Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Arif Sethi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 550 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and others vs Ghulam Muhammad1992 CLC 1603 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 717 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State and anothers1992 P Cr. L J 1766 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi And 2 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-10
  move-overcivil serviceservice recordaverage reportadverse entryFederal Service Tribunalpromotion criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding his move-over from BPS-18 to BPS-19. The respondent department had denied the move-over on the grounds that the appellant's service record was not 'generally good' because, out of the last five years, he had earned two 'good' reports and three 'average' reports. The Supreme Court examined the relevant rules, including the Estacode and a subsequent amending Notification dated 17-2-1991, which clarified that for move-overs from B-18 to B-19, at least two 'good' reports without any adverse entry during the last five years were sufficient. The Court held that an 'average' report cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically communicated as such. The Court laid down the principle that the expression 'generally good' in the context of move-overs encompasses a mixed record of 'good' and 'average' reports, and does not require formally 'good' reports in every single year.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an 'average' performance evaluation report can be treated as an adverse report for the purposes of a civil servant's move-over if it was not communicated as adverse?
  • What is the correct legal interpretation of the expression 'generally good' reports in the context of a civil servant's eligibility for move-over?
  • Does a civil servant satisfy the requirement for move-over from B-18 to B-19 if they have earned at least two 'good' reports and three 'average' reports with no adverse entries during the preceding five years?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Stddio Hashim1992 PLD Supreme Court 838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-15
  second appealconcurrent findingsclearing agentshort deliveryburden of proofmisreading of evidencecontract of agency
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh which set aside two concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the appellant's suit for recovery of damages against his clearing agent for alleged short delivery of an imported consignment. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact, and whether the plaintiff had established loss and negligence on the part of the agent under Section 211 of the Contract Act, 1872. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the courts below had misread the evidence and omitted material facts regarding the actual weighment of the goods. The ratio decidendi is that an agent is liable for breach of duty or negligence resulting in loss only when actual loss is proven by reliable evidence, and concurrent findings of fact may be disturbed by a superior forum if they are founded on a misreading of evidence, are perverse, or ignore critical material on record. The Court established that mere negligence without specific proof of resultant damage and actual weighment is insufficient to burden an agent with damages.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact be disturbed by a superior court in second appeal?
  • Is an agent liable for damages to his principal without proof of actual loss and specific evidence of short delivery?
  • What is the extent of an agent's duty to conduct business according to the principal's directions under Section 211 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Does a clearing agent have an implied obligation to weigh goods at the port of delivery in the absence of specific instructions or customary practice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Iqbal Begum and others1992 CLC 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Pakistan (Private)K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 66 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And Another vs Federation of Pakistan And 2 Others1992 P Cr. L J 2505 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 581 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs The Commissioner of Income Tax and 2 others1992 PTD 513 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-02
  income tax assessmentself-assessment schemerectification of assessmentreopening of assessmenttax evasionstatutory barjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the issuance of notices under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, by the Income Tax Department to reopen assessment proceedings for the petitioner. The petitioner had initially filed returns under the self-assessment scheme, which were processed under Section 59(1), and subsequently rectified under Section 156 of the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the Department could invoke Section 65 to reopen an assessment after a rectification order had already been passed. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned notices were issued without jurisdiction and were of no legal effect. The Court reasoned that once an assessment under Section 59(1) is rectified under Section 156, the assessment is deemed determined under the Ordinance. Consequently, the bar contained in Section 65(1)(c) applies, prohibiting further reopening of the assessment. The Court further affirmed that where all facts were fully disclosed and considered during the initial assessment, there is no scope for interference under Section 65, as the assessment is a concluded transaction. The petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Income Tax Department reopen an assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 after a rectification order has been passed under Section 156?
  • Does an order of rectification under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 merge with the original assessment order?
  • Is the reopening of an assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 permissible when all facts were fully disclosed and considered during the initial assessment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs The Commissioner of Income Tax and 2 othersPTCL 1992 CL. 386 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir Khan vs The State1992 P C r. L J 1944 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir Khan And Others vs The State1992 P Cr.L. J 283 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 712 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Town. Committee,. Zafarwal through its Chairman1992 CLC 2179 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Muhammad Asghar Khokhar, Advocate1992 CLC 1556 · Punjab Bar Council · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Karachi Building Control Au Thority1992 CLC 691 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26
  demolition noticeprospective operationretrospective applicationrejection of plaintpre-suit noticemala fidebuilding controlcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant challenged a demolition notice issued by the Karachi Building Control Authority regarding a building completed in 1977, prior to the promulgation of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979. The trial court and appellate court had rejected the applicant's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the failure to serve a mandatory pre-suit notice under Section 20-A of the Ordinance. The High Court, in this revision application, held that the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, operates prospectively and does not apply to structures completed before its enforcement. Consequently, the Authority lacked jurisdiction to issue demolition notices for such pre-existing buildings. Furthermore, the Court established that the statutory requirement for pre-suit notice under Section 20-A is not absolute; it applies only to acts performed within the scope of the Ordinance. Such notice is not required where the Authority acts in bad faith or engages in a colorable exercise of power. Accordingly, the impugned orders were set aside, and the suit was remanded for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, apply retrospectively to buildings completed before its promulgation?
  • Is a pre-suit notice under Section 20-A of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, mandatory for suits challenging acts done in bad faith or colorable exercise of authority?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for want of statutory notice if the act complained of falls outside the scope of the governing statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Fazal Karim Khattak And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2137 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Khan vs General Public EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 25 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 734 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Others vs Muhammad Mansha And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2529 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Other vs The StateK.L.R 1992 Criminal Cases 26 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and 7 others vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and 3 others1992 CLC 2338 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25
  constitutional petitionconsolidation of holdingsreview jurisdictionerror apparent on the face of recordre-hearing on meritsrevenue lawlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge an order passed by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, which reviewed and reversed a previous order passed by his predecessor. The dispute arose from a consolidation scheme confirmed under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue could re-hear a case on its merits under the guise of its review jurisdiction under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1957. The High Court held that the scope of review under Section 8 of the Act is analogous to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or considering newly discovered material. The Court ruled that review jurisdiction does not permit a re-hearing of the case on merits or a reconsideration of conscious factual and legal findings. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned review order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board of Revenue has the jurisdiction under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1957 to re-hear a case on its merits?
  • Is the scope of review under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1957 analogous to the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a conscious finding on a question of limitation or service of notice be re-agitated in review proceedings if it was already considered and decided in the original order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameer and others vs Munawwar Hussain and others1992 MLD 692 · Board of Revenue · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amanullah vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alt vs Muhammad Mumtaz and others1992 CLC 1456 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alim Khan vs Abdur Rashid and 4 others1992 SCMR 1802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-10
  pre-emptiondeposit of pre-emption moneyPATA Regulationextension of timewrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a writ petition that challenged orders passed by special forums under the PATA Regulation regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether the Deputy Commissioner, acting under the PATA Regulation and the applicable pre-emption law, has the power to order the deposit of pre-emption money and whether failure to deposit within the extended time warrants dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Commissioner is competent to order the deposit of pre-emption money for the progress of the suit before referring the matter to a Jirga, and that the petitioner, having acquiesced to the order and sought an extension of time, could not subsequently challenge it. The key principle laid down is that a pre-emptor who participates and seeks extensions without genuine grounds cannot turn around to challenge the procedural competence of the forum after failing to deposit the required sum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Deputy Commissioner under the PATA Regulation has the power to order the deposit of pre-emption money?
  • Can a pre-emptor challenge the jurisdiction of a forum after acquiescing to its orders and seeking an extension of time?
  • Does failure to deposit the balance of sale consideration within the granted time warrant the dismissal of a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Ishaq and others1992 MLD 741 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Addl. District Judge and others1992 CLC 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Tehrany vs Mst. Fozia a Khtar Ali1992 CLC 2068 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Patwari vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Bhatti vs State Life Insurance Corporation of PakistanK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs Usman Ghani and others1992 CLC 1.600 · Board of Revenue · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs Border Area Committee and others1992 CLC 1841 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1992 PLD Supreme Court 376 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 441 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Mubashir Hussain And Another1992 P Cr. L J 2445 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Lone vs Arshad Sindhu, S.H.O. Police Station.1992 P Cr. L J 1701 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Other vs The StateK.L.R 1992 Criminal Cases 336 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2624 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs Chairman, Zila Council Jhang and others1992 CLC 1519 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2584 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Afghani vs Government of Punjab Etc(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 155)) · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 510 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State--1992 P Cr. L J 1492 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State and others1992 CLC 1801 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Ta State1992 PLD Supreme Court 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-13
  culpable homicidesudden fightprivate defenceself-inflicted injuriesmitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a murder conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the incident was a sudden fight, potentially invoking the right of private defence or mitigating circumstances. The High Court had dismissed the appellant's injuries as self-inflicted, but the Supreme Court found this conclusion improbable given the nature and location of the head wound and the appellant's immediate hospitalization. The Court held that the evidence supported a finding of a sudden, unpremeditated encounter, bringing the case within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court set aside the murder conviction, substituted it with a conviction under Section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, while increasing the fine to be paid as compensation to the deceased's heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a bone-deep incised wound on the head of an accused person, sustained during an occurrence, support the theory of a sudden fight rather than self-infliction?
  • When does a murder case fall within the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the question of who initiated the assault significant when a case is determined to fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs Khial Mast And Another1992 PLD Peshawar 158 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid vs The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshed Quarters1992 P Cr. L J 2363 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 281 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Mohsin Ali and 2 others1992 PLC 361 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And 3 Other1992 PLD Karachi 266 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-11
  sales tax exemptionvested rightsirrevocable letters of creditfiscal liabilityconcluded contractscustoms dutystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the demand for sales tax by Customs authorities on imported goods. The petitioner had opened irrevocable letters of credit and shipped goods while an exemption notification was in force. Subsequently, a new notification withdrew this exemption, and authorities demanded sales tax on the consignments. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of a tax exemption via a subsequent notification could retrospectively affect vested rights acquired by importers through concluded contracts, and whether Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, applied to sales tax levies. The Court held that the demand for sales tax was illegal. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot, by withdrawing exemptions, enhance fiscal liability on concluded contracts evidenced by irrevocable letters of credit. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, relates specifically to customs duty and cannot be invoked to protect the levy of sales tax. Section 3(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, merely provides machinery for collection and does not alter the nature of the tax or import substantive provisions like Section 31-A into sales tax law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government withdraw a tax exemption to retrospectively enhance fiscal liability on contracts concluded via irrevocable letters of credit?
  • Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 apply to the levy of sales tax?
  • Does Section 3(5) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 incorporate the substantive provisions of the Customs Act 1969 into the Sales Tax Act 1951?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Jalil vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing1992 PLD Karachi 304 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-14
  allotment cancellationregistered lease deedright of audiencenatural justicehousing authoritycooperative societies
  Summary & questions settled

  The dispute in this matter relates to the arbitrary cancellation of the allotment and registered lease deed of a plot situated in the Pakistan Defence Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which was originally allotted to the petitioner's father and subsequently transferred to the petitioner and his brother via a registered gift deed. The core legal question is whether the respondents could lawfully cancel the allotment and lease deed under Section 17 of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order, 1980, without issuing a notice or granting a hearing to the affected parties, and whether the power to cancel allotments extends to canceling registered leases. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned cancellation order was passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as the power contained in proviso (i) to Section 17 does not extend to the cancellation of leases and grants of land executed under clause (c) of Section 17. Furthermore, the court laid down the principle that the requirement of issuing a notice and providing an opportunity of being heard must be read into a statute even when the enactment does not contain an explicit provision to that effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order cancelling a plot allotment and lease deed can be passed without issuing a notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties?
  • Does the power of the Executive Board to cancel allotments under proviso (i) to Section 17 of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order, 1980 extend to the cancellation of registered leases and grants of land?
  • Is the requirement of issuing a notice to be read into a statute even when there is no specific provision for it in the enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Ghulam Hussain And 5 Others1992 P Cr. L J 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbasi vs Mst. Samia Abbasi and others1992 CLC 937 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10
  constitutional petitiondissolution of marriagecrueltykhulajudicial reviewevidencefamily courtremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a Family Court's decree dissolving a marriage on grounds of cruelty and Khula. The petitioner contended that the Family Court misread evidence and failed to consider vital material on record, rendering its judgment without lawful authority. The High Court held that a Family Court is under a legal obligation to discuss and consider the entire evidence produced by both parties before deciding an issue. Failure to consider important evidence, such as witness testimonies, audio recordings, and photographs, amounts to an illegal act, making the judgment susceptible to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction, even if it involves findings of fact. The Court emphasized that Khula cannot be granted merely upon the wife's asking; the judicial conscience of the Court must be satisfied that an irremediable breach exists, making it impossible for the parties to live together within the limits prescribed by Allah Almighty. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, declared the Family Court's decree to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and remanded the suit for a fresh decision after hearing the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court's judgment be declared without lawful authority if it fails to consider vital evidence on record?
  • Is a Family Court legally obligated to discuss and consider all evidence produced by the parties before deciding an issue?
  • Can findings of fact by a Family Court be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction if important evidence was ignored?
  • What is the standard for granting Khula, and can it be allowed on the mere asking of a wife?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad 1Qbal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1658 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhamamd Sharif and others vs Sher Muhammad and others1992 CLC 1648 · Board of Revenue · 1991-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhamad Shabbir vs Inayat Ali1992 CLC 1353 · Board of Revenue · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Muhammad Khan vs Government of Pakistan and others1992 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-14
  service appealabatement of proceedingsMartial Law RegulationProvisional Constitution Ordercivil service dismissaljurisdiction of Service Tribunalvalidation of actions
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal as having abated. The appellant, a former civil servant, had been dismissed under Martial Law Regulation No. 58. While his appeal was pending before the Tribunal, Article 13-A was inserted into the Provisional Constitution Order by C.M.L.A.'s Order No. 3 of 1982, which mandated the abatement of all pending proceedings challenging actions taken under the Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1969. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal correctly applied the abatement provision to the appellant's pending case. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 13-A were clear and mandatory, operating to destroy pending proceedings regardless of the merits of the underlying dismissal or allegations of mala fides. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the abatement rendered the appeal non-existent and precluded the Court from examining the validity of the original dismissal order. The principle established is that statutory abatement provisions effectively terminate pending litigation, rendering arguments regarding the underlying cause of action moot.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Article 13-A into the Provisional Constitution Order mandate the abatement of pending service appeals?
  • Can a court examine the merits of a dismissal order if the proceedings challenging it have been statutorily abated?
  • What is the legal effect of an abatement provision on pending judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Nazar vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Its(K.L.R 1992 Labour & Services Cases 145) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mubarik Shah vs The State and others s1992 P Cr. L J 943 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 356 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui And Another vs Sajjad Hassan Khan And Another1992 PLD Karachi 167 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-24
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionpublic servantcooperative society officersjurisdiction of magistrateanti-corruptionprevious sanction of Registrar
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of direct criminal proceedings pending before an Additional City Magistrate for offences under sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions revolved around whether the jurisdiction of ordinary courts is barred under section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925, whether prior sanction of the Registrar under section 63(3) of the said Act is required for all prosecutions or only for specific offences under the Act, and whether officers of a cooperative society deemed to be public servants under section 65-B of the Act are exclusively triable by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption. The Sindh High Court held that while section 70-A does not bar ordinary criminal complaints of this nature, and the prior sanction under section 63(3) is strictly limited to offences defined under sections 60, 61, and 62 of the Act, the applicants as officers of the cooperative society are public servants under section 65-B and thus exclusively triable by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption. Consequently, the court declared the cognizance taken by the Magistrate without jurisdiction and set aside the proceedings, clarifying that the order does not bar prosecution before a competent court.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 bar the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts to entertain a direct complaint for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the previous sanction of the Registrar under subsection (3) of section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 required for prosecuting all offences or only for specific offences defined under sections 60, 61, and 62 of the said Act?
  • Are officers of a cooperative society deemed to be public servants under section 65-B of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 exclusively triable by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption?
  • Does taking cognizance of scheduled offences against cooperative society officers by an ordinary Magistrate render the proceedings without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Khatoon Alias Aqleema Khatoon Alias Parveen vs Saadullah A. Siddiqui and 4 others1992 P Cr. L J 690 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01
  habeas corpusminor custodysuckling ageguardians and wardsillegal detentioninterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant mother seeking the recovery of her two minor children from the custody of her husband and sons. The core legal question concerned the appropriate exercise of High Court jurisdiction under Section 491, Cr.P.C. regarding the custody of minors of tender age vis-a-vis the remedies available under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Sindh High Court held that while habeas corpus proceedings are summary and ordinarily guardianship disputes should be resolved by a Guardian Judge, the High Court possesses efficacious jurisdiction under Section 491 to restore illegally or improperly disturbed custody of minors. The court laid down that for an infant of suckling age, the mother is entitled to interim custody, whereas for an older minor whose custody involves disputed questions of fact regarding abandonment and welfare, the arrangement should be determined without prejudice to a final adjudication by the competent Guardian Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in matters of minor custody?
  • Are the remedies under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 mutually exclusive?
  • What order can the High Court pass regarding the custody of a minor brought before it in habeas corpus proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum vs Muhammad Rafiq and others1992 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Bibi vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 80 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Alam vs District Judge, Karachi South and 2 others1992 MLD 64 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zenab. Bibi vs Haji Allah Din and 2 others1992 CLC 2278 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zatun and 3 others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) Punjab and 2 others1992 CLC 1510 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarmewa and 8 others vs Khalil Bat Khan and 53 others1992 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-01
  evacuee propertycompensation poolequity of redemptionmortgage chargeDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Actallotment validitynon-obstante clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the status of mortgaged land involving evacuee property laws. The core legal questions concerned the implications of Section 14-A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, whether property mortgaged by non-Muslims before partition could enter the compensation pool, and whether the equity of redemption constituted property vesting in the Custodian. The Supreme Court held that the property in question was indeed evacuee property and its allotment to the appellants was valid under the statutory framework. The Court clarified that Section 14-A, with its non-obstante clause, overrides conflicting laws and judicial decisions regarding mortgage redemption, effectively bringing such property into the compensation pool. The ratio established that the equity of redemption is immovable property, and where the Custodian treated the property as evacuee and allotted it, the allotment is protected. However, the Court emphasized that the mortgagee retains a right to the mortgage money, which remains a charge on the land, and mandated that proceedings to determine and redeem this charge must be initiated under the statutory mechanism.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 14-A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 override previous judicial decisions and general laws regarding mortgage redemption?
  • Is the equity of redemption considered immovable property that vests in the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
  • Can property mortgaged by a non-Muslim before partition be treated as evacuee property and included in the compensation pool?
  • Does the allotment of land subject to a pre-partition mortgage remain valid despite the mortgagee's claim of title by prescription?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaitoon Begum vs Ghulam Rasool1992 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Walayat Jan And Other vs Habib Ullah Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Torsan Jan vs Additional Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs1992 SCMR 1365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-18
  dower decreeexecution proceedingsreview of executionfamily courttransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court arising from execution proceedings of a dower decree. The core legal question concerns whether authorities and courts can reopen finalized execution proceedings years after the satisfaction of a dower decree when property values have appreciated. The Supreme Court held that once execution proceedings are lawfully concluded and possession of property is handed over in satisfaction of a decree with the acquiescence of the judgment-debtor, neither the judgment-debtor has a legal right to reopen the process nor do the executing authorities possess jurisdiction to review and set aside already concluded proceedings. The Court laid down the principle that finalized execution proceedings cannot be reopened or reviewed subsequently at the behest of a judgment-debtor or third parties attempting to exploit an increase in property value.

  Questions settled

  • Whether executing authorities have the jurisdiction to reopen already concluded execution proceedings?
  • Can a judgment-debtor challenge finalized execution proceedings after refusing to pay the decretal amount in cash?
  • Whether finalized execution proceedings can be set aside on the ground of subsequent appreciation in property values?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasleem Akhtar alias Pap vs Abdul Aziz1992 CLC 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surraya Begum and others vs Mst. Suban Begum and others1992 SCMR 652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-07
  specific performancebona fide purchaserburden of proofpendente lite transfersubsequent transfereenotice of agreementsubstitution of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a direct appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The core legal questions involve determining whether subsequent transferees were bona fide purchasers for value without notice under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, the rules governing the burden of proof regarding such notice, and whether an appeal is improperly constituted if pendente lite assignees are substituted without the original transferors. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that subsequent transferees who establish they paid the full price, took active steps to secure the property title, and had no prior notice of an earlier agreement are protected as bona fide purchasers for value in good faith, and that the initial burden of proving a prior contract shifts to the defendant to show lack of notice once established. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and laying down the principle that pendente lite assignees properly substituted under Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C. adequately represent the interest of the property in subsequent appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients a subsequent transferee must prove under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act to retain the benefit of a transfer against a prior agreement?
  • How does the burden of proof operate between the plaintiff and the subsequent transferee regarding the lack of notice of a prior contract?
  • Whether an appeal before the High Court is incompetent if the original first promisees or transferees are not impleaded alongside substituted pendente lite assignees?
  • Can good faith be presumed in favor of subsequent transferees when they have paid the full consideration and have no prior knowledge of an earlier agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Suriya Mamdot And 2 Other vs Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi Camp at Lahore1992 PLD Supreme Court 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-22
  Land Reforms Regulation 1972Ancestral landInheritanceGiftFemale heirsCustomary law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the validity of a land gift made by a brother to his unmarried sisters under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal question was whether this transaction fell within the exception provided in clause (ii) of the second proviso to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Regulation, which permits gifts to widowed or unmarried sisters who have not received their due share of ancestral land. The Federal Land Commission had declared the gift invalid, and the High Court upheld this, reasoning that because the father had gifted his entire property to the son during his lifetime, the daughters had no inheritance to claim. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the phrase "share of inheritance of ancestral land" encompasses situations where female heirs were deprived of their share due to prior unequal distribution by ancestors. The Court affirmed that the legislative intent behind the Regulation was to permit brothers to rectify such historical inequities. Consequently, the gift was deemed valid, and the impugned orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exception in clause (ii) of the second proviso to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, apply to gifts made to sisters who were deprived of their inheritance by their father's prior lifetime gifts?
  • What is the scope of the expression "share of inheritance of ancestral land" under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Can a gift of land by a brother to his sisters be validated under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, if the inheritance had already opened and the sisters were previously deprived of their share?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surayya Begum vs Abdul Rahman and 2 others1992 CLC 676 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surayya Begum vs Abdul Rahman And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 334 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughra Kausar vs Muhammad Siddique Manan Alias MuhammadK.L.R.1992 Civil Cases 343 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Kausar vs Mansab Khan1992 PLD Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs Abdur Rauf Khan and others1992 CLC 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22
  rejection of plaintlimitationquestion of factremandregular second appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a suit challenging the validity of certain documents, which was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kasur, through the rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. The appellant contended that she only discovered the documents shortly before filing the suit and alleged that her mother, who purportedly executed the documents, was unaware of them because an imposter had been presented in her place. The District Judge upheld the rejection. The High Court held that the issue of limitation, involving disputed questions of fact regarding the knowledge of the documents and the identity of the executant, could not be summarily decided by rejecting the plaint without recording evidence. The Court emphasized that valuable rights were at stake, necessitating a full trial. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and remanded the suit to the trial court with directions to frame all necessary issues, record evidence on the merits, and decide the entire suit afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation when the facts regarding the date of knowledge of the cause of action are disputed?
  • Is it permissible for a court to decide a complex issue of limitation without recording evidence when the parties' contentions involve disputed questions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs Abdur Rauf Khan And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 248 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Bibi alias Sheema vs Rashid Ahmad1992 CLC 1301 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Addl. Distt. Judge Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 115 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar Qureshi vs Mst. Najma Lakhwera And Other1992 PLD Lahore 205 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shakila vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1609 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Khanum vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2402 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Bibi And Other vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 83 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-08-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samia Abbasi vs Muhammad BatalviK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 365 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saman Seema Habib and 5 others vs Nadaria Transport Services1992 CLC 950 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Begum vs Ulfat Rasool and others,1992 CLC 583 · Board of Revenue · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Abbasi and another vs Ahmed Suleman and others1992 MLD 746 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi vs The Station House Officer of Police Station1992 P Cr. L J 81 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi vs Federation of Pakistan1992 PLD Lahore 99 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14
  Presidential pardonQisas and DiyatObjectives ResolutionArticle 2-AIslamic InjunctionsCommutation of sentenceConstitutional interpretationTa'zir
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a Presidential order dated 8-12-1988 issued under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which commuted death sentences and granted remissions to various categories of prisoners. The core legal question was whether the President’s power to grant pardon or commute sentences extends to cases involving Hudood, Qisas, and Diyat, in light of Article 2-A of the Constitution, which incorporates the Objectives Resolution as a substantive, enforceable part of the Constitution. The Court held that the President possesses no authority to commute, remit, or pardon death sentences awarded in Qisas and Diyat cases, as the right to waive Qisas or accept Diyat vests exclusively in the heirs of the victim under Islamic law. However, the Court affirmed that the President retains the power to pardon or remit sentences for Ta'zir offences in the public interest. The judgment establishes that Article 2-A serves as a touchstone for constitutional interpretation, requiring that state actions and laws conform to the Injunctions of Islam as derived from the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

  Questions settled

  • Does the President of Pakistan have the authority to commute death sentences awarded in cases of Qisas and Diyat?
  • Is Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 a substantive and enforceable part of the Constitution?
  • Can the President of Pakistan exercise the power of pardon or remission in cases of Ta'zir offences?
  • Does the right to waive Qisas vest in the Head of State or the heirs of the victim?
  Read full judgment →