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.
- Saadat Ullah Khan And 4 Others vs Major (Retd.) Sikandar Hayat1991 S CM R 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside an order passed by the President under Section 23 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The President had granted seniority to four direct recruit police officers over other inductees and promotees, citing hardship because the officers had been taken as prisoners of war during their training period. The Service Tribunal held that the seniority adjustment violated the normal rules of seniority and that the President's order failed to account for when these officers would have earned promotion in normal circumstances. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitions raise substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation and scope of Section 23 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, specifically whether the exercise of this power is subject to judicial review by the Service Tribunal and whether it possesses an overriding effect over standard service rules in cases of hardship. The Court determined these issues were of first impression and required further adjudication.
Questions settled- Does the power vested in the President under Section 23 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 have an overriding effect over normal service rules regarding seniority?
- Is the exercise of power by the President under Section 23 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 open to judicial review by the Service Tribunal?
- Can a Service Tribunal examine the factual basis or the manner in which the President exercises discretionary power under Section 23 of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Riaz Ahmad vs Mst. Maqsood Bibi and another1991 CLC 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 709 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-06-25Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad And Others vs The State and others-1991 P Cr. L J 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad And 8 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 890 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Riasat Khan vs Qazi Muhammad Zubair and another1991 MLD 1863 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. Through Its General1991 SCMR 496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil appeals involving the interpretation of the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), added by the 1980 Amendment Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the High Court, when exercising revisional jurisdiction, must dismiss a revision petition in limine if the petitioner fails to file certified copies of all relevant pleadings, documents, and orders of the subordinate court, or if it retains the discretion to allow the deficiency to be cured. The Supreme Court held that while the proviso places the burden on the petitioner to furnish necessary documents to avoid the court calling for the subordinate record, it does not mandate automatic dismissal for non-compliance. The Court ruled that the High Court should not act with excessive technicality; if documents are missing, the Court should call upon the party to produce them or, if necessary, exercise its power to call for the record, particularly when the revision petition is filed within the limitation period. The principle established is that revisional power is a significant tool for correcting jurisdictional errors and should not be inhibited by procedural technicalities or the conduct of parties.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure mandate the automatic dismissal of a revision petition if the petitioner fails to file all relevant documents with the initial application?
- Is the High Court's power to call for the record of a subordinate court extinguished by the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Can a High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, allow a petitioner to cure the deficiency of failing to file certified copies of documents?
- Riasat Ali Gondal, Chief Manager, National Industrial Cooperative1991 SCMR 561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment declaring the order of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, as without lawful authority. The Registrar had superseded the Board of Directors of the Pasban Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, which was originally registered in Lahore. The core legal question was whether the Islamabad Registrar possessed jurisdiction under the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942, to exercise control over a society whose registered office was in Islamabad but which was "actually registered" in the Province of Punjab. The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction regarding registration, control, and dissolution is strictly governed by the place of "actual registration" under the Act. Consequently, the Islamabad Registrar lacked the authority to supersede the Board of a society registered in Punjab. The Court further clarified that only a Central Registrar appointed under Section 4 of the Act could exclude the jurisdiction of the Provincial Registrar of the place of actual registration. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the mere location of a registered office in Islamabad does not confer jurisdiction for control and dissolution upon the Islamabad Registrar.
Questions settled- Does the location of a registered office in the Islamabad Capital Territory confer jurisdiction on the Islamabad Registrar over a cooperative society actually registered in a province?
- What is the legal significance of the term 'actually registered' under the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act 1942 regarding the control and dissolution of societies?
- Can a Registrar of the Federal Capital exercise jurisdiction over a multi-unit society registered outside the Federal Capital?
- Does the appointment of a Central Registrar under the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act 1942 exclude the jurisdiction of Provincial Registrars?
- Riasat Ali and another vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave of the Court, challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that affirmed the appellants' guilt for double murder but commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment, while simultaneously enhancing the fines imposed. The appellants, having served their substantive sentences, sought to avoid paying the enhanced fines, citing financial inability. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its reappraisal of witness testimony—specifically regarding the reliability of a 'chance witness'—and whether the enhancement of fines and the subsequent sentence in default of payment were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in its appreciation of evidence, noting that the appellants had already received the benefit of the doubt regarding the motive, which led to the commutation of their death sentences. The Court affirmed that the High Court possesses the authority to reappraise evidence and that the sentence in default of fine is distinct from substantive imprisonment and cannot run concurrently. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's findings on both guilt and sentencing.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, in appeal, accept the testimony of a witness as reliable even if the trial court rejected it?
- Does the status of a witness as a 'chance witness' automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Can a sentence imposed in default of payment of a fine run concurrently with the substantive sentence of imprisonment?
- Is the inability to pay a fine a valid legal ground to challenge an enhanced fine imposed by an appellate court?
- Resident Editor, Daily Jang vs Miss Rukhsana Nazli1991 PLC 597 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
- Renala Estate Ltd. vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Colonies Department and 4 others1991 CLC 2120 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah vs Nasir Khan and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 528 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-08Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah vs Nasir Khan and 7 others1991 MLD 1011 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-08Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah Khan vs Saadat Ali Khan1991 MLD 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah And Others vs Bibi Chanua N Jan And Other1991 SCMR 852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These four consolidated appeals examined whether the appellants, who purchased specific plots out of Shamlat property or became full owners upon the extinction of occupancy tenancies, were entitled to a share of the Malikana of trees cut by the Forest Department from Shamlat land classified as waste land. The appellants based their claims on being successors-in-interest of an original proprietor, erstwhile occupancy tenants who became full owners under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950, and co-sharers in Shamlat property. The Supreme Court held that full ownership acquired by occupancy tenants or through the purchase of specific plots does not automatically confer a right to share in the Malikana of trees where the village Wajibul Arz expressly restricts such entitlement to original proprietors of specific Tarafs. The Court affirmed that ownership status such as Malik-e-Qabza does not elevate a landowner to a co-sharer in Shamlat or entitle them to tree sale proceeds governed by custom and forest legislation. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether acquisition of full ownership by erstwhile occupancy tenants under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950 entitles them to a share in the Malikana of trees cut from Shamlat land contrary to the Wajibul Arz?
- Does the purchase of specific plots out of Shamlat property make the purchaser a co-sharer entitled to a share in the Malikana of trees?
- Does the status of Malik-e-Qabza confer rights to share in the Shamlat and the proceeds of tree sales?
- Rehmatullah and 4 others vs Mst. Bakhti and 6 others1991 MLD 2670 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-08-06Read full judgment →
- Rehmat vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1009 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ullah And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Khan vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Khan vs Iftikahr Ahmad and 8 others1991 MLD 981 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Khan Son of Noor Dad vs Iftikhar AhmedK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 341 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Baloch and 3 others vs Fateh Muhammad Khan and 8 others1991 PLC 570 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-09Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali vs Fazal Karim And 4 Other1991 SC M R1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a landlord challenging an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition against the Member, Board of Revenue's decision to set aside an ejectment order against a tenant. The petitioner contended, relying on the precedent in Lucas v. S.M. Nasim, that the lower authorities erroneously assumed an ejectment order for default in rent payment required a separate decree for arrears of rent. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner was not non-suited on the basis of lacking a separate decree for arrears, rendering the reliance on the Lucas case inapplicable. Furthermore, regarding the petitioner's alternative grounds for ejectment, specifically non-cultivation and damage to the land, the Court held that the High Court's factual findings on these matters did not warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the grounds for appeal were without merit, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Is a separate decree for arrears of rent a mandatory prerequisite for an ejectment order against a tenant based on default?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with factual findings made by the High Court regarding grounds for ejectment such as non-cultivation or damage to land?
- Rehmat Ali Khan vs Additional Inspector-General of Police1991 PLC (C.S.) 513 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 104 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-10Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali And Others vs Ahmad Din And Other1991 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute between successors of a common ancestor regarding ownership rights in family land following the release of a muaffi under Martial Law Regulation 64. The suit land, originally gifted to a shrine by three brothers in 1865 with a condition that one brother cultivate it until formal partition, was mutated exclusively in the name of the respondent's predecessor in 1960. The appellants claimed their 2/3rd share. The trial court and first appellate court decreed in favour of the appellants, holding that the land reverted to all descendants. However, the High Court reversed these concurrent findings based on revenue entries from 1892-93 in which the names of the other two brothers had been deleted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to properly consider that no basis existed on record for deleting the names in 1892-93. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court to re-decide after framing an additional issue regarding the basis of said deletion.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside concurrent findings of fact without establishing the legal basis of revenue entry alterations?
- Whether land granted under a conditional muaffi reverts to all original co-owners or their legal heirs upon the cancellation or release of the muaffi?
- Should a court remand a suit for fresh decision with an additional issue when key revenue record entries remain unexplained?
- Rehman And 2 Others vs The State and another-1991 P Cr. L J 948 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Rehm Din And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Rehan H. Naqvi for Appellant. vs K.A. Nomani, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 4 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-08-30Read full judgment →
- Razzaq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 942 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Raza Texthes Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 730 · Allahabad High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- Raza Muhammad and 2 others vs Jumma Khan and 2 others1991 MLD 261 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
- Raza Mohammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 483 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-15Read full judgment →
- Raza Khan vs Ziaullah and 2 others-1991 P Cr. LJ 2419 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Raza Khan vs District Magistrate, SialkotK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 503 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Rauf Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 407 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-07Read full judgment →
- Rauf Ahmad vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities Affairs, Islamabad and 9 others1991 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of 25 consolidated constitutional petitions challenging orders passed by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, and the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, which declared Mandi Bawa Lal in Chiniot to be evacuee trust property under Sections 8 and 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975, invalidating transfers made to the petitioners by the Settlement Department. The core legal questions pertained to whether property devolving from Guru to Chela automatically constitutes evacuee trust property, whether the Chairman acts as an adjudicatory tribunal, and whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) prior to June 1968 is a mandatory prerequisite for validating urban transfers under Section 10 of the 1975 Act. The Lahore High Court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the references for fresh determination. The Court held that property devolution from Guru to Chela alone does not establish its trust character, which must be determined on overall evidence of status at Partition. It further held that proceedings under Section 8 are adjudicatory and inquisitory, requiring authorities to collect relevant evidence, and that bona fide utilization and full payment of price before June 1968, rather than the ministerial issuance of a PTD, governs validation under Section 10.
Questions settled- Does the devolution of property from Guru to Chela automatically raise a legal presumption that the property is evacuee trust property?
- Are proceedings before the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board under Section 8 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 adjudicatory and inquisitory in nature?
- Is the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed prior to June 1968 a mandatory requirement for validating an urban property transfer under Section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 if entitlement was determined and purchase price was paid earlier?
- Rashida Begum and others vs Chiragh Din1991 CLC 1703 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Rashid Khan vs Muhammad Ali KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 199 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-01Read full judgment →
- Rashid alias Taidi vs The State1991 MLD 1998 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad vs The State and others-1991 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad vs Superintendent of Police Rahim Yar Khan and 2 Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 318) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1991-10-01Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad Sheikh for Appellant. vs Munir Ahmad Sheikh, D.R. for Respondent1991 PTD (Trib.) 308 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad and 9 others vs Syed Wasim Ahmad and 6 others1991 MLD 821 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Rashid Aemad vs Mumtaz Hussain and others1991 MLD 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Rashid A. Sheikh for Appellant. vs S. Roomi Shah, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 847 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Rasheed Abdul Hafeez and 3 others vs Ahmed and anothers1991 CLC 370 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for compensation filed by the parents of a deceased woman, Mst. Razia Begum, who died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a truck owned by the defendant. The core legal questions were whether the defendants were liable for the accident and, if so, how to determine the quantum of compensation, specifically regarding the average life expectancy of the victims' dependents. The Court held the defendants vicariously liable for the fatal accident, finding the driver negligent and the owner responsible. Regarding compensation, the Court departed from the traditional judicial practice of setting 65 years as the average life expectancy in Pakistan, instead adopting 70 years as a more realistic standard given advancements in medical care, living standards, and societal conditions. The Court further held that while the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, limits beneficiaries to parents, spouses, and children, it allowed for flexibility in calculating life expectancy for specific claimants based on evidence of longevity in their family, thereby awarding compensation to the parents based on these adjusted life expectancy calculations.
Questions settled- Are siblings of a deceased person entitled to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- What is the current judicial standard for average life expectancy in Pakistan for the purpose of calculating compensation in fatal accident cases?
- Can a court deviate from the standard average life expectancy when determining compensation for a specific claimant?
- Is a vehicle owner vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of their employee?
- Rashad Ashraf vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore1991 CLC 1646 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
- Rao Munawar Hayat And Another vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1781 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Rao Muhammad Owais Qarni vs Mst. Tauheed Aisha and 2 others1991 MLD 1097 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by a Family Court and an Appellate Court, which refused to recall witnesses for cross-examination in a family suit. The core legal questions were whether such an interlocutory order constitutes a "decision" appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and whether such discretionary orders are amenable to constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court held that the term "decision" in Section 14 does not encompass every interlocutory order but is limited to determinations of substantive issues forming part of the case. Consequently, the trial court's order was not appealable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that discretionary orders passed by a court acting within its jurisdiction cannot be challenged in a constitutional petition merely because the decision might be perceived as incorrect. The principle laid down is that procedural interlocutory orders do not qualify as appealable "decisions" under the Act, and constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by a competent court, even if the decision is allegedly erroneous.
Questions settled- Does the term 'decision' in Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, include every interlocutory order passed by a Family Court?
- Can a discretionary order passed by a Family Court acting within its jurisdiction be challenged in a constitutional petition?
- Is an order refusing to recall witnesses for cross-examination appealable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Rana Shaukat Mahmood- vs The State1991 MLD 2509 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Rana Rashid Ahmad vs Deputy Director (Schools), Directorate of Education, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad And Another1991 SCMR 1852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 17-9-1987, which had dismissed his service appeal ex parte. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in proceeding with the matter ex parte and whether the petitioner had been served with notice on time, alongside an examination of the merits concerning allegations of forgery and fabrication of appointment letters. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in the absence of a conclusive report showing lack of service and given that notice was dispatched allowing sufficient time, the presumption of proper service must be sustained, and this Court would not undertake a fresh factual inquiry into the propriety of service not raised before the Tribunal. Furthermore, on merits, the Tribunal's finding of fact based on overwhelming evidence and admissions holding the petitioner guilty as the principal accused warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not entertain factual inquiries regarding service of notice unless the question was first raised and attended to by the Tribunal itself, and concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be disturbed under leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court undertake an inquiry into the propriety of service undertaken before a Tribunal when that question was not raised and attended to by the Tribunal itself?
- Can a petitioner challenge an ex parte order of the Service Tribunal before the Supreme Court on grounds of delayed notice not previously raised before the Tribunal?
- Does the acceptance of responsibility and verification of forged appointment letters constitute sufficient evidence to burden the accused principal with guilt?
- Rana Muzaffar Ali Khan vs Khalid Mehmood and others1991 MLD 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
- Sabir Ali vs The State -1991 PCr.LJ 1914 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-18Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Latif vs Mst. Akhtar Sultana1991 CLC 1433 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Ilyas vs Director-General, Telegraphs & Telephones1991 PLC (C.S.) 936 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-08-09Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Azhar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1629 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Akram Through Legal Heirs vs Tufail Ahmed And Other1991 SCMR 1688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing a suit for specific performance of an agreement regarding a house transferred under a Settlement Scheme. The core legal questions were whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation and whether the underlying agreements were legally enforceable. The Supreme Court held that the suit was within the limitation period, as the cause of action arose only when the respondent clearly refused performance by selling the property to third parties, rather than at the time of the initial agreement. The Court further rejected the argument that the agreements were invalid, distinguishing the present facts from precedent where agreements were found unenforceable. The key principle laid down is that in contracts for specific performance where no fixed date for performance is stipulated, the limitation period commences from the date the plaintiff has notice of the defendant's refusal to perform, rather than the date of the agreement itself.
Questions settled- When does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance begin to run if the contract does not specify a date for performance?
- Does the execution of a subsequent sale deed by a vendor to a third party constitute notice of refusal to perform an earlier agreement, thereby triggering the limitation period?
- Rana Manzoorul Hassan vs Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad And Other1991 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Lecturer, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his challenge to his supersession for promotion to BPS-19. The petitioner argued that he met the required threshold for promotion based on his service record, contending that his 'average' reports should not have been treated as adverse and that the Selection Board miscalculated his marks under the quantification policy. The Tribunal had upheld the supersession, noting the petitioner's overall assessment score fell below the requisite standard and that his latest report deemed him unfit for promotion. Upon review, the Supreme Court identified significant legal questions regarding a civil servant's right to be considered for promotion in accordance with established rules and the implications of supersession when service records are incomplete. Finding that the petitioner's arguments regarding the calculation of his promotion marks and the assessment of his service record warranted further examination, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Selection Board and the Tribunal properly applied the relevant promotion criteria.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a legal right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the prescribed rules?
- Can a civil servant be superseded for promotion despite having an incomplete record of service?
- Rana M. Anwar Khan, C.A. for Appellant. vs Aftab Iqbal Lone, D.R. for Respondent1991 PTD (Trib.) 468 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
- Rana Ghulam Rasool and anothers vs Settlement Department1991 CLC 2091 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
- Rana Aftab Ahmed Khan vs Muhammad Shafi and others1991 CLC 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
- Ramzan Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 331 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ramzan and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1971 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Ramzan and anothers vs The State and another1991 MLD 2190 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
- Ramzan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1916 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
- Ramzan And Another vs Sultan And Other1991 SCMR 1337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of an application for setting aside an ex parte judgment passed by the Lahore High Court in a writ petition. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in refusing to set aside the ex parte order where the petitioners, having been duly served earlier and issued post-cards at their proper addresses, deliberately failed to appear on the date of hearing. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners were properly served and the High Court had decided the matter on merits despite their absence, no grounds were made out to interfere with the impugned order. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a party duly served cannot claim the setting aside of an ex parte decision as a matter of right when absent without sufficient cause.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte judgment passed by the High Court can be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the party was duly served?
- Does the absence of a party after proper service and issuance of postal notices warrant the setting aside of an ex parte decision decided on merits?
- Ramzan And 8 Others vs S.H.O. and 9 others-1991 P Cr. L J 2297 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
- Ramzan and 5 others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1991 CLC 2125 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
- Rameshalal vs Munoharlal1991 MLD 349 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Rajmal (Deceased) Represented by Muhammad Ishaq Etc. vs Hiray KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 97 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Rajada and others vs The State1991 MLD 1770 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Raja Sher Ahmad vs Muhammad Abdullah And Other1991 SCMR 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's revision petition regarding a property dispute. The petitioner originally filed a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction based on an alleged agreement to sell, which was rejected by the lower courts. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred by allowing the existence of separate ejectment and rent recovery proceedings to influence its decision and by refusing to allow an amendment to the plaint to convert the suit into one for specific performance. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claim to ownership was already effectively negated by the finality of the eviction proceedings, where his status as landlord was rejected. The Court ruled that the principle of constructive res judicata barred the petitioner from re-litigating these issues in a new forum. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the amendment of the plaint could not be permitted to circumvent the bar of res judicata. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar a party from re-litigating ownership claims already decided in prior eviction proceedings?
- Can a plaintiff amend a plaint to convert a suit for declaration into one for specific performance if the underlying claim is barred by res judicata?
- Raja Shah Jehan Khan and 2 others vs Azad Government of the State1991 PLC (C.S.) 324 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-03-10Read full judgment →
- Raja Munsif Dad vs WAPDA through Chief Engineer, WAPDA, Mangla Dam1991 PLD Azad J & K 8 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-12-22Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Siddique vs Superintendent of Police (Reserve) and 21991 PLC (C.S.) 689 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Sarwar Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Haji Ghulam1991 SCMR 1308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 25-10-1986, which accepted a second appeal and ordered the eviction of the petitioners from the disputed premises. The respondent had filed an ejectment application claiming to be the transferee of the property, alleging that the petitioners were tenants by operation of law. The petitioners contested the ownership of the respondent and denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting they were in unauthorized possession and that the question of title ought to have been resolved by a civil court. The core legal question concerns whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to order eviction where the relationship of landlord and tenant was bona fide denied and the occupant's status was alleged to be unauthorized. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners require detailed examination, particularly regarding jurisdiction and the necessity of settling title disputes in a civil court when tenancy is denied.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have jurisdiction to order eviction when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied?
- Must a question of title regarding a transferred property be settled in a civil court rather than before a Rent Controller?
- Whether unauthorized occupants can be subjected to ejectment proceedings under rent laws without an established tenancy?
- Raja Muhammad Nazir Khan vs Nazar Muhammad and AnotherK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 399 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-01-09Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Nazir Khan vs Nazar Muhammad and another1991 MLD 856 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-01-09Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Fazil vs Superintending Engineer, 1ST Operation Circle1991 PLC 66 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-24Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Azam Khan vs Rang Baz Khan and 4 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 313 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Akbar represented by Major Lal Khan and others vs Iftikhar Jillani represented by his Legal Heirs1991 PLD Supreme Court 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns eight appeals challenging High Court judgments that upheld the customary reversionary rights of collaterals to challenge the alienation of agricultural land held by a statutory tenant. The core legal question was whether Ordinance No. XIII of 1983, which introduced Section 2-A to the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, applies to pending proceedings and nullifies customary reversionary rights in statutory tenancies. The Supreme Court held that Section 2-A of the Ordinance is retrospective and explicitly renders any decree or judgment affirming customary reversionary rights void and inexecutable. The Court rejected the argument that legislative power to implement Shariat Court decisions is subject to the same temporal limitations as the courts themselves. Consequently, the Court ruled that the customary right to challenge alienations was nullified by the Ordinance, regardless of the land's statutory nature. The appeals were allowed, and the trial court's dismissal of the suits was restored, establishing that the legislature possesses full authority to enact retrospective laws to eliminate customary limitations on Muslim inheritance.
Questions settled- Does the legislative power to implement decisions of the Federal Shariat Court suffer from the same temporal limitations as the courts themselves?
- Does Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, apply to pending proceedings regarding customary reversionary rights?
- Can customary reversionary rights be invoked to challenge the alienation of land held under a statutory tenancy?
- Is the legislature prohibited from enacting laws with retrospective effect that affect pending proceedings?
- Raja Khurshid Ali vs Dr. Abdul Malik1991 SCMR 1944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a civil suit where the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from operating a brick-kiln on land, alleging the defendant, as a 'Lathband Bazgar' (tenant), was violating agricultural tenancy terms. The core legal questions concerned whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction over the dispute and whether the defendant's status as a tenant precluded the land's industrial use. The Supreme Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction because the land, being a brick-kiln and 'Ghairmumkin Gaudi', did not meet the definition of agricultural 'land' under the Baluchistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978, thereby excluding the Revenue Court's jurisdiction. The Court established that jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the subject matter and established facts rather than mere revenue record entries. Furthermore, the plaintiff was estopped from challenging the defendant's use of the land for a brick-kiln, as the plaintiff had previously sold the tenancy rights with full knowledge of the existing industrial use. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the appellate court's decision in favor of the defendant.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute concerning land used as a brick-kiln despite revenue records classifying it as agricultural?
- Can a plaintiff who has previously sold tenancy rights with knowledge of the land's industrial use later challenge that use as a violation of tenancy terms?
- Does the definition of 'land' under the Baluchistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978, encompass land used for non-agricultural purposes such as a brick-kiln?
- Are revenue record entries regarding tenancy status conclusive when they contradict the established physical use of the land?
- Raja Ghulam Hyder vs Major (RTD) Jamshed Alam KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 582 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-07Read full judgment →
- Raja Ghulam Hyder vs Major (Recd.) Jamshed Alam Khan1991 MLD 1284 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arises from a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and charges filed by the applicant-plaintiff against the respondent-defendant. The core legal question was whether an issue improperly framed regarding a third party's separate alleged tenancy could be struck off, and whether the rule of res judicata barred subsequent applications for the deletion or modification of issues. The Sindh High Court held that the framing of proper issues is an ongoing obligation of the court to ensure justice, and that interlocutory orders do not attract strict res judicata to bar the re-examination of issues when justified. The court established that issues must be confined strictly to material propositions of fact and law necessary for the decision of the actual controversy between the parties, excluding extraneous matters relating to third parties. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the irrelevant issue was ordered to be struck off.
Questions settled- Can a trial court alter, modify, or strike off issues at any stage of the proceedings?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to interlocutory orders in the same manner as final adjudications?
- Are courts required to frame issues on every allegation made and denied, or only on material propositions in controversy?
- Can an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed solely on the ground that a previous similar application was dismissed?
- Raja Abdul Rauf vs Raja Hameed Ullah Khan1991 CLC 301 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Rai Muhammad Bashir vs The Deputy Director Food, Gujranwala1991 SCMR 1874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Food Controller, challenged his retirement from service, which was ordered by the Deputy Director under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. Following the dismissal of his review petition by the Deputy Director, the petitioner appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the petitioner had failed to exhaust the mandatory departmental appeal process available to him under Section 21(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against this decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that a civil servant must exhaust all departmental remedies before approaching the Service Tribunal. Citing the precedent established in Ali Raza Shah Naqvi v. Government of Sindh, the Court held that the failure to file a departmental appeal rendered the petition before the Tribunal premature and incompetent. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, confirming that statutory procedures for departmental redress must be strictly followed.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant approach the Federal Service Tribunal without first exhausting the departmental appeal process?
- Is a review petition a valid substitute for a statutory departmental appeal under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Rai Batey Khan vs RajaK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 513 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
- Rai Batey Khan and anothers vs Raja1991 MLD 587 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
- Rahman Hafeez and Other vs S.M. Yousuf and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 6 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- Rahimuddin vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2188 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
- Rahim Jan & Co. vs Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi1991 PLC 201 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
- Rahim Bux Jamali, M.Pa. vs The State1991 MLD 2001 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
- Rahim Bakhsh vs The State1991 MLD 232 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
- Rahim Bakhsh And Others vs Ahmad Bakhsh And Other1991 SCMR 1335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, concerning the inheritance of land originally owned by one Allah Bakhsh. Following his death, inheritance mutations were sanctioned for his widow, Mst. Almo, granting her a limited estate. Mst. Almo subsequently gifted a portion of this land to her brothers, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. The respondents, collaterals of the deceased, challenged these transactions, asserting that Mst. Almo held only a limited estate and was entitled to a smaller share than claimed. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court all ruled against the petitioners, upholding the respondents' position. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the lower courts failed to consider that even if Allah Bakhsh had died leaving sons who later predeceased him, Mst. Almo would have been entitled to an additional 1/6th share as the mother of those deceased sons, alongside her 1/8th share. Finding this contention regarding the calculation of inheritance shares worthy of further examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of lower courts to examine a specific claim regarding the calculation of inheritance shares warrants the grant of leave to appeal?
- Does a widow holding a limited estate possess the legal right to gift land to her brothers to the detriment of the deceased's collaterals?
- Rahim Ahmad vs N. W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar And Other1991 SCMR 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by Rahim Ahmad against the decision of the N.W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar. The core legal questions involve whether the Service Tribunal could legally ignore factual findings made by departmental authorities regarding the absence of a genuine departmental examination used to manipulate seniority, and whether certain findings regarding temporary promotions and seniority were manifestly incorrect. The Supreme Court granted leave under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Holding in favor of the appellant, the Court found merit in the appeal, determining that the appellant's seniority should be counted from the order dated 27-2-1980 placing him senior to the contesting respondent. The key principle laid down is that service tribunals cannot arbitrarily disregard factual determinations made by competent departmental authorities concerning service matters and seniority manipulation.
Questions settled- Could the Service Tribunal completely ignore the factual finding of a departmental authority regarding the absence of a genuine departmental examination?
- Whether the finding of the Service Tribunal concerning the temporary promotion and seniority of the respondent was manifestly incorrect?
- Rafiullah vs Manager, Western Pakistan Tanneries, Hyderabad ,1991 PLC 561 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Rafiullah vs Manager (M/s) Western Pakistan Tanneries, S.I.T.E.(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 31) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →