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.
- Bangladesh Shipping Corporation vs Syed Muhammad Anwar Iqbal1992 CLC 1500 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Banaras State Bank vs Commissioner of Income Tax1992 PTD 828 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-07-20Read full judgment →
- Bakht Jehan vs The State- -1992 P Cr. L J 644 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-12-12Read full judgment →
- Baitullah Alias Batik Alias Mastana vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1903 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-19Read full judgment →
- Bahadur Sher And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 378 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
- Bahadur Khan vs Muhammad Yousaf and another1992 SCMR 2117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit wherein an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the appellant pre-emptor on 18-7-1985 under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Subsequently, the trial court set aside the ex parte decree, and the defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Said Kamal Shah's case, which rendered the old pre-emption law unworkable. The lower courts dismissed the suit, and the High Court maintained the dismissal. The core legal question was whether an ex parte decree passed prior to 31-7-1986 protects the pre-emptor's suit under the savings provisions of the new pre-emption legislation and whether further proceedings should be governed by the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Supreme Court held that an ex parte decree is a valid decree under the law and is indistinguishable from a contested decree for the purposes of saving provisions. The Court ruled that pre-emption decrees passed before 1-8-1986 are protected, and subsequent proceedings must be governed by the old Act. The appeal was accepted and the case remanded.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte decree can be equated with a contested decree for the purposes of protection under the saving provisions of pre-emption laws?
- Are pre-emption suits in which decrees were passed prior to August 1, 1986, governed by the repealed Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Does the repeal of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, affect further proceedings arising from cases where a decree was passed before 1-8-1986?
- Bagh ALIPctitioner vs P.O. Sindh and others1992 CLC 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenges the appellate judgment of the District Court, Khairpur, which dismissed the applicant's appeal against a trial court decree regarding a property dispute. The applicant sought to declare an order dated 24-10-1973 by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner as illegal and void. The core legal question was whether the First Appellate Court erred in its disposal of the appeal by failing to properly discuss evidence, specifically regarding the non-production of the original or certified copy of the impugned order, and by failing to provide reasoned findings on key issues after reversing the trial court's conclusions. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court failed to fulfill its duty to critically examine the evidence and provide a reasoned judgment, rendering its decision unsustainable. The Court reaffirmed that an appellate court must discuss the evidence on each issue and provide clear reasoning for its conclusions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have a duty to discuss evidence on each issue and provide reasons for its findings?
- Can an appellate court set aside trial court findings on specific issues without providing reasoning or discussing the evidence?
- Can a document that was not properly produced in evidence but is available on the record be considered by the court?
- Badruddin vs Messrs Abasin International Garment Factory,District1992 PLC 1095 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Badar-Ul-Islam vs District Judge, Rawalpindi And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 329 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-07Read full judgment →
- Babulal Narottamdas and Others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 403 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-12-14Read full judgment →
- Babu And Another vs Jalal Din And Another1992 PLD Supreme Court 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision dismissal concerning a pre-emption dispute. The petitioner, a vendee, challenged the lower courts' findings, arguing that the suit land was exempt from pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, read with a 1944 notification, because the Colonisation of Government Lands Act 1912 applied to the area. The core legal question was whether the statutory exemption from pre-emption for government-related lands extended to the suit land at the time of sale. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings that the land in question was privately owned at the time of sale, not government property. The Court held that the exemption from pre-emption is inapplicable to land that is privately owned. Furthermore, the Court clarified that previous conflicting interpretations were resolved by the binding precedent in Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Nathe Khan, which established that the crucial test for exemption is whether the land was owned by the government at the time of sale. The Court emphasized that the exemption does not apply to private land.
Questions settled- Is land that is privately owned at the time of sale exempt from the law of pre-emption?
- Does the exemption from pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 apply to land governed by the Colonisation of Government Lands Act 1912 if the land is privately owned?
- What is the crucial test for determining whether land is exempt from pre-emption?
- Babau Rahim Bux vs Walt Mohammad and another1992 CLC 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenges an appellate court judgment that set aside a trial court's order rejecting a plaint in a suit for permanent injunction. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failing to disclose a cause of action. The respondent had filed a suit claiming possession of property based on a sale agreement, despite the property being in an unauthorized area. The High Court held that the appellate court's decision to set aside the rejection of the plaint was correct. The Court reaffirmed the principle that for a plaint to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, the bar must be apparent from the averments made within the plaint itself, not from the defendant's written statement or counter-affidavit. The Court concluded that the allegations in the plaint were sufficient to disclose a cause of action, leaving the petitioner to raise their defense during the trial. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the suit's disposal.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on the averments made in a written statement?
- Is a plaint liable to be rejected if the allegations contained therein, when accepted as true, disclose a cause of action?
- What is the proper scope of judicial scrutiny when determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action?
- B.P. Industries (Private) Limited Employees' Union, Karachi vs Registrar1992 PLC 662 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-09Read full judgment →
- B.D. Panda vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (and vice versa)1992 PTD 792 · Orissa High Court · 1991-07-23Read full judgment →
- Azmatullah vs CH. Abdul Haq And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 580 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
- Azizur Rahman vs Pakistan Steel, Karachi1992 PLC 602 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
- Aziz Hussain vs Ghulam Haider and 2 others1992 CLC 1502 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
- Aziz Hussain and 2 others vs Rashid Ahmad and 3 others1992 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a pre-emption suit regarding land allotted under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The core legal question is whether the transfer of tenancy rights in such land constitutes a sale of "agricultural land" or "village immovable property" subject to pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Supreme Court held that tenancy rights, where proprietary rights have not been fully acquired, do not constitute "agricultural land" or "village immovable property" and are not subject to pre-emption. However, the Court distinguished cases where the full price had been paid, holding that such payment effectively transfers proprietary rights, rendering that specific land "agricultural land" subject to pre-emption. The Court established that tenancy rights are distinct from ownership rights and that the definition of "land" under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, does not encompass tenancy rights by legal fiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the trial court's decree only regarding the land for which full payment had been made.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of tenancy rights in land allotted under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme constitute a sale of agricultural land subject to pre-emption?
- Can land where the full price has been paid by an allottee be considered agricultural land for the purposes of pre-emption even if a formal sale deed has not been executed?
- Do tenancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 fall within the definition of village immovable property under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Does the definition of land in the Punjab Alienation of Land Act 1900 include tenancy rights by legal fiction?
- Aziz Hussain And 2 Other vs Rashid Ahmad And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 137 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a pre-emption suit over agricultural land measuring 688 Kanals in Sahiwal, originally allotted under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme governed by the Capital Development Authority Ordinance 1960 and the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912. The core legal questions involve whether tenancy rights under a colony scheme constitute "agricultural land" or "village immovable property" under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, and whether land for which full price has been paid but conveyance deeds not executed is pre-emptible. The Supreme Court held that ordinary tenancy rights under the Colonization Act where proprietary rights have not been acquired do not amount to sales of agricultural land or village immovable property under the Pre-emption Act, whereas lots for which full price had been paid effectively passed proprietary rights and were pre-emptible. The appeal was partly accepted, restricting the pre-emption decree to the 200 Kanals where full price had been paid upon proportional payment by the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether tenancy rights in state land held under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 constitute agricultural land subject to pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Does the payment of full price for colony land confer proprietary rights sufficient to render the land pre-emptible even if a formal conveyance deed or sale-deed has not been executed?
- Whether tenancy rights under a government colonization scheme fall within the definition of village immovable property under section 3(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Does a right to receive rent incidental to a tenancy transfer render the transfer of tenancy rights a sale of land by legal fiction under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act 1900?
- Aziz Ahmad Etc. vs Mst. Sughran Bibi Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 62 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
- Aziz Ahmad and others vs Mst. Sughran Bibi and others1992 CLC 573 · Board of Revenue · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
- Azhar Iqbal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1734 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
- Azhar Hussain And Others vs Government of Punjab And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2308 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) to try the petitioners in a murder case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions concerned whether the Special Court had exclusive jurisdiction when offences under the Pakistan Penal Code were committed in combination with offences involving automatic weapons under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, and whether jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the First Information Report regardless of subsequent recovery of weapons or claims of mala fides. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the jurisdiction of the Special Court is to be determined on the basis of the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather than the ultimate recovery of the weapon. The court laid down the principle that the truthfulness of allegations regarding the use of automatic weapons like a Kalashnikov cannot oust the Special Court's threshold jurisdiction and must be determined during the trial after recording evidence, and that the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) (Amendment) Act, 1990 validly applies retrospectively.
Questions settled- How is the jurisdiction of a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 to be determined?
- Does the non-recovery of an alleged automatic weapon such as a Kalashnikov oust the jurisdiction of the Special Court?
- Whether the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) (Amendment) Act, 1990 has retrospective effect?
- Can the truthfulness of allegations regarding the use of automatic weapons be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage to determine court jurisdiction?
- Azad Kashmir Transporters Mutual Assistance Cooperative Society, Muzaffarabad vs Azad Govt. of the State of J&K, Muzaffarabad through Chief Secretary and 15 others1992 CLC 1851 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
- Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief1992 SCMR 431 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-12-14Read full judgment →
- Ayub Hassan vs Government of the Punjab1992 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from the retirement of the appellant, an Additional Sessions Judge, from service after completing 25 years of qualifying service for pension. The appellant challenged his retirement, arguing that at the material time he had only 15 years of service under the Provincial Government, and that his previous service under the Central Government could not be legally tagged with his provincial service to compute the 25-year requirement, relying on precedent. The core legal question was whether service rendered under the Central Government could be combined with provincial service by the Provincial Government for computing qualifying service for retirement under the applicable rules. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the retirement order, holding that service under the Central Government could not be tagged with service under the Provincial Government based on established precedent. The key principle laid down is that inter-governmental service cannot be combined for computing qualifying service for retirement unless permitted by the relevant rules as interpreted by the court.
Questions settled- Whether service under the Central Government can be tagged with service under the Provincial Government for computing qualifying service for retirement?
- Can a provincial employee be retired on completion of 25 years of service by combining central and provincial tenures if not permitted under the rules?
- Awami Autos vs Syed Ward Ali and others1992 CLC 748 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was directed against the trial court's order dismissing an application under Order IX, rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside ex parte proceedings in a declaration suit. The core legal question was whether substituted service by publication could legally be resorted to when prior service through usual modes, such as pasting, was not deemed effective or complete, and when mandatory statutory prerequisites for substituted service were unfulfilled. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted with material irregularity and without jurisdiction in ordering substituted service and proceeding ex parte, noting that proper addresses were not provided, postal service was not pursued, and pasting was rejected by the plaintiff's own counsel. The Court established that substituted service cannot be validly ordered unless the foundational requirements for ordinary service are properly attempted and exhausted, and that a trial court must evaluate all relevant documentary evidence before drawing conclusions regarding a party's corporate identity and locus standi.
Questions settled- Can substituted service by publication be legally ordered when ordinary service through usual modes has not been properly exhausted or deemed effective?
- Whether a trial court can dismiss an application to set aside ex parte proceedings without examining the documentary evidence annexed to establish corporate identity and locus standi?
- Does the failure to provide a specific and complete address of a defendant in the plaint vitiate subsequent attempts at service of summons?
- Awal Noor vs District Judge, Karak and 8 others1992 SCMR 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a pre-emption matter under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The appellant filed a pre-emption suit where the trial court initially ordered a deposit of a probable value amount within thirty days, which the appellant complied with. Subsequently, upon the respondents' appearance asserting a higher sale consideration, the trial court ordered an additional deposit and bank guarantee beyond the thirty-day period from the filing of the suit. This second direction was unsuccessfully challenged in revision and writ petition. The core legal question examined was whether the trial court could order an additional deposit or extend the deposit period beyond thirty days of filing the suit under section 24 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the first proviso to section 24 positively bars the extension of time beyond thirty days of filing the suit, and such period cannot be extended either at the behest of the plaintiff or suo motu by the court. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and the unlawful second deposit order, directing the trial court to proceed with the suit.
Questions settled- Can a trial court order an additional deposit of pre-emption amount beyond thirty days of the filing of the suit under section 24 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987?
- Does section 24 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 permit a court to extend the time for depositing the pre-emption price suo motu beyond the thirty-day limit?
- How is the pre-determined probable value of property ascertained under section 24 when no sale price is mentioned in a sale-deed or mutation?
- Awal Noor vs District Judge, Karak And 8 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 134 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a pre-emption suit filed under the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The appellant initially deposited the probable value of the property as directed by the trial court. Subsequently, the trial court ordered the appellant to deposit an additional amount and furnish a bank guarantee based on the defendants' claim of a higher sale price. This second order was issued after the thirty-day period prescribed by Section 24 of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The core legal question was whether a trial court has the authority to order a further deposit of pre-emption money beyond the thirty-day limit from the filing of the suit. The Supreme Court held that the statute imposes a strict time limit, and the court cannot extend this period, either at the plaintiff's request or suo motu. The Court ruled that the trial court's second order for additional deposit was unlawful as it exceeded the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit on its merits.
Questions settled- Can a court order a plaintiff to deposit additional pre-emption money beyond thirty days from the filing of the suit?
- Does the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 allow a court to extend the time for deposit of pre-emption money suo motu?
- Is the determination of the probable value of property under the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 subject to revision after the initial thirty-day period?
- Aurangzeb and another vs Jalal Din and another1992 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 11 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
- Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs Income-Tax Officer, Ludhiana1992 PTD 265 · Supreme Court of India · 1991-08-07Read full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad vs Sahibzada Manzoor Ahmad and others1992 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a declaratory suit concerning "Shamilat Deh" in village Toot, District Attock, where the parties are co-sharers. The plaintiff-respondent sought a declaration regarding his possession of specific joint land and challenged a revenue mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant-appellant. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court decreed it, declaring the mutation illegal for want of opportunity of being heard and lack of inquiry, which findings were affirmed by the High Court in revision. The core legal question concerned the extent to which a co-sharer can retain possession of joint or Shamilat land beyond their actual share. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of a statement made by the appellant's counsel, holding that a co-sharer cannot retain possession under the garb of "hissadari" beyond their share in the joint khata or Shamilat Deh. The Court laid down the principle that co-sharers are restricted to possessing land strictly in accordance with their proprietary shares, and directed the Collector to remove encroachments on excess areas if parties fail to surrender them voluntarily.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer retain possession of joint khata or Shamilat Deh beyond their actual share?
- Is a revenue mutation sanctioning possession sustainable if attested without affording an opportunity of hearing to the contesting party?
- Can the Collector act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 190 of the Constitution to remove encroachments over excess area held by co-sharers?
- Atta Muhammad and others vs Atta Muhammad Khan, and others1992 CLC 900 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
- Assistant Director, Intelligence and Investigation, Karachi vs M/s B.R.1992 PLD Supreme Court 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arose from judgments of the High Court of Sindh, which had allowed Constitution petitions filed by the respondents and quashed notices issued by the Assistant Director, Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs & Excise). The notices had requisitioned bills of entry and purchase vouchers under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding raw materials for exported goods on which rebate was previously claimed and settled. The core legal issues were whether an authority could reopen issues settled by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) and whether Section 26 empowers authorities to issue general notices requesting documents without specifying allegations. The Supreme Court held that while CBR directions do not bind quasi-judicial discretion and the inquiry differed from the CBR's SRO interpretation, Section 26 does not permit indiscriminate, roving, or fishing inquiries. The Court laid down that a notice under Section 26 must disclose the specific purpose, facts, or allegations for requiring information; failing to do so violates natural justice and renders the notice illegal and without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969 empower custom authorities to conduct a roving or fishing inquiry without alleging specific illegalities?
- Must a notice issued under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969 disclose the specific facts, allegations, or purposes for requisitioning information?
- Is a notice requisitioning information under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969 void for violating natural justice if it lacks particulars?
- Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs and 2 others. vs Orient Straw Board and papr Mills LtdPTCL 1992 CL. 38 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent regarding the illegal recovery of excise duty. The respondent produced strawboard at Kotri, cleared it after paying excise duty, and brought it to Karachi where it underwent manual pasting and cutting processes. The tax authorities levied excise duty a second time, treating these processes as 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal question was whether the processes of pasting and cutting strawboard to size constitute 'manufacture' under the Act, warranting a second levy of excise duty. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the processes carried out at Karachi neither changed the nature, character, nor nomenclature of the goods, nor were they incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. The key principle laid down is that for a process to amount to 'manufacture' under an inclusive statutory definition, it must be necessary or subsidiary for completing the manufactured goods and making them a finished product in quality or utility, rather than merely performing simple manual work on goods that remain identical in essence.
Questions settled- Whether the process of pasting and cutting strawboard amounts to 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Does a process that does not change the character, utility, or nomenclature of goods fall within the definition of manufacture?
- Whether excise duty can be levied a second time on goods that have already suffered duty upon clearance from the manufacturing plant?
- Assessee. vs Department.PTCL 1992 CL. 264 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs DepartmentPTCL 1991- CL. 61 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →
- Assessee Department vs Department AssesseePTCL 1991 CL.147 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-07-21Read full judgment →
- Aslam Pervaiz And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Asim Siddique vs Principal, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad And Another1992 PLD Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an ex-student of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, challenging the Principal's letter striking off his name from the college rolls. The core legal question was whether a medical student's name could be struck off for failing to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination within four chances under Pakistan Medical and Dental Council regulations when the absence and failure to sit exams were due to prolonged illness (G.B. Syndrome) for which official medical leave was granted and fresh admissions were regularly accorded under college rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the regulation requiring four chances does not apply rigidly when non-appearance is due to circumstances entirely beyond a student's control, such as certified medical grounds, especially where rule 14 of the college prospectus explicitly permits re-admission on medical grounds for continuous absences exceeding two years. The petition was allowed, declaring the impugned notification void and without legal effect, thereby permitting the petitioner to continue his studies.
Questions settled- Whether a medical student's name can be struck off for exhausting four chances to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination when the failure is due to prolonged illness beyond the student's control?
- Does rule 14 of the Ayub Medical College prospectus protect a student from disqualification if studies are discontinued on medical grounds?
- Can college authorities strike off a student's name after granting official medical leave and accepting fresh admissions and college dues for successive sessions?
- Asif Ali Zardari vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 540 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
- Asif Ali Zardari vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 58 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings against the applicant, Asif Ali Zardari. The applicant was charged with abetment under Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding alleged offences under Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, involving the improper sanctioning of bank loans. The core legal question was whether the mere exertion of political pressure, without evidence of conspiracy, instigation, or intentional aiding, constitutes the offence of abetment, and whether the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to quash proceedings. The Court held that the charge was groundless, as the definition of abetment requires mens rea, which was not established by the allegations. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings, ruling that continuing the trial would constitute an abuse of process. The judgment affirms that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is broad and not strictly contingent upon prior exhaustion of trial court remedies.
Questions settled- Does the mere exertion of political pressure by a third party on a bank official to grant a loan constitute the offence of abetment under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, contingent upon the accused first exhausting remedies under Section 249-A or Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the definition of abetment under Section 107, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, require the presence of mens rea?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the charge is found to be groundless and there is no likelihood of conviction?
- Asif Ali Zardari vs Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorist1992 PLD KARACHI 430 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the refusal of jail authorities to facilitate the petitioner, a Member of the National Assembly (MNA) in judicial custody, to attend Assembly sessions. The core legal question was whether an MNA in custody possesses a constitutional or legal privilege to attend legislative sessions. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no such privilege exists under the Constitution or prevailing law. The Court analyzed Article 66 of the Constitution, determining that legislative privileges are limited to freedom of speech and voting within the House, and do not extend to an absolute right to be released from judicial custody for attendance. Furthermore, the Court noted that prior statutory exemptions regarding preventive detention had been declared repugnant to Islamic Injunctions by the Supreme Court. The ratio decidendi established that while the government may exercise discretion to facilitate an MNA's attendance, it is under no legal compulsion to do so, and members in custody remain subject to the ordinary processes of the criminal justice system.
Questions settled- Does a Member of the National Assembly have a constitutional right to attend Assembly sessions while in judicial custody?
- Does Article 66 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 grant an MNA immunity from detention for the purpose of attending legislative sessions?
- Does Section 135-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide an exemption for MNAs from detention while in custody for criminal cases?
- Is the government legally compelled to facilitate an under-trial prisoner's attendance at National Assembly sessions?
- Asif Ali Zardari vs Special Judge (Offences in Banks) And 10 Other1992 PLD Karachi 437 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged notifications issued by the Federal Government specifying the Juvenile Jail, Landhi, Karachi, as the place of sitting for Special Courts to try the petitioner in specific criminal cases. The core legal questions involved whether the relevant statutory provisions empower the Government to fix the venue for individual specific cases rather than general territorial sittings, and whether the Executive or the trial Court possesses the authority to direct a trial inside a jail. The Sindh High Court held that the enabling provisions contemplate fixing a place of sitting for Special Courts for all cases generally and reject fixing venues for particular cases. Furthermore, the court held that the decision to hold a trial in jail rests with the trial Court under section 352, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the Government lacks legal authority to issue such directions. The petition was allowed and the impugned notifications were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Government is empowered under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 and the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 to fix the venue of trial for individual particular cases or groups of cases?
- Does the Executive government have the legal competence to direct that the trial of an accused person be conducted within the precincts of a jail?
- Is the authority to decide on holding a trial in jail vested in the trial Court under section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Whether notifications issued by the Federal Government directing trials inside a jail without statutory backing are contrary to law and without legal effect?
- Asif Ali Zardari And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 171 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-12Read full judgment →
- Asif Ali Khan and others vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab1992 SCMR 1398 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a seniority dispute between departmental promotees (appellants) and direct recruits (respondents) in the Communication and Works Department of the Government of the Punjab. The appellants, initially appointed as Sub-Engineers/Overseers, were promoted to Assistant Engineers on an ad hoc basis against posts reserved for direct recruits. They were later regularized in these positions in relaxation of recruitment rules. The respondents, who held B.Sc. (Civil Engineering) degrees, were appointed as direct recruits through the Public Service Commission. The Punjab Service Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that the appellants' ad hoc service against posts meant for direct recruits could not count towards seniority over the respondents. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that the Tribunal's determination was based on factual findings regarding the nature of the vacancies and the appellants' ad hoc status. The Court concluded that the subsequent regularization of the appellants could not adversely affect the seniority of the direct recruits already in service, and found no substantial question of law of public importance to warrant interference.
Questions settled- Can ad hoc service against posts reserved for direct recruits be counted towards seniority against those direct recruits?
- Does the regularization of an ad hoc employee retrospectively affect the seniority of direct recruits already appointed to the service?
- Is a finding of fact by a Service Tribunal regarding the nature of recruitment vacancies subject to interference by the Supreme Court under Article 212(3)?
- Ashraf And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1468 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Ashique Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1998 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
- Ashique Hussain Chandio vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 5 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against a conviction and sentence under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The appellant was convicted by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) for possessing an unlicensed Klashnikov and bullets. The core legal questions revolved around the admissibility of the appellant's alleged confessional statement made to the police, compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding independent recovery witnesses (Mashers), and material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' statements. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant's statement was inadmissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat (P.O. 10 of 1984) because he was neither an accused person nor in police custody when it was made. The Court further found non-compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. as the Mashers were subordinate police officials and no independent witnesses from the locality were procured, rendering the recovery doubtful. Citing material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and acknowledging the reasonable possibility of the defense version (that the appellant was arrested en route to an examination and weapons were foisted), the Court granted the benefit of doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Is a statement made to a police officer by a person not yet accused of an offence or in police custody admissible in evidence?
- Does Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat (P.O. 10 of 1984) apply to statements made by a person who is not an accused or in police custody?
- Are the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring independent recovery witnesses, applicable to all police recoveries, not just those under Chapter VII of the Cr.P.C.?
- Can a conviction be sustained if there are material contradictions between the statements of the complainant and the recovery witness?
- When is an accused person entitled to the benefit of doubt in a criminal case?
- Ashique Hussain Chandio vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 251 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain vs Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore1992 P Cr. L J 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-04Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain Alias Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
- Ashio Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2513 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-14Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Zai and others s vs M. Abdul Quddus Bihari and others1992 SCMR 1109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over a plot of land where the plaintiffs sought possession and mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs entered into a compromise agreement with one of the defendants (defendant No. 2) under Order 23, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, leading to a consent decree. This decree was obtained without notice to the primary contesting defendant (respondent No. 1), who claimed the plaintiffs lacked title and that other defendants were in possession through him. The High Court recalled the compromise order, mandating that the application be reconsidered after notice to the affected party. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, reasoning that because the compromise application purported to establish the plaintiffs' absolute ownership and sought possession of the entire plot—claims directly contested by respondent No. 1—the consent decree could not be passed behind his back. The Court affirmed that principles of natural justice and fair procedure require notice to all affected parties in such circumstances, dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a compromise decree be passed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without notice to a contesting defendant whose rights are affected?
- Is a defendant entitled to notice of a compromise application if the relief sought therein impacts the entire subject matter of the suit?
- Ashfaq Hussain Etc. vs CH. Abdul Ghani Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 60 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1992-06-06Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ahmad vs Inspector General of Police, NWFP, Peshawar And Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 93) · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ahmad and others vs State1992 CLC 2014 · Board of Revenue · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- Ash Raf Bibi and others vs Lahore Municipal Corporation and others1992 CLC 2350 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
- Asghar Bi and 3 others vs Settlement Officer, Kotli and 2 others1992 PLD Azad J & K 29 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-05-21Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2083 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, charged with murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was found to be of unsound mind and incapable of defending himself. Consequently, the Sessions Court suspended proceedings under Section 464(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted bail under Section 466, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, subject to a surety of Rs. 100,000. The applicant sought a reduction of this surety amount, arguing it was excessive. The High Court examined the nature of a bond under Section 466, which imposes onerous obligations on the surety, including the duty to properly care for the accused and prevent him from inflicting injury upon himself or others. Given these significant responsibilities and the gravity of the underlying offense, the Court held that the security amount was reasonable and refused to reduce it. Additionally, the Court clarified that a surety residing in a different province is acceptable, provided they are solvent, citing relevant judicial circulars. The application for reduction of the surety amount was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- What are the specific obligations of a surety when an accused is released due to unsound mind under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court refuse to reduce a surety amount for an accused of unsound mind if the bond requires the surety to prevent the accused from harming themselves or others?
- Is a surety residing in a different province acceptable for an accused person appearing before a court?
- Asghar Ali vs P.K. Shahaii and 2 others1992 CLC 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit involved a tenant seeking a declaration, mandatory injunction for reinstatement in a reconstructed building, and monetary compensation following eviction for reconstruction purposes. The core legal questions were whether the civil court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether the compensation claim was maintainable given prior litigation. The Court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 and the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Rent Controller regarding eviction and restoration of possession, thereby impliedly barring civil suits. Additionally, the court ruled the compensation claim barred under Order II, Rule 2(3), Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the plaintiff failed to include it in a previous suit. The judgment established that special statutes create exclusive forums for specific disputes, ousting civil court jurisdiction, and affirmed that a corporate entity’s legal obligations persist despite changes in shareholding or company name, as the entity remains the same legal person.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding the restoration of possession of premises where specialized rent control legislation provides an exclusive remedy?
- Can a plaint be rejected by a court suo motu under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a change in shareholding or company name affect the legal liability of a corporate entity for obligations incurred by its predecessor?
- Is a claim for compensation barred in a subsequent suit if it was omitted from a previous suit without the court's leave under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Asghar Ali and others vs Abdul Ghaffar Abdul Rehman and others1992 SCMR 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several consolidated appeals regarding the eviction of tenants from commercial premises by landlords seeking to demolish and reconstruct the buildings for residential purposes. The core legal question is whether the landlord's right to evict a tenant for reconstruction under Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is subject to the tenant's right to re-induction in the new building under Section 13(5-B), particularly when the reconstruction involves converting commercial property into residential use. The Court held that the provisions of Section 13(2)(vi) are not subservient to or controlled by Section 13(5-B). The Rent Controller must determine the reasonableness and good faith of the reconstruction independently. The Court established that Section 13(5-B) only applies where the new building retains the character of the old one; it does not prohibit a landlord from converting commercial premises into residential ones. Consequently, a landlord’s right to develop property is not subject to a tenant's veto, and the two statutory provisions operate at different stages of the eviction process.
Questions settled- Is the landlord's right to evict a tenant for reconstruction under Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 subject to the tenant's right of re-induction under Section 13(5-B)?
- Does the conversion of a commercial building into a residential building during reconstruction invalidate a landlord's claim of bona fide requirement?
- Can a landlord be prevented from reconstructing a commercial building into a residential one solely because it precludes a tenant from exercising the option of re-induction?
- Asghar Ali And 4 Others vs The Stat E1992 P Cr. L J 472 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-01Read full judgment →
- Asad Ali Bilgrami vs State Bank of Pakistan through Governor, State1992 CLC 1126 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
- Arshad Zubair vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
- Arshad Mahmood and 8 others vs Punjab Local Councils Election1992 CLC 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-02Read full judgment →
- Arshad Butt vs Manzoor Ahmad1992 CLC 723 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The respondent, a retired government servant residing in Islamabad, sought the appellant's eviction on the ground of personal requirement. The appellant challenged the eviction, alleging a lack of genuine personal need, failure to serve the mandatory statutory notice, and that the respondent had sold or intended to sell the property. The High Court observed that while Section 14 does not prescribe a specific limitation period, an unexplained delay of nearly three years after retirement militates against the genuineness of the landlord's personal need. Furthermore, the respondent failed to enter the witness box to assert his personal need on oath, and the testimony of his attorney, who lacked basic knowledge of the respondent's family and affairs, was insufficient. The Court also found that the service of the statutory notice was not proved. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the eviction order.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in filing an eviction application under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 affect the genuineness of the landlord's personal need?
- Can a landlord's personal requirement under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 be proved solely through the testimony of an attorney who is ignorant of the landlord's basic personal facts?
- Is the service of a prior written notice under Section 14(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining an eviction application?
- Arsala vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 2219 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-09Read full judgment →
- Arif Rafiq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 679 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
- Arif Etc. vs Lala Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 58 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-03-20Read full judgment →
- Arid Rashid vs S.H.O., Police Station City Pakpattan and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-07Read full judgment →
- Arabistan and others vs The State1992 SCMR 754 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged convictions for dacoity and kidnapping for ransom under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants contested the trial court's procedure of recording evidence in shorthand and the reliance on retracted judicial confessions. The Supreme Court held that while the shorthand recording was irregular, it did not vitiate the proceedings absent proof of prejudice. Regarding the merits, the Court affirmed that retracted judicial confessions, if voluntary and materially corroborated by independent evidence, are sufficient for conviction. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions of four appellants but acquitted two others due to lack of corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the trial court erred by considering pending cases against the accused when determining the quantum of sentence. Accordingly, the death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment, while the convictions for dacoity and kidnapping were maintained. The judgment establishes that sentencing must be based on the specific case facts rather than extraneous pending allegations, and that procedural deviations not causing prejudice do not necessitate a retrial.
Questions settled- Can a trial court rely on retracted judicial confessions to convict an accused?
- Does the recording of evidence in shorthand by a stenographer, contrary to statutory requirements, necessarily vitiate a criminal trial?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to consider pending criminal cases against an accused when determining the quantum of sentence?
- Can an appellate court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment if the trial court improperly considered extraneous factors during sentencing?
- Aqeel Armed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 42 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-15Read full judgment →
- Applicant: Income Tax Central Zone ''B'', Karachi. vs Respondent:M/s.PTCL 1992 CL. 233 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Applicants: Bhagwandas Mangharam vs Respondent: Commissioner ofPTCL 1992 CL. 356 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Appellants_Mian Nazir Sons Industries Ltd. and another. J.R.S. Industries Ltd. and another vs Respondents_Govemment of Pakistan and others. Government of Pakistan and others_PTCL 1992 CL. 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals challenged the rescission of a notification issued under Section 21 of the Customs Act, 1969, which had allowed the delivery of imported polypropylene granules at a concessional rate of customs duty. The appellants argued that because they had established irrevocable Letters of Credit and entered into contracts based on the initial notification, the subsequent rescission could not retroactively impose higher duties. The core legal question was whether the benefit provided under Section 21(b) constituted a 'concession' within the meaning of Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, thereby rendering the appellants liable for the enhanced duty despite their prior commitments. The Supreme Court held that the benefit under Section 21(b) is a concession rather than an exemption, and that Section 31-A explicitly mandates that duty becomes payable upon the withdrawal of such concessions, even after the conclusion of a contract or the opening of a Letter of Credit. The Court affirmed that no vested right exists to prevent the government from rescinding such orders, dismissing the appeals.
Questions settled- Does the benefit provided under Section 21(b) of the Customs Act, 1969, constitute a concession or an exemption?
- Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against the legislature or laws framed by it?
- Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, validate the collection of duty following the withdrawal of a concession, even if the withdrawal occurs after the opening of a Letter of Credit?
- App Union of Journalists and 2 others vs Registrar, Industrywise1992 PLC 493 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1989-01-04Read full judgment →
- Anwarulhaq vs The Director, Commercial Audit and others1992 SCMR 939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Services Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his reversion from Apprentice Accountant to Senior Auditor following his failure to pass the required departmental promotion examinations within the permitted chances. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's regularisation and promotion could be granted retrospectively from the date of his initial appointment as a trainee despite failing the prescribed examinations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that having failed the apprentice examinations and accepted the lower post pursuant to the terms of his appointment letter, the petitioner could not claim regularisation with retrospective effect from his initial trainee appointment. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that terms of appointment and failure to qualify examinations govern service status.
Questions settled- Can an employee claim regularisation from the initial date of appointment as a trainee after failing the requisite departmental promotion examinations?
- Does failure to qualify for promotion examinations within the allowed chances justify reversion to a lower post in accordance with the terms of appointment?
- Whether the Federal Services Tribunal's order upholding a service reversion is liable to interference when the employee accepted the terms of the appointment letter.
- Anwarul Hasan Khan vs Chief Secretary And Etc(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 224)) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1992-03-02Read full judgment →
- Anwar Hussain vs The Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan1992 SCMR 1112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a former employee of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, challenged the High Court’s decision setting aside a decree that had reinstated him after his resignation was accepted. The core legal question was whether the relationship between the Bank and the appellant was governed by the principle of "master and servant," thereby barring a suit for declaration and injunction. The Supreme Court held that the suit was not maintainable. Although the Bank’s regulations were statutory, the specific administrative instructions regarding the withdrawal of resignations were internal and did not create a statutory right or fetter the Bank’s discretion. The Court affirmed that the master-servant rule applies unless statutory provisions explicitly restrict the employer's power. Since the appellant failed to demonstrate a violation of any statutory regulation or prove mala fides, the Bank’s refusal to allow the withdrawal of the resignation and the subsequent termination of service remained within its discretionary authority. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellant’s only potential remedy would have been a suit for damages, not reinstatement.
Questions settled- Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan?
- Can an employee maintain a suit for declaration and injunction for reinstatement if no statutory regulation has been violated?
- Do internal administrative instructions, such as those in a Bank's Manual of Instructions, constitute statutory regulations that fetter the master-servant relationship?
- Does the amendment to Section 39 of the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance (IV of 1961) by the 1973 Act have retrospective effect on existing regulations?
- Anwar Club And Another vs Muhammad Sarwar1992 PLD Lahore 63 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises out of a land dispute where concurrent judgments and decrees were passed by the lower courts against the petitioners. The core legal question is whether a Naib-Kanungo or subordinate revenue staff is competent to conduct land demarcation under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, and whether such a report constitutes legal evidence. The Lahore High Court held that only a designated Revenue Officer is empowered to define limits and carry out demarcation under personal supervision, and a Naib-Kanungo lacks such competence; consequently, reliance on an illegal demarcation report constitutes a material irregularity. The Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts, accepted the revision, and remanded the suit to the trial court for a fresh decision after appointing a Tehsildar as a Local Commissioner to conduct proper demarcation in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Is a Naib-Kanungo competent to undertake land demarcation under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Whether a demarcation report prepared by a subordinate official who is not a Revenue Officer constitutes legal evidence?
- Does rule 67-A of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968 require a Revenue Officer to conduct land measurements under personal supervision?
- Anwar Bibi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 542 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ali Shah . vs Presiding Officer, VII Sindh Labour Court, Sukkur1992 PLC 1256 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ayub vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 357 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The accused-petitioner, whose bail in a murder case was recalled by the High Court, filed an application alleging that he had been in illegal detention since the cancellation of his bail because no judicial remand had been obtained under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether the detention of an accused without a valid, written remand order from a competent court is legal, and whether a subsequent remand order can cure prior illegal confinement. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner's detention in jail without a remand order under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was entirely illegal, and that a subsequent remand order cannot cure the damage already done by past unlawful confinement. The court laid down the principle that the absence of a proper, written remand order by a competent court renders an accused person's detention illegal, and subsequent procurement of a remand does not legalize the prior period of illegal detention.
Questions settled- Is the detention of an accused person legal when no judicial remand has been obtained under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can a subsequent judicial remand order cure the illegality of a prior period of unlawful detention?
- Does the absence of a proper remand order by a competent court entitle an accused person to be released on bail?
- Anwar Ali Shah vs The State1992 SCMR 1224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals arose from a judgment of the High Court, which had partly accepted the appellant's appeal by altering his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to one under Section 304, Part I, reducing his sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The core legal questions involved whether the accused acted in the complete right of private defence, whether the incident constituted a sudden fight attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and whether the sentence warranted enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances did not support a complete right of private defence, but that the High Court correctly applied Exception 4 to Section 300 regarding a sudden fight, rendering the conviction under Section 304, Part I unexceptionable. The Court laid down the principle that under Exception 4 to Section 300, when a sudden fight occurs, the question of which party provoked or committed the first act of aggression becomes immaterial, and further enhanced the sentence of fine to compensate the heirs of the deceased.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of complete right of private defence is available when the evidence negates throttling and shows a sudden grappling posture?
- Does a sudden fight resulting from immediate provocation qualify for the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Is the question of initial provocation immaterial when all conditions of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code are satisfied?
- Can the sentence of fine be enhanced to provide compensation to the heirs of the deceased in lieu of enhancing rigorous imprisonment?
- Ansar Ahmed and 2 others vs Messrs Asiatic Tin Containers (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and another1992 PLC 1308 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
- Anjuman Jame Masjid Sheria Regd. vs Muhammad Ahmed Khan And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 152 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Anjum Sohail vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Anisa Rehman vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 209 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Anis Fatima vs Anwar Hussain1992 CLC 2137 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a revision petition challenging the concurrent judgments of lower courts that set aside a consent decree based on an arbitration award. The central legal question was whether a principal could unilaterally revoke a general power of attorney after the agent had acquired an interest in the subject property through investment and construction. The Lahore High Court held that where an agent has acquired an interest in the property forming the subject matter of the agency, the agency becomes irrevocable under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872. Consequently, the principal’s attempt to revoke the power of attorney was legally ineffective, and the agent retained the authority to act on the principal's behalf. The Court ruled that the consent decree obtained by the agent was valid and not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. The key principle laid down is that an agency coupled with an interest, especially when explicitly stated as irrevocable in the underlying agreement, cannot be terminated by the principal, thereby protecting the agent's rights and actions taken pursuant to that authority.
Questions settled- Can a principal revoke a general power of attorney when the agent has acquired an interest in the subject property?
- Does an agency become irrevocable under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 when the agent has invested in the property?
- Is a consent decree based on an arbitration award valid if the agent acting on behalf of the principal had an irrevocable power of attorney?
- Anis Ahmad and 7 others vs Habib Bank Limited, Karachi1992 CLC 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-19Read full judgment →
- Anees Ahmad vs Mst. Samina Ashraf1992 CLC 100 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- And Another vs Mst. Salma Afroze And 2 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprised three appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from High Court interim and final orders directing the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore to re-evaluate the examination answer scripts of candidate students. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to order re-evaluation of examination answer books in the absence of explicit statutory provision under the Board's Regulations or Calendar, and the procedural requirements for alleging fraud or perversity in marking.
The Supreme Court held that the Board's Calendar contained no statutory provision permitting answer-book re-evaluation. Re-evaluation can only be judicially ordered under inherent powers to undo fraud, perversity, or manifest abuse of authority. To invoke such jurisdiction, candidates must establish identity of answer scripts, explicitly detail the alleged perversity or criminality, and implead the specific examiners accused as parties. Converting the petitions into appeals, the Supreme Court accepted the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and revoked the re-evaluations conducted pursuant to the interim directions.
Questions settled- Is an Intra-Court Appeal competent under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 against an interim order passed by a High Court?
- Can the High Court order re-evaluation of examination answer scripts in the absence of a specific statutory provision in the Board's Calendar?
- Under what circumstances can a court or tribunal interfere with examination results on grounds of fraud, perversity, or abuse of authority?
- Is it mandatory to implead the individual examiner as a party when challenging examination marking on grounds of perversity or mala fides?
- Amr Khan Sepoy vs Border Area Committee1992 CLC 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- Amjad Rashid Khan Malik vs Mrs. Shahida Naeem Malik and others1992 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an administration suit where a compromise preliminary decree was passed directing the sale of a house. The Administrator accepted a bid from a third party (Atiya Begum), which was approved by the High Court. To frustrate the sale, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to withdraw the suit. The High Court rejected the application, holding that the right to withdraw a suit is not absolute after a preliminary decree is passed or third-party interests are created. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed this decision, holding that while a plaintiff generally has an unrestricted right to withdraw a suit, this rule does not apply where a preliminary decree has been passed or where a third-party interest has been created in pursuance of such a decree. The Court dismissed the petitions, confirming that the withdrawal of a suit cannot be used to nullify a preliminary decree or defeat vested third-party rights.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff unconditionally withdraw a suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after a preliminary decree has been passed?
- Whether the general right of a plaintiff to withdraw a suit can be exercised if it adversely affects third-party interests created under court orders?
- Can a compromise preliminary decree and a court-approved sale of property be frustrated or nullified by the plaintiff seeking withdrawal of the suit?
- Amjad Parvaiz vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 447 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-02Read full judgment →
- Amjad Mauk vs Muhammad Saleem and 5 others1992 MLD 31 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed by the plaintiff/decree-holder challenging the trial court's rejection of his application for an extension of time to deposit the decretal amount of Rs. 22,00,000. The suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale had been decreed via a consent decree, which directed the plaintiff to deposit the sale consideration by a specified date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The plaintiff failed to deposit the amount on time and sought an extension. The core legal question was whether a court retains the power under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 to extend the time for payment when the decree itself contains a self-operative default clause directing that the suit shall stand dismissed upon non-payment. The Lahore High Court held that while courts generally retain control over specific performance decrees under Section 35, a self-operative decree containing an express default dismissal clause automatically terminates the suit and rescinds the contract upon non-compliance. Consequently, the court becomes functus officio and lacks the power to extend the time.
Questions settled- Whether a court has the power under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 to extend the time for depositing the purchase money if the decree contains a self-operative clause stating the suit shall stand dismissed in default of payment?
- Does a court become functus officio after the expiration of the time specified in a specific performance decree that contains an express default dismissal clause?
- Does a contract stand automatically rescinded upon non-compliance with a conditional specific performance decree that directs the dismissal of the suit in case of default?
- Amjad and anothers vs The State1992 SCMR 2072 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 27(1)(a) of the Drugs Act 1976 for manufacturing spurious drugs. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the raid conducted by the Drug Inspector without local witnesses, the propriety of bypassing local police in favor of specialized staff, and the sufficiency of evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction. The Court held that the Drug Inspector’s decision to exclude local residents from the raid was justified by the need for secrecy and the suspicion of local police connivance, thus not vitiating the proceedings. It further ruled that minor discrepancies in ocular testimony regarding specific tasks performed by the accused during the manufacturing process do not undermine the prosecution's case when the overall evidence is consistent. The Court affirmed that the trial court correctly evaluated the evidence. Additionally, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding their pre-sentence detention period.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a Drug Inspector to associate local residents in a raid, due to suspicion of local police connivance, vitiate the proceedings under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a conviction under Section 27(1)(a) of the Drugs Act 1976 be sustained when the evidence shows the accused were engaged in the manufacturing process of spurious drugs?
- Are minor discrepancies in ocular testimony regarding specific tasks performed by co-accused sufficient to discredit the prosecution's case?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for convicts who remained in confinement during the trial?
- Amjad Alias Gogi vs State1992 P Cr. L J 290 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
- Amjad Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1463 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →