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.
- Zia H. Rizvi for Appellant (-91).Mian Masood Ahmad, D.R. for Appellant (I.Ta.1991 PTD (Trib.) 531 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Zia H. Rizvi and Sh. Zulfiqar Ali, I.T.P. for Appellant. vs Shaukat Ali Babar, A.C._D.R. for Respondent1991 PTD (Trib.) 299 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-31Read full judgment →
- Zia Ahmad Siddiqui vs Director Administration (E&PD) Export1991 PLC 776 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Zia Ahmad Makhdoom vs Pak Suzuki Motor Company Ltd.1991 PLC 145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-24Read full judgment →
- Zawar Hussain vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Zawar Hussain And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 937 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Zarwali and 3 others vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 70 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
- Zarif Khan vs Abdul Manna N EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 622 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
- Zarif Khan vs Abdul Manna N EtcK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
- Zareef Khan vs The Administrator, Karachi Circle, Auqaf Department1991 MLD 2323 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Zardad vs The State1991 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which maintained his conviction and sentence under section 13-E of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the recovery of live kalashnikov bullets. The core legal questions involved whether expert evidence was mandatory to prove the nature of the recovered bullets, whether non-association of public recovery witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure rendered the police testimony unreliable, and whether the petitioner suffered prejudice due to language barriers during trial. The Supreme Court held that expert evidence was unnecessary as the bullets were self-evident, that police testimony alone without public witnesses is sufficient if found credible, and that due process was observed regarding interpretation. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, maintaining the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether expert evidence is strictly required to establish the prohibited character of live bullets recovered from an accused?
- Is the association of public witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandatory in every recovery case?
- Can the testimony of police officers alone form the basis of a valid conviction if found to be intrinsically sound?
- Whether the appointment of a Court Reader as an interpreter safeguards the rights of an accused who does not understand the language of the court?
- Zarbat Khan and 2 others vs Messrs A.E.G. Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.1991 PLC 361 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
- Zar Wali Shah vs The State1991 SCMR 1590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for the murder of his maternal uncle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a reduction in sentence based on the plea of provocation. The petitioner argued that the deceased, who was his maternal uncle, had repeatedly demanded that the petitioner, a proclaimed offender in another case, stop visiting or staying at his house, which provoked the petitioner to commit the crime. The Supreme Court accepted this contention, finding that the circumstances surrounding the deceased's repeated demands upon the petitioner constituted sufficient provocation to warrant a lesser punishment. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the death sentence, and substituted it with a sentence of imprisonment for life, while maintaining the fine and granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment establishes that provocation arising from a close relative's repeated demands regarding a suspect's status as an offender can be a mitigating factor for sentencing.
Questions settled- Can the sentence of death be reduced to life imprisonment on the grounds of provocation?
- Does a relative's repeated demand for an offender to cease visiting due to their criminal status constitute sufficient provocation for a murder charge?
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Zamir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 435 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Zamir Ahmad Sheikh and 6 others vs Chief Secretary and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 431 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-11-16Read full judgment →
- Zamir Ahmad Khan vs Central Excise and Land Customs Karachi and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 824 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Zameer Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Zaman vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
- Zaman Textile Mills Ltd. vs The Central Board of Revenue and 2 others1991 MLD 1591 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
- Zakiuddin And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1428 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Zakir Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
- Zakaullah Khan vs Muhammad Aslam And Another1991 SCMR 2126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on his relationship with the vendors. The trial court dismissed the suit, doubting the relationship and the evidence, while the first appellate court reversed this, finding the relationship established and remanding for market value determination. The High Court, in second appeal, excluded the plaintiff's evidence under Section 50 of the Evidence Act and restored the trial court's dismissal. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine the admissibility of evidence under Section 50 and the applicability of a Board of Revenue notification. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misapplied the 'best evidence' rule, as the documents deemed necessary (birth registers, pedigree tables) could not conclusively prove the specific identity of the vendor. Furthermore, the Court clarified that evidence of conduct, such as living in the same house, satisfies Section 50 of the Evidence Act. The Court held that in civil cases, the standard of proof is a preponderance of probability, and since the respondents failed to contradict the plaintiff's claimed relationship, the appeal was allowed, restoring the first appellate court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does the rule of 'best evidence' require the production of specific documents like birth registers to prove a relationship in a pre-emption suit when the fact of relationship is not disputed?
- Is evidence of conduct, such as living in the same house, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Evidence Act regarding the proof of relationship?
- What is the standard of proof required in civil cases compared to criminal cases?
- Does the burden of proof remain material when both parties have led evidence in a civil case?
- Zakariya vs Member (Land Utilization), Board of Revenue Sindh, Karachi and 3 others1991 MLD 2317 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- Zakaria Shahid And Others vs Abdul Aziz Qureshi And Another1991 SCMR 145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core dispute involved a conflict over the ownership and tenancy status of a property, specifically whether the petitioners were tenants of respondent No. 1. The petitioners challenged the eviction order, arguing that the property they occupied was not the same as that transferred to respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court examined whether a finding of fact recorded by a Civil Court in a suit that was ultimately dismissed could be relied upon by the Rent Controller and the High Court. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to appeal the adverse finding of fact recorded against them in the Civil Court, even though the suit itself was dismissed. Consequently, the Rent Controller and the High Court correctly relied upon the established finding of fact regarding the property's transfer. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that the petition lacked merit, and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party appeal against an adverse finding of fact recorded in a judgment even if the suit itself was dismissed?
- Is a finding of fact recorded by a competent Civil Court binding on a Rent Controller exercising jurisdiction under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Zahooruddin vs Haji Hussain through his Legal Heirs and others1991 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment for altogether ignoring and failing to dispose of two pending applications filed during the appeal—one seeking additional evidence through the appointment of a Commissioner and the other for framing or re-casting of issues. The core legal question addresses whether an appellate court can decide an appeal while completely ignoring and failing to adjudicate upon applications touching the matters in controversy. The Sindh High Court held that it is a fundamental and mandatory obligation of a court of law to entertain, address, and dispose of all applications properly brought before it in accordance with the law, either by accepting or rejecting them. The Court ruled that rendering a judgment while refusing or failing to exercise jurisdiction conferred by law vitiates the decision. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the appellate judgments and decrees were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the appellate court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law after disposing of the pending applications.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can decide an appeal without disposing of pending applications filed before it?
- Is it an obligation of a court of law to entertain and adjudicate upon all applications brought before it in accordance with law?
- What is the legal effect when an appellate court renders a judgment upon a refusal to exercise jurisdiction conferred by law?
- Zahooruddin vs Haji Husain and 4 OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 489 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Zahoor vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Zahoor vs The State1991 MLD 1951 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Zahoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 549 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Khan vs Qazi Fateh Din1991 MLD 333 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-20Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Hussain And Others vs Abdul Hamid And Other1991 SCMR 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court writ petition challenging the partition of an occupancy tenancy during consolidation proceedings, the allotment of evacuee share to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee in 1966, and its subsequent sale to Respondent No. 1. The petitioners, who purchased land from occupancy tenants after those vendors acquired proprietary rights over their partitioned share, asserted rights over the remaining land under Section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and a Policy Letter dated 31-3-1977. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners' predecessors never challenged the consolidation partition, the allocation to evacuee share, or the 1966 allotment before competent forums prior to 1-7-1974, those orders had attained finality and could not be collaterally attacked. Furthermore, the petitioners could not claim greater rights than what their vendors had actually acquired and transferred to them. Finding no legal merit or factual foundation for the claim, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment order that has attained finality without being challenged in appeal or revision can be challenged through collateral proceedings?
- Can a purchaser of land from former occupancy tenants claim rights over land beyond what was actually acquired by and vested in their vendors?
- Whether policy instructions issued subsequently can retrospectively take away rights accrued in favour of valid allottees of land?
- Zahoor Alam And Others vs Fazal Hussain And Other1991 SCMR 763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the High Court's judgment dismissing the second appeal arising from a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption decree obtained in violation of Section 28 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is binding on a rival pre-emptor who was not joined as a party, and whether payment of the decretal amount outside the court without satisfying the court within the stipulated period constitutes valid compliance. The Supreme Court held that a pre-emption decree obtained without impleading a rival pre-emptor as required by Section 28 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is not binding on the omitted pre-emptor, and that payment out of court must be brought to the trial court's notice and satisfied within the allowed period to be effective. The Court laid down the principle that failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 28 renders such a decree non-binding on the rival pre-emptor, and a pre-emptor who violates these provisions cannot claim protection or allege non-compliance by the opposing party.
Questions settled- Is a pre-emption decree obtained without joining a rival pre-emptor binding on the omitted pre-emptor under Section 28 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Does payment of the decretal amount outside the court constitute valid compliance if not brought to the notice of the trial court within the allowed period?
- Can a party who violated the provisions of Section 28 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act allege non-compliance against a rival pre-emptor?
- Zahoor Ahmad vs Muhammad Sarwar Khan and 2 others1991 MLD 1289 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1962 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Zahiruddin Babar vs Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 630 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-11-26Read full judgment →
- Zahir Ud Din vs The State1991 SCMR 958 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-16Read full judgment →
- Zahir Shah vs Nazir Ahmad And 5 Other1991 SCMR 1810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which accepted a constitutional petition filed by the respondent against an order of the Election Tribunal. The dispute originated from the election for a District Council seat in Ward No. 12, Swat, where the petitioner was declared the returned candidate. The respondent challenged this result before the Election Tribunal, which initially dismissed the election petition after framing issues and recording evidence. Subsequently, the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court's exercise of constitutional jurisdiction to remand the matter caused prejudice to the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the propriety of the remand order, while maintaining the interim order previously in place. The matter is directed to be heard on the existing record, with parties granted liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to remand an election dispute to the Election Tribunal for a fresh decision?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an Election Tribunal's order?
- Zahir Shah vs Muhammad Anwar And Another1991 SCMR 1696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court to examine whether the punishment altered to imprisonment for life by the High Court was legal and proper in the circumstances of the case. The respondent was tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, along with a fine and compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court maintained the conviction but altered the sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in law in altering the normal sentence of death to imprisonment for life, particularly considering subsequent Presidential Orders of Amnesty. The Supreme Court held that in light of general amnesty orders benefiting those sentenced to death by converting their sentences to life imprisonment, it would be incongruous to reimpose the death sentence. Consequently, the appeal for the enhancement of sentence was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was legally justified in altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Does a Presidential Order of Amnesty affect the execution of a capital sentence?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment in view of a general amnesty?
- Zahid Parvez and another vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under sections 302 and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the murder of two individuals and house trespass. The prosecution alleged premeditated murder, while the defense claimed the appellants acted in self-defense after discovering their sister being forcibly held by the deceased. The Court observed that both parties introduced falsehoods into their versions of the incident, particularly regarding the severe injuries sustained by the appellants' sister. Relying on the principle established in Syed Ali Bepari v. State (PLD 1962 SC 502), the Court held that when both sides withhold the truth, the Court is duty-bound to discover the probable version of events. The Court concluded it was highly probable the appellants acted under grave and sudden provocation upon discovering their sister's abduction. Consequently, the Court set aside the murder convictions, substituting them with convictions under section 304, Part-I, PPC, and acquitted the appellants of house trespass, ruling that the entry was to retrieve their sister rather than for culpable trespass.
Questions settled- Is a court duty-bound to discover the true version of an incident when both the prosecution and defense introduce vital falsehoods?
- Does an entry into a house to rescue a family member constitute culpable trespass under Section 449 PPC?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 PPC be altered to Section 304 Part-I PPC based on the doctrine of grave and sudden provocation?
- Under what circumstances can a court act upon a probable version of events when the direct evidence is unreliable?
- Zahid Mirza vs Director (Admn.) WASA, L.Da., Lahore and another1991 PLC 808 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Zahid Hussain Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1874 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Zahid and another vs The State and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the maintainability of a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court against a High Court order cancelling bail. The appellants, accused in a case under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, were initially granted bail by an Additional Sessions Judge, which was subsequently cancelled by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court's Assistant Registrar refused to entertain the appellants' petition for leave to appeal, citing the second proviso to Rule 8, Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, requiring surrender. The Supreme Court held that the bar in Rule 8, Order XXIII does not apply where there is no order of imprisonment being challenged, nor does the second proviso apply as the case does not involve 'bail before arrest'. Finding no specific rule barring the petition, the Court invoked its inherent powers under Rule 6, Order XXXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, to further the ends of justice. The Court set aside the Assistant Registrar's order and directed that the petition be placed before the Court for consideration on merits without requiring prior surrender to police authorities.
Questions settled- Does the bar in Rule 8, Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 apply to a petition for leave to appeal against an order cancelling bail?
- Can the Supreme Court invoke its inherent powers under Rule 6, Order XXXIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 to entertain a petition where no specific rule applies?
- Is a petitioner required to surrender to police custody before the Supreme Court can entertain a petition against an order cancelling bail?
- Zahid Afzal and another vs The State and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court cancelling the bail earlier granted to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerns the propriety and validity of the cancellation of bail by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition should be entertained upon the petitioners surrendering before the Court, noting that the High Court's order cancelling bail required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted ad interim bail to the petitioners during the pendency of the petition for leave to appeal, maintaining the bail bonds previously furnished pursuant to the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The key principle laid down is that where an order cancelling bail warrants deeper scrutiny, the petitioners may be admitted to ad interim bail upon surrendering before the Court pending final adjudication of the leave petition.
Questions settled- Whether an order of the High Court cancelling bail warrants further examination by the Supreme Court?
- Can petitioners be granted ad interim bail pending the hearing of a petition for leave to appeal against bail cancellation?
- Are previous bail bonds furnished before the trial court sufficient for ad interim bail upon surrendering before the Supreme Court?
- Zaheeruddin vs Riaz Ahmed and another1991 CLC 1512 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, challenged the dismissal of an ejectment application by the Rent Controller. The appellant landlord sought ejectment of his alleged tenant, Umerdin (respondent No. 2), and sub-tenant, Riaz Ahmed (respondent No. 1), on grounds of rent default, subletting, and bona fide personal use. The Rent Controller found that Umerdin was not the tenant, but rather Riaz Ahmed was the tenant, who had not defaulted on rent as he had deposited it in court. The Rent Controller also held that the landlord failed to prove his bona fide requirement for the premises. The High Court upheld these findings, emphasizing that the landlord failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship with Umerdin through a properly executed agreement under Section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, or by proving the documents under Qanun-e-Shahadat. Additionally, the landlord's claim for bona fide personal use was deemed insufficient due to a casual approach in the application and lack of tangible supporting evidence. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of a photostat copy of a rent agreement without the landlord's signature and not drawn in accordance with Section 5(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a landlord establish a bona fide personal use requirement for ejectment without sufficiently explaining the need in the application and supporting it with tangible evidence?
- Does a tenant commit default in rent payment if, upon the landlord's refusal to accept rent, the tenant deposits the rent in court?
- What is required to prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Zaheer-Ud-Din vs Riaz Ahmed & AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 415 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Ahmad Khan vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) D.S.C. And Other1991 SCMR 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner, which challenged the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner holding the petitioner's land allotment not to be genuine. The core legal question before the court was whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with a finding of fact regarding the genuineness of a land allotment determined by a tribunal upon the evaluation of available material. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had thoroughly discussed the reasons for his findings, including the statement of the retired Assistant Commissioner, and that his conclusions were neither perverse nor erroneous. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed that the genuineness of the allotment was a question of fact properly evaluated by the tribunal, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that superior courts exercising constitutional writ jurisdiction will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by tribunals unless such findings are perverse or based on a misreading of the record.
Questions settled- Whether the genuineness of a land allotment is a question of fact that precludes interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Can the High Court interfere with a tribunal's finding of fact that is based on a proper evaluation of material on record?
- Whether an appellate court will grant leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition on a question of fact?
- Zafrullah Khan Bajwa vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1991 PLC 490 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Zafarullah Khan Bajwa vs Punjab Labour Appellaet Tribunal Etc.K.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 174 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Zafarul Islam vs Mrs. Azra Malik1991 PLD Karachi 377 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arose from applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the legal heirs of a deceased property owner (Mst. Masooda Bhurgari) to set aside an arbitration award and consent decree passed in a suit between the plaintiff (purchaser) and the deceased's attorney. The core legal questions were whether an agency and power of attorney survive the death of the principal, whether an arbitration reference and subsequent decree against an attorney without joining the legal heirs of a deceased principal are valid, and whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable to set aside a decree making an award a rule of the court. The Sindh High Court held that under Section 201 of the Contract Act 1872, an agency terminates upon the death of the principal. Since the principal died prior to the arbitration reference, proceedings initiated solely against the attorney without impleading legal heirs were a nullity. The court ruled that an application under Section 12(2) CPC was maintainable and governed by the limitation period under Article 95 of the Limitation Act 1908.
Questions settled- Whether a power of attorney and the agency created thereunder terminate upon the death of the principal under Section 201 of the Contract Act?
- Can an arbitration proceeding and resulting decree be valid when conducted solely against an agent after the death of the principal without impleading the legal heirs?
- Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable to challenge a decree that made an arbitration award the rule of the court on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction?
- Which provision of the Limitation Act governs an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a decree obtained by fraud?
- Zafarul Hassan Qureshi vs Messrs. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd.1991 CLC 1580 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff for administration and accounts under Order XX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming to be the sole surviving heir of his deceased brother who died intestate. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the administration suit in the absence of certain co-heirs, the validity and proof of a disputed Will left by the deceased, whether a nominee of provident fund and insurance benefits is the absolute owner or merely a trustee, and the determination of ownership regarding properties held benami. The court held that an administration suit is maintainable even if some co-heirs are not joined as parties, provided an effective decree can be framed, that the Will executed by the deceased was validly proved and not rebutted, that a nominee holds funds merely as a trustee for legal heirs, and that properties purchased in the wife's name by the husband are presumed to be benami. The court laid down principles regarding the presumption of adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 for withholding documents, the competency of executing a Will while in a feeble state, and the status of nominees regarding employer benefits.
Questions settled- Whether an administration suit is maintainable and liable to be dismissed for the non-joinder of some co-heirs?
- Does a nominee for provident fund and group insurance benefits receive the money as an absolute owner or as a trustee for the legal heirs?
- What is the legal presumption when a property is acquired by a husband in the name of his wife?
- What adverse inference is drawn under the law of evidence when a party deliberately withholds documents in their possession?
- Zafar Masih vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1129 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Zafar Mahmood, Ex Line Superintendent, WAPDA vs WAPDA Through Superintending Engineer (Electricity) And Another1991 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examined whether a departmental appeal filed out of time can be treated by the Service Tribunal as not having been filed in law when the departmental authority had not formally dismissed it as time-barred. The appellant, a Line Superintendent in WAPDA, was dismissed from service and filed a highly belated departmental appeal, which remained undecided, followed by an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the medical certificates furnished to explain the prolonged delay, found them unsatisfactory, and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court held that under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, where no final departmental order has been passed, the Tribunal must satisfy itself whether a competent departmental appeal was preferred within the prescribed rules, and the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in examining and rejecting the explanation for the delay. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal treat a departmental appeal as not filed in law simply because it was time-barred when the departmental authority had not dismissed it on that ground?
- Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of medical certificates and reasons for delay in filing a departmental appeal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- What constitutes a final order for the purpose of maintaining an appeal before the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1718 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State1991 MLD 2506 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs Mst. Nazir Zafar and 2 others1991 CLC 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways and another1991 PLC 448 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi and another1991 CLC 1360 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Zafar Hussain through Legal Heirs and others vs Manzoor Hussain and others1991 MLD 1983 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs The State1991 MLD 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Zafar Alam vs Member (Revenue) Board And 3 Other1991 SCMR 1153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a vendee challenging the High Court's dismissal of his writ petition in a pre-emption suit based on a right of tenancy. The petitioner contended that the respondent's plaint should have been rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to deficient court-fee. The petitioner argued that the precedent established in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 289) was distinguishable because it applied only to clause (c) of Order 7, Rule 11, and not clause (b), and asserted that the court was not obligated to determine the correct court-fee before requiring the plaintiff to make up the deficiency. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the distinction between clauses (b) and (c) of Order 7, Rule 11 is invalid in this context. The Court reaffirmed that while the initial duty to fix the correct court-fee lies with the plaintiff, the Court is obligated to determine the correct value if stamps are deficient, and the plaintiff is entitled to one opportunity to rectify the deficiency.
Questions settled- Is a plaintiff entitled to an opportunity to make up a deficiency in court-fee before a plaint can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the duty to determine the correct court-fee rest solely with the plaintiff, or is the court obligated to determine the correct value when stamps are deficient?
- Zafar Ahmed and others vs District Judge and others1991 CLC 797 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Zabita Khan And Others vs Ganderi Gul And Other1991 S CM R 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a dispute involving the determination of parentage and the evidentiary value of documentary records. The core legal questions presented for consideration involve whether oral evidence is sufficient to displace established documentary evidence, such as a pedigree-table, and whether the lower court erred by failing to examine additional evidence regarding the parentage of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, who were excluded from the pedigree-table. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues, specifically focusing on the weight and sufficiency of evidence required to challenge official pedigree records. The Court directed the parties to furnish security and permitted the filing of further documents to ensure a comprehensive disposal of the appeal. The Court also ordered the original trial court record to be requisitioned for the final hearing. The decision establishes the scope of the upcoming appeal, focusing on the interplay between oral testimony and documentary proof in matters of lineage and succession.
Questions settled- Can oral evidence be sufficient to displace documentary evidence such as a pedigree-table?
- Should a court examine additional evidence regarding parentage if a party is not shown in the pedigree-table?
- Za Far Iq Bal vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 644 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
- Z. A. Sheikh for Appellant. vs Sultan Mansoor, Legal Advisor for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 583 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-14Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Masih vs The State1991 P Cr. LJ 711 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-12-19Read full judgment →
- Younas Lal Din Advocate and 4 others vs Government of the Punjab1991 MLD 2061 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-08Read full judgment →
- Yaras Khan and 4 others vs Messrs Faisal Doubling Factory1991 PLC 518 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Yara And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad vs Arif And Others1991 P Cr. L J 529 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad Khan vs The Presiding Officer, Fourth Sindh Labour1991 PLC 857 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-09Read full judgment →
- Yaqoob Ali vs Mst. Dur Bibi and 3 others1991 CLC 947 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
- Yaqeen-Ud-Din Malik vs Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 621 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
- Workers' Union vs Messrs General Products Industries1991 PLC 97 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
- Workers' Union P.N.P. Rice Mills, Dhaunkal vs The Pakistan Produce1991 PLC 6 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
- Workers' Union Labour Welfare Society vs Messrs United Woollen1991 PLC 116 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-19Read full judgment →
- Whitehorn International Limited vs M. V. Ghantouti (Exbismillah) and another1991 MLD 75 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-29Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore and anothers vs Sardar Abdul Aziz (Retd.) A.C.F. Forest, Muzaffargarh and another1991 MLD 902 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and anothers vs Muhammad Hussain1991 MLD 538 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-01Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and 21991 PLD Supreme Court 813 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which were upheld by the High Court, decreeing a consumer's suit against the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) regarding the recovery of minimum electricity charges for a period of temporary disconnection due to a defective meter. The core legal question was whether WAPDA is legally entitled to recover minimum charges from an industrial consumer during a period when electricity was not supplied due to a temporarily disconnected or defective meter. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the levy of minimum charges is justified because the Authority must maintain its infrastructure and remain ready to supply energy during such periods. The Court laid down the principle that, absent any statutory or tariff provision prohibiting it, a consumer is liable to pay minimum charges for the maintenance of readiness to supply energy, even if the meter ceases to operate or supply is temporarily disconnected.
Questions settled- Is WAPDA entitled to recover minimum electricity charges during a period of temporary disconnection when the meter ceases to function?
- Whether an industrial consumer is liable to pay fixed and minimum charges even if the factory is closed and energy is not consumed?
- Can minimum charges be billed when the Authority is unable to supply energy due to a defective meter?
- Water and Power Development Authority and another vs Saeed Badar1991 PLD Supreme Court 660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the dismissal of a WAPDA employee for wilful absence and disobedience. The respondent challenged his dismissal, claiming he was not served with the charge-sheet and that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed. The Federal Service Tribunal had set aside the dismissal, citing improper service. The Supreme Court examined whether service by registered post at the last known address constituted valid service under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. The Court held that under Rule 6-A, read with Section 114 of the Evidence Act 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897, a properly addressed registered letter is presumed to be served, shifting the burden of rebuttal to the addressee, which the respondent failed to discharge. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an inquiry is not mandatory if the competent authority opts for the procedure under Rule 5(iv), and that there is no inherent right to a personal hearing during a departmental appeal under Rule 11 unless explicitly provided. Consequently, the dismissal was restored.
Questions settled- Does a properly addressed registered letter give rise to a legal presumption of service under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Is an inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, if the competent authority decides otherwise?
- Does an employee have an inherent right to a personal hearing before an appellate authority in a departmental appeal under Rule 11 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Waseemuddin and 2 others vs Nadeemuddin1991 CLC 924 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-20Read full judgment →
- Waris Iqbal And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1978 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-15Read full judgment →
- Warehouse Carriers Mehnatkash Union, Karachi vs Pakistan1991 PLC 135 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-24Read full judgment →
- Ward Ali vs Superintendent of Police and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 817 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Waqar Zameer vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arose from cross-criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan: one by Waqar Zaheer challenging the Lahore High Court’s judgment affirming his conviction and death sentence under Section 302/34 PPC, and another by the complainant seeking sentence enhancement and compensation against Waqar Zaheer and co-convict Muhammad Arshad. The prosecution case rested on ocular testimony, identification parade evidence, wajtakkar (chance/encounter) witnesses, and ballistics recovery. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient and reliable to sustain the convictions. The Court held that the ocular testimony was unnatural and improved at trial, particularly given poor visibility and the momentary glance at fleeing assailants; the identification parade held without prior physical descriptions was invalid; the wajtakkar testimony was delayed and fabricated; and the ballistic recovery was compromised because the crime empty was withheld until the weapon's recovery and sent simultaneously to the laboratory. Setting aside the convictions, the Court extended the acquittal to the non-appealing convict to do complete justice, establishing that absence of proven enmity does not substitute for the inherent credibility test of witness testimony.
Questions settled- Whether the mere absence of enmity between a witness and the accused is sufficient to establish the truthfulness and reliability of the witness's testimony?
- Can an identification parade hold evidentiary value when the witness gave no prior physical description of the assailants in the FIR and only caught a fleeting glimpse under poor visibility?
- Does withholding a recovered crime empty and sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory simultaneously with the subsequently seized weapon vitiate the ballistic evidence?
- Can the Supreme Court extend the benefit of acquittal to a non-appealing co-convict to ensure complete justice when the prosecution case fails against the appealing co-accused?
- Waqar Sahgal And Others vs National Investment Trust And Other1991 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from execution proceedings where the petitioners filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court challenging an order denying them an opportunity to produce evidence. The High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the executing court for a fresh decision after framing issues and permitting evidence. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court failed to determine certain legal issues raised by them. The core legal question was whether the High Court was bound to decide academic legal points unrelated to the specific grievance redressed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not required to determine legal points that had no relevance to the successfully redressed grievance, noting that academic discussions belong elsewhere. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is required to determine legal points that have no relevance to the specific grievance redressed?
- Can a case be remanded to the executing court for decision afresh after framing of issues and recording of evidence?
- Waqar Ahmed Malik vs The Commandant Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rawalpindi Can17. and others1991 PLD Peshawar 130 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Appeal challenged an order by the Civil Judge, Peshawar, returning the appellant's plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant had filed a suit for damages against the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rawalpindi, alleging that incorrect medical test results caused him financial and psychological harm. The core legal question was whether the Peshawar court possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for compensation for a tortious wrong when both the cause of action arose and the defendants resided outside its local limits. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision. The Court held that Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, exclusively governs suits for compensation for wrongs to persons or movable property. It established that jurisdiction under this provision is restricted to the court within whose local limits the wrong occurred or the court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, carries on business, or works for gain. Crucially, the Court clarified that the plaintiff's place of residence is not a determinative factor for establishing territorial jurisdiction in such tortious claims.
Questions settled- Does the plaintiff's place of residence determine territorial jurisdiction in a suit for compensation for a wrong done to the person under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What are the two specific criteria for determining territorial jurisdiction in suits for compensation for wrongs to persons or movable property under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to suits for compensation for personal wrongs?
- Waqar Ahmad vs Amjad Bhatti And Other1991 SCMR 1460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court whereby respondent No. 1 was granted bail in a case registered under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to an accused attributed with a Lalkara, after accepting his apology for previously approaching the court with unclean hands regarding a tampered school certificate concerning his age, and whether common intention could be inferred at the bail stage. The Supreme Court held that the acceptance of the apology and the determination of the matter on merits lay within the discretion of the High Court, and that the view taken by the High Court—that the question of whether the accused shared a common intention to kill was a matter open to further inquiry given that he was unarmed and had no previous enmity—was neither perverse nor arbitrary. The key principle laid down is that the acceptance of an apology for prior unclean hands and the assessment of common intention for post-arrest bail based on the specific role attributed (such as a Lalkara without a weapon) fall within the sound discretion of the superior courts.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who approaches the court with unclean hands can be granted bail after submitting an apology?
- Can common intention be inferred merely from a Lalkara at the bail stage?
- Does the acceptance of an apology and subsequent consideration of a bail petition on merits lie within the discretion of the High Court?
- WAPDA vs Saeed Badar1991 SCMR 1537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated a respondent dismissed from service for willful absence. The respondent, an Information Officer, failed to report for duty after his leave expired in March 1981 and was subsequently dismissed in July 1981. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's appeal primarily because the charge-sheet was sent for press publication after the dismissal order had already been issued. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the dismissal solely on the timing of the press publication of the charge-sheet, despite evidence that the Authority had previously attempted to serve the charge-sheet directly to the respondent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Authority's contentions required examination, particularly regarding whether the law mandates that a charge-sheet only becomes effective upon newspaper publication. The Court's decision highlights that procedural requirements for service must be assessed against actual attempts to notify the employee.
Questions settled- Does a charge-sheet for dismissal from service only become effective upon its publication in a newspaper?
- Can an order of dismissal be set aside solely on the ground that the charge-sheet was published in the press after the dismissal order was issued?
- WAPDA vs Mumtaz Hussain and others1991 CLC 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Muhammad Suleman1991 CLC 1305 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Muhammad Khalid1991 SCMR 1765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by WAPDA against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that set aside the removal of the respondent, Muhammad Khalid, and imposed a lesser penalty. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision on two primary grounds: first, that the Tribunal erred by condoning the delay in filing the appeal without a formal application; and second, that the Tribunal misread evidence regarding the date the respondent received the departmental dismissal order. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and noted the petitioner's failure to produce proof of service, specifically admitting that the envelope containing the dismissal order was returned unserved but was not presented to the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's acceptance of the respondent's timeline regarding receipt of the order. Regarding the procedural objection about the lack of a formal condonation application, the Court held that the matter fell within the Tribunal's discretion and declined to interfere on a technicality. Finding no merit in the contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a tribunal's finding on the date of receipt of a departmental order be challenged if the petitioner fails to produce evidence of service?
- Is the absence of a formal application for condonation of delay fatal to an appeal if the tribunal exercises its discretion to condone it?
- Does the failure to produce an unserved envelope in evidence justify a tribunal's acceptance of a respondent's claim regarding the date of receipt of a dismissal order?
- WAPDA through SubDivisional Officer, Mananwala vs Order accordingly1991 CLC 479 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-11Read full judgment →
- WAPDA Through Its Chairman vs Abdul Rauf1991 SCMR 1654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which allowed the respondent employee's appeal and set aside his retirement order dated 14-10-1986. The respondent, a Superintending Engineer, was retired upon attaining the age of 55 years under Rule 3(b) of the Pakistan Wapda Employees (Retirement) Rules, 1979, while on deputation. Subsequently, the respondent applied for leave preparatory to retirement (L.P.R.) and permission to serve Nespak, which was granted, but later filed a service appeal before the Tribunal after a delay of nearly 207 days. The Tribunal allowed the appeal relying on a precedent from the Appellate Shariat Bench. The core legal questions concern whether the respondent acquiesced to the retirement order by availing L.P.R. and private employment, whether the case constituted a past and closed transaction unaffected by that precedent, and whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the substantial delay. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions.
Questions settled- Whether the respondent after having availed of L.P.R. and the permission to continue to work with Nespak had acquiesced to the order of retirement?
- Whether the respondent's case was a past and closed transaction to which the ratio of the case of Pakistan and others v. Public-at-large and others could not have been applied?
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay of more than 200 days in filing the service appeal?
- WAPDA Through Chairman vs Muhammad Ali Shah1991 SCMR 1545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service matter involving the removal of a Lineman from the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The respondent was removed from service on January 12, 1983, pursuant to an order issued under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act. The respondent challenged this removal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which partly accepted the appeal, substituting the order of removal with an order of retirement based on the respondent's length of service. The petitioner, WAPDA, sought leave to appeal, arguing that the Tribunal's own findings regarding the respondent's unsuitable service record rendered the substitution of the penalty with retirement legally improper. The Supreme Court examined the contention that the Tribunal erred in mitigating the penalty despite acknowledging the respondent's unsuitability for retention. Finding that the petitioner's argument raised a substantial question requiring deeper judicial scrutiny, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Tribunal's substitution of the penalty was legally sustainable given the established service record.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Service Tribunal substitute an order of removal from service with an order of retirement when the employee's service record indicates unsuitability for retention?
- Does an order of removal passed under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 preclude the Service Tribunal from modifying the penalty?
- WAPDA and 2 others vs Mian Ghulam Bari1991 PLD Supreme Court 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against a High Court decision that affirmed the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Lahore to try a recovery suit against the corporation. The core legal question was whether WAPDA, as a statutory corporation, should be equated with the Government regarding territorial jurisdiction, and whether the explanation to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) mandates that suits against WAPDA must be filed only where the cause of action arose, or if they can be filed at the location of its principal office. The Supreme Court held that the explanation to Section 20, C.P.C. provides two alternatives: a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its principal office, or at a subordinate office if the cause of action arose there. The use of the word 'or' signifies that the plaintiff has the option to sue at either location. Consequently, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument, affirming that the suit was maintainable at the principal office, and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the explanation to Section 20 of the C.P.C. allow a plaintiff to file a suit against a corporation at the location of its principal office even if the cause of action arose elsewhere?
- Is WAPDA to be equated with the Government for the purpose of determining territorial jurisdiction in civil suits?
- Does the word 'or' in the explanation to Section 20, C.P.C. create alternative forums for filing suits against corporations?
- Wali Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1327 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad vs S.H.O., Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore and others1991 P Cr. L J 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad vs Province of Sindhh, and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 106) · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 31991 MLD 2499 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →