Latest Judgments

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

• Amirullah And Another vs Muhammad Ayub Khan And Other1992 PLD Peshawar 84 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
• Amir Shah vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 455 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad vs S.S.P. District-East. Karachi, And Other((K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 206) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1992-08-03Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan Sepoy vs Border Area CommitteeK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 5 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
• Amir Jan And 4 Others vs Ali Khan And Another1992 P Cr. L J 2173 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
• Amir Hassan And Other vs Provincial Government Through Collector, Mardan And 2 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-24
  Lambardarland revenuerevenue collectionWasil Baqi Naveesstatutory dutyWest Pakistan Land Revenue Actwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions by the Peshawar High Court, which challenged recovery proceedings initiated against Lambardars (village headmen) for alleged misappropriation of land revenue and Abiyana. The core legal question was whether the Lambardars' responsibility for revenue collection concludes upon handing over funds to the Wasil Baqi Navees (revenue accountant), or if they remain liable until the funds are deposited in the government treasury. The Supreme Court held that the Lambardars are legally obligated to ensure the deposit of collected revenue into the government treasury, as prescribed by the relevant rules. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioners' contention that their duty ended upon delivery to the revenue accountant. The key principle laid down is that under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, the Lambardar bears the primary responsibility for the physical deposit of collected revenue into the treasury, and cannot shift this liability to the revenue accountant or the bank.

  Questions settled

  • Does the duty of a Lambardar to collect and deposit land revenue end upon handing over the funds to the Wasil Baqi Navees?
  • What is the prescribed procedure under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 for the deposit of land revenue into the government treasury?
  • Are civil suits barred under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 regarding disputes over revenue collection procedures?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh and others vs Settlement Commissioner and others1992 CLC 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
• Amir Ashfaq Kureshi vs University of Engineering & Technology1992 CLC 2186 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
• Amir And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Amir And 4 Other vs Abdul Khaliq For The State1992 P Cr. L J 529 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Amir Amanullah Khan vs Raza Muhammad and another-1992 P Cr. L J 1296 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Amir Abdullah Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1688 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Amir Abdullah Khan Rokhari vs Federal Land Commission1992 CLC 1919 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08Read full judgment →
• Amir Abdullah and others vs Hakim Abdul Rahim Khan1992 SCMR 2393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-08
  mandatory injunctionpartial remandinherent powersRasta-i-Aamdemolition of constructionstay orderres judicataCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over 8 Kanals of land reserved as a thoroughfare (Rasta-i-Aam), where petitioners constructed buildings despite a stay order. The core legal questions involved the validity of a partial remand by the High Court, the finality of issues decided in earlier rounds of litigation, and the appropriateness of a mandatory injunction for demolition. The Court held that a partial remand for specific issues, exercised under the inherent powers of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is legally permissible when the ends of justice require it. Furthermore, once an issue, such as the classification of land as a thoroughfare, is decided by a judgment that becomes final, it cannot be re-agitated during remand proceedings. The Court affirmed that mandatory injunctions for demolition are appropriate for construction continued after a stay order but granted leave to appeal solely to examine the equities regarding structures erected before the issuance of the stay order, staying demolition for that specific portion.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court exercise partial remand of a case under the inherent powers of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an issue decided in a judgment that has become final be re-agitated during remand proceedings?
  • Is a mandatory injunction for the demolition of a building appropriate when construction continues after a stay order?
  • Does the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit the production of additional evidence on remand if the documents were available during the earlier round of litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Amin vs Haji Abdul Sattar through Legal Heirs and 21 others1992 CLC 1428 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
• Amin vs Haji Abdul Sattar and 21 others1992 CLC 956 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
• Amin Khan vs Messrs Star Silk & Rayon Mills, Karachi1992 PLC 365 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-29Read full judgment →
• Amiabai vs Ibrahim And 4 Other1992 PLD Karachi 270 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-21
  rejection of plaintexecution proceedingsthird party objectionOrder XXI Rule 97maintainability of suitcivil procedureres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 sought the rejection of a plaint on grounds of limitation and lack of cause of action. The dispute arose from execution proceedings where the plaintiff's application under Order XXI, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming independent title to property, was dismissed by the Executing Court and the appellate court as non-maintainable. The core legal question was whether this dismissal barred a subsequent suit under Order XXI, Rule 103, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the application for rejection of the plaint must be dismissed. It established that where an Executing Court declares an application under Order XXI, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as non-maintainable, such a finding does not constitute an adjudication on merits under Rule 103. Consequently, the bar against a separate suit does not apply. The Court emphasized that an aggrieved party cannot be denied all legal remedies; if a proceeding is deemed incompetent, it cannot simultaneously be treated as a binding determination that precludes a subsequent suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order dismissing an application under Order XXI, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of non-maintainability bar a subsequent suit under Order XXI, Rule 103, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an Executing Court simultaneously hold that a proceeding is non-maintainable and also decide the merits of the controversy?
  • Is a separate suit maintainable when an Executing Court refuses to adjudicate a third-party claim under Order XXI, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• American International Underwaters Pakistan (Private) Limited1992 PLC 1202 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• American Cynamide Company_ vs Case Remanded. Arrow Trading1992 PLD Karachi 395 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
• Ameer Nawaz Khan vs Haq Nawaz1992 CLC 1349 · Board of Revenue · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 430 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan Ex-Director of Design WAPDA (Power) Lahore vs Water & Power Development Authority And 3 Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 127) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Aman Ullah Khan vs Mehar Ellahi and 14 others1992 CLC 739 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12
  fair rentfixation of fair rentSindh Rented Premises Ordinancecommercial tenancyrent controllercost of construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent of a commercial shop under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The respondents, joint owners of the building, sought an increase in rent from the appellant tenant, arguing that the existing rent was extremely low compared to the prevailing rates and that construction and maintenance costs had increased. The Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.1,200 per month. The appellant challenged this determination. The Sindh High Court examined the scope and ingredients of section 8 of the Ordinance, holding that the four factors listed for determining fair rent are distinct and independent, and the determination does not depend upon the concurrent consideration of all four factors. Finding that the evidence supported the rent fixation based on the higher rates of similar premises in the locality and the rise in construction costs, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Rent Controller's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the four factors for determining fair rent under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 are distinct and independent of each other?
  • Is the determination of fair rent by the Rent Controller dependent upon the simultaneous consideration of all four factors enumerated in section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • What criteria must be considered by the Rent Controller while fixing the fair rent of premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Alyas Ahmad and others vs Manager, a D.B .P.1992 CLC 605 · Board of Revenue · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
• Altaf vs Delments Construction Company1992 CLC 700 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-22
  Order I Rule 10 CPCnecessary partyproper partydominus litisjoinder of partiescivil procedurespecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit concerns a dispute over the possession and ownership of a plot of land, wherein an intervenor sought to be impleaded as a defendant under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the intervenor qualified as a necessary or proper party to the suit and whether the phrase "questions involved in the suit" permits the introduction of new causes of action or disputes between an existing party and a third party. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the intervenor was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The ratio established that the expression "questions involved in the suit" is strictly confined to matters arising between the existing parties to the litigation. Consequently, a third party cannot be impleaded if their inclusion introduces new controversies or causes of action extraneous to the original suit. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that a plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to litigate against parties not of their choosing, particularly when such joinder would embarrass the trial or cause prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expression 'questions involved in the suit' under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend to questions between a party and a third party?
  • Can a third party be impleaded in a suit if their presence introduces a new cause of action?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to be the dominus litis in a civil suit?
  • Does an agreement for sale confer a right to be impleaded as a party in a suit between a lessor and a lessee?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Virk vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 798 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
• Altaf Virk vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 81 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
• Altaf Parekh and Other vs M/s Delmonte Construction Company AndK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 171 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 541 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain Shamim vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 18 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain Shamim vs Not1992 PLD Karachi 91 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-02
  Customs Actrecalling witnessescross-examinationSection 540 CrPCfair trialrevision applicationabsence of counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application under Section 185-F of the Customs Act, 1969 arose from an order of the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, which rejected the applicant's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. The applicant's advocates had consecutively failed to appear during trial, leaving the applicant unrepresented and resulting in all prosecution witnesses remaining un-cross-examined. The trial court dismissed the request as belated since the matter was fixed for defence evidence. The High Court considered whether the applicant could be denied the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to procedural delay caused by counsel abandonment. Setting aside the trial court's order, the High Court held that the opportunity to cross-examine must be real, fair, and reasonable, rather than an empty formality. The Court ruled that an accused untrained in legal procedure cannot be penalised for counsel's absence, and recalling witnesses is essential for a just decision to prevent prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the trial court exercise its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall prosecution witnesses at the stage of defence evidence?
  • Whether an accused person can be deprived of the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses due to the non-appearance or negligence of engaged counsel?
  • Does the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prejudice the accused where unrepresented during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Akbar Barlas vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Altaf Akbar Barlas vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 219 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Altaf & Company vs Adam Sugar Mills TD. And Other1992 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-23Read full judgment →
• Allauddin vs Messrs Mehran Cotton Ginners1992 PLC 691 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Allahdino Khan vs The State1992 MLD 564 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and others vs Rashidur REHMANRepondent1992 CLC 1351 · Board of Revenue · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya and 5 others vs Irshad Ahmad and 4 others1992 SCMR 2184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-03
  Section 12(2) CPCpre-emption suitfraud and collusionlegal representativesguardian ad litemoathdecree challenge
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses whether a decree obtained in a pre-emption suit can be challenged under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code on grounds of fraud and collusion. The appellants sought to set aside a decree, alleging that the death of a co-defendant (Hassan Bakhsh) during the proceedings and the failure to implead his legal representatives, alongside alleged irregularities regarding a minor defendant, constituted fraud. The Supreme Court held that the failure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased defendant does not render a decree void, as current procedural law allows proceedings to continue against a deceased party. Furthermore, the Court determined that the decree was not based on a compromise but resulted from a contested proceeding where the defendant admitted the plaintiffs' superior pre-emption rights under oath. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving fraud under Section 12(2) lies heavily on the applicant, and in this instance, no evidence of collusion or active concealment was established. Consequently, the Court upheld the revisional order maintaining the original decree, finding no merit in the appellants' challenge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased defendant render a decree void?
  • Can a decree passed after a contested proceeding, based on an admission made under oath, be challenged as a compromise decree under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code?
  • What is the burden of proof for an applicant seeking to set aside a decree on the grounds of fraud under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Jiwaya vs Pir Bakhsh And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2226 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya and others vs Mst. Sughran Begum and others1992 CLC 1416 · Board of Revenue · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation, Malir Depot, Karachi ,1992 PLC 1205 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-02-09Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Barkat Ali and 3 others1992 SCMR 1974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-11
  abatement of appeallegal representativessubstitutionCivil Procedure Codesubstantive rightsprocedural technicalitiessecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant regarding ownership of land, which was decreed by the trial court but dismissed by the lower appellate court on a technicality regarding non-joinder of parties. During the pendency of the regular second appeal in the High Court, one of the respondents died, and the High Court dismissed the appeal as having abated after determining the date of death. The core legal question was whether the failure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased transferor defendant resulted in the total abatement of the appeal when the transferee contesting respondent was already present. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive rights and that non-impleadment of the predecessor was not fatal to hearing the appeal when the real contesting transferee was present. The key principle laid down is that the administration of justice must help rather than thwart substantive rights by avoiding technicalities, and the amendments regarding abatement under the Civil Procedure Code apply to prevent the defeat of claims on formalistic grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-impleadment of the legal representatives of a deceased transferor defendant results in the abatement of an appeal when the contesting transferee is already a party to the proceedings?
  • Does the failure to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased party within time necessitate the dismissal of an appeal on technical grounds despite the presence of the real contesting party?
  • How should procedural rules regarding abatement be applied in light of substantive rights and the avoidance of technicalities in the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Bhatti, Etc. vs Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 131) · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs Ghulam Rasool Shah1992 CLC 947 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Allah Dita vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs The State and 2 others-1992 P Cr. L J 420 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Mukhtar and another1992 SCMR 1273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-04
  Offence of Zinanotice of talaqMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceObjectives Resolutionvalid marriageiddat periodacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the acquittal of the respondents by the Courts below under section 10(2) and section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2, his legally-wedded wife, left his house and contracted a marriage with respondent No. 1 without a legally effective divorce, as no notice was given to the Chairman of the Union Council under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The core legal questions involved the effectiveness of a divorce without notice to the Chairman in light of Article 2-A of the Constitution and Islamic Injunctions, and the validity of a marriage contracted during the period of Iddat. The Supreme Court held that under Article 2-A and Islamic Injunctions, the requirement of notice under section 7 of the Family Laws Ordinance is not mandatory for a divorce to be effective in Shariah, and that the period of Iddat is determined by Islamic law (three menstrual periods) rather than a rigid 90 days. Consequently, the respondents' marriage was valid for the purposes of the Hudood Ordinance, negating the charge of Zina. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a notice of Talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council mandatory under Islamic Injunctions for a divorce to be effective?
  • Does the absence of a notice under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance render a divorce ineffective for the purposes of criminal liability under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • What constitutes a valid marriage under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, when conflicting with general statutory provisions?
  • What is the correct period of Iddat for a divorced woman under Islamic law as opposed to the statutory 90-day period?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Mehr Khan And 2 Other1992 PLD Lahore 437 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad and others vs Elmh Bakhsh1992 CLC 1723 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Allah Baki Ish (deceased) through His Legal Heirs vs District Judge, Muzaffargarh and others1992 CLC 2111 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Allah Baki Is11 and others vs Qaiser Abbas and others1992 CLC 1357 · Board of Revenue · 1991-10-27Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan Rice Export Corporation Warehouse and Carriers1992 PLC 1189 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Zaman vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2515 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 711 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz Chowhan vs Governor of the Punjab Through Chief1992 PLD Supreme Court 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-01
  service lawseniority listdepartmental representationexhaustion of remediesappointing authorityservice tribunal jurisdictionsubordinate judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a District and Sessions Judge, challenged a seniority list before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as incompetent, ruling that the appellant failed to exhaust the departmental remedy of representation under Section 21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Supreme Court examined whether such a representation is mandatory when the impugned order is issued by the Governor of the Punjab. The Court held that Section 21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 requires a representation to the authority next above the one that made the order. Since the impugned seniority list was issued by the Governor, there is no higher authority within the government hierarchy to whom a representation could be made. Consequently, the requirement to exhaust departmental remedies does not apply in such instances. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for adjudication on merits, noting that jurisdiction had since transferred to the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal under the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 1991.

  Questions settled

  • Is a departmental representation under Section 21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 required when the impugned order is passed by the Governor?
  • Does the preparation of a seniority list by a Secretary under the Rules of Business constitute an order of the Governor for the purpose of departmental representation?
  • Can a civil servant approach a Service Tribunal without exhausting departmental remedies if no higher authority exists to hear a representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Mst. Zahida Parveen1992 CLC 2328 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-15
  civil revisiondowry articlesrecovery suitconcurrent findings of factrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for the recovery of dowry articles or alternatively the payment of their price amounting to Rs. 24,000, filed by the respondent against her deceased husband's father, the petitioner. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The core legal question before the High Court was whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two lower courts regarding the existence and retention of dowry articles warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision in limine, holding that the lower courts had duly examined the evidence, found the petitioner's pleas to be self-contradictory, and rendered concurrent findings of fact that were neither perverse nor suffering from any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction unless a clear defect such as misreading or non-reading of evidence, or perversity, is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by two lower courts can be interfered with in civil revision when no misreading or non-reading of evidence is shown?
  • Does a revisional court interfere with judgments of lower courts that are based on evidence and are not perverse, fanciful, or arbitrary?
  • Whether self-contradictory pleas taken by a party in a suit for recovery of dowry deserve credence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and others vs The State1992 SCMR 696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-24
  post-arrest bailsmugglingcontraband goodsnon-bailable offencecustoms offenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Sindh High Court, which had refused to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners. The petitioners were accused in a criminal case involving the smuggling of contraband goods, including silver ingots and electronic appliances, valued at approximately one crore rupees, which were seized from a launch intercepted by customs officials. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail was justified given the circumstances of the arrest and the nature of the offence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioners were caught red-handed while transporting smuggled goods and had attempted to flee upon encountering the customs party, indicating a guilty conscience. The Court held that there was no justification in law or fact to interfere with the High Court's order, as the offence was non-bailable and the evidence suggested prima facie involvement. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the denial of bail at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail to accused persons caught red-handed with smuggled goods is legally justified?
  • Does an attempt to flee from customs authorities constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a smuggling case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and another vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1992 PLC 689 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Alias Ali And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 313 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 389 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs S.H.O. Khairpur and others-1992 P-Cr. L J 1849 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs The State.1992 P Cr. L J 1913 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-30
  forged currency notespossession of counterfeit notescriminal appealrecovery witnessesmashirsburden of proofacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for possessing forged currency notes, following a trial in which each was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the recovery of the forged currency notes through reliable independent evidence and whether mere possession of forged notes satisfies all statutory ingredients of the offense, particularly knowledge, belief, or intent to use them as genuine. The Sindh High Court held that the recovery witnesses were unreliable, stock witnesses under police influence, and that the prosecution completely failed to prove that the appellants knew or had reason to believe the notes were forged or intended to use them as genuine. The court laid down the principle that mere possession of forged currency notes does not constitute an offence under section 489-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, unless accompanied by proof of knowledge or reason to believe they are forged and an intention to use them as genuine, with the burden resting squarely on the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere possession of forged currency notes constitutes an offence under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of knowledge or intent?
  • Can a conviction under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the testimony of recovery witnesses who are shown to be of dubious character or police touts?
  • Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving that an accused knew or had reason to believe that currency notes found in their possession were forged?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs D.I.G. (Police) Hazara Division Abbottabad And Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Services Cases 108) · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1991-01-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Anwar Ghangre vs Secretary to Government of Sindhh, LabourK.L.R.1992 Labour & Service Cases 148 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Alam Khan and 3ptherss vs Pir Ghulam Nabi Shah & Company1992 SCMR 2375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-08-26
  pre-emption suitmisjoinder of causes of actionjoinder of causes of actionCivil Procedure Coderemand of casemutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the predecessors of the appellants against two separate sale transactions by different vendors in favor of the same vendee, attested on the same date. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the High Court accepted the vendee's revision petition and held the suit incompetent due to misjoinder of causes of action, remanding the case for filing separate suits. Upon review and hearing of the main appeal, the Supreme Court held that under Order II, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), a plaintiff may unite several causes of action against the same defendant in one suit, making the joinder of the two sale transactions valid and proper. The Court further held that even assuming any irregularity, Section 99 of the C.P.C. barred the reversal or modification of a decree on account of misjoinder of causes of action not affecting the merits or jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and the High Court, and remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh decision after framing proper issues and allowing evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff unite several causes of action against the same defendant in a single pre-emption suit?
  • Whether a decree can be reversed or modified on appeal on account of misjoinder of causes of action not affecting the merits or jurisdiction?
  • Is a pre-emption suit incompetent when it combines two separate sale transactions involving the same vendee in one suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Din vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur and 3 others1992 CLC 1854 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-05-30
  writ petitionamendment of pleadingsaggrieved personremandallotment of landprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the allotment of a plot to a third party. The appellant had previously filed a writ petition that was dismissed in limine, followed by a second petition that was also dismissed on merits. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in failing to adjudicate upon an application for amendment of the writ petition, which sought to clarify the appellant's standing and the authenticity of documents related to the plot allotment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's failure to consider the amendment application and the potential impact of the appellant's prior application to the Municipal Committee prevented a proper determination of whether the appellant qualified as an 'aggrieved person' under constitutional provisions. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the High Court with directions to first decide the amendment application and subsequently determine the writ petition afresh in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court is required to adjudicate upon a pending application for amendment of a writ petition before deciding the main petition?
  • Does the failure of the High Court to consider an amendment application regarding the status of an 'aggrieved person' warrant a remand of the case?
  • Can a writ petition be dismissed without considering the merits of an amendment application that has a direct bearing on the petitioner's standing?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Shafeeq Housing Society, Hyderabad vs Pakistan Medical1992 PLD Supreme Court 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-17
  writ jurisdictionamenity plotstatutory dutyland allotmentKarachi Development Authoritybona fide purchaserjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding the cancellation of a plot allotment by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) in favor of the respondent, followed by a subsequent allotment to the appellant housing society. The core legal question was whether the dispute was purely contractual, necessitating a civil suit, or if it involved the performance of statutory duties amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction. It ruled that the Government or Chief Minister lacked the legal authority to cancel a subsisting allotment or to directly allot an 'amenity plot' for purposes inconsistent with its designation. The Court emphasized that the KDA is bound by its statutory framework and must act fairly. Furthermore, the appellant could not claim the status of a bona fide allottee without notice, as it failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the KDA records. Consequently, the allotment to the appellant was declared of no legal effect, and the respondent’s entitlement was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Government or Chief Minister have the authority to cancel a valid land allotment made by the Karachi Development Authority?
  • Is a dispute regarding the cancellation of a land allotment by a statutory body like the KDA amenable to writ jurisdiction, or must it be resolved through a civil suit?
  • Can an 'amenity plot' be directly allotted by the Government for purposes inconsistent with its designated use?
  • Does a party claiming to be a bona fide allottee have a duty to verify the status of the land in the records of the relevant development authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Imtiaz Foundation (Registered), Abbottabad vs Income Tax Officer, Circle (a), Abbottabad1992 PTD 1292 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-04-19Read full judgment →
• Al-Haq Workers Union through General Secretary, Ashraf Sugar Mills1992 PLC 1108 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
• Al Ahram-Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1992 PTD 1671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-23
  income tax assessmentreopening of assessmentconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory remedyquasi-judicial functionwrit petitionexhaustion of remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court decision upholding an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order that remanded an assessment for reassessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The appellant contended that the reassessment notice was issued without jurisdiction due to the Income Tax Officer (ITO) acting under the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC), and that the assessment could not be reopened on the same material. The Supreme Court held that while Section 7 of the Ordinance allows for guidance, it does not authorize an ITO to abdicate their quasi-judicial duties to superior officers; a notice remains valid only if the ITO applies their mind independently. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that parties cannot bypass statutory remedies, such as a reference under Section 136, in favor of Constitutional jurisdiction without compelling reasons. Since the appellant had already utilized the statutory hierarchy, they were required to exhaust the reference procedure. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the ITO must exercise independent judgment in quasi-judicial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Income Tax Officer reopen an assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, based solely on the directions of a superior officer?
  • Does Section 7 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, authorize an Income Tax Officer to abdicate their quasi-judicial functions to a superior authority?
  • Is a Constitutional Petition maintainable when a statutory remedy, such as a reference under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, is available?
  • Under what circumstances can a party bypass statutory appellate remedies in favor of invoking the High Court's Constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar-UN-Nisa Begum vs Walayat Ali EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 90 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Saleem vs Registeration Officer.And Other1992 PLD LAHORE 34 · Lahore High Court
  electoral rollsregistration officerannual revisionright to votestatutory interpretationfranchisewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several writ petitions challenging the refusal of Registration Officers to process applications for the inclusion or transfer of names in electoral rolls. The respondents argued that the commencement of the annual revision process under Section 17 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, rendered the powers of Registration Officers under Sections 11 and 18 inoperative. The core legal question was whether the annual revision process suspends the statutory authority to correct or update electoral rolls. The Court held that the powers under Sections 11 and 18 are independent of the annual revision process and remain exercisable at all times until a specific statutory bar applies. The Court established that the heading of a section cannot restrict the plain, unambiguous language of the statute's body. Furthermore, it emphasized that franchise is a fundamental right, and statutory provisions regarding registration should be construed liberally to avoid disenfranchisement. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to entertain and decide the petitioners' applications on their merits, ruling that the administrative instructions suspending these powers lacked legal authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the annual revision of electoral rolls under Section 17 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, render the powers of Registration Officers under Sections 11 and 18 inoperative?
  • Can the heading of a section in a statute be used to restrict or control the plain, unambiguous language contained in the body of that section?
  • Is there any statutory prohibition against correcting or updating electoral rolls while an annual revision process is underway, provided the constituency has not been called upon to elect?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Saleem Qureshi vs The Registration Officer, MunicipalK.L.R 1992 Civil Cases 3 · OtherRead full judgment →
• Akhtar Munir Khan and 4 others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and 2 others1992 CLC 1547 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Province of Punjab1992 PLD Lahore 127 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-11
  civil servantsuspensiondisciplinary proceedingsjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of serviceefficiency and discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Grade-18 civil servant and former Deputy Commissioner challenging his suspension and ongoing disciplinary proceedings for corruption and misconduct, initiated under the direction of the Chief Minister. The core legal questions involved whether the Chief Minister was competent to order the suspension and initiate proceedings, and whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction was ousted by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in view of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal over terms and conditions of service. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that matters relating to the suspension and disciplinary proceedings of a civil servant fall strictly within the terms and conditions of service and discipline. The Court laid down that Article 212 of the Constitution read with the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 completely ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in respect of service and disciplinary matters, and that the Chief Minister, being the appointing authority and the final authority for disciplinary action under the Punjab Government Rules of Business 1974, qualifies as a competent departmental authority whose orders are appealable exclusively before the Punjab Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in matters relating to the suspension and disciplinary proceedings of a civil servant?
  • Whether the Chief Minister is competent to order the suspension of a Grade-18 officer holding the post of Deputy Commissioner under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  • Does an order of suspension pending a departmental inquiry fall within the terms and conditions of service and matters of discipline?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a suspension order and pending departmental inquiry before a departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Alam and 3 others vs Shabbir and 5 others1992 CLC 95 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Akber Ali and others vs Vazir Ashique Alt and others1992 CLC 1551 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-09Read full judgment →
• Akber A. Dehgamwalla vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1992 PTD 1420 · Bombay High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs Faizullah Khan and others1992 CLC 1355 · Board of Revenue · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2609 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
• Akbar Hussain Shah vs The State,1992 P Cr. L J 547 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
• Akbar Hussain Alias Bundoo vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1823 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and others vs Senior Administrative Officer Pakistan1992 SCMR 1341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servantworkmanrailway employeespayment of wagesjurisdictionpay fixationservice tribunaladministrative office
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examined whether the appellants, Head Clerks in the Operating Branch of Pakistan Railways Headquarters, are excluded from the definition of 'civil servant' and whether the alleged wrong fixation of their pay constitutes a deduction of wages cognizable under the Payment of Wages Act. The core legal question centered on whether railway administrative office workers qualify as 'workmen' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, thereby removing them from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunals. The Supreme Court held that the appellants, being permanently employed in an administrative office of the railway and not performing physical operational or maintenance duties under Schedule II, do not fall within the definition of 'workman'. Consequently, they are civil servants whose terms and conditions of service—including pay fixation—fall exclusively within the purview of the service tribunals established under Article 212 of the Constitution, ousting the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The key principle laid down is that railway personnel stationed in administrative offices whose duties involve clerical or record-keeping functions rather than direct physical operation or maintenance are civil servants and cannot invoke the Payment of Wages Act or Workmen's Compensation Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Head Clerks posted in the administrative offices of Pakistan Railways qualify as workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  • Does the Payment of Wages Act have jurisdiction over the pay fixation disputes of civil servants?
  • Are railway employees working in administrative headquarters excluded from the definition of civil servants?
  • What constitutes being employed 'upon a railway' or in connection with the operation or maintenance of railway vehicles under Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Hussain vs K.M. Hussain Darabu1992 CLC 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-10
  civil revisionex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreesufficient causecounsel pre-occupationconcurrent remediesremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision was filed by the applicant/defendant challenging an ex parte judgment and decree dated 04-02-1991 passed by the Small Causes Court, Karachi, in a suit for recovery of professional fees. The applicant's counsel failed to appear prior to 10:15 a.m. due to pre-occupation before multiple Benches of the High Court, resulting in the ex parte decree, and the trial court subsequently rejected the applicant's application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. The core legal questions were whether counsel's pre-occupation in a superior court constituted sufficient cause for non-appearance and whether the remedies under Order IX Rule 13, Section 96, and Section 115 of the C.P.C. were concurrent. The Sindh High Court allowed the revision, holding that pre-occupation of counsel in another court was neither wilful nor intentional and constituted sufficient cause. The Court ruled that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction, set aside both the ex parte decree and the dismissal order, and remanded the suit for fresh decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the pre-occupation of an advocate before the High Court constitutes sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for non-appearance before a trial court?
  • Whether the remedies of an application under Order IX Rule 13, an appeal under Section 96, and a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against an ex parte decree are concurrent and not mutually exclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Aqeel vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 155 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Ali Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 708 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ajmain Khan vs The Board of Intermediate Education And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 492 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
• Ainul Hassan vs Opal Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others1992 PLC 1235 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-03-19Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Alias Jajji vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 75 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
• Ahsanullah A. Memon vs Government of Sindh And Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 112) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hussain and 6 others vs Muhammad Ramzan and 3 others1992 CLC 108 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Din vs Muhammad Ishaq1992 CLC 816 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmed And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs Haji Khair Muhammad1992 CLC 2504 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-26
  ejectmentbona fide personal usepugreelandlord and tenantrent controllervacant possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises in question and hand over vacant possession to the respondent-landlord on the ground of bona fide personal use. The core legal question revolves around whether a tenant paying 'Pugree' is immune from eviction on the ground of personal need, and whether the concept of 'Pugree' is recognized under the relevant rent restriction law. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 does not recognize 'Pugree' and courts cannot rewrite the statute to incorporate unprovided concepts. The key principles laid down are that payment of 'Pugree' to previous owners does not debar a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide personal need, and that the special provisions of the rent statute must be strictly construed according to their own terms without importing extra-statutory customs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord is debarred from seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide personal need if 'Pugree' was paid to a previous owner?
  • Does the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 recognize the concept of 'Pugree' as a valid defense against ejectment?
  • Can a court add new provisions or re-write sections of a special statute like the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 based on local business customs?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1690 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →