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.
- Salamat Masih vs The Syndicate, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad1991 PLC (C.S.) 489 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Salamat Ali vs Gulzar Ahmad and others1991 MLD 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Sakiii Muhammad and another vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad1991 PLD Supreme Court 777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court decision dismissing the petitioners' Constitutional petition in limine. The petitioners' land was acquired under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and compensation was awarded and accepted in 1968. In 1983, the petitioners sought enhanced compensation based on a 1976 Supreme Court decision (Muhammad Yusuf v. CDA) which had declared the relevant compensation circular to be without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether a declaration of law by the Supreme Court operates as a judgment in rem that automatically reopens past and closed transactions for non-parties. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's view and reiterating its established precedent. The Court held that a Supreme Court judgment obliges subordinate courts and authorities to apply the declared rule to cases coming before them from the date of judgment onward, but it does not retrospectively alter the law to render past, closed orders void or reopen settled matters for acquiescent parties.
Questions settled- Does a declaration of law by the Supreme Court reopen past and closed transactions for non-parties who previously acquiesced to an award?
- Does a judgment of the Supreme Court declaring a circular unlawful operate retrospectively to invalidate past orders that have already reached finality?
- From what date are subordinate courts and executive authorities bound to apply a rule of law declared by the Supreme Court?
- Sakhi Muhammad and others vs Hakim Ali and others1991 CLC 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
- Sajjad And 3 Others vs The State1991PCr.LJ 1 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
- Sajjad alias Jaida and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1877 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Sajawal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 361 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
- Sajawal Khan And Others vs Hukam Dad1991 SCMR 1777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioners, who were vendees, challenged a High Court judgment that had allowed the respondent/pre-emptor's civil revision. The central legal question concerned the applicability of the 'rule of sinker' in the Province of Punjab and whether the respondent was required to explicitly plead this rule in the plaint. The Supreme Court held that the rule of sinker is indeed applicable in the Province of Punjab, affirming that a vendee who possesses a right of pre-emption loses that protection if they join with other vendees who do not possess such a right. The Court further determined that the pleadings in the plaint were sufficiently comprehensive to cover the legal issue of sinker. Additionally, the Court upheld the High Court's finding that the civil revision was not barred by limitation, citing the beneficial provisions of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that the rule of sinker applies to joint vendees in pre-emption cases regardless of individual qualifications.
Questions settled- Does the rule of sinker apply to pre-emption cases in the Province of Punjab?
- Can the rule of sinker be applied even if it was not explicitly pleaded in the plaint?
- Does the joinder of a qualified vendee with unqualified vendees result in the loss of the right of pre-emption for the entire transaction?
- Saifur Rehman vs District Education Officer (W), Jhang and 4 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 526 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Saifur Rehman And Another vs Khamid Gul1991 SCMR 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal arises from a pre-emption matter wherein the Peshawar High Court had allowed the respondent pre-emptor's civil revisions and decreed his suits. The core legal question was whether a vendee could improve his status prior to the institution of the suit through an exchange mutation and whether the principle of sinker applied where one co-vendee improved his status while the other did not, especially when the plea of sinker was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the oral transaction took place before the filing of the suit, the improvement in status was valid for one of the vendees (Badshah Gul), but because the plea of sinker was not raised at the earlier stages, the appellants were deprived of the opportunity to prove the divisibility of the transaction. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal partly with respect to the half share of Badshah Gul, setting aside the pre-emption decree to that extent, while maintaining the decree regarding the other half share of Saifur Rehman. The key principle laid down is that a new plea of sinker cannot be permitted for the first time in the apex court if it deprives the opposite party of the opportunity to lead evidence regarding the divisibility of the transaction.
Questions settled- Whether a vendee can improve his status by way of an exchange mutation after the institution of a pre-emption suit?
- Can the principle of sinker be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court without having been pleaded at earlier stages?
- Does the joining of a co-vendee who has not improved his status attract the principle of sinker when the transaction is alleged to be divisible?
- Saifur Rahman And Another vs Ch. Nazir Ahmad And Another1991 SCMR 1817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a shop that was classified as evacuee property. Initially, the property was auctioned, but the auction was cancelled due to the highest bidder's failure to pay. Respondent No. 1, who was in possession of the shop, had filed an L.S. Form seeking its transfer. Despite this pending application, the property was auctioned again and transferred to the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 challenged this transfer via a writ petition, which the High Court accepted, remanding the case with instructions to first dispose of the respondent's L.S. Form. Following the remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the shop to Respondent No. 1. The petitioners challenged this subsequent transfer in the High Court, which dismissed their petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the property could not be validly auctioned while the respondent's L.S. Form remained pending and undisposed. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order, affirming the principle that prior pending claims must be adjudicated before auctioning evacuee property.
Questions settled- Can evacuee property be auctioned while an L.S. Form for its transfer remains pending and undisposed?
- Is the High Court justified in remanding a case to ensure a pending L.S. Form is decided before an auction is finalized?
- Saifullah Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 257 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
- Saifullah And Others vs Tariq Hussain And Other Respond1991 SCMR 2027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from appeals filed against the judgment of the High Court granting relief to ad hoc Naib-Tehsildars in its constitutional jurisdiction regarding their terms and conditions of service. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction in service matters concerning ad hoc appointees who objected to undergoing the regular written examination and selection process prescribed by the rules. The Supreme Court held that the matter squarely related to the terms and conditions of service and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the High Court was barred under the Constitution. The Court laid down the principle that challenges regarding the requirement of ad hoc appointees to undergo prescribed initial recruitment tests and selection procedures relate to service terms and conditions, thereby excluding the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters of civil servants is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Can ad hoc appointees challenge the requirement to undergo the regular selection process and written examination prescribed for initial recruitment?
- Does a dispute regarding the recruitment procedure of ad hoc appointees relate to the terms and conditions of service?
- Saiful Malook And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 205 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
- Saiful Haq Hashmi vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 799 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
- Saifal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Saif Elahi And Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Saif Ali vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 3 others1991 PLD Azad J & K 43 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Said Rehman vs Mst: Bacha Haram And 3 Other1991 SCMR 1294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 13-12-1988, which accepted the respondent's writ petition, set aside the order of the Additional Secretary (Home), and restored the decree for dissolution of marriage and recovery of dower granted by the Additional Commissioner. The core legal question involved the jurisdiction of the Additional Secretary (Home) under Section 12 of the PATA Regulation II of 1975 to interfere with findings of fact arrived at by a Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Secretary (Home) acted in excess of his jurisdiction as he was not competent to tamper with the findings of a Tribunal on questions of fact that had attained finality before the Additional Commissioner. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Additional Secretary (Home) has the jurisdiction under Section 12 of the PATA Regulation II of 1975 to interfere with the findings of fact of a Tribunal?
- Can findings of a Tribunal attained before the Additional Commissioner be tampered with in revision?
- Said Rasool vs The Addl:District Judge, Lakki Marwat, District BannuK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 527 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Said Rasool Khan vs The Additional District Judge, Lakki Marwat, District Bannu and others1991 MLD 1732 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the appellate court's judgment and decree which dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on the basis of Khula, while also awarding her maintenance and dower. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court correctly granted Khula based on the wife's aversion, and whether the wife was entitled to maintenance and dower when the marriage was dissolved via Khula. The High Court held that the appellate court correctly dissolved the marriage on the basis of Khula, as the wife had satisfied the court's conscience that forcing her to remain in the union would be hateful. However, the court held that a wife seeking Khula must restore benefits received from the husband. Consequently, the court ruled that the wife was not entitled to past or future maintenance, and that the Khula was granted in consideration of her giving up her right to recover dower and other benefits. The principle laid down is that while a wife is entitled to Khula to avoid a hateful union, she must return tangible benefits, and she forfeits her claim to maintenance upon such dissolution.
Questions settled- Is a wife entitled to Khula if she satisfies the court that continuing the marriage would force her into a hateful union?
- Does a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula entitle the wife to claim past or future maintenance?
- Is a wife seeking dissolution of marriage through Khula required to restore tangible benefits received from the husband?
- Can a court grant Khula in consideration of the wife giving up her right to recover unpaid dower?
- Said alias Khurshid and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1991 MLD 2351 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
- Said Alam vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1947 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
- Said Alam Shah through his L.Rs, vs Mst. Jana and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision in a pre-emption matter. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor's suit could be dismissed for failure to deposit the pre-emption money within the stipulated time when the appellate court's decree specified only the rate per Marla rather than the total purchase-money, and whether the court was under a statutory duty to specify the exact total amount under Order 20, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that it is the mandatory duty of the court under Order 20, Rule 14 to specify the total purchase-money to be paid, and where the court itself is partly at fault for failing to do so, the default cannot be used to penalize the decree-holder or deprive him of the benefit of the decree. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the case was remanded to the District Court to specify the exact amount and allow reasonable time for its deposit.
Questions settled- Whether a court decreeing a pre-emption claim is under a legal duty to specify the total purchase-money to be paid under Order 20, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a pre-emptor's suit be dismissed for non-deposit of the pre-emption money within time when the court decree failed to specify the exact total sum payable?
- Is a pre-emptor to be penalized for delay in depositing pre-emption money caused by the court's failure to determine and state the exact purchase-money in the decree?
- Said Ahmed vs The Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home and 21991 MLD 8 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
- Said Ahmed vs The Province of Sindh & OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 375 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada Ka.K. Afridi vs Chairman N.-W.F.P. and 3 others1991 PLC 837 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada K.A.K. Afridi vs Chairman NWFP and 3 OtherK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 191 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada Jamal Ahmad Khan vs Mst. Hajiran Bibi And 7 Other1991 SCMR 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition concerning land allotments under settlement laws. The core legal question considered was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's petition on the ground that respondent No.1 would have no alternate land if the petition were allowed. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner was legally bound to comply with an earlier remand order of the High Court and could not evade compliance based on subsequent administrative orders passed in proceedings to which the appellant was not a party. The Court established the principle that prior judicial remand directions must be strictly followed and cannot be bypassed by collateral administrative actions or considerations of hardship to a contesting party.
Questions settled- Whether a Settlement Commissioner is bound to comply with a remand order issued by the High Court in earlier proceedings?
- Can subsequent administrative orders passed without notice to a party cure the non-compliance of a judicial remand order?
- Is a High Court justified in dismissing a writ petition on the ground of hardship regarding alternate land to a respondent?
- Sahibzada And Another vs The State1991 SCMR 895 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Sahab Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2207 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
- Safdar Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-17Read full judgment →
- Safdar Ali vs Mst. Iffat Akram and others1991 MLD 2338 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
- Safdar Ali vs Ghafoor and others1991 MLD 2133 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
- Safdar Ali and others vs The State and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application seeking the acquittal of petitioners convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment, based on a compromise (sulah) entered into between the convicts and the legal heirs of the deceased under the newly promulgated Qisas and Diyat laws. The core legal questions concern whether an offence of qatl-i-amd resulting in a life sentence (rather than death) can be compounded, how to safeguard the interests of minor heirs when represented by their mother, and whether the agreed badal-i-sulah amount is equitable. The Supreme Court held that compounding is permissible under section 345, Cr.P.C. read with sections 338-E and 338-H of the Pakistan Penal Code even when a lesser sentence than death is imposed. The Court laid down that payment of badal-i-sulah in court effectively safeguards the interests of minor heirs, and that a compromise reflecting the statutory minimum value of silver is fair and equitable, permitting the compounding of the offence and acquitting the petitioners.
Questions settled- Can an offence of qatl-i-amd resulting in life imprisonment rather than death be compounded by the heirs of the victim?
- Is the compounding of qatl-i-amd permissible for offences committed prior to the promulgation of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinances?
- How can the financial interests of minor heirs be safeguarded when a compromise involving badal-i-sulah is presented before the court?
- What constitutes a fair and equitable badal-i-sulah in relation to the statutory value of silver for diyat?
- Saeed Shah vs The State1991 PLD Federal Shariat Court 66 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Saeed Hassan vs Settlement Commissioner/C.S.C. And Other1991 SCMR 1598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. A delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner had accepted the appellant's Mukhbari application, cancelling 116 P.I. Units in excess of respondent No. 3's entitlement and allotting them to the appellant. Subsequent purchasers challenged this cancellation through a writ petition, which was initially dismissed, but their Intra-Court Appeal was accepted on the ground that the matter involved a mere miscalculation of units rather than a bogus allotment, rendering Section 14(A-1) inapplicable. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court observed that crucial contentions regarding the correct calculation of entitlement and units had not been examined by the High Court or the Intra-Court Appeal Bench, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the prior orders, and remanded the case to the Notified Officer for a fresh decision after considering the points raised by the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether settlement authorities are justified in cancelling land allotments under Section 14(A-1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 in cases involving mere miscalculation of P.I. Units rather than bogus allotments?
- Does the failure of a High Court to examine core contentions regarding the correct calculation of property units result in a miscarriage of justice warranting a remand of the case?
- Saeed Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Saee And 2 Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1710 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Sadullah Jan and 2 others vs Additional Secretary, Home and Tribunal1991 PLD Supreme Court 811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a revenue litigation where the respondent-landlord sought the eviction of the petitioners from the land in dispute and recovery of rent. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit, but the Collector accepted the landlord's appeal, ordered enhancement of the rent due to fall in money value, and maintained liability for eviction if the enhanced rent was not paid. Successive appeals and revisions before the Additional Commissioner and the Home Secretary maintained the tenant's liability with slight modifications, and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition. The core legal question was whether the Tribunals and the High Court could uphold the enhancement of rent when no specific relief for enhancement was claimed in the initial plaint. The Supreme Court held that while granting relief, it is open to a court or tribunal to grant general relief demanded by the interests of justice and changed circumstances, especially when the lease term had expired by efflux of time. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a court or tribunal can enhance rent in the interest of justice when no specific relief for enhancement was claimed in the suit?
- Does the expiration of a lease by efflux of time permit a tenant to contest an enhanced rate of rent while remaining in possession?
- Whether the High Court's refusal to interfere in writ jurisdiction regarding concurrent findings on rent enhancement warrants interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
- Sadruddin Lakhani vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 831 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Shah and 8 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 220 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Masih Alias Rangeela vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1600 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Sadio vs Muhammad Yaqoob And 3 Others1991 P Cr. L J 824 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Sada Hussain And Others vs The State And Another1991 SCMR 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions arising from a criminal case concerning a fatal shooting during a land and boundary dispute. The petitioner Sada Hussain sought leave to appeal against his conviction, while the complainant Fazal Hussain challenged the High Court's judgment whereby Sada Hussain's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was altered to section 304-I, and the co-accused Zahid Hussain's acquittal and revision were dismissed. The core legal questions related to whether the accused acted in the exercise of the right of private defence of property and whether such right was exceeded. The Supreme Court held that while the accused, being in possession of the land and mending the boundary, was entitled to defend his property, he had exceeded the right of private defence by using a firearm and causing the death of the unarmed deceased when no such extreme force was necessary. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions and refused leave to appeal, affirming the principles regarding the limits of the right of private defence of property and the prohibition against using excessive force.
Questions settled- Does a person in possession of land have a right of private defence of property against persons attempting to interfere with a boundary?
- Can the right of private defence of property extend to causing the death of an unarmed trespasser?
- Whether the High Court was justified in converting a conviction under section 302 to section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code under the circumstances of the case?
- Sabri Mumtaz vs Khalil Abdullah, S.P. Cantt., Lahore and 2 others1991 MLD 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
- Sabir Son vs Farooq Composite Fertilizer Company1991 PLC 805 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain and others vs Province of Sindh and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 1090 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Saadat Hussain vs Abdul Wahid Khan1991 MLD 2129 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- Saadat Ali Baig vs S. Bux Ellahi1991 CLC 623 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a landlord's appeal against the dismissal of his rent case seeking eviction of a tenant under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on the ground of retirement from service. The core legal question was whether a landlord who rented out the premises after his retirement is entitled to seek summary eviction under Section 14, and whether he established a genuine need for the premises. The Sindh High Court held that the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 explicitly bars a landlord from invoking these provisions if the premises were rented out after retirement. Furthermore, the court held that although proof of strict bona fide requirement is not required in the same manner as under other provisions, the landlord must still establish a genuine need, and unreasonable delay in filing the application coupled with successive rent increases and alternative income demonstrates a lack of genuine need. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a landlord who rented out premises after his retirement invoke Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for eviction?
- Does a landlord seeking eviction under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 have to establish a genuine need for the premises?
- What is the effect of an unexplained delay in filing an eviction application under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Sa. Rizvi vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others1991 MLD 1834 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 filed by a former Central Government Class-I civil servant challenging his dismissal from service under Martial Law Regulation 58. The core legal questions involved whether Article 270-A of the Constitution completely ousts the jurisdiction of superior courts to review actions taken under Martial Law Regulation 58, whether the Provincial Government was competent to take disciplinary action against a Central Government employee on deputation, and whether the impugned dismissal was vitiated by mala fides and lack of jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that Article 270-A does not provide absolute immunity to actions that are patently illegal, coram non judice, or mala fide. The Court found that the Provincial Government lacked jurisdiction to proceed against a Central Government officer, the trial by the Military Tribunal was a sham based on a pre-determined secret list, and the action suffered from malice. The petition was allowed, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the refixation of the petitioner's retirement date.
Questions settled- Does Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 completely oust the jurisdiction of superior courts from reviewing actions taken under Martial Law Regulation 58?
- Whether the Provincial Government is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and dismiss a Central Government Class-I officer on deputation?
- Does an act done without jurisdiction or in a mala fide manner amount to an act that is coram non judice?
- Is a constitutional petition barred by laches when the delay is adequately explained by ongoing legal proceedings and pursuit of remedies?
- S.Roomi Shah, D.R. for Appellant. vs Saeed Chaudhry,C.A. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 1072 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- S.Najmuddin Qadri vs District Manager, Karachi Transport1991 PLC 233 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
- S.N. Hamid Abdul Khader vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 132 · Madras High Court · 1989-02-02Read full judgment →
- S.M. Zafar vs ViceAdmiral (Retd.) Iqbal F. Qadir1991 CLC 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal was filed under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the order of the Additional Controller of Rent, directing the eviction of the appellant from the demised residential premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions revolved around whether the appellant committed a default in the payment of rent and whether the respondent-landlord established a genuine, personal bona fide need for the premises. The court held that the tenant indeed committed a default in rent payment for four months, which could not be masked by a concocted plea of a loan, and that the landlord's personal requirement for the premises was well-established and bona fide. The court affirmed that the suitability and sufficiency of accommodation is the prerogative of the landlord, and a tenant cannot dictate how a landlord should utilize his property or determine the living arrangements of the landlord's family. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant who commits default in tendering rent within the stipulated period is liable to ejectment irrespective of a subsequent lump sum tender?
- Is the suitability and sufficiency of accommodation the exclusive prerogative of the landlord?
- Can a tenant dictate where a landlord should presently reside or how the landlord's family should occupy their property?
- S.M. Zafar vs Vice Admiral (Retd.) Iqbal F. QuadirK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 549 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- S.M. Rizwan Abidi vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore1991 PLC (C.S.) 750 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
- S.M. Nafis-Ul-Hassan Shah vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others1991 MLD 2607 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-22Read full judgment →
- S.M. Corporation Limited vs New Era Textile Mills Limited and anothers1991 CLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff company, S.M. Corporation Limited, against defendant No.1, New Era Textile Mills Limited, and defendant No.2, Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Limited, seeking a decree for the delivery of possession of a valuable piece of land measuring 1.67 acres forming part of Plot No. F-62 S.I.T.E., which was allegedly unauthorisedly occupied and annexed by defendant No.1. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation or the doctrine of adverse possession, whether it was hit by estoppel or the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the disputed land formed part of the assets of defendant No.1 under a prior court-recorded compromise agreement. The High Court held that defendant No.1 failed to establish adverse possession, waiver, estoppel, or that the disputed land constituted its asset under the compromise. The Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, directing defendant No.1 to vacate and hand over possession of the land. The key legal principles laid down are that a claim based on title is governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908 requiring proof of adequacy, continuity, and exclusiveness for adverse possession, and that a party pleading estoppel or procedural bars like Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. must specifically raise and prove the same in its written statement.
Questions settled- What constitutes the burden of proof required to establish adverse possession against a registered title holder under Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a defendant rely on the bar contained in Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without specifically pleading the necessary facts and points of law in its written statement?
- Whether a joint managing director's unauthorized attempt to transfer company property without formal corporate approval binds the company or creates an estoppel against it?
- Does a general compromise agreement and settlement between company groups transferring shares and management operate to automatically pass title to a disputed plot of land not specified therein?
- S.A. Kureshy vs Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division1991 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which denied the petitioner's claim for arrears of pay and allowances. The petitioner, a civil servant, was selected for promotion to Grade 20 alongside a junior officer. While the junior officer was appointed to the post of Joint Secretary in 1977, the petitioner was not appointed until 1980. Although the government subsequently granted the petitioner seniority over his junior and allowed increments for the intervening period, it refused to pay the salary arrears for the time he did not physically hold the higher post. The petitioner argued that the grant of seniority and increments effectively constituted pro forma promotion, creating a vested right to financial benefits. The core legal question is whether an officer granted seniority and increments retrospectively, due to a delay in promotion not attributable to them, is entitled to arrears of pay and allowances as if they had held the higher post. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the need to examine the consistency of this treatment with previous precedents.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for a period during which they did not physically hold a higher post, if they were subsequently granted seniority and increments retrospectively?
- Does the grant of seniority and increments for a period of delayed promotion constitute pro forma promotion entitling the officer to financial benefits?
- S. Zahir Hussain vs Mahbub Jaffer Ali1991 CLC 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- S. Taseer Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal EtcK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 188 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
- S. Taseer Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 3 others1991 PLC 815 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
- S. Roomi Shah, D.R. for Appellant. vs Saeed Chaudhry, C.A. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 650 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
- S. Mujtaba Ali Naqvi vs Mst. Noor Jehan Begum through Legal Heirs and 2 others1991 MLD 1849 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
- S. Muhammad Shafi vs The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1991 PLC 894 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
- S. Muhammad Saeed Muhammad Sabir & Co. and anothers vs Abdul1991 MLD 357 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
- S. Muhammad Din Tenneries Labour Union vs Registrar Trade Union1991 PLC 636 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-15Read full judgment →
- S. Muhammad Din & Sons (Aziz) Ltd. vs Assistant Collector and others1991 CLC 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- S. K. & F. (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Muhammad Rizwan , .1991 PLC 236 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-17Read full judgment →
- S. Ijaz Hussain Shah vs National Bank of Pakistan through its President1991 PLC (C.S.) 492 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- S. Habib Haider vs The Secretary, General Ministry of Interior, Islamabad And 14 Other1991 SCMR 1505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal regarding seniority. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Field Investigating Officer in the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board in 1974, moved to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) on deputation in May 1977, and was subsequently absorbed as an Inspector in 1982. He claimed seniority from his initial date of entry into the FIA on deputation in 1977 rather than his date of regular absorption in 1982. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had accepted the appointment on deputation with clear terms regarding reversion and lien, and that the appointment procedure followed in 1977 was under Rule 3 rather than Rule 18 of the relevant rules. Consequently, the Court ruled that seniority was correctly reckoned from the date of regular absorption in 1982, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an employee entering an organization on deputation can claim seniority from the initial date of deputation rather than the date of regular absorption?
- Does an appointment made under Rule 3 as a deputationist confer rights for direct appointment seniority under Rule 18?
- Can an employee claim the benefit of favorable treatment given to other individuals in the department without impleading them and examining their merits?
- S. Fayyaz Hussain Naqvi vs The Secretary to the Government of Pakistan And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The petitioner sought redress from the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the dismissal. Upon initial review, a bench of the Supreme Court issued notice to the Deputy Attorney-General to clarify specific legal points raised in the petition. Following the appearance of the Deputy Attorney-General and further arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Court evaluated the nature of the issues involved. The Supreme Court determined that the questions raised by the petitioner were not merely individual grievances but involved significant matters of law of public importance and policy considerations. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. The holding establishes that when a service-related petition before the Supreme Court involves substantial questions of law of public importance and policy, the Court will grant leave to appeal to examine the merits of the case, directing the parties to proceed on the existing record with the submission of all essential documentation.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Does a service appeal involving policy matters constitute a question of law of public importance?
- S. Ashfaq Hussain vs Province of Sindh and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 172 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-05-17Read full judgment →
- S. Akhtar Sher vs The State and another1991 MLD 1977 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioner to face trial after he had been discharged during investigation under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a Court of Session has the jurisdiction to summon an accused person who was earlier discharged without recording substantive evidence at trial. The Balochistan High Court held that while a Court of Session possesses plenary jurisdiction to summon an additional accused if reasonable material is brought on record during the trial, it cannot do so hastily at a preliminary stage without proper evidence having been recorded. The court laid down the principle that a Sessions Court cannot summon a discharged accused without the commencement of a proper trial and the recording of legally admissible evidence, and doing so prematurely constitutes an abuse of the process of the court warranting quashment under section 561-A.
Questions settled- Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is barred in cases involving Hudood Ordinances?
- Can a Court of Session summon a previously discharged accused person without recording evidence at trial?
- At what stage of proceedings is a Court of Session legally competent to summon an accused person who was not sent up to face trial in the final report?
- S. Abdul Aziz Ghaznavi vs Provincial Election Authority and others1991 CLC 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- S Habi Ul Hassan vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal while reducing his sentence of imprisonment and fine. The petitioner, a Sanitation Inspector, was originally convicted under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 for demanding illegal gratification from a municipal employee. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's conviction was improperly based solely on the confession of a co-accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the contention was misconceived because the primary evidence relied upon by the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of the complainant, a mashir, and a Special Magistrate, while the co-accused's confession served merely as corroborative evidence. Reaffirming the established principle that the confession of a co-accused is a weak type of evidence that cannot form the sole foundation of a conviction but may only be used to corroborate other independent evidence, the Court declined to interfere with the sentence, noting that further leniency would encourage corruption and defeat the legislative intent of the anti-corruption laws.
Questions settled- Can the confession of a co-accused form the sole basis for the conviction of an accused?
- Whether the confession of a co-accused can be used as substantive primary evidence or merely as corroborative evidence?
- Does the reliance on the testimony of a complainant and official witnesses satisfy the evidentiary requirements for a conviction under anti-corruption laws?
- S H. Malik vs Addl. District Judge Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
- Rustam vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1519 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Rustam Ali vs Mohsin Naqvi and 3 others1991 CLC 1751 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
- Rustam Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1991 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Rupali Polyester Ltd. vs Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution and another1991 PLC 318 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges various orders passed by the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution directing an industrial concern to produce certain books of account and assessing contributions. The core legal questions involve whether the institution is legally empowered to requisition general ledgers and other account books under section 12 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, and whether a constitutional petition is competent when alternative statutory remedies under sections 33, 34, and 35 of the Act remain unexhausted. The Lahore High Court held that the institution is fully authorized under section 12 of the Act to require the production of account books, including general ledgers, relating to employment and wages, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the court held that the constitutional petition was incompetent because the petitioner failed to avail of the adequate and efficacious alternative remedies provided by the statute. The key principle laid down is that an aggrieved party must exhaust statutory remedies such as complaints, reviews, and appeals before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly when the challenge to the institution's jurisdiction is unfounded.
Questions settled- Can the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution legally direct an employer to produce general ledgers and other books of account under section 12 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
- Is a constitutional petition competent when the petitioner has failed to avail of the alternative statutory remedies of complaint, review, and appeal provided under sections 33, 34, and 35 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
- What is the legal consequence if an employer fails to maintain records or submit returns as required by the regulations under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
- Rupali Polyester Limited, Lahore Road, Sheikhupura vs Employees Old(K.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 88) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Rupali Polyester Limited vs Employees Old Age Benefits Institution(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 269) · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-07Read full judgment →
- Rukan Din And Others vs Mst. Tazeem Akhtar1991 SCMR 777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench dated 9-10-1988, which refused to accept the alleged abandonment or renunciation of property rights by Mst. Tazeem Akhtar respondent. The petitioners, heirs of Sharaf Din, contended that the respondent had abandoned her 1/2 share in a Haveli, originally transferred to her in lieu of dower, to secure her divorce from Sharaf Din's son Shamsuddin. The core legal question was whether the respondent had validly abandoned her property rights through the deed dated 3-7-1979. The Supreme Court held that the marriage was consummated and that the deed in question neither referred to the property transferred in lieu of dower nor indicated any abandonment of rights in favor of Shamsuddin or Sharaf Din. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Whether an alleged abandonment of property rights given in lieu of dower can be inferred from a document that makes no reference to the said property?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings regarding the non-existence of a property abandonment deed?
- Roshan Khan and 2 others vs Provincial Government of N.W.F.P.1991 MLD 2266 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Mahmood vs Collector and others1991 CLC 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Cooperative Society Limited vs Punjab University Academic1991 SCMR 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over land previously sold to the Rizwan Cooperative Society Limited. The core legal question was whether the petitioner-society retained any locus standi or valid claim to the land, specifically an area of 406 kanals 1 marla, following previous judicial determinations regarding the acquisition of said land by the Lahore Improvement Trust for the Punjab University campus. The Supreme Court had previously held in Lahore Improvement Trust v. Custodian, Evacuee Property (PLD 1971 SC 811) and in a subsequent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1985 that the entire sale in favour of the petitioner-society was invalidated. The High Court had also allowed a writ petition filed by Punjab University authorities challenging various allotment orders and mukhbari applications concerning this land. The Supreme Court held that, in light of its prior binding judgments, the petitioner-society no longer possessed any standing or locus standi in the matter. The key principle laid down is that where a prior judicial decision has invalidated the underlying title or sale of property, the party claiming through that invalidated sale lacks the necessary standing to challenge subsequent administrative or judicial actions concerning that property.
Questions settled- Does a party whose title to land has been invalidated by a prior Supreme Court judgment retain locus standi to challenge subsequent proceedings concerning that land?
- Does the invalidation of a sale of land by the Supreme Court extend to areas not explicitly included in a specific development scheme if the sale itself was set aside?
- Riffat Ali Barq vs S.H.O., Police Station, Muzaffarabad and 4 others-1991 P Cr.L J 9 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 294 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants, medical students, were charged with performing obscene acts in a public place. The core legal question was whether the allegations in the F.I.R., even if accepted as true, constituted the offence of obscenity under the statute. The Court held that for an offence under Section 294, P.P.C. to be established, the prosecution must prove the act was obscene, occurred in a public place, and caused annoyance to others. Finding that the F.I.R. failed to disclose these essential ingredients and that the prosecution was likely concocted, the Court ruled that continuing the trial would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and quashed the criminal proceedings, establishing the principle that courts must insist on concrete evidence for offences easily fabricated, such as public obscenity, to prevent unwarranted trials and protect individuals from the abuse of legal process.
Questions settled- What are the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 294 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings if the F.I.R. fails to disclose the necessary elements of the alleged offence?
- Is a trial court required to insist on solid evidence before proceeding with charges that are easily concocted and difficult to rebut?
- Rifat Ali Barq vs S.H.O and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 489 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
- Rifaqat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 469 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
- Rifaqat Ali vs The State1991 MLD 1673 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
- Riaz Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 246 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-03Read full judgment →
- Riaz Hussain Shah vs Pehlwan Shah And Another1991 SCMR 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby post-arrest bail was granted to Respondent No. 1. The brief facts are that the deceased was attacked by the respondent and his co-accused, resulting in fatal injuries. The respondent was specifically attributed an ineffective fire shot and was noted to be a juvenile of about fifteen to sixteen years of age. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail based on the attribution of an ineffective role and the tender age of the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion was exercised soundly and without reliance on irrelevant considerations or violation of established principles regarding the grant of bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the attribution of an ineffective role coupled with the tender age of the accused constitutes valid grounds for the grant of bail, and appellate interference is unwarranted unless discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily.
Questions settled- Whether the attribution of an ineffective fire is a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the tender age of an accused constitute a relevant consideration in the grant of bail?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a High Court in granting bail?
- Riaz Hussain And Others vs Board of Revenue And Other1991 SCMR 2307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing a Constitution Petition filed by the appellants regarding the cancellation and regrant of agricultural land. The core legal questions involved the scope and limitation period of review jurisdiction under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, and whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to condone delay in filing a review petition before the Board of Revenue, as well as the extent of High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 regarding erroneous decisions of tribunals. The Supreme Court held that the power of review must be exercised within the four corners of the prescribed statutory conditions and limitation, and since section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to review applications under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, the Board had no jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred review application or condone the delay. Furthermore, the Court held that the scope of review is strictly confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and does not permit a rehearing of the matter on merits as an appeal. The key principles laid down are that statutory review powers cannot exceed their prescribed limitations, limitation periods cannot be extended without express statutory enabling provisions, and administrative tribunals acting outside their statutory bounds are subject to correction under constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to review petitions filed under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957?
- Can the Board of Revenue condone delay in filing a time-barred review application when the governing statute does not confer power to extend limitation?
- Does the scope of review jurisdiction under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 permit the rehearing of a matter on merits?
- When can the High Court interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution with an order passed by a tribunal or administrative authority?
- Riaz And Others vs The State1991PCr.LJ 877 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Riaz and others vs The State1991 MLD 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ameer alias Abdul Haq vs Aamar Sultan Cheema and others1991 CLC 870 · Election Tribunal · 1990-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This election petition challenges the election of respondent No. 1 to the Punjab Assembly on the sole ground of age disqualification on the nomination date, alleging that he was under 25 years old. The petitioner contended that the respondent's date of birth was May 4, 1966, supported by school, college, and board records, and that a later correction to May 1, 1962, was fraudulent and opportunistic. The respondent defended the correctness of the revised birth entry maintained under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and sought reliance on an electoral roll and a medical certificate. The Election Tribunal held that the respondent failed to satisfactorily explain the consistent record of his birth date as 1966 established by his educated father throughout his formative years, and that the sudden correction made after the announcement of the election schedule was opportunistic and unreliable. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was a minor on the nomination date and ineligible to contest, thereby declaring his election void and ordering a fresh election while declining to declare the runner-up as returned due to the lack of notoriety of the disqualification.
Questions settled- Whether an entry of date of birth in the Union Council record can override consistent educational and institutional records maintained over many years when a correction is sought only after the announcement of election schedules?
- Is the age recorded in an electoral roll final for determining the age qualification of a candidate contesting an election?
- Can a medical certificate and radiological report obtained privately without the Tribunal's permission or notice to the opposing party be accepted as conclusive proof of age?
- Whether the runner-up candidate can be declared elected when the returned candidate's disqualification is based on complicated facts rather than a notorious and self-evident disability?
- Riaz Ahmed Mansuri vs Abid Ali Qazi and OtherK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 648 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-06Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs The Inspector of Police/Station House Officer, Police1991 P C r. L J 6 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →