under the Land Reforms Act was subjected to multiple review proceedings before the Land Commissioner, culminating in an order setting aside the mutation on the ground of fraud. The High Court set aside this order in a writ petition, holding that the Land Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second review. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that in the absence of an express statutory bar in rule 11 of the Land Reforms Rules, a successive review petition is maintainable, distinguishing it from provisions like Order XLVII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 which explicitly prohibit second reviews. The Court ruled that the availability of a successive review is distinct from questions of limitation and merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the matter for decision on the remaining unadjudicated points.
Questions settled- Does rule 11 of the Land Reforms Rules bar a second or successive review petition?
- Whether a second application for review is competent under laws that do not contain an express prohibition akin to Order XLVII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are the questions of limitation and grounds for review independent of whether a successive review petition is entertainable?
- Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others vs Land Acquisition1992 SCMR 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from nineteen review petitions seeking review of an earlier judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in land acquisition appeals. The core legal questions involved whether a petition for leave to appeal under clause (3) of Article 185 of the Constitution is competent when a direct appeal under clause (2) of the said Article is available, and whether the Supreme Court can treat a petition for leave to appeal as a direct appeal and condone delay without a formal written application. The Court held that the Supreme Court possesses the discretion to treat a petition for leave to appeal as an appeal under clause (2) of Article 185 of the Constitution and can condone delay on an oral request where circumstances warrant, and that the exercise of such discretionary power regarding limitation cannot be reopened through review. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court has the inherent discretionary power to entertain or treat proceedings interchangeably in the interest of justice and to condone delays orally when questions of limitation arise during arguments.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for leave to appeal under clause (3) of Article 185 of the Constitution is competent when a direct appeal under clause (2) of the said Article is competent?
- Does the Supreme Court have the discretion to treat a petition for leave to appeal as a direct appeal?
- Can the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing an appeal on the basis of an oral request without a formal application?
- Can the exercise of judicial discretion regarding the condonation of delay be reviewed through a review petition?
- Sara Palmer vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1679 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-12Read full judgment →
- Sami Ullah And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
- Samar Abbas vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-05Read full judgment →
- Salzgitter Industries Bau Gmbh. vs Commissioner of Income Tax.PTCL 1992 FC. 13 · Bombay High Court · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
- Salman Rais vs Major (Retd.) Shaikh A. Naeem And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 406 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
- Salim Mall vs Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of CommerceK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 240 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Saleem Raj And Other vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 517 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →
- Saleem Raj And 3 Others vs The State and 3 others-1992 P Cr. L J 2114 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →
- Saleem Akhtar vs Deputy Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh1992 CLC 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ahmad vs Additional District Judge and others1992 CLC 1531 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the validity of rent deposits made by tenants under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioners, tenants of respondent No. 1, were ordered by the Rent Controller to deposit rent pursuant to Section 13(6) of the Ordinance. While the petitioners deposited the rent in the treasury, they failed to specify the name of the landlord in the challan forms. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment petitions, but the Additional District Judge, on appeal, struck off the petitioners' defence and ordered eviction, citing the failure to properly tender rent. The core legal question was whether a deposit of rent without specifying the landlord's name constitutes a valid compliance with the statutory requirement. The Lahore High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that such an omission is a material defect, rendering the deposit an unlawful tender. The Court further clarified that the landlord's subsequent withdrawal of the deposited rent does not constitute a waiver of the right to seek the striking off of the tenant's defence. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the failure to mention the landlord's name in the challan form when depositing rent constitute a valid tender of rent under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the withdrawal of rent by a landlord from the treasury amount to a waiver of the right to seek the striking off of a tenant's defence?
- Is the omission to specify the landlord's name in a rent deposit challan considered a deliberate defect?
- Salamat vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1498 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
- Salahuddin vs Ratitm Baktish1992 PLD Quetta 59 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two civil revision petitions arising from interlocutory orders regarding the appointment of a receiver in a suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction, and rendition of accounts concerning commercial shops and a stationery business. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in declining to appoint a receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that the appointment of a receiver rests in the sound judicial discretion of the court, requiring the plaintiff to establish a strong prima facie case and demonstrate that it is just and convenient to safeguard the property from mismanagement or mischief. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for dispossession of the defendant who was in long-standing possession and paying rent to the landlord. Consequently, the revision petition seeking the appointment of a receiver was dismissed, while clarifying observations affecting the defendant in the other petition. The key principles laid down relate to the exercise of judicial discretion in appointing receivers, the necessity of proving a strong prima facie case, and the interpretation of 'just and convenient' under Order XL, Rule 1.
Questions settled- Whether the appointment of a receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires the plaintiff to establish a strong prima facie case?
- What criteria constitute 'just and convenient' for the appointment of a receiver in a commercial property dispute?
- Can a court remove a person from long-standing possession of property by appointing a receiver without sufficient apprehension of mismanagement or mischief?
- Salahuddin Qureshi vs Federal Land Commission and others1992 CLC 2362 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court challenged an order passed by the Federal Land Commission in suo motu proceedings resuming land from the petitioner under land reforms laws. The core legal question was whether the Federal Land Commission had the lawful authority to reopen past and closed proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 despite the statutory abatement of pending proceedings under section 25 of the Land Reforms Act 1977, and whether ex parte proceedings conducted without proper service of notice and without recording evidence were sustainable. The Court held that the impugned notification issued by the Federal Government to save pending proceedings from abatement was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court, and in the absence of a consciously considered directive for the specific case, the proceedings stood abated, rendering the reopening of the case illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court also held that interfering with concurrent findings of fact based on independent sources of income through ex parte proceedings without proper notice violated natural justice. The petition was accepted and the impugned order was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings pending before the Federal Land Commission under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 abated upon the enactment of the Land Reforms Act 1977?
- Does a general notification attempting to save all pending proceedings from statutory abatement violate the provisions of the Land Reforms Act 1977?
- Can the Federal Land Commission reopen concurrent findings of fact regarding a declarant's independent sources of income through ex parte proceedings?
- Whether an order passed without proper service of notice to the affected parties and subsequent purchasers violates the principles of natural justice?