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.
- In Re: the Transfer of Land (Katchi Abadi) Act, 1972 (Act XIII of 1972) vs1992 PLD Federal Shairat Court 515 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
- In Re: the North-West Frontier Province Urban Planning Ordinance,1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 512 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
- In re: Registration of App Union of Journalists, Rawalpindi, Islamabad. vs1992 PLC 486 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
- In re: Muhammad Salim Khan vs Not1992 CLC 2273 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-09Read full judgment →
- In Re: Islamabad Stock Exchange vs Not1992 CLC 1213 · Corporate Law Authority · 1991-08-29Read full judgment →
- In Re: in the Matter of Contempt vs Against the Daily Frontier Post1992 PLD Supreme Court 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns contempt of court proceedings initiated against a reporter and The Daily Frontier Post regarding the publication of a false statement concerning judicial proceedings. The core legal question was whether the publication of a statement erroneously attributing the issuance of a court stay order to the Advocate-General's office constituted contempt, and whether the reporter's subsequent explanation and expression of respect warranted the discharge of the notice. The Supreme Court discharged the contempt notice against the respondent. The Court observed that the reporter lacked a legal background, had acted without malicious intent to scandalize the judiciary, and had expressed genuine veneration for the Court. Furthermore, the Court noted a discernible improvement in the newspaper's reporting standards over the preceding year. The key principle laid down is that while the Court emphasizes the necessity for editors to ensure proper training and ethical standards for court reporters to maintain accurate coverage, contempt proceedings may be discharged where a respondent demonstrates a lack of malicious intent, acknowledges the Court's dignity, and provides a credible explanation for the error.
Questions settled- Does the absence of legal training for a court reporter mitigate liability in contempt of court proceedings?
- Can contempt of court proceedings be discharged based on the respondent's expression of respect for the judiciary and lack of malicious intent?
- What responsibility do newspaper editors bear regarding the training and supervision of reporters covering court proceedings?
- In re: Aizad Beverages Industries Ltd. vs Not1992 CLC 2445 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-14Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Hussain vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Works, Estate, Islamabad and 2 others1992 CLC 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arises from a dispute over the allotment of a government plot. The respondent, claiming to be a statutory tenant following his father's death, filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of a subsequent allotment order issued by the Estate Office to the applicant. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing a bar on jurisdiction, but the appellate court remanded the case for trial on merits. The High Court, upon review, held that the original allotment to the respondent's father created only a license, not a vested tenancy, and such status did not devolve upon legal heirs. Furthermore, the court affirmed that under the Federal Government Lands & Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966, the government may terminate such licenses at will. Consequently, the court ruled that the suit was barred by Section 10 of the Ordinance and failed to disclose a cause of action. The appellate order was set aside, and the trial court's rejection of the plaint was restored.
Questions settled- Does an allotment of government land to a private individual create a tenancy or a mere license?
- Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging the government's termination of a license for government land given the bar under the Federal Government Lands & Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966?
- Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without requiring evidence or a written statement if the claim is barred by law?
- Does the status of a licensee of government land devolve upon legal heirs upon the death of the original allottee?
- Imran Ahmad Alias Mani And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1506 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
- Imanat Ali vs Warts Ali and 3 others-1992 P Cr. L J 564 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Imamud Din vs QasimK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Imam Bux vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 567 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
- Imam Bakhsh and 4 others vs Deputy Commissioner, Layyah and 161992 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment concerning the appointment of Kanungos, where the High Court had intervened in a departmental selection process. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding the eligibility criteria for promotion of civil servants, in light of the constitutional bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution read with the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction in this matter. The Court determined that the controversy, which centered on the rules of eligibility or ineligibility for promotion rather than the fitness or suitability of the candidates, fell squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, ruling that the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction was improper. The key principle established is that disputes concerning the terms and conditions of service, specifically regarding eligibility for promotion, are exclusively cognizable by the Service Tribunal, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the eligibility of civil servants for promotion?
- Does a dispute concerning the eligibility criteria for promotion fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Is the jurisdiction of the High Court ousted by Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Imam Bakhsh And 4 Other vs Deputy Commissioner, Lyayyah And 16 Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 239) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals by leave of the Supreme Court examined whether the Lahore High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition concerning civil servants in view of the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The underlying dispute involved temporary ad hoc appointments of Kanungos and raised questions regarding rules of eligibility and ineligibility for promotion rather than fitness or suitability. The Supreme Court held that controversies relating to eligibility or ineligibility for promotion fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court as being without jurisdiction, and recalled the writ petition.
Questions settled- Does a controversy regarding the eligibility or ineligibility of a civil servant for promotion fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Whether the Lahore High Court has jurisdiction under its constitutional writ jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants barred by Article 212?
- Does a question concerning the rules of eligibility for promotion constitute a matter of fitness or suitability for promotion?
- Ilyasul Hassan vs Messrs Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company1992 PLC 1293 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-05-19Read full judgment →
- Ilyas Masih vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
- Ilyas Masih vs Raja Zafar Iqbal, S.H.O., Police Station Satrah, District1992 PLD Lahore 220 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed regarding the illegal detention of a citizen by the police. The core legal question was whether the police acted within their lawful authority by detaining an individual in connection with a purely civil dispute involving a monetary claim, absent any cognizable offence or judicial order. The Court found that the police action was entirely illegal and unwarranted, as the underlying dispute was civil in nature and no cognizable offence had been committed. Furthermore, there was no order from any Magistrate or court of law authorizing the police to inquire into the matter. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu. Additionally, the Court held that the S.H.O. was liable for the illegal act, which caused the citizen unnecessary loss and expense, and ordered the S.H.O. to pay compensation of Rs. 500 to the detenu. The judgment reaffirms that police powers cannot be invoked to coerce parties in civil disputes without legal justification.
Questions settled- Can the police detain a person in connection with a purely civil dispute involving a monetary claim?
- Does the police have the authority to investigate a matter without a cognizable offence or a judicial order?
- Is a police officer liable to pay compensation for illegal detention of a citizen?
- Ilyas Masih vs Raja Zafar Iqbal SHO, Satrah, SialkotK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 488 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
- Ilyas Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 271 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
- Ilam Din vs The Government of Pakistan Ministry of Home & KashmirK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 98 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ilam Din vs Dost Muhammad1992 CLC 1630 · Board of Revenue · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
- Ikram Ullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 563 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
- Ikram Ul Haq And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 540 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
- Ikhlaq Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2453 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-17Read full judgment →
- Ijaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 562 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-21Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmad vs Home Secretary, Government of Punjab And 5 Others1992 P Cr. L J 1662 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmad Alias Jajji vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
- Ihsan Ullah Lambardar vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1992 CLC 280 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar-Ul-Hassan vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab,Lahore And 3 Other1992 PLD Lahore 265 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Hussain vs X.E.N., P.W.D. (Highway Division) Mirpur, and 4 others1992 PLD Azad J & K 22 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmed vs The State1992 CLC 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
- Iffat Mir vs Mobin Qasim MirK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 463 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-01Read full judgment →
- ICI Pakistan Limited vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 21992 PLC 572 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim vs Noor Muhammad1992 CLC 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim And 2 Others, vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2315 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-09Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 532 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-09Read full judgment →
- I.C.1. vs Municipal Committee, Sheikhupura1992 CLC 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
- Hussain Ali Chandio vs The Secretary, M/O Communication, Islamabad(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 273) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the removal of the appellant from his position as Deputy Manager (Personnel) at the Karachi Port Trust under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. The appellant challenged his removal, arguing that the requirement of acting in the public interest was a justiciable issue and that his appointment, despite initial irregularities, was validated by subsequent performance and confirmation. The Supreme Court examined whether the removal, based on the Ordinance, was legally sound. The Court held that while the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction is wider than constitutional jurisdiction, the specific provisions of the Ordinance targeting appointments made between January 1, 1972, and July 5, 1977, were intended to review political appointments made without due process. The Court found that the appellant's appointment lacked proper advertisement, competitive selection, and required qualifications, constituting a political appointment. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the authorities acted within their mandate under the Ordinance. The judgment reinforces that appointments made in violation of established rules during the specified period are subject to valid termination under the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Is the removal of a public servant in the public interest under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, a justiciable issue?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess wider jurisdiction than the High Court in reviewing service matters?
- Can an appointment made without advertisement and in violation of rules be considered a political appointment subject to removal under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978?
- Husain Ali Chandio vs The Secretary, M/O Communication, Islamabad1992 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the removal of the appellant from his position as Deputy Manager (Personnel) at the Karachi Port Trust under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. The appellant challenged his removal, arguing that the requirement of 'public interest' was a justiciable issue and that his service record did not justify termination. The core legal question was whether the removal of a public servant under the Ordinance, based on the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority regarding 'public interest,' is a justiciable matter, and whether the appellant's specific appointment, which bypassed standard recruitment procedures, justified such removal. The Supreme Court held that while the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal is wider than constitutional jurisdiction, the removal was lawful. The Court found that the appellant's appointment was a 'political appointment' made without advertisement or competition, in violation of established rules. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the authorities acted within their mandate under Section 3 of the Ordinance, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Is the removal of a public servant in the 'public interest' under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978 a justiciable issue?
- Does the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal allow for a broader review of administrative actions compared to constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can an appointment made without advertisement or competition, in violation of recruitment rules, be classified as a political appointment subject to removal under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978?
- House Building Finance Corporation, Karachi vs Liaquat Ali Jumani1992 PLC 507 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
- House Building Finance Corporation vs Shahinshah Shahjehan and Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. and 8 others1992 SCMR 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These four appeals with special leave challenge a judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding an order for the sale of mortgaged properties in a phased manner to satisfy a loan recovery claim by the House Building Finance Corporation. The core legal question concerned the extent of the Corporation's right to enforce security under section 30 of the House Building Finance Corporation Act 1952, and whether the Corporation could dictate the precise manner of selling properties or compel the immediate attachment and sale of guarantors' and sureties' assets. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's orders were unexceptionable, ruling that the Court possesses extensive discretionary powers under section 30 to direct or refuse the sale of attached properties and ensure the Corporation's claim is satisfied equitably, prioritizing the primary mortgaged property before proceeding against other securities. The key principle laid down is that the House Building Finance Corporation cannot insist upon the sale of properties in a manner of its own choosing, as the statute vests wide discretionary powers in the Court to regulate the realization of dues and enforcement of claims.
Questions settled- Does the House Building Finance Corporation have the absolute right to dictate the manner and sequence in which mortgaged and guarantor properties are sold under section 30 of the House Building Finance Corporation Act 1952?
- What are the extent and scope of the Court's discretionary powers under section 30 of the House Building Finance Corporation Act 1952 regarding the sale and attachment of properties?
- Must the primary mortgaged property be exhausted before proceeding against the properties of sureties and guarantors for the recovery of a loan?
- House Building Finance Corporation vs Shahinshah Humayun1992 SCMR 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals arise out of a consolidated judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the recovery of compound interest, pendente lite interest, and further interest on loans advanced by the House Building Finance Corporation to various cooperative societies under the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952. The core legal question was whether the Corporation was entitled to charge compound interest under the loan documents, which specified simple interest at a fixed rate, despite an incorporated regulation providing for interest with monthly rests. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where terms of a written contract conflict with provisions incorporated by reference, the express terms of the written agreement prevail, and that the parties intended for simple interest to apply as evidenced by the letter of sanction, mortgage deed, and the Corporation's own demand notice. The key principle laid down is that the primary intention of the parties, gathered from the plain meaning of the main agreement as a whole, governs the construction of contracts, and specific express clauses override conflicting clauses incorporated by general reference.
Questions settled- Whether rules and regulations can be incorporated into a contract by reference?
- Does a provision for compound interest in an incorporated regulation override the express terms of a written mortgage deed specifying simple interest?
- How are inconsistencies between express clauses of a written agreement and clauses incorporated by reference to be resolved?
- What is the primary objective of a court when construing the terms of a written contract?
- House Building Finance Corporation vs Muhammad Tahir and others1992 PLC 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
- House Building Finance Corporation vs Mrs. Sarwar Jehan1992 PLD Karachi 329 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter before the Sindh High Court arises from applications seeking the restoration of a revision application dismissed for non-prosecution and the condonation of delay in filing the same. The core legal questions involved whether the incorrect printing of an advocate's name in the cause list constitutes sufficient cause for absence, and what period of limitation and procedural provisions govern the restoration of a revision application dismissed for non-prosecution under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the omission of an advocate's correct name from the cause list constitutes sufficient cause for non-appearance, and since the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Limitation Act 1908 do not prescribe specific provisions or limitation periods for the restoration of revision applications, the Court exercises inherent jurisdiction under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, with the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applying a three-year limitation period. Consequently, the application for restoration was allowed and restored to its original number, rendering the application for condonation of delay superfluous.
Questions settled- Does the incorrect printing or omission of an advocate's name in the cause list constitute sufficient cause for absence on the date of hearing?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application for the restoration of a revision application dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to the restoration of revision applications or is it restricted to suits?
- What is the applicable limitation period for filing an application for the restoration of a revision application?
- Hotel Mehran National Workers Union, Karachi vs Hotel Mehran1992 PLC 839 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Holiday Inn Workers Union vs Registrar of Trade Union And Another(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 9) · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-16Read full judgment →
- Henry Joshua Silverston vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1992 PTD 454 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Hazoor Bakhsh and 3 others vs Additional District and Sessions1992 CLC 61 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
- Hayatullah And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 525 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-21Read full judgment →
- Hassan Muhammad vs Fateh Muhammad Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 116 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
- Hassan Muhammad vs Fateh Muhammad and others1992 CLC 613 · Board of Revenue · 1990-06-25Read full judgment →
- Hassan Din And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 538 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Hassan Din and others vs Sher Muhammad and others1992 CLC 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
- Hassan Ahmed Bariah and another vs Ti Ie Director-General, Archaeology Department, Karachi and another1992 PLC 474 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
- Hassan Abbas Mirza vs Mst. Ishrat Jabeen1992 CLC 1198 · Board of Revenue · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
- Hasimara Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-tax.PTCL 1992 FC.170 · Calcutta High Court · 1986-08-29Read full judgment →
- Hasibullah and another vs M/s. Cornpak Limited, Karachi1992 PLC 1212 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
- Hashmi Can Company Limited vs K.K. & Co. (Private) Limited1992 SCMR 1006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the dismissal of a winding-up petition filed under Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The petitioner sought to wind up the respondent company, alleging an inability to pay debts after a statutory notice was served. The respondent disputed the debt, citing defective goods supplied by the petitioner and noting that a separate suit for rendition of accounts was already sub-judice. The core legal question was whether a winding-up petition is maintainable when the alleged debt is bona fide disputed and currently subject to litigation. The Supreme Court held that the discretion to order winding-up under Sections 305 and 306 applies only to undisputed debts. It ruled that where a company provides a valid, bona fide reason for non-payment and the matter is already before a competent court, such refusal cannot be deemed 'neglect to pay' under the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the lower courts' exercise of discretion and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a company be wound up under Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, for a debt that is bona fide disputed?
- Does the refusal to pay a disputed debt constitute 'neglect to pay' under Section 306 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Is the winding-up of a company a matter of absolute right or judicial discretion for the Company Judge?
- Hashim Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 174 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
- Hashim Khan vs National Bank of Pakistan1992 SCMR 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Balochistan High Court, which set aside an ex parte decree passed against the National Bank of Pakistan in a recovery suit filed by the appellant. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in proceeding ex parte against the respondent on a date fixed only for the hearing of an interlocutory application. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the trial court erred in treating a date fixed for an interlocutory matter as a date for the final hearing of the suit. The Court held that a suit cannot be proceeded with ex parte if the date fixed is not for the investigation of the controversy in the suit itself. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the trial court took an overly technical approach regarding the authorization of the respondent's counsel and the timing of the application to set aside the ex parte order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that procedural dates for interlocutory matters do not constitute dates for the hearing of the suit.
Questions settled- Can a court proceed with a suit ex parte on a date fixed solely for the hearing of an interlocutory application?
- Is a date fixed for the disposal of an interlocutory matter considered a date fixed for the hearing of the suit?
- Is there a prescribed period of limitation for setting aside an ex parte order?
- Hasan Din And Another vs The State1992 PLD Supreme Court 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a murder case where the parties sought to dispose of the matter through a compromise. Initially, the court announced the acceptance of the appeal based on the compromise. However, during the preparation of the formal order, it was discovered that the interests of two minors were involved and that the compromise on one side had been executed by an agent via a power of attorney, which failed to meet the required legal standards and procedural safeguards. The matter was referred back to a chamber hearing to rectify these omissions. The legal question concerned the validity of a criminal compromise involving minors and agents where mandatory procedural safeguards were initially unfulfilled. The court held that a compromise in a murder case involving minors requires direct participation, proper safeguarding of minors' financial interests through secured bank deposits, and rectification of procedural defects. Consequently, upon fulfillment of these conditions by depositing the requisite compensation for the minors and filing proper affidavits, the compromise was accepted and the appellants were acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a criminal appeal in a murder case be disposed of on the basis of a compromise when the interests of minors are involved?
- Whether a compromise effected by an agent through a power of attorney satisfies the procedure for accepting a compromise in criminal cases?
- How should the financial interests and share of minor heirs be protected when a compromise is accepted in a murder case?
- Haq Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 556 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz Khan and others vs Rab Nawaz and others1992 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals by special leave challenge a judgment of the Lahore High Court that set aside an order of the Board of Revenue which had cancelled land allotments, sales, gifts, and Khasra Girdawari corrections made in favor of the respondents. The core legal questions involved the validity of alienations made after the issuance of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the completeness of an oral gift of land under tenancy, the legality of land exchanges under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and the scope of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with factual and legal findings of revenue tribunals. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that an owner is not divested of property rights merely upon the issuance of a section 4 notification until possession is taken under section 16, and thus alienations made prior to taking possession are valid. The Court further held that the High Court rightly interfered with the Board of Revenue's order because the tribunal's findings were based on a misreading of the record, fallacious legal reasoning, and errors of law apparent on the face of the record. The appeals were consequently dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court.
Questions settled- Does an owner of land become divested of property rights merely upon the issuance of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Whether an oral gift of land remains inchoate for want of physical delivery of possession when the land is in the cultivating possession of tenants?
- Can a Resettlement Officer specially empowered under section 17 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, legally permit the exchange of land allotments?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with findings of fact and law recorded by a special revenue tribunal?
- Haq Nawaz Khan And Other vs Rab Nawaz And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 122 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are three appeals by special leave from a judgment of the Lahore High Court that declared an order of the Board of Revenue to be without lawful authority. The core legal question involves the validity of land sales, gifts, Khasra Girdawari corrections, and land exchanges made by landowners affected by the acquisition of land for the Chashma Barrage project under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and their subsequent eligibility for alternate land allotments under government resettlement schemes. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the Board of Revenue's order, as the Board's findings were based on a misreading of the record and errors of law. Specifically, an owner is not divested of property rights merely by the issuance of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act until possession is taken under section 16, and thus alienations made prior to taking of possession are valid. The key principles laid down include that a High Court may interfere in constitutional jurisdiction when a special tribunal's decision rests on a misreading of the record or an error of law, and that land acquisition proceedings do not bar an owner from dealing with their property until actual dispossession by the State.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 divest a landowner of their right to alienate the property?
- Whether a High Court can interfere with the findings of a special tribunal in constitutional jurisdiction when the tribunal makes an error of law or misreads the record?
- Are alienations made by a landowner after a notification under section 4 but before taking of possession by the Collector rendered void?
- Whether an oral gift of land remains inchoate if physical delivery is not possible due to property being in the possession of tenants who subsequently attorn to the donee?
- Hanifa Begum and others vs Muhammad Qamaruzzaman through Legal1992 CLC 1699 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns execution proceedings where the judgment-debtors filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to stay the execution of decrees. The primary legal questions were whether the judgment-debtors could challenge the recovery of interest on the decretal amount based on the contention that interest is un-Islamic under Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the attached property could be treated as sufficient security to entertain these objections. The Court held that the applications and objections were not maintainable on the principle of res judicata, as identical objections had been previously dismissed by the Court in an order dated 6-12-1990. Furthermore, the Court found that the judgment-debtors failed to furnish adequate security for the decretal amount, rendering their objections meritless. The Court emphasized that objections under Section 47 cannot be entertained until the judgment-debtor either deposits the decretal amount or provides satisfactory security, noting that the judgment-debtors were merely attempting to protract the execution proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a judgment-debtor raise objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 that have already been dismissed in previous proceedings?
- Is a court required to entertain objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the judgment-debtor has not deposited the decretal amount or furnished security?
- Can attached property be considered sufficient security for the purpose of entertaining objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Hamid Ali And Others vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 852 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-08Read full judgment →
- Hamid Ahmad Khan vs Presiding Officer, Fourth Sindh Labour Court1992 PLC 665 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a grievance petition by the Labour Court, which upheld the termination of the appellant's temporary employment. The core legal questions were whether the termination order explicitly stated the reason for termination as required by law, and if the appellant's acceptance of full and final dues precluded him from challenging the termination. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the termination order, which merely referred to the temporary nature of employment and the 'close of work' without explicitly stating the reason for termination, violated Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Tribunal further ruled that acceptance of earned wages for past service, even if documented as a full and final settlement, does not debar a workman from challenging an unlawful termination, as an employer cannot contract out of statutory obligations. Consequently, the Labour Court's order and the termination order were set aside, and the appellant was reinstated with full back benefits.
Questions settled- Must a termination order explicitly state the reason for the action taken, or can it be inferred from other documents?
- Does Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, apply to temporary employees?
- Can an employer contract out of the requirements of Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Does the acceptance of earned wages by a workman, even if in full and final settlement, debar him from challenging the termination of his service?
- Hameer And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2030 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction of five appellants under Section 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had assembled to commit dacoity, having been apprehended by a police party after an exchange of fire. The trial court had acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 307 and 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but convicted them under Section 402. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established that the appellants had assembled for the specific purpose of committing dacoity. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the trial court had already disbelieved the testimony of the police witnesses regarding the charges under Sections 307 and 353; therefore, it was legally inconsistent to rely on the same uncorroborated testimony to sustain a conviction under Section 402. The Court laid down the principle that to establish an offence under Section 402, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assembled specifically for committing dacoity, and mere presence of five or more persons is insufficient without extraneous corroborating circumstances.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the testimony of witnesses who were disbelieved by the trial court regarding other charges arising from the same transaction?
- What are the essential ingredients required to prove an offence under Section 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the mere presence of five or more persons sufficient to establish an assembly for the purpose of committing dacoity under Section 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Hameer And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2026 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
- Hameedud-Din vs Inspector General of Police Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-18Read full judgment →
- Hakim Khan vs The State ,1992 PLD Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Hakim Khan vs Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani and 10 others1992 SCMR 1832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit for declaration filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, challenging a land sale mutation (Mutation No. 3466) on the grounds of fraud, collusion, and non-compliance with the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The trial, appellate, and revisional courts had concurrently decreed the suit, holding that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act were mandatory and their violation invalidated the mutation. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 42 of the Act, comparing it with the predecessor Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The Court held that while the procedural requirements of Section 42 are mandatory for revenue officials, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the underlying transaction. Since mutations are recorded for fiscal purposes and do not by themselves create or extinguish title, the parties must prove the transaction independently under the law of evidence. Finding that the appellant had successfully proved the sale through credible, unrebutted witness testimony, and that the courts below had misread the material evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and dismissed the suit.
Questions settled- Whether the procedural requirements for attesting a mutation under Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 are mandatory or directory, and does their non-compliance invalidate the underlying transaction?
- Can a revenue officer validly sanction a mutation on the strength of an earlier recorded admission of the vendor, even if the final attestation occurs in a different estate and in the vendor's absence?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the genuineness of a transaction embodied in a disputed mutation when the mutation has already been incorporated into the Jamabandi?
- Does a mutation by itself create or transfer title in immovable property under Pakistani land revenue law?
- Hakim Khan and 4 others vs Additional Commissioner, Peshawar1992 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging orders passed by special forums under tenancy laws. The core legal question concerned the legality of the tenants' ejectment for default in rent and the determination of compensation for improvements made to the leased property. The Supreme Court held that since the decree for arrears of rent had attained finality, the finding that the petitioners were defaulters was well-founded, and the division of compensation for improvements (trees) equally between landlords and tenants was equitable and legally sound. The Court affirmed the impugned judgment and declined leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that a concurrent finding of default which has attained finality cannot be reopened, and the equitable apportionment of natural improvements between landlords and tenants is sustainable.
Questions settled- Whether tenants found in default of rent by a final decree can resist ejectment?
- Is the equitable division of compensation for improvements between landlords and tenants sustainable in law?
- Hakim Ali vs Muhammad Salim and another1992 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh setting aside an ejectment order granted against the respondents. The core legal question is whether terms and conditions printed on the back of a rent receipt constitute a mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant regarding the time and manner of rent payment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of proper pleadings in the ejectment application specifically setting up such an agreement, and without independent evidence proving that the tenants expressly agreed to or were given reasonable notice of the printed terms, such conditions cannot form part of the tenancy agreement. Furthermore, the Court noted that under section 5 of the Ordinance, tenancy agreements must be in writing and attested in the prescribed manner. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, upholding the finding that no default in payment of rent had been established.
Questions settled- Whether terms and conditions printed on the back of a rent receipt constitute a mutual agreement between a landlord and tenant?
- Can a landlord rely on unpleaded terms of tenancy in an ejectment application?
- What is the effect of non-compliance with Section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 regarding tenancy agreements?
- Are unusual or onerous terms printed on an unsigned document binding on a tenant without explicit notice?
- Hajiani Hajrabai vs Afzal Ali And OtherK.L.R 1992 Civil Cases 555 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
- Haji Taj Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2125 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
- Haji Syed Raft Ahmed vs Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the High Court, which refused to interfere in its discretionary Constitutional writ jurisdiction with a lenient sentence awarded to the respondent upon his admission of guilt for offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction can declare a lesser sentence awarded by a criminal court as being without lawful authority, and whether a complainant can compel the High Court to exercise its suo motu criminal revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot declare a criminal sentence unlawful under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, nor can a complainant compel the exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction, which remains entirely discretionary. Furthermore, enhancing a sentence would reopen the conviction on merits under the Criminal Procedure Code 1898. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution declare a lesser sentence awarded by a criminal court to be without lawful authority?
- Can a complainant in a criminal case compel the High Court to exercise its suo motu revisional jurisdiction?
- Does an accused person become entitled to challenge their underlying conviction when called upon to show cause why their sentence should not be enhanced?
- Haji Sardar Bahadur Khan And Another vs Zia Masoom, D.I.-G. Police, Hazara Range, Abbottabad and others1992 P Cr. L J 1989 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-20Read full judgment →
- Haji Sadar Din vs Mst. Shakeela Begum1992 CLC 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Noor Muhammad vs Member Board of Revenue and others1992 CLC 1761 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
- Haji Mustaqim vs Haji Faridullah And Other1992 PLD Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Shaft and others vs Wealth Tax Officer and others1992 PTD 726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a Constitutional petition challenging the vires of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and the imposition of wealth tax alongside tax under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, on the same property. The appellants contended that Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act was beyond legislative competence under Item 50 of the Fourth Schedule read with Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution, as tax was charged on 'net wealth' (after deducting liabilities) rather than gross capital value. They further argued that levying federal wealth tax and provincial property tax constituted illegal double taxation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that allowing deductions of liabilities from the aggregate value of assets is merely a calculation mechanism and does not alter the nature of the tax on the capital value of assets under Item 50. The Court further held that federal wealth tax and provincial property tax are distinct taxes enacted by different competent legislatures, and in the absence of a constitutional prohibition, double taxation is not inherently illegal.
Questions settled- Whether the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 is ultra vires Item 50 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution because it levies tax on net wealth after deducting liabilities?
- Whether allowing deduction of debts and liabilities from the aggregate value of assets alters the nature or character of a tax on the capital value of assets?
- Whether the simultaneous imposition of federal wealth tax and provincial urban immovable property tax on the same property constitutes illegal double taxation in the absence of a constitutional bar?
- Haji Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs Hussain Nawab and others1992 CLC 1915 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the appellate judgment of the District Judge, Swabi, which upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff-petitioner's suit for declaration of title, possession, and recovery of arrears of rent regarding a disputed house. The core legal question was whether the petitioner successfully established his ownership and title to the disputed property through inheritance from the alleged original owner, and whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the foundational title of his predecessor through cogent evidence, noting that discrepancies in documentation and oral testimony rendered the claim unproven. Reaffirming the principle that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case rather than any weakness in the defendant's case, and finding no misreading of evidence or jurisdictional defect under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the court dismissed the revision petition in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff in a title suit can succeed on the basis of weaknesses in the defendant's case?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts be disturbed in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding findings of fact?
- Haji Muhammad Saleem vs Sultan Khan1992 CLC 1952 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Saifullah vs Federal Government1992 PLD Federal Shariat Court 376 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-20Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Khan and 2 others/ vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and1992 SCMR 2439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that modified a trial court decree regarding a contractor's claim for payment for work executed. The core legal question was whether the contractor was entitled to payment based on documents (Exh.P.4) signed by departmental officials, despite the department's denial of their authenticity and the absence of these entries in the official measurement book. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof shifted to the department to disprove the genuineness of the documents, as they were in the department's possession and the department had been notified of the claim well before the suit. The Court found that the signatures on the disputed documents matched admitted signatures of the departmental officials. The key principle laid down is that a contractor cannot be penalized for an engineer's failure to record measurements in the official measurement book when the contractor has been provided with a signed copy of the measurements by the responsible authority. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Can a contractor be penalized for an engineer's failure to record measurements in an official measurement book when the contractor holds a signed document verifying the work?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the department to disprove the genuineness of a document when the document is in the department's possession and bears the signatures of its officials?
- Is a court entitled to compare disputed signatures on documents with admitted signatures available in the official record to determine authenticity?
- Haji Muhammad Ismail vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 988 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of a Section 30 Magistrate, Rawalpindi, which confiscated a bus used to transport 47 kilograms of heroin. The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the bus, argued that the vehicle could not be confiscated without prior notice to him. The Federal Shariat Court examined Articles 14 and 15 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. It held that Article 14 makes any vehicle used to carry contraband liable to confiscation, and Article 15(1) empowers the trial court to order confiscation even if the accused is acquitted. The Court distinguished cases requiring notice, clarifying that under Article 15(2), notice to the owner is only mandatory when the offender is unknown or cannot be found. Since the offenders in this case were known, tried, and one had claimed ownership during the trial while the petitioner remained silent, no notice was required. The revision petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a trial court empowered to confiscate a vehicle used for transporting contraband under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 even if the accused is acquitted?
- Is prior notice to the registered owner of a vehicle mandatory before its confiscation when the actual offenders are known and tried?
- Does the delivery of a vehicle on Supurdginama constitute proof of ownership for the purpose of preventing confiscation?
- Haji Muhammad Ibrahim And 3 Other vs Mst. Surrayia UN Nisa And 9 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlords against the petitioner-tenants on June 1, 1989. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, which was upheld by the appellate authority (Additional District Judge) on July 4, 1991. The tenants preferred a second appeal to the High Court, which was dismissed as incompetent on the ground that no right of second appeal existed when the ejectment petition was filed. The Supreme Court examined Section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, as amended by Ordinance XIII of 1990, which restored the right of second appeal for non-residential buildings during the pendency of the litigation. The Court held that while a right of appeal is a substantive right, the absence of a right of appeal is not a vested right. If a right of second appeal is introduced while the litigation is still pending before a lower forum, it does not disturb any vested finality. The Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the High Court for decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Whether a right of second appeal introduced during the pendency of a litigation can be availed of by the parties if no such right existed at the time of the institution of the suit?
- Does the absence of a right of appeal at the time of the institution of a suit constitute a vested or substantive right in favor of the opposite party?
- Can a statutory amendment conferring a right of appeal apply to pending cases where no final order has yet been passed by the lower forums?
- Haji Muhammad Hanif vs The State Respondcnt1992 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition challenged an order of the trial court declaring admissible a portion of the statement of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) testifying as a court witness, wherein he stated that certain accused persons were innocent based on his investigation. The core legal question was whether an Investigating Officer's statement regarding the innocence or guilt of an accused constitutes a statement of fact or an opinion, and whether such an opinion is admissible in evidence under Articles 59 to 65 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The Lahore High Court held that an Investigating Officer is not an expert as envisaged by law, and an investigation is merely a collection of evidence rather than a science or art. Consequently, an Investigating Officer's conclusion regarding innocence or guilt is an inadmissible opinion, and drawing such inferences is exclusively a judicial function. The petition was accepted, the trial court's order was set aside, and the offending portion of the witness's statement was declared inadmissible and ordered to be removed from the record.
Questions settled- Whether a statement by an Investigating Officer that an accused is innocent or guilty constitutes a statement of fact or an opinion?
- Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
- Does an Investigating Officer qualify as an expert whose opinion is relevant under the law of evidence?
- Can a court permit an Investigating Officer to usurp the judicial function of drawing inferences from facts?
- Haji Muhammad Aslam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2187 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Ashraf vs S.H.O. and others-1992PCr.LJ 2161 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Akram vs Messrs Fauji Sugar Mills, Khoski through General Manager, District Badin1992 PLC 342 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-08-29Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Akram Through Legal Heirs And 6 Other vs Dr. Muhammad1992 PLD Supreme Court 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning a claim of adverse possession over land originally owned by the respondents. The trial court dismissed the respondents' suit for possession, but the High Court reversed the decision and decreed the suit, holding that the appellants' possession was permissive in its inception—either as tenants or under an agreement to sell—and that Article 144 of the Limitation Act applied, requiring the defendant to establish adverse possession for the statutory period of twelve years. The core legal question involved whether a plea of adverse possession can be sustained when the initial possession is permissive or claimed under a lawful title. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that if the starting point in a claim of adverse possession is relatable to a claim of lawful title or permissive possession, adverse possession can only commence from the point in time when such alternative claim is abandoned or lost. The Court reaffirmed the established principle that a party cannot simultaneously claim lawful title and adverse possession without clear demarcation of the statutory period following the failure of the title claim.
Questions settled- Whether Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act applies when the initial possession of the defendant is permissive?
- When does the period of adverse possession commence if the possessor initially claims a lawful title or permissive possession?
- Can a party successfully claim adverse possession while simultaneously maintaining a plea of purchase and lawful ownership of the land?
- Haji Liaquat Hussain vs Mst. Robina Yasmin1992 P Cr. L J 1446 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Haji Khursheed Ahmad vs Mehr Salabat Khan, Additional District1992 CLC 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Additional District Judge rejecting a maintenance appeal for failing to pay the requisite court-fee. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was exempt from paying court-fee on the memorandum of appeal regarding a maintenance decree, and whether a father's liability to maintain his children subsists while their custody remains with the mother. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was legally bound to pay court-fee under the Court Fees Act, 1870, and that the Federal Shariat Court's judgment invalidating court-fees had not yet taken effect to excuse non-payment. The Court laid down the principle that a father's liability to provide adequate maintenance to his minor children is unquestionable and subsists until the actual transfer of their custody to him, and he cannot withhold maintenance on the condition that they reside with him. Furthermore, equitable jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with an order when doing so would cause minor children to suffer neglect and starvation due to the father's obstinacy.
Questions settled- Whether a memorandum of appeal against a maintenance decree is exempt from the payment of court-fee?
- Does a father's liability to provide maintenance to his minor children subsist while their custody remains with the mother?
- Can a father withhold maintenance for his children on the condition that they reside with him?
- Whether the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court declaring court-fees un-Islamic immediately exempts litigants from paying court-fees before taking legal effect?
- Haji Khan Bhatti vs N.I.R.C. and others1992 PLC 594 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition concerns a dispute over the registration of trade union office-bearers. The petitioner, claiming to be the elected President of the Pakistan Telecommunication Lines Staff Union, challenged an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No. 2), which recalled a previous order registering the petitioner's election results. The core legal question was whether the Registrar possessed the statutory power to review or recall a registration order once it had been given effect. The Court held that the Registrar lacks the power of review, as such power is substantive and must be expressly conferred by statute. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Registrar could not invoke Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to rescind the order because the registration had already been implemented, creating vested rights. The Court established that once a registration order is passed, the exclusive remedy for an aggrieved party is to appeal to the Labour Court under Section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the Registrar's recall order was declared void ab initio.
Questions settled- Does the Registrar of Trade Unions possess the inherent power to review or recall an order passed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Can the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897 be invoked to rescind an administrative order after it has been given effect and created vested rights?
- What is the appropriate legal forum for an aggrieved party to challenge an order of the Registrar of Trade Unions regarding the registration of union office-bearers?
- Is a power of review a substantive right that requires express statutory conferment?
- Haji Khan Bhatti vs (Dr.) Munir Ahmad Mughal, Registrar And Other(K.L.R 1992 Labour & Service Cases 261) · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
- Haji Jamroz Khan vs Wazir Muhammad and 16 others1992 SCMR 2103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over rent arrears and the ejectment of a tenant from agricultural land. The central legal question was whether a second revision petition is competent before the Board of Revenue against an order passed by a Commissioner under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950. The High Court had previously held that such a second revision was not maintainable. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Board of Revenue possesses inherent revisional jurisdiction to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of orders passed by subordinate revenue courts and officers, including Commissioners, under both the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950, and the overriding provisions of Martial Law Regulation 115. Despite affirming this principle, the Court declined to remand the case to the Board of Revenue. It reasoned that the petitioner failed to show any manifest injustice or legal error in the Commissioner's assessment of compensation for improvements, and a remand would merely facilitate the prolongation of litigation to the detriment of the landlord. The Court emphasized that it is not bound to grant leave where no manifest injustice exists.
Questions settled- Is a second revision petition competent before the Board of Revenue against an order passed by a Commissioner under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950?
- Does the Board of Revenue have the power to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of orders passed by subordinate revenue officers under Martial Law Regulation 115?
- Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal in every case where a lower court has committed a jurisdictional error, even if no manifest injustice is shown?
- Haji Ismail Ibrahim vs Income Tax Officer, Circle w-II, West Zone, KarachiPTCL1992 CL. 471 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →