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.
- Ahmad Saeed and others vs Member Board of Revenue and 5 others1992 CLC 942 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Sadiq Chughtai vs Baidar Bakht Chughtai and others1992 MLD 695 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-16Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 504 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Khan vs Muhammad 1Qbal And 9 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that altered the conviction of the respondent from murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, citing the exceeding of the right of private defense. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly applied the law regarding sudden fight and private defense in determining the nature of the offense. The Supreme Court held that the incident constituted a sudden fight falling within the scope of Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court ruled that the conviction should properly fall under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than Part II, as the latter was a clerical error in the impugned judgment. The Court affirmed that under Exception IV, the origin of the provocation is immaterial. Accordingly, the conviction was modified, and the fine was significantly enhanced to provide compensation to the deceased's heirs, while the remainder of the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a sudden fight between parties fall under Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the origin of provocation material when applying Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Should a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder arising from a sudden fight be recorded under Section 304, Part I or Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Ahmad Hassan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2585 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Din vs Akbar Ali1992 CLC 608 · Board of Revenue · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Din vs Abdus SattarK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 485 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali vs Noor Muhammad and others1992 CLC 1921 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali vs Haji Usman Ghani1992 CLC 1924 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
- Agricultural Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Makli (Thatta Sindh)1992 PLC 918 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
- Agha Rafiq Ahmed vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary to the Government of Sindh and 24 others1992 SCMR 1167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a service dispute concerning the seniority of the appellant, a surplus Assistant Traffic Manager, who sought absorption as a Ward Rationing Officer (Grade-16) following a 1979 Provincial Government order. Despite a prior Supreme Court direction to implement this absorption, the appellant was only inducted in 1984, leading to a seniority dispute against respondents appointed in the interim. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s seniority should be determined by his actual date of appointment or by the date the vacancy became available, given the department's delay in implementing the absorption order. The Supreme Court held that the department could not benefit from its own delay in implementing the absorption order. The Court ruled that the appellant must be deemed absorbed against the first available vacancy existing at the time of the original 1979 order. The key principle laid down is that administrative authorities cannot defeat a lawful absorption order by delaying its implementation and filling vacancies through ad hoc promotions, and an employee is entitled to seniority from the date the vacancy first became available.
Questions settled- Can a government department defeat an absorption order by delaying its implementation and filling posts through ad hoc promotions?
- Does an employee’s seniority date from the actual date of appointment or from the date a vacancy became available when the delay was caused by the department?
- Is an employee entitled to seniority based on the first available vacancy if the department failed to implement an absorption order in a timely manner?
- Agha Muhammad Afzal And 2 Other vs Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi And 10 Other1992 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, tenants of a property in Rawalpindi, filed a revision petition challenging the lower courts' refusal to grant an interim injunction against their landlords. The petitioners sought to restrain the landlords from executing a sanctioned building plan for reconstruction, alleging it violated the city's Master Plan, and to stay pending ejectment proceedings. The core legal question was whether the petitioners established the necessary grounds for an interim injunction. The High Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a prima facie case or that the balance of convenience favored them. The Court reasoned that the landlords were exercising a statutory right to reconstruct and evict under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and that the petitioners, who themselves used the property for commercial purposes, could not equitably challenge the commercial nature of the landlords' proposed construction. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' refusal to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioners, noting that granting the injunction would unfairly frustrate lawful eviction proceedings and cause irreparable loss to the landlords.
Questions settled- Can a tenant obtain an injunction to restrain a landlord from executing a sanctioned building plan based on alleged violations of a Master Plan?
- What are the three essential ingredients a plaintiff must establish to obtain an interim injunction?
- Does a tenant have the standing to challenge a landlord's building plan as violative of a Master Plan while simultaneously using the same property for commercial purposes?
- Should a civil court grant an interim injunction that would frustrate lawful eviction proceedings pending under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Agha Hmi HASSANLAppeallant vs Shafiqurrehman.1992 CLC 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-27Read full judgment →
- Afzal Haider vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 137 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- Afzal Haider vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 170 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
- Afzal And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 403 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
- Aftabuddin Qureshi vs Mst. Rachel Joseph1992 CLC 970 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-03Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmad vs Mst. Tahira Yasmeen and 2 others1992 CLC 2345 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmad Saeed vs QamaruddinK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 512 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
- Adnan Zafar vs N.E.D. University of Engineering & Technology through its Registrar, Karachi1992 CLC 2156 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-25Read full judgment →
- Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Swadeshi Cloth Dealers1992 PTD 917 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-09-06Read full judgment →
- Adam Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2587 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-23Read full judgment →
- Adam Khan and others vs Zarin Shah and others1992 MLD 268 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-14Read full judgment →
- Adam Khan and others vs Zarin Shah and others1992 SCMR 1771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal arising from declaratory suits filed by mortgagees regarding land classified as evacuee property. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the law of limitation applies to such property, specifically whether mortgagees could acquire full title and ownership rights through the passage of time. The High Court had previously determined that the mortgagees' interest in the property had been extinguished, leaving them only with a charge created by law, based on the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1958 and the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the mortgagees' interest was limited to a statutory charge and that the law of limitation did not operate to confer full ownership rights upon them in this context. The Court relied on established precedents to confirm that the specific statutory framework governing evacuee property overrides general claims of title acquisition by mortgagees through limitation, thereby refusing leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the law of limitation apply to evacuee property to allow mortgagees to acquire full title?
- What is the nature of a mortgagee's interest in land that has become evacuee property?
- Does the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 extinguish the proprietary interest of a mortgagee in evacuee property?
- Abrar Hussain Naqvi vs The Federal Government Through SecretaryK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 72 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abid Shah vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 412 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought the quashment of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had set aside the petitioner's discharge from a criminal case. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate retains the authority to discharge an accused person based on a police report for cancellation of the case after the trial court has already taken cognizance of the offence and framed a charge. The High Court held that once a trial court has taken cognizance of an offence and framed a charge, the proceedings must continue until their legal termination through acquittal or conviction. The Court affirmed that the cancellation of a case under the police report mechanism is impermissible after the stage of cognizance has been reached. The key principle laid down is that while a Magistrate possesses the power to acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the charge is groundless, they cannot bypass the trial process by discharging an accused based on a post-cognizance police report for case cancellation.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate cancel a criminal case and discharge an accused after the trial court has already taken cognizance of the offence?
- Is it permissible for a trial court to discharge an accused based on a police report for cancellation of the case after the charge has been framed?
- Does the power of a Magistrate to acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the arbitrary cancellation of a case?
- Can a second revision petition be filed against an order passed under Section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Abid Latif And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 463 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-19Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain Jafri and 3 others vs Azad Government of the State of J &1992 PLD Azad J & K 15 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-09-15Read full judgment →
- Abid Ali and anothers vs The State1992 MLD 743 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
- Abeel Badshah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1919 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
- Abdus Sattar And Another vs Additional Medical Superintendent And Another(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service 37) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Aslam Ahmed And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 138 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman Etc. Versus Malik Ahmed Bakhsh Etc. Abdur Rehman Etc. vs Malik Ahmed Bakhsh EtcK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 204 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rauf vs S.H.O. and others-1992 P Cr. L J 2595 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-20Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rauf and others vs Khurshid Ali and others1992 SCMR 592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a shop. The core legal questions involved whether an interpolation regarding the property's dimensions in the written agreement constituted a material alteration rendering the contract void, and whether nominees of the original purchaser were competent to sue. The Supreme Court held that the alteration of the area from 150 to 156-1/4 square feet was inconsequential, honest, and made with the tacit consent of the vendors, thus not vitiating the agreement. The Court laid down the principle that an immaterial or harmless alteration in a written contract which does not prejudice the other party or vary the legal effect does not impair the contract or disentitle a party to specific performance. The appeal was accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the lower appellate court's decree in favor of the appellants was restored.
Questions settled- Does an immaterial and non-prejudicial alteration in a written contract render the document void?
- Whether an alteration regarding property dimensions in an agreement to sell constitutes a material alteration sufficient to vitiate specific performance?
- Can a contract be enforced when a minor correction in the text is shown to be made with the consent of both parties?
- Abdur Rashid vs The State.1992 P Cr. L J 2216 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid vs S.H.O. and others-1992 P Cr. L J 879 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid Malik vs Pakistan Railway and 3 others1992 CLC 2209 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three consolidated constitutional petitions challenging the decision of a committee constituted by the Railway Minister which refused to renew the petitioners' dining and buffet car catering licences and awarded them to new parties. The core legal questions examined by the Lahore High Court were whether the petitioners, as holders of catering licences, possessed a vested right to claim renewal under policy circulars, and whether they could invoke constitutional jurisdiction to enforce rights flowing from agreements that constituted mere licences simpliciter. Relying on Section 52 of the Easements Act 1882 and established Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the agreements merely conferred a personal privilege to conduct a catering business without granting any interest in immovable property, making them revocable licences simpliciter rather than irrevocable licences coupled with a grant. The Court concluded that such licensees have no enforceable vested right to claim renewal or prevent revocation through constitutional jurisdiction, and their remedy for any wrongful revocation lies in damages rather than a writ or injunction. Consequently, the constitutional petitions were dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a railway dining car catering agreement constitutes a licence simpliciter under Section 52 of the Easements Act 1882?
- Does a licensee holding a dining car contract possess a vested legal right to claim the renewal of their licence upon its expiry?
- Can a licensee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce rights flowing from a mere licence agreement?
- Whether a revocable licence coupled with no interest in immovable property can be protected or enforced by way of an injunction or constitutional writ?
- Abdur Rahim vs The State1992 PLD Supreme Court 64 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction for sodomy under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court, and the Federal Shariat Court subsequently set aside the conviction under the Ordinance while reducing the sentence for the offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the conviction, primarily arguing that the 76-hour delay in lodging the First Information Report was unexplained and that the medical evidence was unreliable. Specifically, the defense contended that, given the time elapsed and the likelihood of bowel movements, the presence of semen in the anal canal, as reported by the Chemical Examiner, was scientifically improbable. The petitioner also challenged the credibility of the eyewitness account regarding the location of the incident. Finding that these contentions regarding the evidentiary value of the medical report and the delay in reporting raised substantial questions requiring deeper judicial consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, combined with the passage of time rendering medical evidence scientifically improbable, create reasonable doubt in a prosecution case?
- Can a conviction for sodomy be sustained when the medical evidence regarding the presence of semen is contested due to the time elapsed between the alleged incident and the examination?
- Abdur Rahim vs Sirajud Din and 4 others1992 SCMR 1741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging orders passed by special forums under the PATA Regulation regarding the inheritance of property. The core legal question was whether certain documents executed by the deceased father of the parties effectively transferred title to the petitioner during the father's lifetime, or whether the property should be distributed according to Shariat upon his death. The Supreme Court held that the documents in question were merely copies, not originals, and were not accepted as genuine by the deceased owner, who had explicitly revoked them. Furthermore, the Court determined that even if the documents were genuine, they did not transfer proprietary rights but merely allowed for the enjoyment of the property. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower forums' decisions that the property must be distributed among the heirs according to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). The key principle laid down is that in the absence of valid, original documentation transferring title during a donor's lifetime, property must devolve according to the Shariat upon the owner's death.
Questions settled- Does a document merely reciting a division of property among prospective heirs without an explicit transfer of proprietary rights constitute a valid gift?
- Can secondary evidence in the form of copies of documents be relied upon when the original documents are lost and their genuineness is disputed?
- Does the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) govern the inheritance of property in the absence of a valid inter vivos transfer?
- Abdur Rahim and others vs Hassan Muhammad and others1992 SCMR 827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing constitutional petitions filed by Jammu and Kashmir refugees. The petitioners, who were settled on agricultural land in 1953, challenged the allotment of said land to others under Supplementary Scheme No. 2, arguing the land was rural rather than urban and that their possession was protected under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The core legal questions were whether the land was urban agricultural land, whether the protection afforded to Jammu and Kashmir refugees under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme applied to urban agricultural land, and whether the land constituted 'available property' under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975. The Supreme Court held that the land was indeed urban agricultural land, to which the protection of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme did not extend. The Court affirmed that specific provisions in Supplementary Scheme No. 2 superseded general provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Furthermore, the Court upheld the finding that the land was not 'available property' at the time of the repeal of evacuee laws, thus denying the petitioners' claim to purchase the land.
Questions settled- Does the protection afforded to Jammu and Kashmir refugees under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme apply to urban agricultural land?
- Do specific provisions in Supplementary Scheme No. 2 supersede the general provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme regarding excluded categories of land?
- Can land subject to ongoing litigation and competing claims be considered 'available property' under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975?
- Abdur Ghafoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 452 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-03Read full judgment →
- Abdullah vs Muhammad Siddique1992 CLC 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated suits regarding an agreement to sell a residential flat. The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement dated 30-11-1980, while the defendants sought a declaration that the agreement was void, recovery of possession, and damages, alleging the plaintiff breached the contract by obstructing construction work on upper floors. The core legal questions were whether time was of the essence of the contract, whether the plaintiff committed a breach by objecting to construction, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance. The Court held that the mere insertion of a time-bound term does not automatically make time the essence of a contract, especially in transactions involving immovable property where parties themselves failed to adhere to the schedule. The Court found no evidence that the plaintiff's objections were mala fide or intended to cause loss, and the defendants failed to substantiate their claims for damages. Consequently, the Court decreed the suit for specific performance in favor of the plaintiff and dismissed the defendants' suit, establishing that specific performance is appropriate when the plaintiff is ready to accept the property as it exists.
Questions settled- Does the mere insertion of a term in an agreement specifying a time for performance automatically make time the essence of the contract?
- Can a party to an agreement to sell claim damages for alleged losses without providing authentic oral or documentary evidence of those losses?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to specific performance of an agreement to sell if they are willing to accept the property in its existing condition despite initial disputes over additional construction works?
- Abdullah And 4 Other vs The State1992 PLD Supreme Court 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the High Court's dismissal of the appellants' challenge against their convictions for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully established the participation of all ten accused, or if the case suffered from the 'net being cast too wide' due to deep-seated enmity between the parties involving reciprocal abductions of women. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that while the participation of three specific appellants—Abdullah, Muhammad, and Subey Khan—was proven beyond reasonable doubt through evidence of motive, specific weapon recoveries, physical injuries sustained during the occurrence, and the voluntary withdrawal of one appeal, there was insufficient corroboratory material against the remaining seven appellants. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals of the three identified participants but allowed the appeals of the other seven, granting them the benefit of the doubt and acquitting them. The judgment reinforces the principle that where evidence against co-accused is lacking, the benefit of doubt must be extended, even if some accused are found guilty.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court suo motu review and set aside a previous order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the presence of a strong motive and physical injuries on an accused person sufficiently establish their participation in a crime?
- Is the voluntary withdrawal of an appeal by an accused person sufficient to confirm their participation in the occurrence?
- Should an appellate court acquit co-accused when there is no satisfactory or corroboratory evidence against them, despite the conviction of other co-accused?
- Abdullah & Co. vs Province of Sindh And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 160 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1083 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 212 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Ibrahim And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 463 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2054 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed for the quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of an F.I.R. registered under sections 379, 411, and 109 read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings against applicants can be quashed when they were implicated mechanically upon the bare directions of a senior police officer without any supporting evidence or application of mind by the investigating officer, and whether an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be rejected solely on the ground of being premature. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution lacked any material or evidence against the applicants, and that continuing the trial amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and harassment. The Court established that section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked at any stage, including before framing a charge, and that the trial court must acquit an accused if there is no probability of conviction, rather than forcing innocent persons to face trial.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused is implicated mechanically on the directions of a senior police officer without supporting evidence?
- Whether an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be dismissed by a trial court solely on the ground that it is premature before the recording of evidence?
- Is a police report submitted under section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid if the investigating officer fails to apply their mind regarding the sufficiency of evidence against the accused?
- Abdul Sattar and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 309 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar And 6 Other vs Ibrahim And Othcrs1992 PLD Karachi 323 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judicial miscellaneous application was filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a compromise decree dated September 20, 1989, in a suit for specific performance. The applicants, comprising certain legal representatives and omitted female heirs of a deceased party, alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and non-joinder of necessary parties. The core legal questions centered on whether a compromise decree can be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of actual prejudice or a viable altered defense, and whether non-joinder of necessary parties mandates the automatic setting aside of a decree or if alternative relief such as modification can be granted. The Sindh High Court held that fraud or misrepresentation per se, without proof of actual detriment or disadvantage, does not warrant setting aside a decree, and that legal representatives cannot alter the irrevocable defenses originally taken. Furthermore, the court held that relief under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is discretionary and need not always entail setting aside the entire decree, as the court may fashion appropriate remedies like modification or rectification. The court partially allowed the application by ordering the omitted heirs to be inducted into the proceedings to secure their rightful shares without disturbing the underlying decree.
Questions settled- Can a decree be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for fraud or misrepresentation without showing any actual loss, detriment, or prejudice?
- Is a legal representative in a civil suit entitled to alter or raise defenses different from those originally taken by the deceased party?
- Does the omission of necessary parties from a suit invariably require the total setting aside of the resulting decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or can the court grant alternative relief such as modification?
- Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed summarily without recording evidence if the salient facts are admitted and disclose no real prejudice?
- Abdul Satay vs P.R.T.C. and others1992 PLC 914 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Salam vs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan and 3 others1992 PLC 531 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-01-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Salam and another vs Shah Saood and others1992 SCMR 1208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the defendants' civil revision in a declaratory title suit. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of the suit property, whereas the defendants pleaded a valid gift, which all three courts rejected. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the plaintiffs had sued for an area exceeding their actual ownership share. The core legal question concerned whether a co-owner could institute a suit and obtain a decree regarding land exceeding their individual share, including land belonging to non-party co-sharers. The Supreme Court held that while a co-owner cannot retain the share of other co-owners for themselves, a decree obtained by a plaintiff co-owner in respect of excess land belonging to non-party co-sharers will inure for the benefit of those non-party co-sharers, who are entitled to the relief to the extent of their shares, and the winning plaintiffs must voluntarily surrender such rights to them. The petition was consequently dismissed with these clarifications.
Questions settled- Can a co-owner bring a suit and obtain a decree in respect of land exceeding their own ownership share for the benefit of non-party co-sharers?
- Whether non-party co-sharers can be granted the benefit of a decree obtained by another co-owner under Order XXI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does an execution application filed by one of several joint decree-holders enure for the benefit of all joint decree-holders?
- Abdul Sajood And Another vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore And 5 Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examines whether the non-confirmation of a mortgage in favour of claimants by the Custodian deprived them of the right to claim the transfer of evacuee property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether tenants inducted by them as unconfirmed mortgagees could be given preference. The Supreme Court held that although the appellants failed to get the mortgage confirmed or surrender the property as required under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, making their continued possession unlawful after a certain stage, such possession remained 'possession' for the purposes of the settlement laws following the deletion of the restrictive statutory definition of possession in 1973. Consequently, the unconfirmed mortgagees were entitled to preference over their own tenants in the transfer of the property. The Court laid down that an occupant's possession, even if it becomes unlawful due to non-compliance with evacuee property laws, does not divest them of their status as possessors for settlement purposes, and they must be preferred in a transfer contest against tenants deriving their occupation through them.
Questions settled- Does the non-confirmation of a mortgage by the Custodian deprive the mortgagee of the right to claim transfer of evacuee property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Can tenants inducted into evacuee property by an unconfirmed mortgagee claim preference in transfer over the mortgagee?
- Does possession of evacuee property that becomes unlawful due to non-compliance with the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 cease to be possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- What are the legal consequences under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 of failing to surrender unconfirmed evacuee property to the Custodian?
- Abdul Rehman vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi and 4 others1992 PLC 523 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs Messrs Habib Bank Limited, Karachi through its1992 PLC 384 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-09-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman Shahid vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Reheem vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 289 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq vs Messrs Ihsan Sons Limited and 2 others1992 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that reversed a Labour Tribunal's decision to reinstate an accountant. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the appellant was a 'workman' within the meaning of labour laws and whether the employer's office and factory constituted a single establishment or two separate entities. The Supreme Court held that for a grievance under Standing Order 12(3), the definition of 'workman' in Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, applies, not Section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It reiterated that the nature of duties, not designation or salary, determines workman status. However, the Court ultimately found that the employer's office, being a clerical department, fell under the definition of a 'commercial establishment' and was separate from the factory. As the office employed fewer than 20 persons, the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable to it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- What is the test for determining if an employee is a 'workman' under labour legislation?
- Does the registration of a commercial establishment under the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969, exclude the application of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Is a clerical department of a factory considered a 'commercial establishment' or an 'industrial establishment' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- What is the distinction between the definition of 'workman' in Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and Section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a competent Tribunal in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction?
- Abdul Razzaq vs (Messrs) Ihsan Sons Limited And Two OtherK.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the termination of an accountant's services, challenging the High Court's decision that the appellant was not a "workman" under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal questions were whether the appellant's duties were supervisory, thereby excluding him from the definition of a workman, and whether the employer's head office and factory constituted a single establishment or separate entities. The Supreme Court held that the clerical office of an industrial establishment constitutes a "commercial establishment" distinct from the "industrial establishment" (factory) under the Standing Orders Ordinance. Since the respondent's office employed fewer than twenty persons, the Standing Orders Ordinance was inapplicable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the status of an employee as a workman depends on the applicability of the relevant statute to the specific establishment. The judgment clarifies that clerical departments are distinct from industrial units, and registration under the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969, serves as evidence of an establishment's separate legal status for labor law purposes.
Questions settled- Does the clerical department of a factory constitute a separate commercial establishment from the industrial establishment under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Is the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, identical to the definition of 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a Labour Appellate Tribunal in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does registration under the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969, affect the applicability of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Abdul Razzaq And 2 Others vs Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Ltd., Lahore And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 1884 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Karachi Development Authority through Director1992 CLC 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razaq And Another vs The StateK.L.R.1992 Criminal Cases 507 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razak vs Ijaz Mahmood and another1992 CLC 5 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two writ petitions arose out of concurrent judgments of the Family Court and the Additional District Judge, which upheld a claim for maintenance for a minor son and dismissed the father's petition for his custody/guardianship under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The core legal questions involved whether concurrent findings on the welfare of a minor and custody can be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction, and whether a father's alleged poverty or lack of immediate capacity relieves him of the legal duty to maintain his child. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the scope of constitutional jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional defects and cannot be invoked merely to reassess questions of fact or substitute a different view on the welfare of a minor where two lower courts have exercised their jurisdiction lawfully. Furthermore, the Court held that an able-bodied father cannot evade his primary legal and moral obligation to provide maintenance to his minor child on the ground of poverty or lack of capacity, distinguishing between capability and capacity.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the custody and guardianship of a minor in its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Does the mere fact that a father has married a second woman per se disqualify him from obtaining the custody of his minor child?
- Can an able-bodied father avoid his legal and moral obligation to maintain his minor child on the plea of poverty or lack of capacity to pay?
- What is the distinction between the scope of appellate/revisional power and the scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction regarding erroneous decisions of fact?
- Abdul Razak Rathore vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 39 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant, a clerk in the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for allegedly accepting illegal gratification. The prosecution case relied on a trap raid where tainted money was recovered from the appellant. However, the complainant turned hostile, and the raid supervisors, including a Magistrate and a D.S.P., did not witness the actual transaction or hear the conversation between the parties. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, noting significant evidentiary gaps and contradictions regarding the raid's execution. Furthermore, the court strongly condemned the practice of involving Magistrates in police trap operations, emphasizing that such conduct compromises judicial independence and impartiality. Relying on established precedents, the court held that the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, does not automatically establish guilt without proof that the money was accepted as illegal gratification. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, automatically establish the offence of bribery upon the mere possession of money?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant turns hostile and the raid supervisors did not witness the actual transaction?
- Is the practice of involving Magistrates in police trap operations legally permissible and consistent with judicial independence?
- What is the standard of proof required from an accused when the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, operates against them?
- Abdul Rauf and anothers vs Ghulam Muhammad1992 CLC 2479 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Incharge, Police Station, Directorate of Anticorruption1992 P Cr. L J 2234 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore And 111992 PLD Supreme Court 80 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VI framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The appellant and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had both constructed shops on open land that was burnt during partition, and the sites were subsequently transferred to them as building sites. However, transfer documents erroneously recorded the respondents' predecessor as the transferee of construction lying over the appellant's shop. An amendment granted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner correcting this error was set aside by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, whose order was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a building constructed over an already built-up shop could be transferred under Settlement Scheme No. VI. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of construction raised over an already constructed building is not covered by Settlement Scheme No. VI or paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Act. The Court laid down that Scheme No. VI only applies to building sites or permanent buildings on open land, not to superstructures built over existing structures.
Questions settled- Can a building constructed over an already constructed shop be transferred under Settlement Scheme No. VI?
- Does the exclusive jurisdiction of an Additional Settlement Commissioner bar judicial review when an order is passed contrary to law?
- What is the scope of transfer of evacuee building sites under paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?
- Abdul Rashid Malik and others vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways1992 PLC 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a dispute regarding the promotion of Booking Clerks, Parcel Clerks, and Goods Clerks to Sub-Ticket Examiners against a reserved quota. The Punjab Labour Court dismissed the petitioners' grievance petition on the ground that they did not qualify as 'workmen'. On appeal, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal failed to record a specific finding on whether the petitioners were 'workmen' due to insufficient evidence, yet proceeded to dismiss the appeal on its merits. The High Court considered whether a Labour Tribunal can adjudicate the merits of a grievance petition without first establishing the jurisdictional fact of the petitioner's status as a workman. The High Court held that the existence of an employer-workman relationship is a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal's decision on the merits without determining this status was declared to be without lawful authority. The case was remitted to the Appellate Tribunal to decide the jurisdictional issue afresh.
Questions settled- Is the existence of an employer-workman relationship a condition precedent for a Labour Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Can a Labour Appellate Tribunal decide a grievance appeal on its merits without first determining whether the appellant qualifies as a workman?
- Can a tribunal of limited jurisdiction adjudicate a dispute on the merits when the jurisdictional facts remain undetermined?
- Abdul Rahim vs Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation through Director-1992 PLC 994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal on the preliminary ground that he was no longer a civil servant following his transfer to the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation under section 12 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether the statutory transfer of employees of Radio Pakistan to the newly established Corporation under section 12 of the Act altered their status and stripped them of their character as civil servants. The Supreme Court held that the word 'transfer' in subsection (1) of section 12 did not render a civil servant an employee of the Corporation so as to terminate their civil servant status, as distinct from the express option provided for Information Service Officers under subsections (2) and (3). The Court laid down the principle that a statutory transfer of government employees to a corporation on the same terms and conditions, without an explicit statutory provision altering their status or requiring an option, does not amount to a severance of service as a civil servant, and such employees retain their status and access to the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether the statutory transfer of Radio Pakistan employees to the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation under section 12 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973 has the effect of terminating their status as civil servants?
- Does a transfer of a civil servant to a corporation under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 amount to a change of service status?
- Whether an employee transferred en bloc under section 12(1) of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973 loses the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Abdul Rahim vs Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation through Director1992 SCMR 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, examining whether the en bloc statutory transfer of employees of Radio Pakistan to the newly established Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation under Section 12 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973, altered their status and stripped them of their character as civil servants. The Service Tribunal had previously dismissed the appellant's service appeal on the preliminary ground that he was no longer a civil servant and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the word 'transfer' under subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act, 1973, without an option akin to that provided for Information Service Officers under subsection (2), does not terminate a government employee's status as a civil servant. The Court clarified that such employees remain civil servants on statutory deputation, retaining their constitutional and statutory protections. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Service Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Does the en bloc statutory transfer of Radio Pakistan employees to the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation under Section 12 of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act 1973 terminate their status as civil servants?
- Whether an employee transferred under Section 12(1) of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act 1973 without an express statutory option ceases to be a civil servant?
- Does a transfer of a civil servant to a corporation under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 amount to a change in their employment status?
- Abdul Rahim Khan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 163 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum and another vs Niaz Muhammad and another1092 SCMR 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over a watercourse between the petitioners and the respondent. The respondent obtained an order from the Divisional Canal Officer under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act for the excavation of a watercourse to irrigate his land. The petitioners challenged this order in a civil suit, arguing the watercourse was private and the order was illegal. The trial court and the appellate court ruled in favour of the petitioners, declaring the order illegal as the watercourse was private and no proceedings were pending under Section 68 of the Act. However, the Lahore High Court set aside these judgments, ruling the suit was premature because the order was provisional. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the watercourse in dispute is a private one, whether the dispute falls within the ambit of the Canal and Drainage Act, and whether proceedings under Section 68 or 68-A of the Act were legally maintainable in the circumstances. The impugned judgment was suspended pending final adjudication.
Questions settled- Whether a private watercourse falls within the definition of a watercourse under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873?
- Can an order under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 be passed in the absence of pending proceedings under Section 68?
- Whether a civil suit challenging an order of the Divisional Canal Officer is premature if the order is deemed provisional in nature?
- Abdul Qayoom vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. , .1992 PLC 615 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir Shaikh vs Registrar, N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology and others1992 CLC 2222 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought admission to the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi, challenging the validity of newly introduced admission categories in the university prospectus for the year 1991-92 (namely categories 10.2.1(a) and 10.2.1(c)). These categories created a separate classification for permanent residents of Karachi who had passed part of their qualifying examinations from educational institutions outside the Karachi Division, thereby restricting their general merit seats. The core legal question was whether the creation of such admission categories in the university prospectus was discriminatory, unreasonable, and violative of the fundamental right to equality and principles of policy under the Constitution. The Sindh High Court held that rules contained in a university prospectus are subordinate legislation subject to judicial review against fundamental rights. The court ruled that the classification was arbitrary, lacked a rational nexus to any valid objective, and violated Article 25 and Article 37(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitions were accordingly allowed.
Questions settled- Whether rules framed in a university prospectus can be challenged as unconstitutional or unreasonable?
- Does the creation of a separate admission category based on the place where an educational institution is situated violate the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
- When does a prospective candidate qualify as an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge university admission rules?
- Can a university classify candidates for admission without establishing a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved?
- Abdul Qadir Khokhar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 662 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadeer vs Manager Telephone Industries of Pakistan Limited & 4K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 128 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Nasir vs Safdar Javed and others1992 CLC 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Murad Khan vs Mst. Noshaba and 9 others1992 SCMR 1828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging the decisions of special forums under the PATA Regulation. The petitioner had filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was referred to a Jirga. Although the Deputy Commissioner had irregularly directed the Jirga to record evidence on the issue of limitation, both parties acquiesced and participated without objection. The Deputy Commissioner subsequently evaluated the evidence and dismissed the suit as time-barred, a finding upheld by appellate forums and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner acted illegally by adjudicating the question of limitation upon receipt of the Jirga's proceedings rather than before the reference. The Supreme Court held that since the parties participated without objection and the evidence was already on record, no jurisdictional error or illegality occurred. The Court laid down that procedural irregularities consented to by parties do not vitiate special tribunal proceedings under the PATA Regulation.
Questions settled- Whether a Deputy Commissioner under the PATA Regulation can determine the question of limitation upon the return of proceedings from a Jirga when evidence has already been recorded without objection?
- Does the failure to determine limitation prior to reference to a Jirga vitiate the proceedings where the parties acquiesced in the procedure?
- Can the High Court interfere in the concurrent findings of special forums under the PATA Regulation on hyper-technical objections?
- Abdul Mateen vs Messrs Caltex Oil Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1992 PLC 308 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-12-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Manna N vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Manna N vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 406 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-06-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Manna N and others vs Sikandar Khan1992 CLC 505 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts decreeing a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners-vendees. The petitioners challenged the findings on two main grounds: first, the deficiency in court-fees and the plaintiff's contumacious conduct; and second, the misreading and non-reading of evidence regarding the issue of waiver (participation in the bargain). The Lahore High Court upheld the concurrent findings on the question of court-fees, finding no record to support the petitioners' contentions. However, upon evaluating the evidence regarding waiver, the High Court held that the lower courts failed to properly analyze the testimonies of the defense witnesses, which went largely un-cross-examined and un-rebutted except for the respondent's bald denial. The Court laid down that where a pre-emptor initially agreed to purchase the land but introduced the vendees in his stead upon failing to arrange funds, such conduct constitutes waiver. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the pre-emption suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts on the question of court-fees can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction without supporting record?
- Does the failure to cross-examine defense witnesses on material aspects of a transaction amount to an admission of those facts?
- Whether the participation of a pre-emptor in arranging the sale or introducing the vendees due to lack of funds constitutes waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Can a judgment that fails to discuss, analyze, or refer to the material evidence on record be sustained in the eye of law?
- Abdul Majid vs Muhammad Afzal Khokhar1992 CLC 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs The State1992 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a jail appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentences under section 7(1)(a) of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991 and section 13-B(b) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, following the recovery of a handgrenade and bullets from his possession. The core legal questions involved whether possessing bullets fell within the definition of illicit arms under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991 barring a separate charge under the Arms Ordinance 1965; whether the non-examination of the investigating officer vitiated the trial; and whether delay in sending the handgrenade for chemical analysis was fatal to the case. The Supreme Court held that bullets do not fall under the definition of containers, grenades, bombs, or shells discharging noxious substances under the 1991 Ordinance, constituting a distinct offence from possessing ammunition under the 1965 Ordinance, that non-examination of the investigating officer caused no prejudice given the testimony of recovery witnesses, and that mere delay in dispatching a sealed parcel for analysis without proof of tampering is not fatal. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether possessing bullets can be equated with possessing and not surrendering a handgrenade under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991?
- Does the non-examination of the investigating officer vitiate the trial and prejudice the accused where recovery witnesses have been examined?
- Is simpliciter delay in the despatch of a parcel containing a handgrenade to the Chemical Analyser fatal to the prosecution case in the absence of evidence of tampering?
- Abdul Majeed vs Mohammad Afzal KhokharK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 566 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed Soomro vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 206 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2597 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed (Ex-Lecturer) vs The Secretary to Govt. of NWFP And Another(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 138) · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and others1992 CLC 515 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Abdul Qayum1992 PLD Peshawar 103 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arises from a suit filed by the petitioner, Abdul Latif, seeking a declaration, perpetual injunction, and joint possession regarding a joint land measuring 7 Marlas. The petitioner challenged a mutation through which co-owners sold a portion of the joint property and carved out a separate 'Tatima' without the petitioner's consent. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit. The Peshawar High Court examined the revenue records and held that while co-owners are competent to sell their undivided share in joint property, they cannot legally carve out a specific portion or 'Tatima' to the detriment of other co-sharers without their express permission. The transferee only acquires the status of a co-sharer to the extent of the purchased share. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and granted the declaratory decree, clarifying that issues regarding improvements or construction on joint land must be determined during partition by metes and bounds.
Questions settled- Can a co-owner carve out a specific portion or Tatima from joint property without the express permission of other co-sharers?
- What rights does a transferee acquire upon purchasing a share of land from certain co-owners in a joint holding?
- How is the issue of construction or improvements made by a co-sharer on joint property addressed?
- Whether lower courts act with material irregularity when ignoring the legal limitations on transferring specific portions of joint property?
- Abdul Latif Khan vs Dhanjishaw Bahranji Ghadially and another1992 CLC 827 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif and others vs Muhammad Rafique and others1992 CLC 523 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 568 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs ShemrooK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 119 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Shemro1992 CLC 622 · Board of Revenue · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Abdul Karim1992 SCMR 1300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that reversed a Rent Controller's order granting eviction of a tenant. The landlord sought eviction of a shop under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, citing default in rent payment and personal need for his sons. While the Rent Controller found in favor of the landlord regarding personal need, the High Court reversed this, holding that the landlord's failure to disclose his possession of another shop in the initial ejectment application invalidated his claim. The Supreme Court examined whether the omission to mention existing property in the application defeats a claim for personal need. The Court held that the landlord's evidence clearly established a bona fide requirement for his unemployed sons, and the omission was not fatal, particularly as the tenant failed to prove mala fides. The Court restored the Rent Controller's eviction order, establishing that technical omissions in pleadings do not override substantive evidence of bona fide personal need, provided the requirement is clearly articulated and supported during the proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a landlord to disclose other owned properties in an ejectment application automatically invalidate a claim for personal need?
- Is it necessary for a landlord to provide minute details of all owned properties in an initial ejectment application?
- Can a landlord seek eviction on the ground of personal need for his sons if he already possesses another shop?