Latest 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.

• Rafiq And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 774 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmad and 2 others vs Farzand Ali and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 521 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Rafhan Maize Products, Faisalabad vs The Social Security Institution, Lahore And Another1991 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-18
  social security contributionhouse rent allowanceleave to appealconsolidation of appealsreview of court orderprocedural lawSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the inclusion of house rent in social security contributions. The core legal questions involved the propriety of granting leave to appeal on the issue of house rent and the procedural validity of reviewing and recalling a prior short order of the Court that had dismissed similar petitions. The Court held that the issue of house rent warranted further examination and granted leave to appeal in the pending petitions. Regarding the procedural aspect, the Court exercised its power to review and recall a previous short order dated 23-6-1982, noting that the original bench had already directed a rehearing before retiring. Consequently, the Court ordered that all related appeals be consolidated and heard together by a larger bench to ensure consistent adjudication. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court possesses the inherent power to review and recall its own orders, particularly where procedural inconsistencies or the need for consistent adjudication of related matters arise.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court of Pakistan review and recall a previous short order dismissing a petition after the bench that passed it has retired?
  • Under what circumstances may the Supreme Court consolidate multiple appeals for a joint hearing?
  • Is the issue of house rent allowance a valid ground for granting leave to appeal in social security matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain Shah And Others vs Chairman, Pofs. Wah Cantt. And Other1991 SCMR 1348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-07
  service senioritycadre transferspecialized service groupsauxiliary cadrepublic relations cellinter-cadre seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees in the Auxiliary Cadre of the Pakistan Ordinance Factories (POFs), challenged the seniority ranking of respondent No. 4, who was originally appointed to the Public Relations Cell. Respondent No. 4, initially appointed as Assistant Manager (Public Relations) in 1976, later transferred to the Auxiliary Cadre in 1981. While the POFs initially determined that respondent No. 4's seniority in the Auxiliary Cadre should count only from the date of his transfer (1981), the Service Tribunal subsequently ruled that his seniority should be calculated from his initial appointment date in 1976. The petitioners sought leave to appeal, arguing that the Public Relations Cell and the Auxiliary Cadre are distinct specialized groups with different qualifications, pay scales, and promotion channels, and that a transfer between them cannot retroactively confer seniority from the date of service in a different, unrelated cadre. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contentions regarding the legality of the transfer and the determination of seniority date required further judicial consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee transferred from one specialized service cadre to another count their seniority from the date of their initial appointment in the former cadre?
  • Does a transfer between two distinct service groups with different qualifications and promotion channels entitle an employee to carry over seniority?
  • Is the seniority of an employee transferred to a new cadre limited to the date of their transfer into that specific cadre?
  Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan vs The State1991 P C r. LJ 617 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Raees Jumma vs The State And Another1991 SCMR 2018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-29
  Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinanceabetmentsentence enhancementwitness credibilityappellate jurisdictionmisreading of evidenceprincipal offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a conviction under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, where the appellant was found guilty of abetment in a murder case by a Tribunal, a finding subsequently modified by appellate and revisional authorities. The core legal questions concerned the scope of the Commissioner's appellate powers under the Ordinance and the propriety of the High Court's reliance on inconsistent witness testimony to enhance the appellant's sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by misreading the testimony of the sole eye-witness, Popat, who provided conflicting accounts regarding whether the appellant fired the fatal shot or merely called out. The Court determined that an inferential statement in cross-examination could not override the direct descriptive account provided in the examination-in-chief. Furthermore, the Court held that the sentence of an abettor should not, in principle, exceed that of the principal offenders. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the original sentence imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, and modified the conviction to Section 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court rely on an inferential statement in cross-examination to override a direct statement of fact made in examination-in-chief?
  • Should the sentence of an abettor exceed the sentence awarded to the principal offenders in a criminal case?
  • Does the misreading of material evidence by a High Court justify the Supreme Court's interference in a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Raees Ahmad Khan vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1381 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Rachna Chemical Industries vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,1991 PTD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-11
  sales tax exemptionvested rightsretrospective operationconstitutional petitionletter of credittaxing statute
  Summary & questions settled

  In these ten Constitution Petitions, the Sindh High Court addressed whether the withdrawal of sales tax exemption under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, through a notification dated 26-6-1988, could be applied retrospectively to infringe upon the petitioners' vested rights accrued through payments and the opening of letters of credit prior to that date. The court examined whether the invocation of machinery provisions under the Customs Act, 1969, affects the substantive tax exemptions granted under the separate and distinct Sales Tax Act, 1951. Relying on established precedent, the court held that the petitioners had acquired vested rights to the exemption based on contractual commitments and acts performed prior to the notification, and that an executive notification withdrawing the exemption cannot operate retrospectively to divest those rights. Consequently, the petitions were allowed and bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners were ordered to be cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the withdrawal of exemption under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 can be given retrospective effect so as to infringe accrued vested rights?
  • Does the invocation of section 3(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 convert sales tax into customs duty or divest it of its inherent attributes?
  • Do contractual commitments and the opening of letters of credit prior to a notification create a vested right to tax exemption?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 448 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz And Others vs The State-1991PCr.LJ 826 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• R.C.D. Ball Bearing Limited vs Sindh Employees' Social Security1991 PLD Supreme Court 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-16
  social security contributionstatutory penaltystay orderfailure to paystatutory obligationinterim relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had held that an employer was liable to pay a statutory increase (penalty) under Section 23 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, for non-payment of contributions during a period when a court-ordered stay was in operation. The appellant argued that because the High Court had stayed the recovery of the disputed contributions pending appeal, there was no "failure to pay" under Section 23 during the currency of the stay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that while the obligation to pay contributions is statutory and automatic, the statutory increase under Section 23 is a penalty. When a competent court grants a stay order, the legal obligation to make the payment is suspended. Consequently, in the absence of an active obligation to pay during the operation of a stay, there can be no "failure to pay" within the meaning of Section 23, and no penalty can be levied for that period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer can be held to have failed to pay social security contributions under Section 23 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, during the period a court-ordered stay is in operation?
  • Is the statutory increase under Section 23 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, in the nature of interest or is it a penalty?
  • Does the suspension of the recovery of contributions by a court stay order negate the allegation of 'failure to pay' for the duration of that stay?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurbanali vs Sheroo Machi And Another1991 SCMR 2339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-07
  murder convictionculpable homicideintention to killsingle injurysentence mitigationcriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a Sindh High Court judgment that had converted a conviction from murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the conviction based solely on the fact that the accused inflicted only a single fatal knife blow to the deceased's chest. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning was flawed because the nature of the injury and the accused's prior verbal threat established the requisite intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death under Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court affirmed that unless the accused brings the case within the specific statutory exceptions, a fatal, intentional strike to a vital organ constitutes murder. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was restored. However, considering the lack of premeditation and the single-injury nature of the attack, the Court substituted the death sentence with imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the infliction of a single fatal injury on a vital organ necessarily negate the intention to cause death under Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a court convert a conviction from murder to culpable homicide without finding that the case falls within the specific exceptions to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the absence of multiple injuries sufficient grounds to reduce a charge of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs Hoor Bux and 2 others1991 CLC 248 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-28
  Civil RevisionRemand of caseAppellate jurisdictionEvidentiary lacunaeSpecific ReliefTitle and possessionDuty of appellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Civil Revision Applications challenging an order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was justified in remanding the suit to the trial court to allow the plaintiff to prove the saleable right of his vendors, despite the issue already being framed and evidence having been concluded. The High Court held that the appellate court’s judgment was laconic and failed to adjudicate the issues on merits as required by law. The Court established that a remand order is improper when parties have already adduced sufficient evidence to their satisfaction, as the object of remand is not to permit parties to fill evidentiary lacunae. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Order XX, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a court must provide findings and reasons for each issue. Given the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction compared to appellate powers, the Court set aside the remand order and directed the District Judge to rehear the appeal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally permissible for an appellate court to remand a case solely to allow a party to fill evidentiary lacunae?
  • What is the legal duty of an appellate court regarding the adjudication of issues under Order XX, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the distinction between the scope of appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, decide a case on merits when the first appellate court has failed to record findings on the issues?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali Bugti, D.R. for Appellant. vs Rehan Hassan Naqvi for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 226 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-12Read full judgment →
• Qudrat Ullah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
• Qudrat Ullah Alias Rudhi vs Siddiq Ahmad and 17 others-1991 P Cr. L J 1520 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Qazi Saeed Akhtar alias Akhtar Ali vs Haji Muhammad Ashiq and 141991 PLD Supreme Court 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-16
  civil proceduredismissal for non-prosecutionsubsequent suitfirst hearingpre-emptionappearance of defendant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether the dismissal of an earlier suit for non-prosecution on a date fixed for the settlement of issues and first hearing constitutes a dismissal under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby barring a subsequent suit under Order IX, Rule 9. The appellant had filed a suit challenging a sale and alternatively seeking pre-emption, but failed to appear or deposit the required pre-emption amount on the date fixed, leading to the dismissal of the suit while the principal contesting defendant was present. The Supreme Court held that a date fixed for the ascertainment of admissions and denials and oral examination under Order V, Rule 1 and Order X, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure constitutes a meaningful hearing, and the plaintiff's absence thereon legally entails dismissal under Order IX, Rule 8. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument regarding the divisibility of defendants, as the contesting respondent was the primary vendee. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a date fixed for the settlement of issues and ascertainment of allegations constitutes a hearing for the purposes of Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the dismissal of a suit under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit on the same cause of action under Order IX, Rule 9?
  • Can a dismissal for non-appearance be treated differently among co-defendants under Order IX, Rule 3 and Order IX, Rule 8 when the primary relief is sought against the contesting vendee?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Naeem And Others vs Muhammad Amin1991 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19
  ejectment petitionpersonal needlandlord and tenantcross-examinationleave to appealjoint landlordsCantonments Rent Restriction Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which affirmed the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by landlords against their tenant. The petitioners sought the respondent’s eviction from a shop under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, citing non-payment of rent, unauthorized construction, and personal requirement for business use. The lower courts rejected the claim of personal need, relying on evidence that the landlord seeking the premises was residing abroad and had previously re-let another vacated property. The petitioners contended that the respondent failed to cross-examine the landlord regarding his employment status or residency, arguing that such evidence should not have been admitted or relied upon without prior confrontation. Furthermore, the petitioners asserted that a single joint landlord is legally competent to maintain an ejectment petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the petitioners' arguments regarding the procedural necessity of cross-examination on material facts and the standing of joint landlords warranted a deeper judicial examination of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord's claim for personal need be defeated by evidence of his residence abroad if that evidence was not put to him during cross-examination?
  • Is a single joint landlord legally competent to maintain an ejectment petition against a tenant?
  • Does the re-letting of a previously vacated property by a landlord automatically invalidate a subsequent claim of personal need for another property?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Arifuddin and anothers vs Civil Karachi 291 Government of Sindh1991 PLD Karachi 291 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-18
  fatal accidentdamagesnegligencecontributory negligencecrash helmetres ipsa loquiturlife expectancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed by the parents of an eighteen-year-old student who died in a road accident, seeking recovery of Rs. 12,00,000 under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The plaintiffs alleged that the driver of a bus belonging to the defendants drove rashly and negligently, colliding with the deceased's motorcycle and causing fatal head injuries. The defendants contended that the deceased was negligent, failed to wear a crash helmet, and did not yield the right of way. The High Court of Sindh applied the maxim of res ipsa loquitur, finding that the accident was prima facie caused by the bus driver's negligence, which shifted the burden of proof to the defendants. However, the Court also addressed the deceased's failure to wear a crash helmet as required by Section 89-A of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. Drawing on persuasive English precedents, the Court held that failing to wear a helmet constitutes contributory negligence as it represents a lack of care for one's own safety. Consequently, the Court reduced the assessed damages by twenty-five percent and decreed the suit accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a motorcyclist to wear a crash helmet in violation of statutory provisions constitute contributory negligence?
  • To what extent should damages be reduced in a fatal accident claim if the deceased is found guilty of contributory negligence for failing to wear safety gear?
  • How is the pecuniary loss and life expectancy of parents calculated for awarding damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Abdul Qayyum vs Khursheed Nisar1991 CLC 913 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
• Qaum Bangash And Others vs Qaum Turi And Other1991 SCMR 2400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-19
  Tribal AreasFATAHigh Court JurisdictionConstitutional PetitionKurram AgencyFrontier Crimes RegulationCouncil of Elders
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a constitutional petition that sought to quash orders passed by the Political Agent, Kurram and the Commissioner, Peshawar Division, concerning a dispute over a shamilat area and related criminal incidents in the Kurram Agency. The core legal question was whether the Peshawar High Court had constitutional jurisdiction to entertain a petition in relation to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The Supreme Court held that under Clause (7) of Article 247 of the 1973 Constitution (and corresponding provisions of prior constitutions), neither the Supreme Court nor a High Court could exercise jurisdiction in relation to a tribal area unless the Federal Legislature provided otherwise by law, and no such law had extended the High Court's jurisdiction to FATA or the Kurram Agency. The Court laid down the principle that the expression 'in relation to a Tribal Area' is of wide import denoting a nexus, and the situs of the property, the residence of parties, and the location of the cause of action in the tribal area determine the matter, meaning that the mere passing of an appellate order by an authority within a settled area does not confer jurisdiction upon the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Peshawar High Court have constitutional jurisdiction in relation to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)?
  • Whether the situs of the land and the residence of the parties in a tribal area determine if a matter relates to the tribal area for jurisdictional purposes?
  • Does the passing of an order by an authority within a settled area bring a tribal area dispute within the jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the inclusion of tribal areas as part of Pakistan automatically subject them to the writ jurisdiction of the superior courts under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Qassim Shah and others vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-12
  drugs actcorporate liabilityvicarious liabilitycriminal prosecution of companiessubstandard drugsbail and convictiondrug court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants, who are the directors and managers of a pharmaceutical company, under section 27(2)(b) and (4) of the Drugs Act, 1976. The core legal question was whether the employees and directors of a company can be convicted and held vicariously liable under section 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976 when the company itself was not implicated or prosecuted as an accused in the trial. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that a finding that the company is guilty of the offence is a sine qua non to convict its directors or employees, and since the company was not impleaded as an accused, the prosecution of the individual appellants was legally flawed and fatal. The key principle laid down is that under corporate criminal liability provisions, the principal corporate entity must be charged and found guilty before its directors, partners, or employees can be held vicariously liable.

  Questions settled

  • Can directors and employees of a company be convicted under section 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976 if the company itself is not impleaded as an accused?
  • Is a finding that the company is guilty of an offence a sine qua non for convicting its directors or employees under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Does describing the individual appellants by their corporate titles suffice to treat the company itself as an accused in criminal proceedings?
  • Can a juristic person such as a corporation be prosecuted and subjected to penalties like fines under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim and 7 others vs The State1991 MLD 1668 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali Khan vs D.C. FaisalabadK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-17Read full judgment →
• Qamaruzzaman Khan Niazi vs Azad Government of State of Jammu1991 PLC (C.S.) 699 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Qamaruddin vs The State1991 MLD 2557 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
• Qamar Ali Khan vs Election Tribunal and 8 others1991 MLD 159 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Qalandar Khan vs Messrs Union Cold Storage Co., Ltd. Application1991 PLC 524 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
• Qalandar Din And 4 Others vs Rasul Khan1991 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-14
  pre-emptioncause of actionOrder II Rule 2res judicatacivil procedurecollusionfraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute over pre-emption rights where the respondent, Rasul Khan, filed a third suit for possession by pre-emption after a previous suit for declaration, challenging a sale as fraudulent, was withdrawn. The appellants argued that the third suit was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, contending that the cause of action was identical to the previous litigation. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the "cause of action" is defined as a bundle of facts and circumstances rather than the subjective motive or urge prompting a plaintiff to sue. The Court reasoned that the second suit challenged the validity and existence of the sale transaction on grounds of fraud and collusion, whereas the third suit accepted the sale as a lawful transaction to establish the basis for a pre-emption claim. Because the essential facts constituting the cause of action in the two suits were fundamentally different, the bar under Order II, Rule 2 did not apply. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the subjective motive or 'urge' to file a suit constitute the 'cause of action' for the purposes of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a suit challenging a sale as fraudulent and a subsequent suit for pre-emption based on the same sale share the same 'cause of action'?
  • Is a suit for pre-emption barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaintiff previously filed a suit challenging the validity of the underlying sale transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Shafeeq Vohra vs The State and another1991 MLD 2590 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-29
  superdariinterim custody of vehiclestolen propertybona fide purchasertransfer order forminherent powerscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two interconnected criminal miscellaneous applications filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 concerning the interim custody (superdari) of a snatched and subsequently recovered motor car. The core legal question was whether the interim custody of a proven stolen vehicle should be granted to the admitted rightful owner or to a subsequent purchaser from a third party holding an open transfer letter. The Sindh High Court held that stolen property must be restored to its rightful owner rather than a purchaser from a thief, even if the latter claims bona fide purchase, and that an open transfer letter does not constitute a valid document of title. The High Court set aside the conflicting orders of the lower appellate courts and directed that the custody of the car be handed over to the original owner on superdari subject to furnishing a personal bond, establishing the principle that a victim whose vehicle is stolen should not be forced to a civil suit while a purchaser from a thief retains possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim custody of a stolen vehicle should be given to the rightful owner or to a purchaser from a thief?
  • Does an open transfer order form constitute a valid document of title for a motor vehicle?
  • Can a court deny the interim custody of recovered stolen property to the admitted owner on the ground that title is disputed by a purchaser from an accused?
  • What are the powers of a criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the disposal and interim custody of seized property?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaim Khan vs The Province of West Pakistan through The Collector, Sahiwal1991 MLD 1147 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-09Read full judgment →
• Qadri Brothers Foundary & Workshop and 4 others vs Masood1991 CLC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-26
  sublettingdefault in payment of rentpartnership firmrent appeallandlord and tenantevictiontender of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by the tenant arises from an order of the Rent Controller allowing an eviction application on the grounds of subletting and default in payment of rent. The respondent landlord sought eviction from the plot in question, alleging that the original tenant Rahim Bux had sublet the property to a partnership firm in contravention of the agreement and law, and had defaulted on rent payments for several years. The appellants contested the proceedings, denying subletting and default, and asserting that the firm was a family concern operating in the same style since the inception of the tenancy, while also claiming lack of knowledge regarding the original owner's death. The Rent Controller found against the appellants on the issues of subletting and default, while ruling against the landlord on personal bona fide need. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court upheld the eviction order, holding that the occupation of the premises by a newly formed partnership firm constituted unlawful subletting, and that sending rent cheques in the name of a deceased person with knowledge of their demise did not constitute a valid tender of rent in the eyes of the law, thereby establishing default.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the formation of a partnership firm by the heirs of an original sole-proprietor tenant constitutes subletting under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the tendering of rent cheques in the name of a deceased landlord, with the knowledge of the landlord's death, constitute a valid payment of rent in law?
  • Whether the acceptance of rent cheques from a business concern for a period prior to the formation of a formal partnership precludes the landlord from alleging subletting upon the creation of the partnership?
  • Does a failure to deposit rent in court or remit valid payment after acquiring knowledge of the landlord's death and succession amount to a default in payment of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Dad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 533 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs Government of Balochistan Through Secretary, S&Gad, Quetta And 8 Other1991 SCMR 1259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-23
  service appealseniority listdepartmental representationexhaustion of remediesService Tribunallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 examines whether the Balochistan Service Tribunal correctly held that the appellant's service appeal was incompetent for non-compliance with section 22 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. The appellant, a directly recruited Deputy Superintendent of Police, challenged a revised seniority list by filing a departmental representation after the list was allegedly not officially circulated or gazetted to him. Upon rejection of his representation, he approached the Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal in limine for failure to exhaust departmental remedies. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal failed to record the objection with particularity or address the factual aspects, including limitation and the absence of a prescribed appellate authority for orders passed by the Government. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a service appeal is incompetent for non-compliance with section 22 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act 1974 without examining the specific facts regarding the circulation of a seniority list?
  • Is a Service Tribunal required to record objections regarding the maintainability of an appeal with particularity and address them by reference to the facts of the case?
  • How should a departmental representation be treated when the Government itself passed the original order and no specific appellate authority is prescribed?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh Alias Abdul Qadir vs Lahore Development Authority1991 SCMR 1912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-26
  land acquisitioncompensationadministrative modificationcivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision regarding compensation for acquired land. The petitioner's land was acquired by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) under the Garden Town Scheme. Initially, in 1977, the petitioner was granted plots in lieu of his land, with a directive that compensation for the superstructure be determined based on an estimate from the Engineering Department. However, in 1979, the Director-General of the LDA modified this order, directing that compensation be paid according to the award determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioner challenged this modification through a civil suit, which was dismissed, as were subsequent appeals and revisions. The Supreme Court examined the contention that the Director-General lacked the authority to modify the 1977 compensation determination. Finding that the High Court had correctly addressed the legal and factual aspects of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order warranted no interference and refused to grant leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Director-General of a development authority modify a previously issued order regarding the method of determining compensation for acquired land?
  • Does the High Court's dismissal of a civil revision regarding land compensation warrant Supreme Court interference if the factual position is correctly assessed?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir and others vs Mst. Mehri through Legal Heirs1991 CLC 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Qadir and another vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 1065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-28
  imprisonment for lifesection 382-B Cr.P.C.detention periodsentencingcriminal procedurebeneficial construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a conviction under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life, and the trial court granted them the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that the period of detention during trial be considered in the final sentence. The Lahore High Court, relying on a Full Bench precedent, revoked this benefit, reasoning that section 382-B did not apply to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically to determine the applicability of section 382-B to life sentences. The Court held that the provision makes no distinction between life imprisonment and shorter terms of imprisonment. Emphasizing that beneficial provisions in criminal statutes must be construed liberally, the Court ruled that imprisonment for life is indeed a form of imprisonment. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decision, affirming that convicts sentenced to life imprisonment are entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to persons sentenced to imprisonment for life?
  • Should beneficial provisions in criminal statutes be construed liberally or strictly?
  • Is a sentence of imprisonment for life legally distinct from other sentences of imprisonment for the purposes of section 382-B Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Purvaiz Akhtar vs Mst. Salma Mumtaz1991 MLD 2102 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-06-27Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation through Member, Finance vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal through Chairman and 2 others1991 PLC 486 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Secretary to Government1991 CLC 968 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Punjab Julius Salik vs Returning Officer and others1991 MLD 589 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-20
  election petitionreserved seatsre-checking of votesabatement of petitiondeath of respondentRepresentation of the People Actconsolidated statements
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two election petitions filed by candidates contesting National Assembly seats reserved for Christians, challenging the election results due to alleged incorrect compilation of votes by Provincial Election Commissioners. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of election petitions upon the death of a respondent and the Tribunal's authority to order re-checking of consolidated vote statements. The Court held that under Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1976, election petitions can be decided on merits despite the death of a respondent, even where multiple respondents exist. The Tribunal rejected the demand for a general recount, emphasizing that such relief is not a matter of right but requires prima facie proof of error. However, it upheld the re-checking of consolidated statements against certificates issued to polling agents. Ultimately, the Tribunal declared the petitioners as the successful candidates, having found them to be the top scorers, and declared the election of the respondents void. The judgment affirms that statutory provisions should be interpreted reasonably to ensure justice and that Tribunals possess inherent powers to rectify calculation errors.

  Questions settled

  • Does an election petition abate upon the death of one of several respondents?
  • Can an Election Tribunal decide an election petition on merits after the death of a respondent?
  • Does an Election Tribunal have the inherent power to order the re-checking of consolidated vote statements?
  • Is an Election Tribunal empowered to review its own previous orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation1991 PLC 38 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-15
  Constitutional jurisdictionTrade union registrationIndustrial Relations OrdinanceWrit petitionFactual controversyLabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation Employees' Welfare Union challenging an order passed by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Bahawalpur, which granted registration to the Shaheen Workers Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner contended that the registration was unlawful, alleging that the proceedings for the formation of the new union were bogus, that the members of the new union were still members of the petitioner union, and that the individual responsible for forming the new union was disqualified due to pending litigation regarding previous union elections. The respondents argued that the new union was formed after valid resignations from the petitioner union and that the Registrar had conducted a proper inquiry before issuing the registration certificate. The Lahore High Court held that the issues raised by the petitioner, specifically regarding the validity of membership and the legitimacy of the union's formation proceedings, required the recording of evidence. Consequently, the Court ruled that such factual disputes could not be adjudicated within its constitutional jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, upholding the Registrar's order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court resolve disputed questions of fact requiring evidence in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the registration of a trade union by the Registrar, Trade Unions, subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction when factual disputes regarding membership exist?
  • Does the resignation of members from an existing union and subsequent formation of a new union constitute valid grounds for registration under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Education and 3 others vs Nawab Begum1991 MLD 679 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Secretary Education, CivilK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 264 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab And Others vs Muhammad Hussain Through His1991 SCMR 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-12
  civil revisionex parte decreeleave to appealmaintainability of suitlimitationnecessary partiesstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  These four petitions arise out of a judgment of the High Court dismissing two Civil Revision Petitions against an ex parte decree. The core legal question concerns the legality and sustainability of the ex parte decree given the extensive and valuable nature of the immovable property involved, along with substantial questions regarding the maintainability of the suit, its valuation, limitation, sufficiency of evidence, and the absence of necessary parties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the complex legal and factual questions raised necessitate a full hearing on merits. The Court directed that status quo regarding possession be maintained pending the hearing of the appeals. The key principle laid down is that where substantial questions of law concerning jurisdiction, limitation, and necessary parties arise in a valuable property dispute originating from an ex parte decree, leave to appeal should be granted to examine the matter thoroughly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when substantial questions of law regarding maintainability, valuation, and limitation arise from an ex parte decree?
  • What is the effect of the absence of necessary parties in a suit involving extensive and valuable immovable property?
  • Whether status quo regarding possession should be maintained pending the disposal of appeals arising from dismissed civil revision petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh vs Haji Razzaq And Other1991 SCMR 920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-25
  court-feeoriginal side jurisdictionHigh Court of Sindhcivil procedurestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the correct legal position concerning the payment of court-fees on suits filed in the original side of the High Court of Sindh (formerly the Karachi Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan) and on appeals arising from judgments and orders passed on that original side. The core legal question addressed was whether the interpretation of the Court Fees Act in relation to these specific filings was correctly applied. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. In doing so, the Court affirmed the legal principle established in the case of Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. (PLD 1961 Kar. 565). The Court held that the view taken in that precedent correctly states the law regarding the requirement and calculation of court-fees for suits and appeals originating from the original side of the High Court. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct legal position regarding the payment of court-fees on suits filed in the original side of the Sindh High Court?
  • Does the precedent in Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. correctly state the law on court-fee payments for the original side of the High Court?
  • Are court-fees applicable to appeals against judgments and orders passed on the original side of the Sindh High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh and 4 others vs Waseem Construction Co.1991 CLC 66 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31
  arbitration awardextension of timefunctus officioerror apparent on the face of the recordinterest from date of awardrule of the courtscope of judicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The core legal questions involved the validity of an arbitration award made after an initial time expiry but subsequently extended by the court, the scope of judicial review of an arbitrator's findings of fact, and the competency of an arbitrator or court to award interest from the date of the award. The court held that an order extending time for making an award operates retrospectively to validate actions done during the interim period, that courts will not interfere with an arbitrator's findings of fact supported by evidence unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and that although an arbitrator cannot grant interest beyond the date of the award, such interest incorporated into a decree is deemed adopted by the court under statutory powers. The appeal was partly allowed by modifying the decretal amount after setting aside specific unsupported claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order granting extension of time for making an arbitration award operates retrospectively to validate intermediate acts?
  • Can an arbitration award be challenged on the ground that it was signed before the formal extension of time was granted by the court?
  • Does an arbitrator have the authority to award interest for the period from the date of the award until payment?
  • To what extent can a court interfere with findings of fact recorded by an arbitrator in an award?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Arfan Ali1991 CLC 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Livestock vs Faiz Muhammad and 6 others1991 CLC 1160 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Irrigation And Power Department, Lahore vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 1592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-20
  lachesevacuee propertyallotmentlicenseelimitationequityremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, brought by the Province of Punjab, arose from the Lahore High Court's dismissal of its writ petition on the grounds of laches and lack of standing. The disputed evacuee property, originally allotted to the provincial Irrigation Department in 1952, had been partially transferred by the Settlement Department in 1960-1961 to respondents who occupied portions as licensees of the Department. The Department had consistently pursued the acquisition and formal transfer of the property through various official channels from 1962 to 1979. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and remanded the case, holding that the High Court erred in applying the doctrine of laches. The Court clarified that laches operates in equity and is distinct from statutory limitation, meaning it should not bar a remedy where the delay is not culpable and the opposing party lacks equitable merit. Furthermore, because the private respondents' transfer orders had not attained finality due to ongoing litigation, the Department's claims required a determination on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the equitable doctrine of laches can be equated with a statutory bar of limitation to dismiss a writ petition?
  • Can a public department be barred by laches if it has actively and continuously pursued its claim through administrative channels before filing a writ petition?
  • Whether transfer orders of evacuee property can be considered final and immune to challenge while inter-party litigation regarding those orders is still pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Health Department, Punjab, Lahore vs Doctor Muhammad Afzal Shah Hashmi and another1991 MLD 806 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-06Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Government of Punjab vs Messrs Syed Shafique Ahmed (Registered)1991 PLD Supreme Court 1082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-12
  dismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of appealnegligence of counselgovernment litigationpublic exchequerprofessional misconductcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's refusal to restore a regular first appeal that had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The appellant, the Province of Punjab, failed to appear on the scheduled hearing date, despite the High Court having previously granted adjournments and specifically reserved two days for the case. The counsel for the appellant claimed he was engaged in a 'Katcha' matter in another court, but failed to provide evidence or follow the established practice of submitting an engagement slip. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant and its counsel had been repeatedly negligent, noting that the appeal had been dismissed for default on three previous occasions and restored. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing restoration, as the appellant's explanation was unsubstantiated and the conduct of the counsel and departmental representatives demonstrated a lack of diligence. The Court affirmed that government litigants are not entitled to special indulgence when their own negligence causes loss to the public exchequer, and directed the government to initiate recovery proceedings against the responsible officials and counsel for the financial loss incurred.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be restored after dismissal for non-prosecution when the appellant and counsel have demonstrated repeated negligence?
  • Is a government litigant entitled to special indulgence from the court to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to the negligence of its representatives?
  • Does the failure of a lawyer to submit an engagement slip when claiming engagement in another court justify the refusal to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Can the court direct the government to recover financial losses caused by the negligence of its legal counsel and departmental representatives?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Education, Lahore vs Mahmood1991 PLD Supreme Court 1005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-21
  requisitioned propertyfair compensationleave to appealfundamental rightsproperty rightsgovernment litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The Province of Punjab sought leave to appeal against a determination of fair compensation for requisitioned property, which had been upheld by the High Court. The petitioner challenged the compensation amount of Rs. 2,302 per mensem for a total built-up area of approximately 3,387 sq. ft. in Lahore. The Supreme Court examined the merits and found that the compensation awarded was, if anything, inadequate rather than excessive. The Court noted that even if the legal arguments regarding the 1956 Act were considered, the compensation for the area constructed post-1986 alone would likely exceed the amount currently challenged. Consequently, the Court held that there was no prospect of success for the petitioner and that granting leave to appeal would only burden the respondent, a widow, with further litigation. The Court dismissed the petitions, noting that the litigation should not have been initiated by the Government, and briefly remarked that the underlying statute might be vulnerable to challenge under the Constitution's fundamental rights provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal when the compensation awarded for requisitioned property is arguably inadequate rather than excessive?
  • Does the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, potentially conflict with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Health Engineering Department vs Messrs1991 SCMR 1342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-01
  arbitrationleave to appealmisconduct of arbitratoradjournmentexecution of decreecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioner's appeal in an arbitration matter. The core legal question concerns the alleged misconduct of the arbitrator, specifically regarding the adjournment of the case without fixing a date and the subsequent curtailment of proceedings following the arbitrator's transfer from the office that empowered him to act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the question of arbitrator misconduct and the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the controversial adjournment order. Additionally, the Court issued directions regarding the summoning of the missing order, an inquiry into its disappearance, and the conditional stay of execution or payment of the decretal amount pending further orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitrator's adjournment of a case without fixing a next date and subsequent curtailment of proceedings amounts to legal misconduct?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted to examine questions of arbitrator misconduct and procedural irregularity?
  • What directions may the court issue regarding the disappearance of a judicial or quasi-judicial order?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha1991 CLC 830 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-13Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Collector, Sahiwal vs Jan Muhammad And Another1991 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-12
  proprietary rightsstate landLandless and Ejected Tenants Schemeself-cultivationallotment of landaccrual of right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts which granted proprietary rights to the respondent over state land allotted under the Landless and Ejected Tenants Scheme. The core legal question was whether the respondent was eligible for proprietary rights if he was in cultivating possession of the land on 8-10-1960, the date the government issued a memorandum sanctioning such rights, but not necessarily during subsequent periods when the Collector considered his application. The Supreme Court held that the right to apply for proprietary rights accrued to the respondent on the date the memorandum was issued, 8-10-1960, at which time he was admittedly in self-cultivation. The Court determined that the Collector was not justified in denying the request based on the respondent's lack of self-cultivation during specific later periods (Kharif 1961 and Rabi 1962), particularly when the respondent was in possession and self-cultivating at the time the order was passed. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the relevant date for determining eligibility is the date of the government's sanctioning memorandum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to apply for proprietary rights under a government memorandum accrue on the date of the memorandum's issuance?
  • Is a lessee eligible for proprietary rights if they were in self-cultivation on the date of the government's sanctioning memorandum, despite not being in self-cultivation during subsequent periods?
  • Can a Collector deny proprietary rights based on a lack of self-cultivation during periods after the right to apply has already accrued?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Layyah and 3 others vs Syed1991 MLD 466 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Sub. Divisional Forest Officer, Sialkot Province1991 SCMR 1426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-09
  evacuee landForest DepartmentRehabilitation Settlement SchemeBanjar QadeemBanjar JadeedChief Settlement Commissionerallotment of landpast and closed transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan involved the eligibility and legality of allocating evacuee waste lands managed by the Forest Department to displaced persons under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The primary issue was whether evacuee lands placed under Forest Department management pursuant to agreements under Section 38 of the Indian Forests Act, 1927 remained available for settlement, and the legal effect of the Chief Settlement Commissioner's directive dated 27-2-1965 barring such allotments. The Supreme Court held that Forest Department management was subordinate to ownership rights and did not exclude lands from settlement. Furthermore, Banjar Qadeem and Banjar Jadeed lands were allotable under the Rehabilitation Scheme. Applying the doctrine of past and closed transactions, the Court ruled that allotments finalized prior to the directive of 27-2-1965 created vested rights and held good. Conversely, allotments made after 27-2-1965 violated the Chief Settlement Commissioner's valid prohibitory order under paragraph 4-A of the Scheme and were unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does uncultivated land classified as Banjar Qadeem or Banjar Jadeed cease to be allotable land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
  • Does the management of evacuee land by the Forest Department under Section 38 of the Indian Forests Act extinguish ownership or render the land unavailable for allotment?
  • Are land allotments finalized prior to a prohibitory directive of the Chief Settlement Commissioner protected as past and closed transactions?
  • Is an allotment made in violation of a Chief Settlement Commissioner directive issued under paragraph 4-A of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zada vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1845 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-20Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Zahoorul Hassan Far000i1991 CLC 1288 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-03
  civil revisionmemorandum of appealcertified copy of judgmentdispensation of copylimitationex parte decreedate of birth
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of a civil suit filed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police against the Province of Punjab and others seeking a declaration regarding his correct date of birth. The trial court decreed the suit ex parte. The petitioners' appeal before the Additional District Judge was dismissed on the ground that the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned judgment, nor had any application for its dispensation been filed within the period of limitation. The Lahore High Court examined the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and upheld the lower appellate court's decision, holding that an appeal filed without a certified copy of the judgment and without seeking its dispensation is not validly presented and is barred by time. The Court also held that an act of admitting an appeal to regular hearing does not amount to an implied dispensation of the copy of the judgment unless the omission was specifically brought to the court's notice prior to admission. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed without a certified copy of the impugned judgment is validly presented under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the appellate court have the power to dispense with the copy of the decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the admission of an appeal to regular hearing amount to an implied dispensation of the certified copy of the judgment when the omission was not brought to the court's notice?
  • Is an appeal barred by time if the certified copy of the judgment is not filed within the period of limitation and no application for its dispensation is made?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab And 2 Others vs Messrs Muhammad Rafique1991 SCMR 1323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-28
  civil revisionarbitrationleave to appealcivil suitprotracted litigationjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that allowed a civil revision, effectively terminating arbitration proceedings and directing that a previously filed civil suit proceed to adjudication. The core legal question was whether, given the history of seventeen years of protracted litigation regarding arbitration, it was appropriate to compel the parties to return to arbitration, knowing it would likely lead to further years of delay before returning to the Civil Court. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that since the Civil Court is competent to adjudicate all controversial issues between the parties, forcing arbitration would cause immense hardship and unnecessary delay. The Court emphasized that where a Civil Court has the competence to resolve the dispute, and where prior litigation has already been excessively protracted, the interests of justice are best served by allowing the pending civil suit to proceed to its logical conclusion rather than insisting on technical adherence to arbitration procedures that would only prolong the resolution of the controversy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decline to enforce arbitration proceedings when doing so would result in immense hardship and unnecessary delay?
  • Is a Civil Court competent to adjudicate a dispute even if arbitration proceedings were previously contemplated or initiated?
  • Should the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the underlying litigation has already been excessively protracted and the Civil Court is capable of resolving the issues?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of N. W.F.P. And Another vs Abdur Rahman, Forest1991 SCMR 1321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-05
  constitutional jurisdictionterritorial jurisdictioncontempt proceedingsexecution of decreepremature petitionshow-cause noticewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitution Petition filed by the Province of N.W.F.P. against a show-cause notice issued by a Civil Judge in Lahore regarding contempt proceedings. The High Court had dismissed the petition on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, noting the issuing authority operated outside its jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the High Court possessed jurisdiction because the contempt proceedings were being executed within its territorial limits and contended that contempt proceedings are not a valid mechanism for enforcing a civil decree. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the constitutional challenge was premature. The Court reasoned that the petitioners could raise all legal and factual defenses directly before the Civil Judge issuing the notice. Furthermore, the Court noted that any contempt action would ultimately require a reference to the High Court, where the petitioners would have a full opportunity to present their arguments, rendering immediate constitutional intervention unnecessary and inappropriate at that stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 over a notice issued by a court located outside its territorial jurisdiction?
  • Is it appropriate for a High Court to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction against a show-cause notice for contempt when the petitioner has an adequate remedy available before the issuing court?
  • Can a party challenge a show-cause notice for contempt in a constitutional petition before the proceedings have concluded or been referred to the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Balochistan Through Secretary Communication And Works1991 SCMR 1313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-21
  arbitration actappointment of arbitratorlimitation periodjurisdictionarbitration awardcivil procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Provincial Government of Balochistan sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Balochistan High Court, which had dismissed their Regular First Appeal against a decree making an arbitration award the rule of the court. The respondent contractor had undertaken construction work between 1961 and 1965, and a dispute arose regarding the carriage cost of bricks. Following delays and inaction by the government on the Superintending Engineer's findings, the respondent approached the Senior Civil Judge under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of an arbitrator. After previous remand proceedings, an arbitrator was appointed, and an award was rendered in favour of the contractor, which was subsequently made a rule of court. The Supreme Court examined the contentions regarding jurisdiction, limitation, lack of reasons in the award, and the competency of the application. The Court held that the Quetta court possessed jurisdiction since the claim remained pending consideration by provincial functionaries in Quetta, that the claim was not time-barred as there was no outright rejection to trigger limitation, and that the award contained valid reasons. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act is competent when a party neglects to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the agreement?
  • Does the pendency of a claim under active consideration by government functionaries prevent the period of limitation from running against the claimant?
  • Whether a court at Quetta has jurisdiction in an arbitration matter arising out of a contract executed in Bhag when the claim remained pending before authorities in Quetta?
  • Whether an arbitration award can be set aside on the ground of lacking reasons when the award itself contains the basis for the decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Project Director, Workers Welfare Board and others vs Messrs Awami1991 MLD 686 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
• Prof. Muhammad Usman And Others vs Punjab University Academic1991 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-24
  writ jurisdictionsuo motuscope of reliefallotment of landprayer clausewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an allotment of land in favor of Professor Muhammad Usman. The core legal question was whether the High Court could set aside an allotment order that was neither specifically challenged in the writ petition nor included in the prayer clause for relief. The Supreme Court observed that the writ petition filed by the respondents primarily challenged a different allotment order dated 25-3-1974 and did not seek the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment dated 23-1-1973. The Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the allotment in favor of the petitioner suo motu. The ratio established is that a writ can only be granted in terms of the relief applied for, and the High Court cannot grant relief that was not specifically prayed for in the writ petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order regarding the petitioner's allotment, and declared the allotment dated 23-1-1973 to be valid and subsisting.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court grant relief in a writ petition that was not specifically prayed for by the petitioner?
  • Is it permissible for the High Court to set aside an administrative order suo motu when that order was not challenged in the pleadings?
  • Does the principle that a writ must be confined to the relief applied for restrict the High Court's power to grant relief not sought?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Shamim S. Majid and 8 others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and 22 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 379 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• President vs Ms. Benazir Bhutto1991 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-19
  disqualification from membershipinfructuous proceedingselection lawjurisdiction of special courtpreliminary issuesconstitutional interpretationChief Election Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, Ms. Benazir Bhutto, filed applications seeking the dismissal of References pending against her, contending that her election to Parliament rendered the proceedings infructuous. She argued that the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification from Membership) Order, 1977, was temporary and that jurisdiction to disqualify a sitting member rested exclusively with the Chief Election Commissioner under Article 63(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court examined whether the References had become infructuous in their entirety. It held that even if the Court lacked jurisdiction to disqualify a sitting member—a function reserved for the Chief Election Commissioner—it retained jurisdiction to disqualify a person from being elected or chosen, which remained relevant for future elections or by-elections. Consequently, the Court ruled that as long as any fraction of relief remained available, the proceedings could not be dismissed. The Court emphasized the principle of avoiding fragmentary decisions, opting to proceed with the merits of the case rather than disposing of the matter on preliminary technical grounds, as justice requires a comprehensive examination of all controversies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the election of a respondent to Parliament render pending disqualification References against them automatically infructuous?
  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification from Membership) Order, 1977, possess the jurisdiction to disqualify a sitting member of Parliament?
  • Is the jurisdiction to determine the disqualification of a sitting member of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly exclusively vested in the Chief Election Commissioner under Article 63(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Should a court dispose of a case on preliminary issues when the entire controversy cannot be resolved without a detailed examination of facts and law?
  Read full judgment →
• President of United Bank Ltd. vs United Bank Employees' Federation and others1991 PLC 766 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
• President of the Islamic Republic of PAKISTANReference Authority vs Mir1991 PLD Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Porho and 3 others vs The State1991 MLD 1695 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-09Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Khan And Others vs Aziz Muhammad And Other1991 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-24
  pre-emptionexchange of landcamouflaged saleburden of proofleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the decrees of the lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the transaction in dispute was a genuine exchange of land or a sale camouflaged as an exchange to defeat pre-emption rights. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts correctly determined the transaction to be a sale based on evidence, including the admission of receipt of consideration by a vendor and the adverse inference drawn from the petitioners' failure to examine the vendor ladies. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that courts may look behind the ostensible form of a land transaction, such as an exchange, to determine its true nature as a sale for the purposes of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transaction ostensibly structured as an exchange of land can be treated as a sale for the purpose of a pre-emption suit?
  • Does the failure of a party to produce material witnesses in support of their claim of exchange warrant an adverse inference?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the true nature of a property transaction open to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh vs Mst. Anwar Mai and 5 others1991 MLD 464 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04
  pre-emptionconsolidation of holdingsright of substitutionpossession by pre-emptionconcurrent findings of factproperty identity
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for possession by pre-emption filed by the respondent against the appellant. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court upheld this decision. The appellant challenged the decree on the grounds that consolidation proceedings initiated during the pendency of the suit altered the identity of the land, necessitating a fresh determination of the property subject to the pre-emption claim. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor's right to possession extends to new land allotted during consolidation proceedings in lieu of the original land subject to the pre-emption suit. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the pre-emptor is entitled to the new land allotted in consolidation proceedings. Relying on the principle that a landowner retains the same rights in new land as they held in the old land under consolidation laws, the Court affirmed that the right of pre-emption is a right of substitution, allowing the pre-emptor to follow the substituted property. The Court found no illegality or jurisdictional defect in the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a right of pre-emption extend to new land allotted during consolidation proceedings in lieu of the original land?
  • Can a pre-emptor claim the substituted land in a pre-emption suit if consolidation proceedings occur during the pendency of the suit?
  • Does a landowner retain the same rights in new land as held in old land under the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act 1936?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Allay Immrawn and another vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and another1991 CLC 1 · Election Tribunal · 1990-09-24
  nomination papersscrutiny of nominationsummary inquirydisqualification of candidatehearsay evidenceelection appealgood characterRepresentation of the People Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This election appeal challenged the order of the Returning Officer accepting the nomination papers of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif for Constituency NA-95 Lahore. The appellants sought his disqualification based on numerous allegations of corruption, abuse of power during his tenure as Chief Minister of Punjab, and lack of good moral character under Article 62 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The core legal questions centered on whether unverified allegations, hearsay evidence, and newspaper reports could form the basis for disqualifying a candidate during the summary scrutiny stage, and what the legal scope of a summary inquiry under Section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 entails. The Election Tribunal held that allegations, however grave, cannot replace proof, and that hearsay evidence such as newspaper reports is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule of evidence. Furthermore, the summary inquiry conducted by a Returning Officer is intended for expeditious disposal based on material readily available on record and does not extend to a full-fledged judicial trial or a roving inquiry. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent incurred no disqualification, affirming the acceptance of his nomination papers.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope and nature of the summary inquiry conducted by a Returning Officer during the scrutiny of nomination papers under Section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Whether unverified allegations and newspaper reports constitute admissible evidence to disqualify a candidate under Article 62 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does a Returning Officer have the obligation to conduct a roving inquiry or requisition departmental records to substantiate objections raised against a candidate's nomination papers?
  • Whether an elector's objection petition and affidavit failing to disclose personal knowledge or sources of information are legally defective under the election rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Picic vs Allied Textile Mills, Ltd.1991 MLD 2301 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
• Piara Khan vs Bashir Ahmad1991 SCMR 2107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-28
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptiontenantimprovement of statusmerger of tenancy rightsLand Reforms RegulationPunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from pre-emption litigation concerning agricultural land. The appellant, formerly a tenant of the disputed land, purchased it on 12-9-1971. The respondent subsequently filed a pre-emption suit on 12-9-1972, which was decreed by the lower courts on the premise that the appellant's tenancy rights had merged into ownership prior to the date when the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 conferred superior pre-emption rights on tenants (Kharif 1972). The core legal question is whether a vendee-tenant who acquires ownership through a sale transaction prior to 15th June 1972 can successfully resist a pre-emption suit instituted after that date by relying on the superior pre-emptive status conferred on tenants under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the pre-emption suit, holding that a vendee can improve their status after the sale but before the institution of the suit under section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, and that the superior pre-emption rights conferred on tenants by section 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 can be validly utilized to defend a pre-emption challenge against a sale made in their favour.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vendee-tenant rely on the superior right of pre-emption conferred by the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 to defend a pre-emption suit filed against a sale made in their favour?
  • Whether the extinction of tenancy rights through merger into ownership upon purchase defeats the tenant's right to invoke superior pre-emption status under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Does section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 permit a vendee-defendant to improve their status after the sale but before the institution of a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Phoolchand Gajanand vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 172 · Allahabad High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Peter Gill vs Returning Officer and others1991 CLC 169 · Election Tribunal · 1989-12-23
  election petitionrecount of votesconsolidated statementreturned candidateelection tribunalnon-Muslim seatsfactual error
  Summary & questions settled

  This election petition was filed under Section 52 of the Representation of People Act 1976, challenging the election results for a seat reserved for non-Muslims in the Punjab Provincial Assembly. The petitioner alleged that factual errors in the consolidation of votes, specifically regarding the recording of votes from several polling stations, resulted in his defeat and the wrongful declaration of the respondent as a returned candidate. The Election Commission admitted to miscalculations and the non-counting of certain votes. The Election Tribunal, with the consent of the parties, ordered a re-checking of the consolidated statements and a recount of votes for the relevant candidates. Upon review of the Provincial Election Commissioner's report, the Tribunal found that the petitioner had secured sufficient votes to be placed among the top five candidates, thereby displacing the respondent. The Tribunal held that a recount or re-checking is permissible when errors are established and parties consent to the process, but it cannot be ordered on mere supposition. Consequently, the election of the respondent was declared void, and the petitioner was declared duly elected.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Election Tribunal order a recount of votes or re-checking of consolidated statements based on the consent of the parties?
  • Is a recount of ballot papers permissible based merely on the supposition that a mistake may have been committed?
  • Under what circumstances can an election result be declared void due to errors in the consolidation of votes?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Iqbal Chughtai and 2 others vs Abdul Wahid Qureshi and others1991 CLC 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz alias Peja vs The State1991 MLD 2428 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-29Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State1991 SCMR 1909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-29Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar Sheikh vs Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.1991 PLC 419 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
• Pehlwan Khan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1510 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
• Peetumal vs Messrs Thatta Cement Company Limited, Makli1991 PLC 853 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
• Peer Muhammad Shah vs Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And Another1991 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18
  service matterlimitation periodexclusion of timegood faithdue diligencecivil court jurisdictionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former driver for the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), challenged his termination of service through a civil suit after his departmental appeal to the Board of Revenue failed. The trial court initially decreed in his favor, but the Additional District Judge set aside the decree, ruling that the civil court lacked jurisdiction and that the proper forum was the Service Tribunal. Subsequent revision proceedings in the High Court were unsuccessful. The petitioner then approached the Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal as time-barred. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued for the exclusion of time spent litigating in the civil court when computing the limitation period for the Service Tribunal appeal. The Supreme Court held that under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908, a party seeking exclusion of time must demonstrate that prior proceedings were prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith. As the Service Tribunal had already made a factual finding that these elements were absent, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with those findings and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can time spent in civil court proceedings be excluded when calculating the limitation period for an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
  • Is a finding by a Service Tribunal regarding the lack of 'good faith' and 'due diligence' under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 a question of fact that the Supreme Court will decline to interfere with?
  Read full judgment →
• Peer Muhammad Alias Peera vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2322 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
• Pasrur Sugar Mills Ltd., Pasrur through Resident Director vs The Punjab1991 PLC 328 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
• Parkash Kumar vs Chairman, Selection Committee, Balochistan1991 SCMR 1962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-06
  res judicataexecutive decisionsadmission to collegereserved seatsdomicile certificatediscriminationarbitrary rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose out of a challenge to the rejection of the appellant's application for admission to Baluchistan Engineering College against reserved seats for Kachhi District. The appellant's candidate claim was initially refused and deemed barred by the High Court under the principle of res judicata because he had studied outside Baluchistan Province during certain educational years. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether executive or administrative determinations operate as res judicata to bar subsequent reconsiderations, and whether the rejection of the appellant's claim was discriminatory and arbitrary. The Supreme Court held that administrative and executive decisions do not attract the principles of res judicata or finality so as to preclude correction or alteration. Finding that the appellant's father was a resident of Jhal Magsi, and that his siblings had been granted admission and employment on the same basis, the Court declared the rejection arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be considered for admission on merit without mark deduction for lapse of time.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to administrative or executive decisions?
  • Can an executive decision or determination be altered or corrected despite a prior contrary determination?
  • Whether treating similarly situated candidates differently regarding provincial residence for college admission amounts to unlawful discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Panjo vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 247 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-30
  murderdeath sentenceeye-witness testimonydelayed FIRnon-examination of investigating officercriminal appealacquittalprejudice to defense
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Panjo, for the murder of Soomar, as handed down by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with others, throttled the deceased to death. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the eye-witness testimony, the impact of delayed police examination of witnesses, the effect of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and the evidentiary value of a second statement made to police. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including an unexplained 8.5-hour delay in lodging the F.I.R., the witnesses' delayed examination by police, and the implausibility of the eye-witness accounts regarding the physical layout of the crime scene. The Court emphasized that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer prejudiced the defense by preventing the cross-examination of witnesses regarding their prior statements. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the death sentence was rejected, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer cause prejudice to the accused?
  • Can a second statement made by a complainant to police authorities be treated as an F.I.R.?
  • Is the testimony of eye-witnesses reliable when they are examined by the police after a significant delay?
  • Does the presence of motive alone suffice to establish guilt in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Pan Ocean Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited vs Thai Rayon Company Limited and others1991 CLC 1837 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Paklibya Holding Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sualeheen S. Piracha1991 CLC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-30
  banking suitrecovery of loanleave to defendcondonation of delaysubstituted serviceservice by publicationlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a suit filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 for the recovery of Rs. 76,85,809.43 with interest. The defendant was served through publication in a newspaper pursuant to Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980, followed by refusal to accept service from the bailiff and subsequent affixation of summons at his address. The defendant filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for leave to appear and defend, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 seeking condonation of delay. The defendant claimed non-service due to an alleged change of office address and unawareness of the newspaper publication. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the application for condonation of delay, holding that under Rule 8, service by any of the prescribed modes constitutes valid service as affirmed in binding precedent. Consequently, the application for leave to defend was dismissed and the suit was decreed under Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Is service of summons effected under any one of the modes prescribed in Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980 sufficient and good service in law?
  • Can delay in filing an application for leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC be condoned without an explanation for each day of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does a defendant's plea of not reading the newspaper in which substituted service was published constitute a valid ground for condoning delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan.Medical and Dental Council vs Dr. Zeb UN Nisa1991 SCMR 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-14
  medical qualificationsequivalence of degreespost-graduate diplomastatutory regulationsconstitutional petitionPakistan Medical and Dental Council
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court could lawfully declare the refusal of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council to treat a foreign post-graduate qualification as a "medium" qualification to be without lawful authority. The respondent, a medical teacher holding a Diploma in Clinical Pathology from London and a Diploma in Pathology from England, sought a writ to have her qualifications registered or declared as major or medium qualifications equivalent to M. Phil (Pak). The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the Council had applied double standards. The Supreme Court examined the Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962 and the framed Regulations, noting that the law provides for recognized medical qualifications, recognized additional medical qualifications, and specific categories for appointment, but does not recognize a "medium" category of qualifications for registration. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in creating or enforcing a non-existent category of qualification and substituting its own judgment for technical evaluations properly falling within the domain of the Council. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the constitutional petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council is empowered under its statutory framework to classify post-graduate medical qualifications into a category known as "medium" qualifications for registration?
  • Can a High Court substitute its own technical assessment and notions of equivalence for the evaluation of professional medical qualifications conducted by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council?
  • Whether additional medical qualifications obtained abroad require classification as major or minor for the mere purpose of statutory registration under the Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority And Others vs Abdul Sattar And Other1991 SCMR 1150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-15
  WAPDAforged appointmentsdepartmental proceedingsstay of proceedingsservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three petitions filed by the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenging the employment of respondents who allegedly secured their appointments through forged signatures of a Federal Minister. The core legal question concerns the validity of these appointments in light of the alleged fraud and the status of the departmental proceedings initiated against the Superintending Engineer involved in the recruitment process. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, noting that the departmental proceedings against the Superintending Engineer had been stayed by the High Court in a separate writ petition, determined that the current petitions could not be effectively adjudicated without the outcome of that related litigation. Consequently, the Court held that the matters should be adjourned pending the High Court's judgment in the Superintending Engineer's writ petition. The key principle established is that where the legality of an administrative action is inextricably linked to a pending judicial determination in a related proceeding, the Court may stay the proceedings to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure a comprehensive resolution of the underlying dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court adjourn proceedings pending the outcome of a related writ petition in the High Court?
  • Should a court proceed with a case involving alleged employment fraud when the disciplinary proceedings against the official responsible are currently stayed by another court?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority and another vs Alam Khan1991 PLD Supreme Court 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-10
  limitation periodmisdescription of partyamendment of plaintcivil procedurerecovery suitWAPDAprocedural error
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a suit for the recovery of money filed by the respondent against the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) regarding electricity connection charges. The trial court decreed the suit, finding that WAPDA failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify additional charges discovered by its audit party. WAPDA’s subsequent appeal and civil revision were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, WAPDA argued that the suit was time-barred because it was initially filed against the Chairman of WAPDA, and WAPDA itself was impleaded only after the limitation period expired. The Supreme Court examined whether this constituted the addition of a new party under the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the initial filing against the Chairman was merely a misdescription of the party, not the addition or substitution of a new defendant. Consequently, the amendment to correct the description did not trigger the limitation provisions of Section 22(1). The Court affirmed that the trial court possessed the authority under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct such procedural errors to determine the real issue in controversy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the correction of a misdescribed party in a plaint constitute the addition of a new defendant under Section 22(1) of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a court exercise its power under Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct a misdescription of a party in a suit?
  • Is a suit time-barred if the initial plaint misdescribed the defendant as the Chairman of a statutory body rather than the body itself?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4others1991 PTD 359 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-31
  income taxassessmentreassessmentdepreciation allowancetax exemptiontax creditself-assessment schemechange of opinionindustrial undertakinggifted machinery
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged income tax assessment orders for multiple years, primarily concerning the disallowance of depreciation, tax credit, and exemption claims. The core legal questions involved whether reassessment proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance were valid when initial assessments were made under the Self-Assessment Scheme without proper inquiry, the interpretation of "actual cost to the assessee" for depreciation on gifted machinery, and the meaning of "set up" and "industrial undertaking" under Clause 122 of the Second Schedule for tax exemption in cases of factory expansion. The Sindh High Court held that the "change of opinion" principle does not apply to mechanical self-assessments. It further ruled that for gifted machinery, "actual cost to the assessee" for depreciation is the fair market value at acquisition. Regarding exemption, an "industrial undertaking" must be an independent, self-reliant unit, not merely an expansion, unless the new machinery is independently capable of manufacturing goods. The court declared the impugned assessment orders without lawful authority and remanded the cases for fresh assessment consistent with its interpretations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of "change of opinion" apply to reassessment proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance when the initial assessment was made mechanically under the Self-Assessment Scheme?
  • How is "actual cost to the assessee" for depreciation allowance determined under Section 23(1)(v) and Rule 8(7) of the Third Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance when machinery is acquired by gift?
  • What constitutes "setting up an industrial undertaking" for the purpose of tax exemption under Clause 122 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, particularly in cases of expansion of an existing factory?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against income tax assessment orders when the dispute primarily involves the interpretation of fiscal statute provisions and jurisdictional issues, despite the availability of alternative remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Ofdefence, And Others vs Late Ch.1991 SCMR 2180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-17
  land acquisitionrequisitioned landofficial gazettegazette notificationDefence of India Actoccupancy tenantslimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four appeals brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the validity of land acquisition for an aerodrome in Sargodha. The lands of the respondents (occupancy tenants) were originally requisitioned in 1942–43 under the Defence of India Act, 1939. The respondents challenged the subsequent acquisition and arbitration proceedings, contending that no acquisition notice was published in the official Gazette as required under Section 5(1) of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance, 1946 (effective 1-10-1946). The High Court decreed the respondents' suits. Upon reviewing the available record, the Supreme Court held that the land was in fact permanently acquired prior to 1 October 1946. Consequently, publication in the official Gazette was not required under the law applicable at the relevant time. The Court further observed that even if the acquisition notice was issued after 1 October 1946, the failure to gazette it immediately constituted a mere technical irregularity where actual notice was served and acted upon for decades. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the respondents' suits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to publish an acquisition notice in the official Gazette invalidate a land acquisition if the governing law at the time of acquisition did not mandate gazette publication?
  • Does a delay in publishing an acquisition notification in the official Gazette invalidate the acquisition where actual notice was served on the landowners and acted upon?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Works, Islamabad vs Mrs. Khalid1991 CLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10
  execution of decreeagainst governmentprocedural lawequality before lawcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from execution proceedings of a decree for possession of a house obtained by Mrs. Khalid Nazir against the Ministry of Works, Government of Pakistan, after a lease expired. The core legal question was whether non-compliance with the procedural technicalities of Section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908—specifically the requirement that a court report an unsatisfied decree against the government to the provincial government and wait three months before issuing execution—vitiates the execution proceedings where the judgment-debtor government had prior notice and time to satisfy the decree. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that Sections 79 to 82 of the Code are procedural provisions designed to give the government a final opportunity to satisfy a decree, rather than creating substantive rights. The Court laid down that procedural technicalities, especially in commercial or non-sovereign transactions like hiring a house, must be interpreted liberally in light of the constitutional principle of equality before the law under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and cannot be used to frustrate the execution of a lawful decree indefinitely.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are mandatory or procedural in nature?
  • Can procedural technicalities under Section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be interpreted liberally in non-sovereign government transactions?
  • Does the principle of equality before law under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect the application of procedural delays claimed by the government?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence And Others vs Late Ch.1991 SCMR 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-26
  land acquisitionrequisition of propertyleave to appealcompensationoccupancy tenantsburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Pakistan against judgments of the Lahore High Court. The respondents, claiming to be occupancy tenants, alleged their lands were requisitioned in 1942 under the Defence of India Act, 1939, for an aerodrome, but that compensation ceased after 1946 without proper acquisition proceedings. The respondents successfully sued in Civil Court for a declaration that the acquisition and arbitration proceedings were illegal and for recovery of lease money. The Supreme Court observed that the Government failed to produce the relevant notification under the Defence of India Act, 1939, or the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance, 1946, to substantiate the acquisition. Given the aerodrome's construction and the uncertainty regarding compliance with legal formalities, the Court granted leave to appeal. The Court directed the Deputy Attorney General to locate and produce the official records and notifications concerning the acquisition proceedings to determine whether the legal requirements for land acquisition were satisfied.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government claim land acquisition without producing the relevant statutory notification?
  • Is a civil court competent to declare acquisition proceedings illegal if the government fails to prove compliance with statutory formalities?
  • What is the duty of the state to produce official records when the legality of land acquisition is challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and 2 others vs Salahuddin and 3 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-09
  Promissory EstoppelNon-Repatriable Investment SchemeImport LicenceNo-Objection CertificateAdministrative InactionExecutive DiscretionConcluded Contract
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals were filed by the Federal Government challenging a consolidated judgment of the Sindh High Court. The respondents, overseas Pakistanis, had obtained No-Objection Certificates (NOCs) under the lawful Non-Repatriable Investment (N.R.I.) Scheme and subsequently entered into concluded contracts to import machinery using their own foreign exchange. Later, the Government issued a prohibitory notification under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, and refused to issue import permits or allow customs clearance, citing executive policy change and absence of a vested right. The Supreme Court dismissed the Government's appeals, holding that the issuance of import licences following a valid NOC was a consequential step where parties had altered their positions. The Court ruled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel operates against the Government's executive and public functions, preventing it from arbitrarily reneging on promises solemnly made under a lawful scheme, subject to defined limitations such as legality, absence of fraud, and detrimental reliance.

  Questions settled

  • Is the doctrine of promissory estoppel applicable against the Government in the exercise of its executive and public functions?
  • Can the Government rely on a subsequent prohibitory notification under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 to defeat rights arising from concluded contracts entered into pursuant to a valid No-Objection Certificate under a lawful scheme?
  • What are the recognized limitations on the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel against public authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Through Secretary Ministry of Food, and Agriculture vs Special Court (Banking) Sindh And Other1991 SCMR 2355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-01
  constitutional jurisdictionBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinanceinterlocutory orderwrit petitionlawful authorityamendment of plaintSpecial Court (Banking)
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by leave, challenged a High Court judgment that had set aside an order of the Special Court (Banking). The underlying dispute involved a suit for recovery filed by a partnership firm against a bank, which was later transferred to the Special Court. The Special Court had dismissed the plaintiff's application to implead additional parties and amend the plaint, citing the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, set aside this order, holding that because the interlocutory order did not dispose of the entire case, it was not appealable under the Ordinance, thus justifying intervention. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the High Court erred in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. The Court held that a tribunal acting within its jurisdiction has the authority to decide matters rightly or wrongly; an erroneous decision does not equate to an act without lawful authority. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass statutory remedies or replace the discretion of a trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to interfere with an interlocutory order passed by a Special Court merely because the order is allegedly erroneous?
  • Can a party challenge an interlocutory order of a Special Court (Banking) via a Constitution Petition if the order is not appealable under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a decision made by a court or tribunal acting within its jurisdiction subject to judicial review simply because the decision is incorrect?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary Communicaiton, Islamabad vs Messrs Habib1991 CLC 1270 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-31
  railway liabilitycontract of bailmentsubrogationmarine insurancenegligence of carrierburden of proofassignment of rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court appeal concerns a claim for compensation for damaged tobacco consignments transported by the Pakistan Railways. The respondents, as insurers, paid the consignees for the loss and subsequently sued the Railway Administration for recovery, alleging negligence in storing the goods in open, unprotected platforms during heavy rain. The core legal questions involved whether an insurer, having paid a claim, could maintain a suit in its own name against the carrier, and whether the Railway Administration, as a bailee, was liable for the damage. The Court held that an insurer can maintain such an action in its own name following subrogation. Applying the principles of bailment, the Court affirmed that the Railway Administration, under the Railways Act, 1890, bears the responsibility of a bailee under the Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, the burden of proof lies on the bailee to disprove negligence once damage is established. While the Court upheld the finding of liability, it remanded the case for a fresh determination of the quantum of loss, finding the initial assessment insufficient.

  Questions settled

  • Can an insurer, having paid an insurance claim, maintain a suit in its own name against a carrier for the recovery of losses?
  • What is the standard of care required of a Railway Administration as a bailee under the Railways Act, 1890?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the bailee to disprove negligence once damage to goods in their custody is established?
  • Is the Railway Administration liable for damage to goods caused by exposure to rain when stored on open platforms?
  Read full judgment →