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.
- Sikandar Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hayat vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 21991 PLC 508 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's employment as a timekeeper by the respondent company. The petitioner, having been arrested in a criminal case under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, failed to report for duty after his leave expired. The employer, citing the petitioner's prolonged absence and the inability to keep the position vacant indefinitely, terminated his services via 'termination simpliciter'. The core legal questions were whether the manager possessed the authority to terminate the petitioner's services and whether the termination was legally valid under the relevant labour laws. The High Court held that the manager was duly authorized by a general power of attorney to issue such orders, and the termination was a valid exercise of the employer's right under Standing Order 12(1). The Court affirmed that an employer may terminate a workman's services provided reasons are stated, and the burden of proving mala fides or colourable exercise of power lies with the employee. As the petitioner failed to establish mala fides and had acted with unclean hands, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an employer terminate a workman's services as 'termination simpliciter' due to prolonged absence caused by incarceration?
- Does the burden of proving mala fides in a termination of service case lie with the employee?
- Is a manager authorized to terminate an employee's service if a general power of attorney explicitly grants such disciplinary powers?
- Can a court interfere with a termination order if the employer has followed the procedure of stating reasons under the Standing Orders?
- Sikandar Hayat vs Inspector-General of Police and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 859 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-06-09Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hayat vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 853 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hayat Khan vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and OtherK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases185 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sikandar Beg Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 125 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →
- Sikandar and 2 others vs Muhammad Ayub and 5 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a land tenancy dispute where respondent tenants-at-will sought restoration of possession after being wrongfully dispossessed by appellant landlords. The respondents initially instituted a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and limitation, following which they filed a regular civil suit for possession. The District Judge decreed the suit in their favor, and the High Court dismissed the appellants' civil revision. The Supreme Court considered whether a tenant-at-will can maintain a suit for possession against a landlord with superior title, whether the suit was barred under tenancy laws, and whether res judicata applied. The Court held that post-1950 tenancy legislation and Land Reforms confer statutory protective rights on tenants against unlawful ejectment, transforming a landlord who wrongfully dispossesses a tenant into a wrongdoer against whom a suit for possession based on statutory tenancy rights is maintainable. The statutory bar under Section 34 of the N.W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950 applies only when ejectment was ordered or a suit under Section 33 was dismissed by a Revenue Court, which was not the case here. Furthermore, dismissal under Section 9 does not bar a subsequent suit for possessory title, negating res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant-at-will who is unlawfully dispossessed by the landlord can maintain a regular civil suit to recover possession on the basis of statutory tenancy protection?
- Whether the bar on civil suits under Section 34 of the N.W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950 applies when the tenant was not lawfully ejected by a Revenue Court under Section 28 or dismissed in a suit under Section 33?
- Whether the dismissal of an earlier suit instituted under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 operates as res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to bar a subsequent regular suit for possession based on tenancy rights?
- Sikandar A. Karim vs Central Board of Revenue and 2 others1991 CLC 729 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
- Sibte Zahid Naqvi vs The VTH Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, through Its Presiding Officer, Sultan Ahmed Siddiqui and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 26) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Sibte Zahid Naqvi vs Fifth Sindh Labour Court and 4 others1991 PLC 743 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Shujaat Ali Alias Chan Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2277 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly making preparations to commit dacoity. The prosecution's case rested solely on the testimony of police officials who conducted a raid at a graveyard, claiming they apprehended the appellant and his co-accused while they were armed and planning a robbery. No independent public witnesses were associated with the raid or the subsequent recovery of weapons, despite the raid being pre-arranged. On appeal, the Lahore High Court scrutinized the evidence, emphasizing that Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitutes an exception to the general rule that mere preparation to commit a crime is not an offence. Consequently, the Court held that such charges require strong, exceptional evidence to substantiate. Finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient and noting the lack of independent corroboration, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted, receiving the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Is the preparation to commit dacoity an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the failure to associate independent public witnesses in a pre-arranged police raid affect the credibility of the prosecution's case?
- What standard of evidence is required to prove an offence under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Shughran Bibi vs The State1991 KLR Criminal Cases 117 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-01Read full judgment →
- Shibli Farooqi vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 438 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-05Read full judgment →
- Sheroo and 4 others vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari1991 MLD 799 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
- Sherin And Others vs Fazal Muhammad And Other1991 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed an appeal as time-barred. The petitioners had initially filed an appeal against a civil decree before the District Judge, Swat, who subsequently returned the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Upon refiling in the High Court, the appeal was dismissed because the court found the petitioners had not acted with due diligence or in good faith, denying them the benefit of condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. The petitioners argued that they relied on the original suit valuation and that court officials had a duty to point out jurisdictional defects earlier. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the standard of care and diligence required of appellants when filing appeals, and whether a duty is cast upon court officials to timely identify and record objections regarding jurisdictional defects. The Court seeks to determine if the petitioners' reliance on the initial valuation and the subsequent delay in refiling warrants the protection of the Limitation Act.
Questions settled- What is the standard of care and diligence required of appellants when preferring an appeal to a court that may lack jurisdiction?
- Is there a duty cast on court officials to record objections regarding defects of jurisdiction upon the filing of an appeal?
- Within what period of time must court officials identify and communicate jurisdictional defects to an appellant?
- Sheraz Khan and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 2262 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
- Shera vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 365 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while reducing his sentence to one year's R.I. The core legal question was whether an accused who pleads guilty to a charge can be convicted forthwith without being afforded an opportunity to show cause why he should not be convicted. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an admission of guilt alone is insufficient for immediate conviction; the trial magistrate must inform the accused of his right to show cause against conviction and provide a fair opportunity to do so, explicitly recording and evaluating any cause shown. Because the trial court failed to grant this mandatory opportunity and convicted the petitioner immediately upon his confession, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, declining retrial as the petitioner had already served his full term.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be convicted forthwith upon pleading guilty without being given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be convicted under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a trial court required under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to inform an accused that he can show cause against conviction despite admitting the truth of the accusation?
- Does the failure of a trial court to record and determine the cause shown by an accused after a confession render the conviction unsustainable?
- Shera And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 674 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
- Shera and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 423 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Ghulam Mustafa1991 SCMR 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that had remanded a pre-emption suit to the trial court, relying on a Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the right of pre-emption based on relationship (being the son of the vendor) survived in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360). The respondent had filed the suit claiming pre-emption solely on the basis of being the son of the vendor, not as a co-sharer. The Supreme Court held that the ratio decidendi of its judgment in Sardar Ali and others (PLD 1988 SC 287) was applicable, which established that the right of pre-emption could not be claimed on the basis of relationship. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the District Judge, which had dismissed the respondent's suit. The principle laid down is that pre-emption claims based on relationship are not maintainable following the legal position established in Said Kamal Shah.
Questions settled- Does the right of pre-emption based on relationship survive after the judgment in Said Kamal Shah?
- Is a claim for pre-emption maintainable if based solely on the relationship of being the son of the vendor?
- Sher Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen And Other1991 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave, challenges an order passed by a Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court granting bail to the respondent on medical grounds. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled, particularly given that the trial proceedings had already commenced. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the bail order at this stage. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585), the Court held that once a trial has commenced, it is generally improper for an appellate court to cancel bail, as determining the merits at this juncture could prejudice the ongoing trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously without undue adjournments. The Court further clarified that the appellant retains the right to apply for bail cancellation before the trial court should the respondent attempt to delay the proceedings, thereby ensuring the trial's integrity while maintaining the status quo regarding the respondent's liberty.
Questions settled- Is it appropriate for an appellate court to cancel bail once the trial has commenced?
- Can an appellate court decline to cancel bail while directing the trial court to expedite proceedings?
- Does an appellant retain the right to seek bail cancellation if the respondent delays the trial?
- Sher Muhammad Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 210 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad and anothers vs Amanat Khan and 16 others1991 MLD 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition addresses whether the equity of redemption in respect of a land mortgage executed on September 21, 1924, was extinguished upon the expiry of the limitation period under Article 148 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the redemption period had expired and ownership rights had transferred to the mortgagees. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the sale of mortgagee rights constituted an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, thus extending the limitation period. Upon revision, the Lahore High Court noted that while mutation per se without a signed writing does not constitute an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19, important aspects regarding the fixed period of the original mortgage and the specific writing concerning the sale of mortgagee rights were omitted from the pleadings and evidence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts and remanded the case for a fresh trial, permitting the parties to amend their pleadings and adduce evidence on these unresolved questions.
Questions settled- Whether mutation of names per se, in the absence of a signed writing by the party or its authorized agent, constitutes an acknowledgment of liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Does the right to redeem a mortgage for a fixed period arise only upon the expiration of the specified period?
- Whether an appellate or revisional court can remand a matter for retrial when essential questions regarding the period of mortgage and written acknowledgment were omitted from the pleadings and evidence?
- Sher Muhammad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1133 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad And 4 Others vs Muhammad Boota And 8 Other1991 SCMR 1913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan for final disposal regarding a petition involving multiple respondents. During the preliminary proceedings, procedural matters concerning representation and powers of attorney were addressed. The Court Associate reported that the power of attorney from the respondents' side in favour of the counsel was executed by only one person. However, the learned counsel representing the respondents made a categorical statement affirming his authority to appear for respondents Nos.1 to 3, to which the learned counsel for the petitioners expressed no objection. Additionally, it was stated by both counsel that respondents Nos.4 to 7 were pro forma parties who were no longer contesting or interested in the proceedings. Official respondents Nos.8 and 9 were represented by a departmental representative from the office of the D.C.O. Faisalabad, who appeared to assist the Court. With representations and procedural standings clarified and no objections raised, both sides confirmed that the case was complete for final disposal.
Questions settled- Whether a counsel can represent multiple contesting respondents when the power of attorney is executed by only one person, subject to no objection from the opposing counsel?
- What is the status of pro forma respondents who state they are no longer interested in contesting a petition?
- Can official respondents be represented by a departmental representative to assist the Court for final disposal?
- Sher Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2022 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Khan And Others vs The State1991 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave was brought by three convicts challenging their convictions and sentences under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court were whether Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code was applicable to the convictions and sentences, and whether the appellants could be legally convicted under section 307/34 for injuring a victim who was withheld and not produced at trial. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of pre-meditation, preparation, or planning, and given that the altercation arose spontaneously over the sudden diversion of rainwater, a common intention under section 34 could not be attributed to the accused, rendering each individual responsible solely for their own acts. The Court laid down the principle that where an injured witness is withheld by the prosecution and fails to testify regarding their own injury, a conviction based on secondary testimony for that specific injury cannot be sustained, and individual criminal liability must replace joint constructive liability under section 34 when a sudden fight occurs without pre-planning.
Questions settled- Whether common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be imputed when a sudden altercation arises without pre-meditation or planning?
- Can a conviction for an injury be sustained under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code when the injured person is not produced as a witness at the trial?
- Does the non-production of an injured witness warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution case concerning that specific injury?
- Sher Ali Khan vs Commissioner, Multan Division and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 33 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal filed under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, by a former Naib-Tehsildar challenging his retirement from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, after completing 25 years of qualifying service. The core legal question was whether the appellant's retirement in the public interest based on alleged adverse Annual Confidential Reports was sustainable when those reports were either uncommunicated, condoned by subsequent promotion, or not genuinely adverse. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that uncommunicated adverse reports cannot be used against a civil servant, and that promotion cures earlier adverse remarks. Finding the overall service record satisfactory and the retirement order whimsical and capricious, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and reinstated the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside a retirement order under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, if it is found to be whimsical, capricious, or lacking objective justification based on a valid service record.
Questions settled- Whether uncommunicated adverse remarks in a civil servant's Annual Confidential Report can be used to justify retirement under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Does the promotion of a civil servant wash away the effect of earlier adverse remarks in their service record?
- What is the scope of jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal to set aside an order of retirement passed under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Whether an ACR containing remarks of an 'officer of average category' can be treated as an adverse report for retiring a civil servant?
- Sher Ali And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2409 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali and 3 others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 357 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
- Sher Alam and 8 others vs Abasin International and another1991 PLC 430 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-15Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Qadeer Ahmad vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1991 PLC 42 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Munir vs L.D.A.K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 122 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Munir vs Additional District Judge And Other1991 SCMR 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from concurrent findings by lower courts ordering the eviction of the petitioner from a shop. The respondent landlady sought eviction on the ground of personal need for her son. The petitioner challenged the eviction, arguing that the son's existing business partnerships and agency work negated the bona fide nature of the requirement. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the eviction petition was incompetent due to an alleged fixed-term lease agreement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlady's bona fide need. The Court held that a landlady is not precluded from seeking eviction for her son's personal use simply because he is currently working in partnership with his father, as he may wish to branch out independently. Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim of a fixed-term tenancy, finding that the previous arrangement regarding rent payments did not establish a fixed-period lease. The judgment reaffirms that concurrent findings of fact on bona fide need are generally not disturbed, and clarifies the scope of personal requirement for family members.
Questions settled- Does a son's existing business partnership with his father preclude a landlady from seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that the son requires the premises for his own independent business?
- Does an agreement to pay rent at specified rates over a period of years necessarily create a fixed-term tenancy?
- Sheikh Muhammad Aslam and anothers vs The State and 2 others1991 MLD 1973 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged the joint trial of several petitioners accused of offences under Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, members of the Qadiani faith, were charged with posing as Muslims. The trial court and the revisional court had upheld their joint trial under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the accused, having committed distinct acts at different times and places, could be tried jointly under the doctrine of 'same transaction.' The High Court held that the joint trial was legally unsustainable. It reasoned that the mere membership of a religious group does not establish a community of purpose or continuity of action sufficient to constitute a 'same transaction.' The Court emphasized that for a joint trial to be valid, there must be a nexus of purpose, cause and effect, or continuous action. Since the acts were distinct and occurred in different jurisdictions, the joint trial violated the general rule of separate trials under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an illegality not curable under Section 537.
Questions settled- Can accused persons be tried jointly under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely based on their membership in the same religious group?
- Does the concept of 'same transaction' allow for a joint trial when offences are committed at different times and places without a clear community of purpose?
- Is a misjoinder of charges in a joint trial a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer territorial jurisdiction upon a court to try offences committed outside its jurisdiction?
- Sheikh Mudassar Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1991 MLD 2121 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, ad-hoc employees in various government departments appointed via the Placement Bureau, challenged the termination of their services. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to review these terminations, or whether the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212. The Court held that the termination orders were not passed by a "departmental authority" as defined under the Service Tribunals Act 1973, but were instead arbitrary implementations of a Cabinet policy without independent application of mind. Consequently, the bar of Article 212 was inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court found the terminations discriminatory, as similarly situated employees in lower grades were retained, violating the principles of equal protection and due process under Articles 25 and 4 of the Constitution. The impugned orders were set aside as lacking lawful authority. The judgment establishes that executive policy decisions cannot override the vested rights of civil servants when orders are passed without independent departmental consideration.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to review termination orders passed pursuant to a Cabinet policy decision?
- Can an order passed by a departmental authority solely to implement a Cabinet decision be considered an order of a 'departmental authority' under the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Does the termination of ad-hoc employees while retaining others in similar circumstances violate the right to equal protection under Article 25 of the Constitution?
- Is the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution absolute in cases involving civil servants?
- Sheikh Mudassar Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others (Copy)1991 PLC (C.S.) 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a number of writ petitions challenging the termination of services of ad-hoc appointees holding posts in BPS-9 to BPS-14, who were originally appointed on the recommendations of the Prime Minister's Secretariat/Placement Bureau. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and whether en-bloc termination of services pursuant to a Cabinet policy decision without independent application of mind by the departmental authority and without affording an opportunity of hearing is lawful. The Lahore High Court held that since the termination orders were passed mechanically pursuant to a Cabinet directive rather than independently by a competent departmental authority, appeals would not be competent before the Service Tribunal, thereby rendering the bar under Article 212 inapplicable. The Court further held that the impugned orders violated vested rights, breached the principles of natural justice, and constituted unconstitutional discrimination under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. The petitions were consequently allowed and the termination orders set aside.
Questions settled- Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution apply when termination orders are passed pursuant to a cabinet policy decision rather than by a departmental authority?
- Can the services of ad-hoc employees who have acquired vested rights be terminated en bloc without an independent application of mind by the competent authority?
- Whether the termination of one set of ad-hoc employees while retaining similarly situated employees appointed in lower grades constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
- Are policy decisions of the Executive open to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution when they adversely affect the vested rights of citizens?
- Sheikh Hafeez Ur Rehman And Others vs Deputy Commissioner, Multan1991 SCMR 1860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from petitions filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge an order of remand issued by the High Court. While these petitions were pending before the Supreme Court, the Notified Officer to whom the matter had been remanded proceeded to dispose of the case on its merits. The Notified Officer ultimately decided the matter in favour of the present petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court observed that the primary relief sought in the petitions had been rendered infructuous due to the subsequent developments in the proceedings before the Notified Officer. Counsel for the petitioners requested that their right to revive the petitions be preserved, noting that the opponents were challenging the Notified Officer's decision through separate writ proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as having become infructuous, while explicitly granting the petitioners liberty to revive the petitions should the need arise in the future, particularly in light of the ongoing litigation initiated by the opponents against the Notified Officer's order.
Questions settled- Can a petition be dismissed as infructuous if the underlying grievance has been resolved by a lower authority during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Does the Supreme Court have the discretion to grant liberty to revive a dismissed petition if subsequent legal challenges arise?
- Sheikh Ashiq Hussain vs Central Government of Pakistan Through Chief Settlement Commissioner Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 1658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sheikh Ashiq Hussain against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 20-6-1989. The core question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether leave to appeal should be granted to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and reviewing the facts, the court granted open leave to appeal to examine the whole case. The holding of the court is that the appeal shall proceed upon the furnishing of security by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.5,000, on the basis of the existing record, with liberty granted to the parties to bring on record any further documents necessary for the full and final disposal of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that open leave to appeal may be granted when the case warrants a comprehensive review of the entire matter upon furnishing requisite security.
Questions settled- Whether open leave to appeal can be granted to go into the whole case?
- What are the terms regarding security when leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court?
- Sheikh Ashiq Hussain vs Central Government of Pakistan through Chief1991 PLD Supreme Court 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-25Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Khokhar vs District Manager and another1991 PLC 251 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Javed vs Sh. Abdul Khaliq And 2 Other1991 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from an eviction application filed by the appellant against the respondent, alleging default in rent payment and seeking ejectment. The Rent Controller and the District Judge concurrently found that a landlord-tenant relationship existed and ordered eviction. The respondent challenged these orders in the High Court, which set aside the eviction orders, citing serious misappreciation of evidence and unresolved disputes regarding the property's title and boundaries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court exceeded its constitutional jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly identified that the lower tribunals failed to properly evaluate evidence regarding the disputed title and property boundaries. The Court affirmed that where a landlord fails to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant beyond reasonable doubt, the Rent Controller should not adjudicate on disputed questions of title. Instead, the proper course is to decide the issue against the landlord and direct them to establish their title in a court of general jurisdiction before seeking ejectment.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction interfere with concurrent findings of fact by rent tribunals if those findings suffer from serious misappreciation of evidence?
- Should a Rent Controller proceed with an eviction order when there is a fundamental dispute regarding the title of the property and the boundaries of the premises?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a Rent Controller when a landlord fails to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant beyond reasonable doubt?
- Shaukat Hayat vs The State1991 SC M R102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal review petition was filed by Shaukat Hayat seeking review of an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 21-3-1990, whereby leave to appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and subsequent dismissal of his appeal by the High Court was refused. The core legal questions revolved around whether alleged typographical errors and factual misstatements in the order amounted to errors apparent on the record causing a miscarriage of justice, specifically concerning the observation of the vehicle, the evidentiary value of its recovery, missing evidence such as a black moti, recovery of broken bangles, medical findings of rape and firearm injuries, the date of arrest, and the recovery of a pistol. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the minor misstatements did not prejudice the petitioner's case, the factual findings were fully supported by the evidence on record, and no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference was made out. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot succeed on minor factual discrepancies or re-appreciation of evidence unless an error apparent on the record has resulted in a clear miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition is maintainable against an order refusing leave to appeal on the ground of minor factual discrepancies?
- Can a medical doctor's sworn testimony regarding ante-mortem rape be preferred over a chemical analyser's report?
- Whether the recovery of a vehicle and weapon used in the crime constitutes valid incriminating evidence against an accused?
- What constitutes an error apparent on the record sufficient to warrant the review of a criminal judgment by the Supreme Court?
- Shaukat Hayat vs The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and another1991 MLD 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hayat Khan And Others vs Government of N. W.F.P. And Other1991 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, dated 13-6-1989. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerned the propriety of the High Court granting partial relief to the respondent-Government in motion proceedings without providing notice to the petitioners. Upon hearing arguments, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the matter warranted reconsideration, specifically addressing the procedural irregularity of the High Court's decision-making process in the absence of the petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed that the case be remanded to the Peshawar High Court for a re-hearing of the revision petition. The Court established the principle that judicial relief, particularly in revision proceedings, cannot be granted to one party in motion proceedings without affording the opposing party notice and an opportunity to be heard, as this violates fundamental principles of natural justice and fair procedure. The petitioners were ordered to furnish security, and parties were granted liberty to file further documentation for the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a High Court grant relief in a revision petition during motion proceedings without issuing notice to the opposing party?
- Is it a procedural irregularity to decide a revision petition without hearing the affected party?
- Shaukat Hayat Jumani vs The Province of Sindh Through Secretary, Rehabilitation Department And Other1991 SCMR 580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a civil suit concerning the status of agricultural land, which had been treated as evacuee property and allotted to a respondent. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court possessed the jurisdiction to determine if the property was 'evacuee property' or if it was statutorily required to refer the matter to the Custodian. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and remanded the case, holding that the Civil Court erred by failing to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 41(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957. The Court established that when a dispute arises in a Civil Court regarding whether a property qualifies as 'evacuee property,' the Court is legally obligated to state the question and remit it to the Custodian—or the relevant notified officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act 1975—for adjudication. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction to determine such status is vested exclusively in specific statutory authorities, prohibiting Civil Courts from deciding the issue independently.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have the jurisdiction to independently determine whether a property is 'evacuee property' under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957?
- What is the mandatory procedure for a Civil Court when a question arises regarding the status of property as 'evacuee property'?
- Are proceedings pending before a Civil Court regarding evacuee property status subject to remand to a notified officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act 1975?
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1741 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1991 MLD 516 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 299 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-08Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Kalsoom Akhtar and another1991 PLD Lahore 247 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of proceedings initiated under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, against the petitioner for contracting a second marriage. The petitioner sought the transfer of the case from the Court of the Assistant Commissioner, Okara. Previously, the Sessions Judge, Okara, had transferred the case to the District Magistrate, Okara, who refused to accept the transfer, claiming he was not a court of original jurisdiction and not subordinate to the Sessions Judge. The Court examined whether a District Magistrate is a subordinate magistrate for the purposes of case transfer under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the District Magistrate, being a Magistrate of the 1st Class, falls under the category of magistrates subordinate to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of Section 528(1-C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Sessions Judge possesses the authority to transfer cases to the District Magistrate for inquiry or trial. The Court declared the District Magistrate's refusal to accept the transfer illegal and improper, subsequently transferring the case to the Senior Civil Judge, Okara.
Questions settled- Is a District Magistrate considered subordinate to the Sessions Judge for the purpose of transferring cases under Section 528(1-C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a District Magistrate have the authority to refuse a case transferred to him by a Sessions Judge on the grounds that he is not a court of original jurisdiction?
- Are offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 triable in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shaukat Ali vs Akhtar And Others1991 P Cr. L J 1004 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali Mehr vs Sardar Sher Afgan A.D.C. (G) and others1991 CLC 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali And Another vs Muhammad Shafi And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioners' writ petition by the High Court arising out of a Lambardari appointment matter. The core legal question is whether the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court is attracted against the creation of an additional Lambardari vacancy and the subsequent appointment made thereon. The Supreme Court held that the creation of an additional Lambardari vacancy is a matter of practical need and administrative requirement, of which the concerned authorities are the best judges, and where full justification exists according to the rules, the High Court rightly refuses relief in its writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that administrative decisions regarding the creation of Lambardari vacancies and appointments, made in accordance with applicable rules and practical needs, are not amenable to interference under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is attracted in a Lambardari appointment matter?
- Are the concerned authorities the best judges for determining the practical need and requirements for creating an additional Lambardari vacancy?
- Can the High Court interfere with the creation of an additional Lambardari vacancy when full justification is shown on the touchstone of the rules?
- Shashikant Laxman Kale and another vs Union of India. and another1991 PTD 1109 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-07-20Read full judgment →
- Sharif Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1761 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition against his conviction and sentence under section 23(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, after pleading guilty to a charge of selling Maida containing excess moisture. The core legal question was whether the trial court was legally bound to provide an opportunity to the accused to show cause against conviction after recording a plea of guilt under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Section 243, Cr.P.C. are mandatory, requiring the trial court to ask the accused to show cause why he should not be convicted upon his admission. Failure to do so constitutes an incurable illegality vitiating the conviction. The court laid down the principle that recording a plea of guilt without affording a subsequent opportunity to show cause against conviction is a fatal procedural defect, setting aside the conviction and remanding the matter for retrial.
Questions settled- Is a trial court required to ask an accused to show cause why he should not be convicted after recording his plea of guilt under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure of a trial court to provide an opportunity to show cause upon a plea of guilt amount to a curable irregularity or an incurable illegality under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sharif Alam vs Abdul Shakoor1991 CLC 1750 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
- Sharafuddin vs Messrs Parke-Davis and Company Ltd.1991 PLC 624 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-25Read full judgment →
- Sharafat Hussain vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2191 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
- Shan Elahi vs Border Area Allotment Committee and others1991 CLC 1391 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
- Shamsur Rehman and anothers vs Muhammad Zahir and others1991 MLD 2211 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-15Read full judgment →
- Shamsul Haq And Others vs Mst. Ghoti And 8 Other1991 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appeals arose from a land settlement dispute where the Lahore High Court had divided the disputed land equally between competing claimants. The appellants challenged the High Court's decision, primarily questioning the legal validity of converting a revision petition into a writ petition after the enactment of Ordinance XIII of 1964, and disputing the right of a claimant to refuse a land proposal. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court held that there is no bar on the High Court’s power to convert a revision petition into a writ petition, as this remains a matter of judicial discretion. Regarding the allotment procedure, the Court determined that the settlement process involves a proposal stage subject to confirmation, thereby permitting claimants to decline specific proposals. Ultimately, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision, noting that technical objections were insufficient to disturb the outcome, as the High Court had achieved substantial justice by equitably distributing the land between the parties.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to convert a revision petition into a writ petition even if the revision is not competent?
- Is a claimant in a land settlement proceeding entitled to refuse a proposal of land made by the settlement authorities?
- Can technical objections be sustained if the lower court's decision has achieved substantial justice?
- Shamsher Ali vs Sardar Khan.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 280 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-25Read full judgment →
- Shamshad Begum vs Hanifa1991 SCMR 1514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 4-12-1988, which set aside the Rent Controller's eviction order against the respondent-tenant. The core legal question concerns the determination of the monthly rate of rent and whether the respondent committed default in the payment of rent, as well as the proper appreciation of evidence regarding unproved documents relied upon by the tenant. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the High Court's failure to appreciate that the respondent's documents were not proved in evidence merit consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the petition, holding that the submissions deserve detailed scrutiny upon hearing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court failed to appreciate that the documents relied upon by the respondent were not proved in evidence?
- Whether the tenant committed default in the payment of rent at the enhanced rate?
- Did the Rent Controller correctly determine the monthly rent based on the evidence produced by the parties?
- Shamshad Begum Alias Papo vs Haneefa1991 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the landlady arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan which had reversed the Rent Controller's order directing the respondent-tenant's eviction for default in rent payment. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Rent Controller's findings based on evidence of doubtful admissibility and an alleged waiver or variation of the lease terms regarding rent payment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a gross misreading of the evidence regarding the terms of the lease agreement and the issuance of rent receipts. Reaffirming established legal principles, the Court held that the mere acceptance of rent periodically or in lump sum by a landlord does not constitute a waiver, consent to vary the lease terms, or condonation of default, as the tenant remains under a strict legal obligation to pay rent in a timely manner. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside, and the Rent Controller's eviction order restored.
Questions settled- Whether the periodic acceptance of rent by a landlord amounts to a waiver or variation of the lease terms regarding the mode of payment?
- Can a tenant avoid eviction for default by pleading that rent was collected or accepted at intervals of several months?
- Is a party permitted to lead oral evidence in variation of the terms and conditions of a written agreement of lease under the Evidence Act?
- What is the legal effect of a landlord receiving rent for several months at a time upon the tenant's statutory obligation to pay rent?
- Shamshad Ahmad vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Shams! Industrial Company vs Munawar Ali1991 CLC 1059 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
- Shamim Hyder vs Messrs Philippines Airlines1991 PLC 745 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
- Shamim Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1358 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
- Shamesuddin Shah vs Azad Government of Jammu and Kashmir and 31991 PLC (C.S.) 200 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
- Shamboo Alias Shahmir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 228 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
- Shamas Rashid vs Ghulam Rasool and others1991 CLC 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
- Shakoor Hussain vs Muhammad Sadiq1991 MLD 67 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order passed by the Sub-Judge, Kotli, setting aside an ex parte decree and restoring the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 16,000. The core legal question is whether the ex parte decree was sustainable given the alleged defective service of summons and the non-compliance with statutory procedure upon the transfer of the Presiding Officer. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the trial court was fully justified in setting aside the ex parte decree because the process-server's report violated the mandatory provisions governing service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure, and further, no fresh summons was issued when the case was adjourned following the transfer of the Presiding Officer. The key legal principle laid down is that strict compliance with mandatory provisions regarding the service of summons is a prerequisite for passing an ex parte decree, and the failure to issue fresh notices upon the adjournment of a case due to a judicial transfer renders subsequent ex parte proceedings illegal and without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte decree can be set aside when the service of summons is proved to be defective and violative of mandatory statutory provisions?
- Is it mandatory to issue fresh summons for the appearance of a defendant when a case is adjourned due to the transfer of the Presiding Officer on the date originally fixed for hearing?
- What constitutes due service of summons under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Shakilur Rehman Hamidi vs Government of Sindh and Another(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 326) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-09-04Read full judgment →
- Shakil Khan vs The State1991 MLD 631 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 794 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Yusufaly Son Limited vs Wa. Fritze & Co. and 4 others1991 MLD 1665 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-21Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Waheeduddin vs Mst. Samina Begum and 5 others1991 MLD 1898 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Jamilur Rahman vs Sultan Ahmad through his Legal Heirs1991 CLC 349 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Gulzar Ali & Co. Ltd. And Others vs Special Judge, Special Court1991 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court dismissing a constitutional petition that challenged an order of the Special Judge, Special Court of Banking, granting conditional leave to defend a recovery suit subject to furnishing security. The core legal question was whether an order granting conditional leave to defend passed by a court of competent jurisdiction can be assailed under Article 199 of the Constitution as being without lawful authority on the ground that the conditions imposed were harsh, and whether the conduct of the petitioners in seeking extensions and entering into consent orders barred them from invoking constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that a tribunal having jurisdiction is competent to decide a matter rightly or wrongly, and a mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or imposition of strict conditions does not render an order void or without lawful authority. Furthermore, the Court held that the conduct of the petitioners in seeking time, failing to furnish security, and entering into consent orders amounted to approbating and reprobating, disentitling them from discretionary constitutional relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an order granting conditional leave to defend passed by a Special Banking Court can be challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution as being without lawful authority?
- Does the imposition of harsh or strict conditions for granting leave to defend render an order of a court of competent jurisdiction a nullity?
- Can a litigant who seeks extensions of time to comply with a conditional order and enters into consent proceedings subsequently challenge the underlying order in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether an appeal under Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 constitutes an adequate and efficacious alternate remedy.
- Shahzada Begum vs Khursheed Alam & Co. Ltd. and 7 otherss1991 CLC 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Humayun vs Muhammad Akram1991 MLD 530 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-25Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Gul and another vs Ziarat Sher1991 PLD Supreme Court 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the determination of the commencement date of the 'Kharif 1972' season for the purpose of exercising pre-emption rights under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal question was whether sales of land occurring in June 1972 entitled a tenant-purchaser to the superior right of pre-emption granted by the Regulation, which became effective from 'Kharif 1972'. The Court examined conflicting precedents regarding the start date of the Kharif season, noting that previous decisions varied between May and July. By referencing the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act and the Punjab Tenancy Act, which designate the period between May 1st and June 15th as the time for ejectment, the Court established that the law recognizes May 1st as the dividing line between Rabi and Kharif crops. The Court held that the beneficial provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, regarding tenant rights, became effective from May 1st, 1972. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that tenants purchasing land in June 1972 were entitled to the protection and superior pre-emption rights afforded by the Regulation.
Questions settled- What is the commencement date of the Kharif season for the purpose of tenant rights under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Does the right of pre-emption granted to a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 apply to a sale transaction occurring in June 1972?
- Can the statutory provisions of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act and Punjab Tenancy Act be used to determine the start of the Kharif crop season?
- Shahzad Ahmad Etc vs S.M.Latif EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 245 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-15Read full judgment →
- Shahu vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 944 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
- Shahrah vs Allah Dad And 3 Other1991 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the appellant-plaintiff's civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the rejection of his pre-emption plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the delayed supply of a deficient court-fee. The core legal question examined was the effect of this Court's precedent in Siddique Khan v. PLD 1984 SC 289 regarding the validity of rejecting plaints for deficient court-fees. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial court failed to determine the exact amount of deficient court-fee and grant time in accordance with the law, thereby depriving the plaintiff of his rightful chance to make good the deficiency. The impugned appellate and revisional judgments were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate court for a decision on merits. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff is entitled as of right to at least one proper opportunity to supply a determined deficient court-fee under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before a plaint can be rejected as time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity to make good a deficient court-fee before a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the deposit of a court-fee after the period of limitation render a suit time-barred when the trial court failed to properly determine and communicate the deficiency?
- What is the effect of the rule laid down in Siddique Khan regarding the procedure for handling deficient court-fees?
- Shahnawaz Faridi vs Sirajul MasjidK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 560 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
- Shahnawaz Faridi vs Sirajul Masjid1991 MLD 2568 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
- Shahmand And 6 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 833 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, which convicted seven appellants under Sections 148, 302, and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a triple murder, while acquitting several co-accused. The High Court, upon reviewing the trial court's judgment, found it to be highly confusing, ambiguous, and violative of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Specifically, despite finding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object, the trial court failed to determine and sentence the principal accused under Section 302/149 on multiple counts, failed to impose mandatory fines under Section 302, and failed to award mandatory compensation under Section 544-A. The High Court held that where multiple accused are tried for multiple murders, the trial court must determine individual criminal liability and legal sentences for each murder. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and remanded the case for retrial from the stage of final arguments.
Questions settled- Is a trial court obliged to determine the specific criminal liability and sentence of each accused for each individual murder when multiple accused are tried for multiple murders under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an appellate court order the retrial of only specific accused from a particular stage of the proceedings while maintaining the acquittal of other co-accused?
- Does the term 'retrial' under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessarily require a trial de novo?
- Is a judgment that fails to impose a mandatory fine under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or award compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 legally sustainable?
- Shahid Riaz vs Deputy Commissioner and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 515 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
- Shahid Mirza vs Merloni Finanziaria S.P.A. and another1991 PLD Karachi 425 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks refusing the appellant's application for registration of the trade mark 'ARISTON' (Label) for goods including water heaters and stoves, and allowing the first respondent's opposition. The core legal questions involved whether section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 operated as a bar due to the likelihood of deception or confusion, and whether the appellant was entitled to concurrent registration under section 10(2) of the Act. The Sindh High Court held that the first respondents, as prior worldwide users and lawful proprietors who had established reputation and user of the mark in Pakistan since 1974, were entitled to protection against the unauthorized, non-bona fide adoption of the identical mark by the appellant. The Court ruled that the Deputy Registrar correctly found a strong likelihood of confusion and deception among consumers, and that no case of honest concurrent use was made out. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 operate as a bar to the registration of a trade mark that is phonetically and visually identical to an existing established mark?
- Whether an applicant can claim honest concurrent registration under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 when their adoption of the mark is not shown to be bona fide?
- What is the extent of appellate interference with the exercise of judicial discretion by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks in refusing registration?
- Does priority in the adoption and use of a trade mark take precedence over priority in registration under trade mark law?
- Shahid Javid vs Sabba Jabbeen and others1991 CLC 805 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition assailing the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, which had reversed the Family Court's decision and decreed the respondent wife's suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula upon payment of Rs. 5,000 as zar-e-khula. The core legal question was whether dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula can be denied solely because the parties lived together for only a short duration and whether failure to prove specific factual grounds precludes a wife from seeking khula. The Lahore High Court held that the right to dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula is an independent right, no fixed time limit is required for the development of marital discord or hatred, and a wife need not establish extensive factual grounds if the court is satisfied that forcing her to remain in the union would result in a hateful marriage. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the right to dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula is dependent on proving other specific factual grounds?
- Can a minimum time period of cohabitation be prescribed as a pre-condition for the development of hatred necessary for khula?
- Whether a wife seeking dissolution of marriage through khula must produce extensive evidence of facts and circumstances to prove the extent of her hatred?
- Shahid Ijaz And Others vs Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala And Other1991 SCMR 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition against the cancellation of a land allotment. The core legal question was whether a writ petition could be maintained against an order of cancellation of land allotment after an alternative civil remedy had already been pursued and failed, and when the writ petition suffered from inordinate delay. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly dismissed the constitutional petition on the grounds of being incompetent—since the petitioners had already availed and failed in their remedy by filing a civil suit—and for suffering from laches after a delay of eight years. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction after exhausting an alternative civil remedy to challenge the same administrative order, particularly when the petition suffers from unexplained laches.
Questions settled- Can a party file a constitutional petition after availing and failing in a civil suit challenging the same administrative order?
- Does a writ petition filed after a delay of eight years against an order of cancellation of land allotment suffer from fatal laches?
- Shahid Ahmad Naqvi and 3 others vs Adalat Hussain1991 MLD 656 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
- Shahdad Khan vs Inspector-General of Police and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 686 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Qadir vs Director of Industries and AnotherK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 169 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-10-01Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Dino vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 269 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-16Read full judgment →
- Shahamand vs Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition and subsequent review application filed by an appellant who sought the transfer of agricultural land. The appellant, acting as an informant, had successfully applied under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to cancel an allotment previously granted to another party on the basis of a bogus claim. The core legal question was whether the appellant, as an informant, possessed a statutory right to the transfer of the resumed land. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had no such statutory entitlement, noting that the appellant was not a claimant, which was a mandatory pre-condition for such a transfer. Furthermore, the Court refused to entertain a new argument regarding the appellant's alleged continuous possession as a tenant, as this had not been raised before the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, establishing the principle that an informant does not automatically acquire a right to the transfer of land resumed upon their information without meeting the statutory requirements for eligibility.
Questions settled- Does an informant who successfully challenges a bogus land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, have an automatic statutory right to the transfer of that land?
- Can a party raise a new ground of claim in the Supreme Court that was not urged before the High Court?
- Is the status of being a 'claimant' a mandatory pre-condition for the transfer of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Shahadat vs The State1991 CLC 312 · Board of Revenue · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →