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.
- LT. Conol. Sarfraz Khan Malik vs Border Area Allotment CommitteeK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
- Lodhran Cotton Ginners (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Zaffar Saleem & Brothers1992 CLC 980 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenging a consent decree passed by the High Court in a foreclosure suit. The applicant, who had previously filed suits for specific performance and injunctions against the defendants regarding the same property, alleged that the defendants and the plaintiffs in the foreclosure suit obtained the decree through fraud and misrepresentation by suppressing the existence of prior pending litigation and subsisting injunctions. The core legal question was whether the suppression of material facts—specifically the pendency of other litigation and court-ordered injunctions—constituted fraud or misrepresentation sufficient to warrant the recall of a consent decree. The Court held that the failure to disclose material litigation, which directly impacted the validity of the mortgage in question, amounted to an element of dishonesty and misrepresentation. Consequently, the Court recalled the consent decree, holding that any judgment obtained through the suppression of material facts is a nullity, and directed the parties to amend their pleadings to reflect the full factual context.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of material facts regarding pending litigation in a consent decree constitute fraud or misrepresentation under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a party under a legal and moral obligation to disclose the pendency of other related litigation to the court when seeking a consent decree?
- Can a judgment or decree obtained through the suppression of material facts be considered a nullity in the eyes of the law?
- Liaquat Alias Liaqi And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 550 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs Messrs Rehman Glass Bangle Industries, Hyderabad1992 PLC 336 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Parvez Khan vs Government of the Punjab Through Home1992 PLD Lahore 517 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the jurisdiction of a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, to try the petitioner for an offence under the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The petitioner contended that the trial was illegal due to the repeal of Ordinance I of 1990 and argued that the retrospective application of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) (Amendment) Act, 1990, violated Article 12 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by altering the forum and burden of proof. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Legislature is fully competent to enact retrospective procedural laws. The Court ruled that Article 12 of the Constitution only prohibits retrospective punishment or the imposition of penalties greater than those prescribed at the time of the offence, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 8 of the 1975 Act, which shifts the burden of proof, is not unconstitutional, as it requires the prosecution to first establish a foundation of suspicion before the burden shifts to the accused, a principle consistent with Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat.
Questions settled- Does the retrospective application of a procedural law violate Article 12 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Is the Legislature competent to enact laws with retrospective effect regarding procedural matters?
- Does Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, which shifts the burden of proof, violate the Constitution?
- Can a Special Court try an offence under the Arms Ordinance 1965 if the amendment to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 was given retrospective effect?
- Liaqat Jameel vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 307 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Hayat vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-22Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 903 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 998 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four criminal appeals against convictions for possession of heroin under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, to exercise powers under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and questioned the legality of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants based on evidence recorded by the Magistrate. The Court held that the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, did not automatically omit Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the necessary provincial notifications were never issued, thus Section 30 remains intact. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the conferment of Section 30 powers on the Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, was valid. Regarding the trial procedure, the Court ruled that the transfer of cases from a Section 30 Magistrate to an Additional Sessions Judge, and the subsequent reliance on evidence recorded by the former, did not vitiate the convictions, as any technical irregularity is curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, provided no prejudice is shown to the accused.
Questions settled- Does the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 automatically omit Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from operation?
- Can a Senior Civil Judge be validly invested with powers under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a conviction by an Additional Sessions Judge based on evidence recorded by a predecessor Magistrate legally sustainable?
- Does a technical defect in the transfer of a case from a Magistrate to a Sessions Judge vitiate the subsequent judgment?
- Liaqat Ali and 11 others vs The State1992 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment concerns two criminal appeals arising from a murder case tried by a Special Court under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991. The appellants challenged their convictions, while the State appealed the acquittal of eight co-accused. Key legal questions included the validity of the case transfer to the Special Court, the constitutionality of the Ordinance's appellate provisions, and the competency of the acquittal appeal. The Supreme Court held that it cannot strike down the provisions of the Ordinance from which it derives its own jurisdiction. It affirmed that procedural changes are retrospective and that the State's acquittal appeal was competent. Regarding the merits, the Court dismissed the State's appeal, finding no perversity in the trial court's assessment. Concerning the convicts, the Court upheld the convictions of two appellants, Liaqat Ali and Rehmat Ali, as their actions were corroborated by medical evidence. However, the Court acquitted the remaining appellants, ruling that the testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration, which was absent for those individuals.
Questions settled- Can a court exercising jurisdiction under a specific Ordinance declare that Ordinance's provisions ultra vires the Constitution?
- Does the testimony of an interested witness require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
- Is the provision for an acquittal appeal in the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991, applicable to cases pending at the time of its enactment?
- Can a Deputy Attorney-General competently file an acquittal appeal under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991?
- Liaqat Abbas vs Inspectorgeneral, Police1992 P Cr. L J 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
- Liaoat Jamil vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 932 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
- Liaoat Ali vs District and Sessions Judge And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1470 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
- Lever Brothers Pakistan Ltd., Karachi vs Mrs. Kishwar Sultana Khan1992 PLC 856 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Lever Brothers Pakistan Limited vs Qazi Muhammad Atique1992 CLC 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Leonard Hector vs Attorneygeneral of Antigua and Barbuda and others1992 SCMR 1574 · The Privy Council of EnglandRead full judgment →
- Lawson vs Johnson Matthey PLC1992 PTD 1377 · House of Lords · 1992-02-06Read full judgment →
- Latif And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 116 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-19Read full judgment →
- Latif Ahmad vs Mst. Rashidan1992 CLC 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenged the dismissal of an appeal by the Additional District Judge, which had upheld the rejection of the plaintiff's plaint by the Civil Judge. The plaintiff sought a declaration and permanent injunction regarding land possession, alleging that the execution of a warrant of possession by revenue authorities was fictitious. The defendant contended that the matter had already been adjudicated through consolidation proceedings up to the Board of Revenue, and the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a Civil Court could reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, during the hearing of a temporary injunction application, particularly when the suit was frivolous and suppressed material facts. The Court held that the Civil Court correctly rejected the plaint, affirming that courts must curb frivolous litigation by invoking Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, at any stage if the plaint discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. The principle established is that courts have the authority and duty to dismiss vexatious suits at the initial stage to protect the judicial system's integrity.
Questions settled- Can a Civil Court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, while deciding an application for a temporary injunction?
- Does a Civil Court have the authority to reject a plaint at an early stage if the suit is found to be frivolous or suppresses material facts?
- Is a Civil Court barred from adjudicating disputes already decided by Consolidation Authorities?
- Lateef Bano vs Messrs Crescent Garments Industries (Private) Limited, Karachi1992 PLC 302 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition Collector, Abbotfabad and others vs Muhammad1992 SCMR 1245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns four appeals regarding land acquisition compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The primary legal questions were whether the Land Acquisition Collector possesses the locus standi to file Regular First Appeals in the High Court and the appropriate methodology for determining compensation. The Supreme Court held that the Collector is competent to file such appeals, rejecting arguments that only the Provincial Government could do so. Regarding compensation, the Court affirmed that market value must be determined based on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Court emphasized that while potential value may be considered, it cannot be based on speculative price increases or prohibited factors under Section 24, such as value appreciation resulting from the acquisition itself. The Court rejected the reliance on mutation entries from years subsequent to the notification, affirming that compensation should reflect the market rate prevalent at the time of the initial notification or the preceding twelve months. The appeals were decided accordingly, upholding reasonable compensation assessments while rejecting inflated valuations based on improper evidence.
Questions settled- Is the Land Acquisition Collector competent to file an appeal in the High Court against a judgment of the Reference Court?
- Can the market value of acquired land be determined based on price increases occurring after the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Are local authorities or companies on whose behalf land is acquired entitled to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Should a Reference Court abdicate its jurisdiction to assess compensation by relying solely on the report of a Local Commissioner?
- Lal Khan vs Election. Tribunal/Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha and1992 CLC 2175 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
- Lal Hussain vs Noor Hussain And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 281 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
- Lal Hussain vs Noor Hussain and another1992 CLC 92 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
- Lal Din vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 278 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
- Lahore Development Authority and others vs Abdul Shafiq and others1992 PLC 1214 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged orders of the Labour Court and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which reinstated respondent No. 1, a Junior Accountant at the Lahore Development Authority (LDA), with full back benefits. The petitioners contended that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction because LDA was carried on by or under the authority of the Provincial Government with its own service regulations, falling under the proviso to Section 1(4)(c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, and that LDA was not an "industry" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that LDA is a statutory body corporate separate from the Government, and its service regulations framed under statutory authority do not constitute statutory rules of service. Furthermore, LDA provides material services and carries out systematic activities for public development, making it an "industry" under Section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Thus, the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 and Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 applied, conferring jurisdiction on the Labour Court.
Questions settled- Is a statutory body corporate like the Lahore Development Authority an establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Provincial Government under the proviso to Section 1(4)(c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Do regulations framed by a statutory authority under its own statutory powers constitute statutory rules of service for the purpose of excluding the application of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Does an authority providing public development, housing, water, and sewerage material services fall within the definition of an "industry" under Section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 regardless of profit motive?
- Ladha vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1839 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
- Ladha vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 323 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
- Lad Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1484 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindhl Siemens Pakistan Enginering Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Nasir Gill and 22 others1992 PLC 1193 · Service Tribunal · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
- L. Hussain vs Muhammad Nawab And 4 Other1992 PLD Karachi 307 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant's ejectment on the ground of default in rent payment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns whether a short or technical delay in rent payment, occasioned by the landlords' refusal to accept payments and the subsequent dispatch of money orders, constitutes a willful default warranting eviction under section 15 of the Ordinance, and whether the term 'shall' in the statute strips the Rent Controller of any discretion. The Sindh High Court held that the default was not deliberate and that the words 'may' and 'shall' are interchangeable depending on the legislative context. The Court established that default imports an element of negligence or fault, and courts retain equitable discretion to prevent injustice where the delay is minimal or caused by the landlord's conduct. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the ejectment order set aside.
Questions settled- Does a short delay in rent payment caused by the landlord's refusal to accept rent constitute a willful default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Are the words 'may' and 'shall' in legal statutes interchangeable depending on the legislative context?
- Does the use of the word 'shall' in section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, completely deprive the Rent Controller of discretion to condone a technical default?
- What is the statutory deadline for the payment of rent in the absence of a written agreement under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- L. D.a vs Muhammad Mushtaq EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-07Read full judgment →
- Kirkham vs Williams (Inspector of Taxes)1992 PTD 1234 · Court of Appeals · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
- Kiramatullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 392 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner seeking pre-trial bail in a case registered under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an attempt to murder. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether a minor accused involved in a prohibitory clause offence can be refused bail on the ground of abscondence and the use of a firearm. The Court held that abscondence does not operate as an absolute bar to the grant of bail where the accused falls within the exceptions provided for children or minors under the law. The key principle laid down is that minority is a strong ground for the concession of bail even in capital or prohibitory-clause offences, and abscondence alone does not override the statutory protections or exceptions applicable to minor offenders.
Questions settled- Does abscondence operate as an absolute bar against the grant of bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a minor accused be granted bail in a case involving an offence under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 despite allegations of firing and subsequent abscondence?
- What are the exceptions wherein an accused with a history of abscondence may still be released on bail?
- Khushi Muhammad vs Mst. Mehrunnisa and another1992 SCMR 1330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court upholding an ejectment order passed against the petitioner. The respondent landlady filed an ejectment application against the petitioner under the relevant rent restriction law, which was initially dismissed by the Rent Controller but subsequently allowed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, directing the petitioner's eviction. The petitioner challenged this decision through a constitutional petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the establishment of the relationship of landlord and tenant, particularly regarding the petitioner's possession under an agreement with a third party holding a power of attorney from the original allottee. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted as the lower appellate court's findings were examined in detail and the petitioner failed to place the supporting power of attorney on record, alongside evidence of a Panchayat where the petitioner agreed to vacate the premises. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment order passed by an appellate authority under rent laws can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction when the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed?
- Does an agreement with a holder of an irrevocable power of attorney from an original allottee suffice to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant without producing the said power of attorney?
- Khushi Muhammad vs Mst. Mehrun Nisa Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 189 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-04Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad and others vs WAPDA and others1992 CLC 2356 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1992 CLC 125 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ application challenged a decision by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, which directed the correction of revenue records in accordance with a civil court decree. The core legal question was whether a Revenue Officer is obligated to implement a civil court decree in revenue records, even if it is considered time-barred for execution, and whether such an officer can scrutinize the decree's merits or timeliness. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ application, affirming that Revenue Officers are under a clear and mandatory obligation, as per Section 45 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, to update revenue records to conform with binding adjudications of Civil Courts. The Court held that a Revenue Officer's jurisdiction is summary, preventing them from reviewing, scrutinizing, or questioning the correctness or timeliness of a civil court decree. A time-barred decree does not lose its utility for the purpose of updating revenue records, and Revenue Officers must accept and act upon it.
Questions settled- Is a Revenue Officer obligated to correct entries in revenue records according to a civil court decree?
- Can a Revenue Officer review or scrutinize the merits or correctness of a civil court decree?
- Does a time-barred civil court decree lose its efficacy for the purpose of updating revenue records?
- What is the scope of a Revenue Officer's jurisdiction when implementing a civil court decree?
- Khurshid Spinning Mills Limited vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 83 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Anwar vs Secretary, Local Government, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and 2 others1992 MLD 236 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-09-09Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ali And 6 Other vs Shah Nazar1992 PLD Supreme Court 822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a land dispute where the respondent-plaintiff sued for a declaration and permanent injunction to establish title, while the appellant-defendants relied on documentary evidence, including a registered 'Iqrarnama' (Exh.D.W.1/4), to prove a transfer of land for consideration. The High Court dismissed the appellants' civil revision because the original register containing the document was not produced, despite the appellants having previously filed an application to summon it, which was reportedly not pressed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that under an Islamic dispensation, courts must not act as mere passive observers waiting for litigants to commit procedural errors. The Court ruled that if a document is necessary for a just decision, the trial court has a duty to summon and consider it, regardless of procedural omissions by the parties. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to requisition the register and decide the matter afresh.
Questions settled- Whether a court under an Islamic dispensation can dismiss a claim solely due to a party's procedural mistake or failure to press an application for summoning material evidence?
- Is it the duty of the trial court to decide an application for summoning relevant record and material evidence necessary for a just decision of the case?
- Does the mere failure to formally exhibit a document affect its consideration if the document is otherwise necessary for a just decision of the case?
- Khurram vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2473 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
- Khuda Yar and 2 others vs The State and others1992 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from convictions and sentences for multiple murders arising out of a land dispute. The core legal questions involved the assessment of ocular testimony tainted by enmity, the evidentiary value of ballistic matching of crime empties with recovered weapons, and the determination of appropriate quantum of sentence where younger accused acted under the influence of an elder. The Court held that while the presence of eye-witnesses was established, their testimony required corroboration due to background enmity and improvements; that ballistic matching successfully corroborated the participation of some appellants while lack of matching, coupled with residence at a distant place, rendered another appellant's participation doubtful; and that acting under the influence of an elder relative warranted mitigation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principles laid down include the necessity of corroboration for interested witnesses in background enmity cases, the exoneration of accused whose recovered firearms do not match crime empties, and the mitigation of capital punishment when subordinate actors commit crimes under the influence of an elder family member.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony of related witnesses can be relied upon without corroboration in cases involving background enmity?
- Does the failure of crime empties to match a recovered firearm render the participation of an accused doubtful?
- Whether a death sentence should be commuted to imprisonment for life when accused persons act under the influence of an elder relative?
- Does the absence of any overt act or weapon use justify the acquittal of co-accused on the ground of benefit of doubt?
- Khuda Bux vs Secretary Forest, Fisheries and Live Stocks Department, Govt. of Sindhh And Another(K.L.R. 1992 Labourand Service Cases 181) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Khuda Bux vs Additional Sessions Judge And Others1992 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bukhsh vs Municipal Committee, Jhang Maghiana through its1992 SCMR 941 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the concurrent findings regarding a suit for mesne profits. The core legal question was whether the respondent's written statement contained an admission of the appellant's ownership over the disputed land, thereby entitling the appellant to mesne profits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a mere reference in the written statement to the registered sale-deed relied upon by the plaintiff did not constitute an admission of ownership by the respondent, especially where the respondent had asserted adverse possession and disputed the quantum of rent. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that a passing reference to a title document in a pleading does not amount to an admission of ownership or liability for mesne profits unless an unequivocal concession is made. The leave to appeal was accordingly withdrawn and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a reference in a written statement to a registered sale-deed constitute an admission of the plaintiff's ownership?
- Is a defendant liable for mesne profits when ownership of the disputed land is not expressly admitted in the pleadings?
- Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Abdul Razzaq and others1992 CLC 599 · Board of Revenue · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh Baluch vs Messrs Metropolitan Steel Corporation Ltd., Karachi1992 PLC 907 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh and others vs Jalal Din and others1992 SCMR 1793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which accepted the respondents' regular first appeal and dismissed the petitioners' pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns whether Chak No. 244/T.D.A. constituted a separate and independent revenue estate distinct from village Fatehpur at the time of the sale, which would determine the petitioners' status as owners in the estate for pre-emption purposes. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding that the Chak was no longer part of the Fatehpur revenue estate required closer examination, particularly in light of the local Patwari's testimony indicating it remained part of Fatehpur despite a notification for a separate revenue record. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the revenue status of the disputed land.
Questions settled- Whether Chak No. 244/T.D.A. was a separate and independent revenue estate at the time of the sale?
- Does a notification by the Board of Revenue for the preparation of a separate revenue record automatically constitute an area as a separate estate under the Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Can pre-claimants establish a superior right of pre-emption based on ownership in the parent estate when a new Chak is carved out?
- Khubaib Ahmad vs The State1992 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the judgment of a Special Court convicting the appellants under sections 392/34, 394/34, and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 7(1)(c) of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance 1991. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of secondary medical evidence when the examining doctor was not produced, the necessity of establishing lack of a license for firearms under the arms ordinance, and whether procedural irregularities regarding oaths vitiated the trial. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of proper legal steps to prove the unavailability of the doctor, the secondary medical evidence was inadmissible, thereby failing the charges requiring medical proof of injuries. Furthermore, failure to prove the absence of a license vitiated the arms charge. However, the eyewitness testimony sufficiently proved the charge of robbery. The Court ruled that omissions in administering the prescribed oath are curable irregularities under section 13 of the Oaths Act 1873. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions under sections 394/34, 324/34, and the arms ordinance, while maintaining the conviction for robbery under section 392/34.
Questions settled- Is secondary evidence of a medical report admissible when the prosecution fails to prove the formal unavailability of the examining doctor?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove that an accused possessed a weapon without a license invalidate a conviction under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance 1991?
- Does an irregularity in recording witness testimony without a proper oath vitiate the entire trial?
- Whether the omission to administer an oath to prosecution witnesses is curable under section 13 of the Oaths Act 1873?
- Khizar Hayat and others vs Muhammad Fazal Haq and others1992 CLC 1622 · Board of Revenue · 1991-08-18Read full judgment →
- Khera And Other vs Muhammad.Sadiq And Other1992 PLD Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1992 MLD 256 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Zaheer Ashraf vs Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1992 SCMR 1467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition before the High Court seeking relief against the Central Board of Revenue without first exhausting available departmental remedies. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel requested permission to withdraw the petition to pursue the appropriate departmental appeal or representation before the Collector. The Supreme Court granted the request, allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition to seek redress through the established departmental hierarchy. The Court further clarified that any observations previously made by the High Court regarding the merits of the case would not be construed adversely against the petitioner. Consequently, the departmental authorities were directed to independently determine the matter on its merits and in accordance with the law, without being prejudiced by prior judicial remarks. The petition was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Is it necessary to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the High Court?
- Can a petitioner withdraw a petition to pursue departmental remedies?
- Do prior observations by a High Court on merits bind departmental authorities?
- Khawaja Muhammad and another vs Superintendent of Police, District1992 SCMR 1850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a service matter where the petitioners, police officials, challenged their dismissal from service as affirmed by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' failure to intervene during the commission of a kidnapping offence, despite being present and informed, constituted misconduct justifying dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact regarding the petitioners' negligence were correctly determined and affirmed. The Court emphasized that under the relevant legal framework, including the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Police Act, and applicable rules, police officers have a mandatory duty to prevent crime, intervene when an offence is in progress, and pursue culprits to rescue victims. Because the petitioners failed to act despite being aware of the kidnapping, the charge of negligence was proven. Finding no question of law of public importance, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the dismissal as a valid consequence of the petitioners' failure to perform their official duties.
Questions settled- Can leave to appeal be granted under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a decision of a Service Tribunal where only a question of fact is involved?
- Does a police officer have a legal duty to intervene and apprehend culprits during the commission of a kidnapping offence in their presence?
- Is the failure of police officials to prevent a crime or pursue culprits after being informed of an offence sufficient grounds to uphold a charge of negligence and dismissal from service?
- Khawaja Imran Ahmed vs Noor Ahmed and another1992 SCMR 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that set aside an eviction order granted to a landlord under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The central legal question was whether a landlord's failure to explicitly state the nature of the intended business or provide specific details regarding financial capacity in the eviction application renders the requirement for the premises not bona fide. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its approach. The Court ruled that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance does not require a landlord to specify the nature of the business in the application, nor does the absence of such detail or financial proof automatically negate the bona fide nature of the requirement. The Court emphasized that a landlord may change business plans based on circumstances, and restricting this would conflict with the constitutional right to freedom of trade. Consequently, the Court restored the Controller's eviction order, affirming that the landlord's stated need for personal use was sufficient to establish good faith.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for a landlord to specify the nature of the intended business in an eviction application under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the failure to disclose financial details regarding the setup of a new business in an eviction application automatically invalidate a landlord's claim of bona fide requirement?
- Can a landlord change the nature of the business intended for the premises after filing an eviction application?
- Does the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply in its entirety to proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Khawaja Ejaz Ahmad vs Chairman, Mirpur Development Authority, Mirpur and another1992 CLC 1856 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim vs The Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Law AndParliamentary Affairs,Islamabad And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 646 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment upholding the President of Pakistan’s dissolution of the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the President’s discretionary power to dissolve the legislature is absolute or subject to objective judicial review, and whether the cited grounds—including internal dissensions, 'horse-trading,' and failure to convene mandatory constitutional bodies—constituted a breakdown of the constitutional machinery. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing to restore the Assembly. The Court held that while the President’s power is not absolute and must be exercised based on objective jurisdictional facts, the President’s opinion in this instance was supported by sufficient material demonstrating a functional stalemate and a breakdown of the constitutional mechanism. The Court affirmed the principle that dissolution is an extreme measure reserved for situations where the government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution, and that such actions are justiciable, requiring a clear nexus between the cited grounds and the actual breakdown of the constitutional order.
Questions settled- Is the President's power to dissolve the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution absolute or subject to judicial review?
- What constitutes a breakdown of constitutional machinery sufficient to justify the dissolution of the National Assembly?
- Can an order of dissolution be sustained if some of the grounds cited are found to be insufficient or factually incorrect?
- Does the President have the authority to dissolve the National Assembly in his discretion without the advice of the Prime Minister?
- Khanzada Ainuddin Khan through Legal Heirs and others' vs Feroz Khan1992 SCMR 2175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed by legal heirs of decree-holders through leave of the Court, arises from concurrent judgments of the lower forums refusing to execute a possessory decree for immovable property originally passed in 1970. The core legal question was whether an executing court can refuse to execute a decree for possession merely because the original Khasra number was sub-divided and altered during subsequent settlement operations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the executing court is duty-bound to execute the decree and cannot refuse execution on technicalities or changes in Khasra numbers, and that the executing court must take necessary steps—such as appointing a local commission or conducting inquiries under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908—to identify and locate the property. The key principle laid down is that subsequent settlement operations and sub-divisions of land cannot efface a valid decree, and an executing court must facilitate the delivery of possession rather than defeat execution on bald allegations of un-executability.
Questions settled- Can an executing court refuse to execute a possessory decree merely because the survey or Khasra numbers of the property have changed during intervening settlement operations?
- Is an executing court empowered to hold an inquiry or appoint a local commission to identify and locate the property decreed when execution is resisted?
- Does the sub-division of a larger Khasra number into smaller parts extinguish the decree-holder's right to execute a decree for possession?
- What are the duties of an executing court under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when faced with an objection regarding the identity of decreed immovable property?
- Khanan Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1993 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 447 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 719 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs Civil Judge1992 CLC 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 302 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
- Khan Bahadur (deceased) through his Legal Heirs and 2 others vs Ahmed1992 SCMR 1362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a long-standing property dispute regarding a house in Pindigheb Town, originally instituted in 1962 for possession following forcible dispossession. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds had been established by the plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence of a gift deed when the original document was in the possession of their estranged mother who refused to cooperate. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that they could not produce the original gift deed due to circumstances beyond their control—specifically, their mother's remarriage and lack of interest in their welfare—satisfying the requirements of section 65(c) of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, a certified copy of a registered deed is admissible to prove the contents of the original document. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that restored the trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs.
Questions settled- Whether secondary evidence of a gift deed can be led when the original is in the possession of an uncooperative third party?
- Is a certified copy of a registered deed admissible in evidence to prove the contents of the original document?
- What constitutes sufficient ground under section 65(c) of the Evidence Act for the production of secondary evidence?
- Khan Bafiadur vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2238 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, which forfeited the petitioner's surety bond and imposed a penalty after the accused failed to appear in court. The petitioner had stood surety for his son in a case under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, specifically for the Court of the Additional City Magistrate. Following the transfer of the case to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, the accused failed to appear, leading to the forfeiture of the bond. The core legal question was whether a surety bond executed for a specific court remains valid and enforceable upon the transfer of the case to another court without a fresh bond being furnished. The Federal Shariat Court held that a surety bond is a contract of a civil nature and must be construed strictly. Since the bond was expressly limited to the Additional City Magistrate's court, it stood exhausted upon the case's transfer. Consequently, the Court set aside the forfeiture order and directed the refund of the deposited amount, establishing that surety obligations do not automatically extend to successor courts without express provision.
Questions settled- Does a surety bond executed for a specific court remain valid after the case is transferred to another court?
- Should a surety bond be construed strictly as a contract of a civil nature?
- Is a surety liable for the absence of an accused in a court other than the one specified in the bail bond?
- Khan And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
- Khan Afsar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1505 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-20Read full judgment →
- Khaloo vs Memberii, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta and others1992 SCMR 2233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the propriety of the High Court's interference in revenue proceedings regarding the implementation of a civil court decree through mutation entries. The appellant sought to correct revenue records based on a 1959 civil decree. The core legal question was whether the Member, Board of Revenue correctly exercised revisional jurisdiction under the Land Revenue Act to restore a Collector's order, despite the Additional Commissioner's order for a remand to address serious factual defects, including the maintainability of the application and the execution status of the decree. The Supreme Court held that the Member, Board of Revenue acted illegally by ignoring the jurisdictional requirements for implementing a civil decree under the Land Revenue Act. The Court emphasized that revenue authorities must first determine if the decree was executed in accordance with the law (specifically section 141 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887) and whether the decree remained binding. Furthermore, revenue authorities cannot exceed the scope of a decree when translating it into specific land measurements. The appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remanded for a proper inquiry into these preconditions.
Questions settled- Can revenue authorities implement a civil court decree by correcting revenue records without first verifying if the decree was executed in accordance with the applicable law?
- Does the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue permit interference with a remand order that was based on the need to determine serious factual defects and jurisdictional prerequisites?
- Can revenue authorities, when implementing a civil decree for joint possession, unilaterally assign specific land measurements that exceed the scope of the original decree?
- Is a decree for joint possession binding for the purpose of revenue record correction if the procedure prescribed for execution under the Land Revenue Act was not followed?
- Khaliq Dad Khan vs Chairman, Punjab Election Authority, Lahore And Another1992 PLD Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 1987-12-13Read full judgment →
- Khalilurrehman vs Rehmatullah1992 MLD 244 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
- Khalilurrehman vs Muhammad Younis1992 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed by a pre-emptor, challenged the rejection of his plaint due to non-compliance with an order issued under Section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The pre-emptor's subsequent appeal and revision before the High Court were also dismissed. The Supreme Court considered the appellant's claim, which was founded on his superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer in the Khata. The Court held that since no decree had been passed in the appellant's favour by any lower court, the suit was directly affected by the principles established in prior Supreme Court judgments, specifically Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah, Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali, and Muhammad Shoaib v. Member (Revenue). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the plaint.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit based on co-sharer status proceed if no decree has been passed in the pre-emptor's favour?
- What are the consequences of non-compliance with an order under Section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, on a pre-emption suit?
- Khalilurrehman Khan, S.P., Khanewaja, and 5 others vs Muhammad Ali1992 SCMR 989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which set aside a notification assigning seniority to Provincial Police Officers in the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) from a date prior to their actual encadrement. The core legal question was whether seniority could be ante-dated based on budgeted posts rather than cadre posts, and whether such assignments complied with established promotion and seniority rules. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, finding that seniority could not be ante-dated to a period preceding actual encadrement, nor could it be determined based on the strength of budgeted posts rather than cadre posts. The Court held that promotions and seniority must strictly adhere to the prescribed quota and recruitment rules. The key principle laid down is that seniority for civil servants cannot be counted from dates prior to their regular appointment or encadrement, and any promotion or seniority assignment exceeding the prescribed quota or violating the recruitment rules is legally invalid, as mandated by the Civil Servants Act and established policy guidelines.
Questions settled- Can seniority in the Police Service of Pakistan be assigned from a date prior to the actual encadrement of an officer?
- Is it legally permissible to determine seniority based on the strength of budgeted posts rather than cadre posts?
- Does the assignment of seniority in excess of the prescribed quota violate the provisions of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- What criteria define 'regular promotion' for the purpose of determining seniority under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Khalilur Rehman Ramday, Javid Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 455 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ur Rehman Khan, S.P., Khanewal And 5 Other vs Muhammad AliK.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 258 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, belonging to the Sergeants Group of the Punjab Police, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside a notification assigning them seniority in the Police Service of Pakistan from a date prior to their actual encadrement. The core legal question involved the legality of ante-dating seniority based on budgeted posts rather than cadre posts and contrary to prescribed promotion quotas. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly set aside the notification, observing that encadrement must take place against cadre posts rather than budgeted posts, and that seniority cannot exceed the prescribed quotas or be ante-dated arbitrarily. The Court affirmed that regular promotion and seniority must strictly follow the statutory provisions and policy guidelines, including Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, finding no merit in the petition.
Questions settled- Whether seniority in the Police Service of Pakistan can be assigned from a date prior to encadrement?
- Can encadrement and seniority of provincial officers be worked out on the basis of budgeted posts rather than cadre posts?
- Does the assignment of seniority in excess of prescribed departmental promotion quotas violate the Civil Servants Act?
- Khalil Alias Kheela And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1879 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmad vs Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
- Khalid Zaman vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2289 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision petitions arise out of a judgment by the Sessions Judge, Charsadda, convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, with cross-appeals seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of delayed ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, and whether the appellant was entitled to the right of self-defence deducible from the circumstances and evidence on record. The Peshawar High Court held that the ocular testimony, recorded eight days after the incident, was unreliable and discarded, but upheld the dying declaration of the deceased as truthful, natural, and corroborated by medical evidence and the prompt report lodged by the appellant. The Court further held that although no formal plea of self-defence was taken at trial, such a plea could be validly spelt out from the prosecution evidence and surrounding circumstances. Finding that the appellant had exceeded his right of self-defence during a sudden altercation, the Court set aside the conviction under section 302, substituting 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 dismissing the enhancement revisions.
Questions settled- Whether delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses by the police renders their testimony doubtful?
- Can an accused claim the right of self-defence if it is not expressly pleaded at the trial but can be spelt out from the prosecution evidence and circumstances?
- Does a prompt dying declaration corroborated by medical evidence provide a sufficient basis for sustaining a conviction?
- Whether an accused who exceeds the right of self-defence during a sudden altercation can be convicted under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of section 302?
- Khalid Waheed Khawaja vs District and Sessions Judge, Karachi1992 P Cr. L J 2158 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervez vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
- Khairurrehman vs Fazal Mahboob and others1992 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition against the dismissal of a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (C.P.L.A.) as time-barred, alongside a separate C.P.L.A. challenging a High Court judgment in a civil revision. The petitioner sought to challenge concurrent findings of lower courts regarding an ejectment order and the rejection of a declaratory suit concerning property ownership. The core legal question was whether the initial dismissal of the C.P.L.A. was procedurally correct and whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and property ownership warranted interference. The Supreme Court accepted the review petition, acknowledging that the initial dismissal was based on a miscalculation of court holidays. However, upon reviewing the merits of both petitions, the Court held that the petitioner’s own admission in an application for official accommodation confirmed his status as a tenant. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitions, affirming that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed absent a substantial question of law. Leave to appeal was refused, upholding the lower courts' judgments.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in the absence of a question of law?
- Does an admission made by a party in a separate application for official accommodation constitute evidence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal liable to be dismissed if filed on the opening day of the court following public holidays?
- Khair Muhammad and 4 others vs Manager, Indus Flour and General1992 PLC 1164 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
- Khadim Rasul vs Muhammad Shafi1992 CLC 588 · Board of Revenue · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs Government of Pakistan And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1623 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Kh. Muhammad Kaleem vs Syed Anwar Hussain and others1992 CLC 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
- Kh. Muhammad Aslam vs Ch. Aftab Ahmad and 4 others1992 MLD 60 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
- Keshavji Ravji & Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1992 PTD 96 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-02-05Read full judgment →
- Kazim Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2461 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-19Read full judgment →
- Kauser Ali vs President of Cantonment, Gujranwala and 2 others1992 CLC 682 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
- Kashif Nadeem Alias Pappi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1799 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for committing sodomy on a young boy and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment, fine, and whipping. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant, being a minor, was protected from punishment under the Sindh Children Act, 1955, and whether the offence of sodomy fell under the Zina Ordinance or Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Federal Shariat Court held that the provisions of the Federal Zina Ordinance prevail over the provincial Sindh Children Act due to constitutional inconsistency and specific non-obstante clauses, and that an act of sodomy constitutes an offence under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 rather than Zina under the Ordinance. The court laid down the principle that trial courts should properly alter convictions for sodomy from the Zina Ordinance to Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 while maintaining applicability of federal criminal legislation over provincial child protection statutes regarding adults who have attained puberty.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the Sindh Children Act, 1955 override the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 in cases involving minor offenders who have attained puberty?
- Does an act of sodomy fall within the definition of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 or under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
- Can an accused charged under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be legally convicted under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
- Karsaz Corporation and 2 others vs Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.1992 CLC 794 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Karimi Mill Stores vs Commissioner of Income Tax, East Zone, KarachiK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 30 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-10Read full judgment →
- Karim Haider Shah and 3 others vs Faqir and 2 others1992 CLC 25 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an ex parte decree in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The core legal questions were whether the ex parte decree was void ab initio, whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the trial court acted illegally in its procedure. The High Court held that while the decree was not void ab initio, it was voidable due to procedural illegalities, including the failure to properly serve the defendants and the unlawful timing of the ex parte orders. The court emphasized that ex parte proceedings must strictly adhere to the Civil Procedure Code, and a court cannot proceed ex parte on a date for which the defendant was not duly served. Furthermore, the court exercised its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the decree, noting that the plaintiffs had committed fraud by withholding information about a counter-suit. The key principle laid down is that ex parte orders must be based on valid service for the specific date of hearing, and courts have the authority to set aside illegal ex parte decrees to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Can an ex parte decree be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction if it is found to be illegal?
- Is an ex parte order valid if passed on a date for which the defendant was not duly served?
- Does the failure to disclose the existence of a counter-suit between the same parties constitute fraud on the court?
- Is a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 strictly required for condonation of delay, or can it be considered based on the memorandum of appeal?
- Karamat Ullah vs Mian Abdul Kabir Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 156 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
- Karam Hussain vs Muhammad Aslam Khan1992 SCMR 1439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the High Court. In the first petition, the petitioner challenged the execution of a decree on the grounds of limitation, arguing it was time-barred. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in Abdul Qayyum v. Ali Asghar Shah (1992 SCMR 241), rejected this contention and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the lower court's decision regarding the execution of the decree. In the second petition, the petitioner sought leave to appeal on the basis that the lower courts had misread evidence regarding improvements made to the land, for which compensation was denied despite the evidence remaining unrebutted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in this second instance specifically to examine whether the petitioner is entitled to the costs of such improvements. Consequently, the Court stayed the execution proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal. The judgment clarifies the application of limitation principles to execution proceedings and acknowledges the necessity of reviewing evidence regarding compensation for land improvements.
Questions settled- Is an application for execution of a decree barred by time if it fails to meet the statutory limitation period?
- Does the failure of lower courts to consider unrebutted evidence regarding land improvements warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
- Karam Ellahi vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two connected applications: a bail petition by an accused charged under Section 324 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, and a cross-application by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to two co-accused. The core legal question concerns whether an offence under Section 324, where hurt is caused, falls within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby affecting the entitlement to bail. The Court examined the legislative changes between the former Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the new Section 324 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991. The Court held that since the injuries sustained were classified as 'Badiah' under Section 337-E(2)(b), punishable under Section 337-F(ii) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail. Regarding the cancellation of bail for the co-accused, the Court declined to interfere, noting that their vicarious liability remained a matter for trial determination.
Questions settled- Does an offence under Section 324 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, where hurt is caused, fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- How does the punishment structure for an attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 differ from the former Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is bail liable to be cancelled for co-accused persons who are attributed a vicarious role in the commission of an offence before the trial has determined their liability?
- Karam Ali Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Karam Ali Shah vs Mazhar Hussain and 3 others1992 SCMR 2328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, arising out of criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and another under forgery and cheating charges. The appellant and co-accused were acquitted by a Magistrate under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the non-availability of the allegedly forged power-of-attorney and the pendency of civil litigation where the executant admitted the appointment. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed a revision petition against the acquittal, but a Single Judge of the High Court subsequently accepted a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the trial to proceed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering under section 561-A solely on the ground of delay without addressing the valid foundational reasons provided by the courts below for terminating the protracted trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, restoring the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether a trial magistrate is justified in acquitting the accused under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the primary disputed document is unavailable and civil proceedings regarding the same subject matter are pending?
- Can the High Court interfere under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure with an order of acquittal without considering the substantive grounds upon which the trial court and revisional court based their decisions?
- Does the admission by an executant in civil proceedings regarding the validity of a power of attorney affect the foundational basis of criminal charges of forgery relating to the same document?
- Karachi" Lt.Col. Muhammad Tario Aumad Malik vs Major Muhammad1992 CLC 1628 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-27Read full judgment →