Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Pakistan Through Military Estate Officer vs Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali And Another1991 SCMR 1748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the payment of rent for land occupied by the Defence Department. The core legal question concerned the obligation of the petitioner to pay rent for land temporarily occupied under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the sanctioned period had expired. The facts established that the Defence Department had taken possession of land in Mianwali for a three-year period under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but failed to pay rent as required by Section 35(2). The Land Acquisition Collector had determined the rent, and the Land Acquisition Judge upheld this determination. The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the lower courts' decisions, noting that the petitioner remained in possession without payment. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petition was time-barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that the state cannot occupy private land without complying with the statutory requirement to pay compensation or rent as determined by the relevant authorities.
Questions settled- Is the government liable to pay rent for land temporarily occupied under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can a petition be dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred?
- Does the failure to initiate formal acquisition proceedings absolve the government from paying rent for temporary possession of land?
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. vs Syed Altaf Hussain1991 PLD Karachi 386 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-08Read full judgment →
- Pakistan State Oil Ltd., Daud Centre, Karachi vs Collector, Land1991 MLD 2205 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-10Read full judgment →
- Qutabuddin vs Gulzar and 2 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from consolidated suits concerning the ownership of a bus, where the appellant claimed purchase on instalments and the respondents claimed ownership. The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for failure to produce evidence, and subsequently decreed the respondents' suit. The District Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal against the respondents' decree as time-barred, and consequently dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of the appellant's own suit on the ground of res judicata. The High Court upheld these decisions. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the original copying application and found that the copying agency's stamp cancellation date contradicted the finding that the application was returned to the appellant on an earlier date. Holding that the appeal was within time and res judicata did not apply, the Court also noted that Order XVII, Rule 3 CPC was wrongly applied as the adjournment was not at the appellant's request. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments, and remanded both consolidated suits to the trial court for fresh decision.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal can be dismissed as time-barred based on copying agency register entries when physical evidence on the application contradicts those entries?
- Does the dismissal of an appeal on the ground of limitation operate as res judicata to bar a companion appeal arising from consolidated suits?
- Can a court invoke Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to close a party's evidence and dismiss a suit when the adjournment was not granted at the request of that party?
- Province of Punjab Etc. vs Mian Saeed AhmadK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 296 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
- Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. vs The Karachi Electric Supply1991 PLD Karachi 365 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment of the Sindh High Court addresses seven identical civil suits and applications filed under Order I, Rule 10(2), Order VII, Rule 11, and Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by cartage contractors seeking their deletion from suits for money recovery. The plaintiffs, a petroleum marketing company, sued a power company for short payments allegedly resulting from short deliveries of furnace oil, while also naming cartage contractors as defendants on the ground that transit losses were the contractors' liability. The core legal question was whether the plain reading of the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the cartage contractors and whether they were necessary parties. The Court dismissed the applications, holding that the plaint sufficiently disclosed the involvement of the contractors in the transaction series and that they were necessary and proper parties to the suit to enable effective adjudication. The key principle laid down is that where a plaint asserts facts connecting a defendant to the transaction giving rise to the claim and potential liability, the suit cannot be deemed to lack a cause of action against that defendant.
Questions settled- Whether a plaint can be rejected for disclosing no cause of action against a specific defendant when the pleadings link that defendant to the transaction series?
- Are cartage contractors necessary parties in a suit for recovery of money involving short delivery of goods transported by them?
- What are the twofold objects of the provision for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether multiple defendants can be joined in a single suit where common questions of law or fact arise from the same series of transactions?
- Pakistan Services Ltd. vs Superintendent, Central Excise and Land1991 MLD 1412 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Seamen's Union vs The Registrar, Trade Unions, Sindh and 131991 PLC 186 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways, Through The District Controller Of Stores, Shop Depots1991 SCMR 372(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan Railways against an order regarding the entitlement of employees in the Stores Department to be classified as running staff. The core legal questions presented for the Supreme Court's consideration are twofold: first, whether the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, possesses the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed questions of entitlement; and second, whether employees specifically engaged in the Stores Department can be legally equated with running staff operating on the open line. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, noting that similar petitions involving the same legal questions had already been admitted for hearing. Consequently, the Court ordered that the appeal be prepared for an early hearing alongside connected matters to resolve the dispute affecting a large number of employees. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned order, subject to all just exceptions, thereby maintaining the status quo until the matter is fully heard and decided.
Questions settled- Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 have jurisdiction to determine entitlement when the question is disputed?
- Can employees of the Stores Department be legally equated with running staff on the open line?
- Pakistan Railways vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1991 PLC 771 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways vs Abdul Aziz And 9 Other1991 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan Railways against the respondents, Abdul Aziz and nine others, concerning service promotions and appointments. The core legal question is whether specific administrative instructions applied by the lower forums were applicable to the respondents' case, given that their promotion and appointment orders explicitly stated they were purely temporary local arrangements against the direct recruitment quota, conferred no right to regular promotion, and subjected them to reversion without notice upon the availability of senior or regular staff. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question and ordered the suspension of the impugned order of the Labour Court in the interim. The holding establishes that leave is granted to scrutinize the applicability of departmental instructions to temporary promotions made under specific limiting conditions.
Questions settled- Whether departmental instructions can be applied to temporary promotions made under specific terms excluding regular rights?
- Does a temporary promotion order explicitly stating liability to reversion without notice confer any right to regular promotion?
- Pakistan Railways Through The Secretary/Chairman, Ministry Of Railways1991 SCMR 1811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from arbitration proceedings wherein the appointment of a sole arbitrator was challenged before the High Court. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, it was acknowledged by both parties that the appointed arbitrator, a retired judge, had passed away, thereby necessitating a fresh nomination and initiating new proceedings before the lower court. The core legal question concerned the procedural mechanism following the demise of a sole arbitrator and the validity of subsequent unilateral appointments without recourse to the competent court. The Supreme Court held that the death of the arbitrator and the subsequent notice of a new appointment created a changed factual situation requiring fresh objections and applications to be formally raised before the lower court concerned. The key principle laid down is that upon the demise of an appointed arbitrator, fresh appointment procedures and any related objections must be properly brought before the appropriate court of law rather than bypassed through unilateral notices.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of the death of a sole arbitrator on ongoing arbitration proceedings?
- Must fresh proceedings and objections be commenced before the lower court when a new arbitrator is to be nominated?
- Can a party circumvent the lower court by directly serving a notice for a new arbitrator appointment after the demise of the original arbitrator?
- Pakistan Railway vs Muhammad Ramzan and 38 others1991 PLC 79 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railway vs Abdul Haqique And Other1991 SCMR 657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for compensation filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, following a fatal traffic accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of an employee of the Pakistan Railway. The core legal question was whether the master (the employer) could be held vicariously liable for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, or if liability was restricted solely to the actual wrongdoer. The appellant argued that the preamble of the Act indicated an intention to hold only the direct wrongdoer liable. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the phrase 'the party who would have been liable' in Section 1 of the Act is broad enough to encompass the master's vicarious liability for torts committed by a servant in the course of employment. The Court affirmed that the preamble cannot be used to restrict the clear and unambiguous meaning of the enacting provisions. Consequently, the Court upheld the master's liability but modified the award of interest, ruling that interest should accrue from the date of the decree rather than the date of the suit.
Questions settled- Can a master be held vicariously liable for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 for a tort committed by their servant?
- Does the preamble of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 restrict the scope of Section 1 to the actual wrongdoer only?
- From what date should interest on compensation be calculated in a suit under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 where the defendant's liability is vicarious?
- Pakistan PVC Ltd. vs Noor Khan and others1991 PLC 718 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Post Office Employees' Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.s vs Karachi Development Authority and 6 others1991 CLC 800 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Petroleum Workers Union through its General Secretary vs Ministry of Interior through its Secretary, Islamabad and another1991 CLC 13 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
A trade union representing workers of Pakistan Petroleum Limited challenged notifications issued under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952. The petitioner argued that subjecting its members to the Act while exempting Pakistan State Oil Company Limited constituted arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It also sought enforcement of a settlement regarding employment quotas for workers' sons. The High Court evaluated the principle of equal protection, holding that Article 25 permits reasonable classification based on intelligible distinctions. Because Pakistan Petroleum Limited engages in exploration and drilling whereas Pakistan State Oil is primarily engaged in distribution, their operational differences justified distinct treatment. Furthermore, relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the application of the Act only overrides the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 to the extent of direct contrariety. Since the Act lacks detailed adjudicatory mechanisms, workers retain access to forums under ordinary labor laws where no conflict exists. Consequently, the constitutional petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 permit reasonable classification between different entities within the same general sector based on distinct operational functions?
- Does the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952 completely oust the jurisdiction of Labour Courts under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- To what extent do the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952 override ordinary labour law adjudicatory forums?
- Pakistan Papersack Corporation Limited, Korangi vs Sindh Employees'1991 PLC 280 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Papersack Corporation Limited vs Sindh Employees Social(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 94) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Oxygen Limited. vs Pakistan Through The Ecretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And 3 OtherPTCL 1991 CL. 302 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Oxygen Limited vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1991 PTD 472 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
- Pakistan National Shipping CORPORATIONs vs National Insurance1991 CLC 712 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-12Read full judgment →
- Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs National InsuranceK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 376 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs Karamat Ali1991 PLC 126 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Machine Tool Factory vs Syed Muhammad Imran Jafri1991 PLC 109 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. And Others vs Ishaque Mirza And Other1991 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which accepted a writ petition filed by former employees of the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (P.I.D.C.). P.I.D.C. was dissolved and its business and properties were transferred to Bannu Sugar Mills Ltd., a private company. Employees were given the option to join the new company or resign and receive admissible dues. Certain employees resigned and accepted their dues, but later challenged the transfer of their services and resignations through a writ petition. The High Court granted partial relief, entitling certain respondents to encashment of earned leave, notice period compensation, provident fund, and gratuity. The core legal question was whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition regarding contractual employment and issue a money decree. The Supreme Court held that contracts of employment are not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition or pass a money decree on disputed facts without evidence. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted.
Questions settled- Are employment contracts amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to pass a money decree in writ proceedings involving disputed questions of fact without recording evidence?
- Pakistan Gum Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Saifullah1991 PLC 917 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-16Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Engineering Council vs Afzal Anwar Associates And Other1991 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which declared Bye-law No. 3 of the Construction and Operation of Engineering Works Bye-laws, 1987, ultra vires. The Pakistan Engineering Council, a statutory body established under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, had framed these bye-laws under section 25 of the Act, requiring contractors and operators of engineering works to obtain licenses from the Council. The High Court had struck down the bye-law, reasoning that the parent Act was intended to regulate the engineering profession rather than engineering works or contractors, and that the bye-law exceeded the Council's statutory authority under section 8 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the High Court misinterpreted the scope of the Council's functions, citing definitions of professional engineering works and penalty provisions within the Act. The Supreme Court, observing that the contentions raised were of first impression and required authoritative determination, granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the Council's regulatory powers under the Act.
Questions settled- Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, authorize the Council to regulate engineering works and contractors through bye-laws?
- Is the scope of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, limited strictly to the regulation of the engineering profession?
- Can a statutory body frame bye-laws that impose licensing requirements on contractors if the parent Act does not explicitly grant such authority?
- Pakistan Engineering Council And 2 Others vs Engineer I. A. Osmani And 3 Other1991 SCMR 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Pakistan Engineering Council and its functionaries against an interim order of the Lahore High Court. The High Court had permitted deregistered engineers, found guilty of infamous professional conduct by the Enrolment Committee, to participate as candidates and voters in Council elections while declining to suspend their deregistration orders. The core legal questions involved whether a constitutional petition could be entertained before exhausting statutory appellate remedies under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, and whether interim relief permitting election participation could be granted while the underlying disqualification remained intact. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the interim order. The Court held that statutory appellate remedies before peer bodies must ordinarily be exhausted prior to invoking constitutional jurisdiction. It further laid down that it is inequitable and inconsistent to permit deregistered professionals to participate in elections without first suspending their underlying disqualification orders.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be entertained against an order of a professional enrolment committee without first exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal?
- Whether interim relief allowing participation in professional body elections can be granted while the order of disqualification or deregistration remains intact?
- Should peer-review remedies under a regulatory statute be exhausted before a court undertakes judicial review of disciplinary actions against professionals?
- Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd. vs Mushtaq Ahmed Bhatti and another1991 PLC 559 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-11Read full judgment →
- Pakistan and 3 others vs Civil and Military Press Ltd. and 3 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Sindh High Court judgment that declared the levy of Central Excise Duty on "corrugated board" illegal under Item No. 37 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal question was whether "corrugated board" falls within the description of "Paper and Paper Board all sorts" for excise duty purposes. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that "corrugated board" is indeed covered by Item No. 37. The Court reasoned that the phrase "all sorts" has the widest possible connotation, encompassing all kinds of paper boards, including corrugated board. It was further held that the existence of a different manufacturing process or characteristics does not exclude an item from a broadly worded category. The Court also found that the argument for a special trade meaning for "paper board" was not factually established and was negated by the words "all sorts." Claims of vested rights due to past departmental practice were rejected as the statutory language of Item No. 37 had changed over time, and the ejusdem generis rule was deemed inapplicable.
Questions settled- Does "corrugated board" fall within the meaning of "Paper and Paper Board all sorts" under Item No. 37 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- How should the phrase "all sorts" be interpreted in a taxing statute?
- Can a special trade meaning of a term override the plain meaning of a broadly worded statutory description like "all sorts"?
- Does a past departmental practice of not levying excise duty create a vested right if the relevant statutory language has changed?
- Is the ejusdem generis rule applicable when a statutory provision uses the phrase "all sorts"?
- Pakistan Aluminium and Industrial Works (Pvt.) Ltd.- vs The Excise and Taxation Officer and another1991 PLC 926 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Service Corporation Ltd. and 21991 PLC 248 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
- Pak Suzuki Motor Company Ltd. vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal1991 PLC 774 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Pahulal Ved Prakash vs Commissioner of Income Tax1991 PTD 546 · Allahabad High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
- Pahalwan Machhi vs Abdul Wahid And Another1991 P Cr. L J 728 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges the acquittal of respondent No.1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, through the acceptance of a withdrawal application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a murder case under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the legality of the trial court's order permitting the withdrawal of the prosecution and acquitting the accused without ensuring that proper steps were taken to procure attendance of eye-witnesses, and whether a revision application is barred by laches or lack of locus standi of the applicant. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court mechanically allowed the withdrawal without proper judicial satisfaction based on the record, and that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised suo motu regardless of delay or whether the applicant is the complainant. The impugned acquittal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court to proceed from the stage of the withdrawal order.
Questions settled- Whether the power under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be exercised to throttle the prosecution without sufficient grounds on record?
- Does a criminal revision application stand barred solely on the ground of delay or laches?
- Does a prosecution witness lack locus standi to file a criminal revision application against an order of acquittal?
- Is a trial court obliged to satisfy itself from the record before allowing the withdrawal of a criminal case by a public prosecutor?
- Packages Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and otherss1991 PLC 499 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Packages Limited through its General Manager and others vs Muhammad1991 PLD Supreme Court 258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of five civil appeals addressing whether the addition of subsection (6) to section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973 provided an exclusive remedy for termination of service or an additional, concurrent remedy alongside subsections (1) to (4). The core legal question involves the interpretation of the non obstante clause in subsection (6) and its effect on the pre-existing grievance redressal mechanism. The Supreme Court held that the remedy provided under subsection (6) is an additional and concurrent remedy rather than an exclusive one, as there is no inherent inconsistency or repugnancy between the two sets of procedures allowing them to co-exist. The key principle laid down is that a non obstante clause operates as an ouster of earlier provisions only where a direct conflict and inconsistency exists between them, and special provisions do not exclude general provisions unless they are absolutely repugnant to each other.
Questions settled- Whether subsection (6) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provided an exclusive or an additional remedy for the termination of a workman's service?
- Does a non obstante clause necessarily oust the application of earlier statutory provisions in the absence of a direct conflict or inconsistency?
- Can a workman still avail of the remedies under subsections (1) to (4) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 after the insertion of subsection (6)?
- P.P.M.S. Nagarathinam vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 713 · Madras High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
- P vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 212 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
- P vs National Bank of PakistanK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases178 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- P vs 'R'K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 654 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Oskui Traders vs Collector of Customs and another1991 CLC 24 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a trading unit in the Karachi Export Processing Zone (KEPZ), challenged the Collector of Customs' refusal to permit the export of imported pneumatic rubber tyres to Qandhar, Afghanistan, via the Tariff Area. The core legal question concerned whether the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, IV of 1980, granted the petitioner an absolute right to transit goods through the Tariff Area, bypassing standard customs restrictions and transit trade bans. The Court held that the Ordinance does not confer an unfettered right to move goods through the Tariff Area; rather, such movement remains subject to the Customs Act, IV of 1969, and relevant transit trade agreements. The Court affirmed that while the Ordinance provides specific incentives for export-oriented industries, it does not exempt them from national customs laws when interacting with the Tariff Area. Consequently, the petitioner could not demand transit through the Tariff Area in violation of government policy, though they remained free to export goods via alternative routes. The judgment establishes that Export Processing Zones are subject to national sovereignty and that transit through the Tariff Area requires strict compliance with existing customs regulations.
Questions settled- Does the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, IV of 1980, grant an absolute right to export goods through the Tariff Area without complying with customs regulations?
- Are Export Processing Zones exempt from the application of the Customs Act, IV of 1969, regarding the movement of goods into the Tariff Area?
- Can an exporter from an Export Processing Zone claim immunity from transit trade bans imposed by the government on the Tariff Area?
- Does Rule 24-A of the Export Processing Zones Authority Rules, 1981, prevent the government from enforcing existing customs laws on goods moving through the Tariff Area?
- Orji Ekearur Orji And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1307 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
- Omar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
- Oliver Peter Pervez, Itp for Appellant (in 41/Ib of 1988-89, 1155/Ib to1157/IB of1991 PTD (Trib.) 894 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
- Obie Funs Emanuel vs The State1991 P Cr: L J 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Obeetee Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1991 PTD 177 · Allahabad High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
- Nusratullah vs The Chief Secretary, Govt., of Sindh, and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 71) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
- Nusratullah vs Chief Secrtary, Government of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1021 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Nusrat vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Nusrat Baig Mirza vs Government of Pakistan and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 509 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Nusrat and others vs Zulfiqar and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for murder and assault under sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the incident constituted a 'free fight' or a 'sudden fight,' and the resulting applicability of common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the occurrence was a sudden fight, characterized by a chance encounter without premeditation, rather than a free fight, which requires prior preparation for a pitched battle. Consequently, the Court ruled that the principle of common intention was inapplicable. The convictions under sections 302/34 and 323/34 were set aside. Instead, the Court determined individual liability, convicting one appellant under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for grievous hurt and section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for hurt, and the other under section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The judgment clarifies that in sudden fights, individual liability prevails over joint liability.
Questions settled- What is the legal distinction between a 'free fight' and a 'sudden fight' in criminal law?
- Does the doctrine of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to a sudden fight?
- Can an accused be held individually liable for specific injuries in a sudden fight where common intention is absent?
- Nur Ali Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Mst. Niamat Bibi And Other1991 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of a review application concerning a long-standing inheritance dispute. The core legal question involved the propriety of the High Court refusing to exercise its review jurisdiction on the ground that the original High Court judgment had already merged into a prior appellate judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where the matter has been finally decided by the appellate court and the relief sought in review could have been urged and granted in the earlier appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court correctly declined to exercise its power of review. The key principle laid down is that a High Court appropriately refuses a review application when the underlying judgment has merged into the judgment of the Supreme Court and the points raised could have been addressed in the prior apex court proceedings.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise review jurisdiction after the underlying judgment has merged into the appellate judgment of the Supreme Court?
- Does the failure to file copies of the Supreme Court judgment and grounds of appeal warrant the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- Whether relief that could have been sought in an appeal before the Supreme Court can subsequently be pursued through a review application in the High Court?
- Novfed Khan and another vs Muhammad Aslam1991 PLD Azad J & K 60 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-05-02Read full judgment →
- Noubat Khan vs The State1991 MLD 186 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
- Nooruddin vs Sirajuddin1991 SCMR 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against a High Court order directing his eviction from a shop on the grounds of default in rent payment. The High Court had ruled that a formal notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was unnecessary because the tenant possessed contemporaneous knowledge of the landlord's purchase of the property. The core legal questions involve whether the absence of a formal Section 18 notice renders the eviction order invalid despite the tenant's actual knowledge of the ownership transfer, and whether the tenant's deposits of rent under Section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, were sufficient to negate the claim of default, even if technical defects existed in those deposits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the tenant's intent to pay rent to avoid eviction warrants the exercise of judicial discretion in his favour, notwithstanding the alleged default period.
Questions settled- Is a formal notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, mandatory even when the tenant has contemporaneous knowledge of the change in ownership?
- Does the deposit of rent under Section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, protect a tenant from eviction for default if technical defects exist in the deposit process?
- Should judicial discretion be exercised in favour of a tenant who demonstrates an intent to pay rent to avoid eviction despite technical defaults?
- Noora and others vs Umar Hayat and 2 others1991 CLC 1638 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
- Noor Samand vs Province of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →
- Noor Nabi Pathan vs Government of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1146 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2140 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-08-20Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs The State and 11 others1991 MLD 1780 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a murder conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested on a retracted extra-judicial confession of the co-accused (the deceased's wife), motive stemming from an illicit relationship, and 'wajtakkar' (chance meeting) witness testimony. The core legal question was whether a retracted extra-judicial confession of a co-accused, in the absence of direct ocular evidence, could sustain a conviction on a capital charge, and what constitutes sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while a retracted extra-judicial confession of a co-accused requires corroboration in material particulars, sufficient corroboration existed in this case. The Court identified corroborative factors including the co-accused being an inmate of the house who was last seen with the deceased, the consistent and identical false explanations given by both accused to 'wajtakkar' witnesses, and the immediate statements of the co-accused forming part of the res gestae. The Court also observed that murder resulting from an illicit liaison generally warrants capital punishment rather than a lesser sentence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction on a capital charge be solely based on the retracted extra-judicial confession of a co-accused without corroboration?
- What circumstances can serve as sufficient corroboration to a retracted extra-judicial confession of a co-accused in a murder case?
- Does the fact that a wife was an inmate of the house and the person 'last seen' with her deceased husband serve as corroborative evidence of her complicity?
- Is a lesser sentence of life imprisonment legally tenable in a murder case where the motive is the prosecution of an illicit liaison?
- Noor Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 405 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Salabat Bibi And Other1991 SCMR 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that affirmed a decree setting aside a sale-deed of occupancy rights in State land. The respondent had initially sold her occupancy rights to the petitioner, but subsequently filed a civil suit alleging the sale-deed was obtained through fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court and the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court misread the evidence regarding the respondent's participation in the administrative proceedings for obtaining sanction to sell the land. The petitioner argued that he had indeed summoned the original record from the Collector's office and examined a witness who identified the respondent during those proceedings, contrary to the High Court's finding that he failed to prove these steps. The Supreme Court found substance in the petitioner's contention that the record was misread, holding that the evidence had been overlooked. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Can a High Court's finding regarding the failure to prove a document be challenged if the record shows the relevant evidence was actually produced?
- Does the failure to summon original records or verify thumb impressions constitute a fatal defect in proving a transaction when other corroborative evidence exists?
- Noor Muhammad vs Nawab Syed Aziz Hassan1991 CLC 321 · Board of Revenue · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Mulazim Hussain and 4 others1991 CLC 721 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-20Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad Kamil and another1991 CLC 92 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought to set aside a court order through an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging that a written compromise, which led to the withdrawal of a suit, was accompanied by an oral agreement that the applicant would not be disturbed in possession. The court examined whether such an oral agreement could invalidate the written compromise and whether the application was maintainable. The Court held that the application was mala fide, improper, and an abuse of the process of the court, intended only to protract proceedings. It emphasized that a counsel has the authority to compromise a suit on behalf of a client absent a specific bar. Furthermore, the Court noted that under Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 (as amended by Sindh Act No. I of 1986), any agreement made regarding rent cases requires the permission of the authority passing the order, which was absent here. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application without framing issues or recording evidence.
Questions settled- Does a counsel have the authority to compromise a suit on behalf of a client in the absence of a specific bar?
- Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed without framing issues or recording evidence if it is found to be mala fide?
- Is an oral agreement regarding the possession of premises valid in rent cases without the permission of the authority passing the order under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Noor Muhammad vs Habibullah Khan and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 69 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Habibullah and others1991 MLD 1651 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad Through His Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Tufail And Other1991 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order deals with civil appeals arising from pre-emption suits decreed against the purchasers of land originally owned by a private individual in Bahawalpur. The core legal question was whether the suit land was exempt from pre-emption under the relevant notification issued pursuant to the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and the Pre-emption Act, 1913, and which of the conflicting previous Supreme Court precedents applied. The Supreme Court held that the exemption notification under section 8(2) of the Pre-emption Act applies only to land that was government-owned under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and not to land that was privately owned at the relevant time. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that exemption from pre-emption for colony areas under the applicable Bahawalpur notifications is contingent upon the disputed land being government property rather than privately owned.
Questions settled- Whether land in dispute was subject to pre-emption or was exempted under the Notification of the Bahawalpur Government?
- Does the exemption from pre-emption under section 8(2) of the Pre-emption Act apply to privately owned land governed by the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- Noor Muhammad Khan vs Secretary, Ministry of Law and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 916 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad Etc. vs Ahmad Din(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 113) · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad And Others vs The State1991PCr.LJ 143 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad And Others vs The Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Lands)/ Collector, Vehari And Other1991 SCMR 1283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from four civil review petitions filed against three previous judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 18th June, 1989, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals. The core legal question involved whether a married daughter, Mst. Fatima, could claim the status of a temporary allottee for land adjustment based on her father and brother's temporary allotments under Paragraph 5 of Rehabilitation Scheme Part-II, and whether grievances concerning the implementation of rehabilitation guidelines could be raised through review proceedings. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was not a recorded member of the family of the temporary allottees, was married, and resided in a different village, she could not claim the status of a temporary allottee as of right in a congested district. Furthermore, the court held that grievances regarding the implementation of rehabilitation guidelines must be pursued before the appropriate Settlement Authority in accordance with law rather than through a review petition. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a married daughter claim the status of a temporary allottee based on the temporary allotments of her father and brother in a congested district?
- Whether grievances regarding the implementation of rehabilitation guidelines can be agitated through a review petition before the Supreme Court?
- Does a claimant have a vested right to land adjustment without holding the status of a recorded temporary allottee in the relevant estate?
- Noor Muhammad and others vs Saifullah and others1991 CLC 795 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad And Others vs Muhammad Siddique And Other1991 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two review petitions filed against an earlier order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that had refused leave to appeal in two separate cases. Upon initial review, the Court determined that the contentions raised by both parties warranted further examination, leading to the scheduling of a regular hearing for the review petitions. After hearing the arguments again, the Court recalled its previous order dismissing the leave to appeal petitions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both matters. The Court directed that the appeals be prepared based on the existing record, with liberty granted to the parties to file necessary additional documents. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the status quo regarding the possession of the subject matter be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeals, and set the security amount at Rs. 5,000 for each case.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court recall an order refusing leave to appeal upon a review petition?
- Does the granting of leave to appeal necessitate the maintenance of status quo regarding possession?
- Noor Muhammad and anothers vs The Member,Board of Revenue, West1991 MLD 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad And Another vs Punjab Province And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their civil revisions by the High Court, which had upheld the rejection of their applications for temporary injunction against the defendants. During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel conceded that their primary grievance stemmed from certain observations made in the refusal orders that could potentially prejudice their case during the trial. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether interim observations in interlocutory orders can prejudice a substantive trial on merits. The Court held that while the discretionary refusal of a temporary injunction was maintained and the petitions were dismissed as without merit, the observations made in the refusal orders shall not influence or affect the course of the trial before the lower court. The key principle laid down is that interlocutory observations regarding temporary injunctions are tentative and must not prejudice the independent adjudication of the suit on its merits.
Questions settled- Whether observations made in an order refusing a temporary injunction can adversely affect the trial of the suit?
- Can a discretionary order refusing to grant a temporary injunction be interfered with when the grievance is limited to prejudicial interlocutory observations?
- Noor Muhammad and another vs M Ehdi1991 PLD Supreme Court 711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh upholding an ejectment order against the appellants for alleged default in complying with a tentative rent order passed under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a technical or bona fide error in depositing rent into a wrong case file, promptly rectified, warrants the striking off of the tenant's defence and eviction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that where there is no deliberate or contumacious disregard of the Rent Controller's order, a technical default in depositing rent does not attract the penal consequence of striking off the defence and eviction. The key principle laid down is that bona fide mistakes or technical irregularities in complying with tentative rent orders, absent contumacy, should not result in the harsh penalty of eviction.
Questions settled- Whether a technical or bona fide error in depositing rent into a wrong case file warrants striking off the tenant's defence under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a default in complying with a tentative rent order that is not deliberate or contumacious attract the penalty of eviction?
- Can a tenant be penalized for disobedience of a Rent Controller's order when the misplacement of rent deposit arose from confusion regarding the case number and was promptly rectified?
- Noor Muhammad and 7 others vs Mst. Fatima and 4 others1991 CLC 587 · Board of Revenue · 1990-01-02Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and 16 others vs Nazir Ahmed and 11 others1991 CLC 1727 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Noor Hamid Shah vs National Particle Board (Pvt.) Ltd.1991 PLC 88 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
- Noor Elahi Khan vs Secretary to Government of Punjab and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 205 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Elahi And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Noor Akbar and anothers vs The State and others1991 MLD 1623 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad vs Fazal Ahmad and others1991 CLC 217 · Board of Revenue · 1989-12-26Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Ahmad And 20 Others vs Mst. Zeba And 12 Other1991 SCMR 1990 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from leave to appeal granted to examine whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could lawfully set aside a remand order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue. The parties were engaged in a serious contest over the possession and ownership of extensive land, leading to multi-forum litigation involving revenue authorities, criminal proceedings, and civil suits. The core legal question concerned whether a suit of title and possession could be time-barred by reference to mutation proceedings conducted in the absence of the affected parties and treated merely as a correction of revenue entries. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the civil proceedings as confined to the correction of a mutation register, noting that mutation proceedings lack determinative value regarding title and that the suit was fundamentally one of title and possession. The Court laid down the principle that the bar of limitation cannot be applied to a title suit by reference to an ex parte mutation having no value other than for fiscal purposes, and that questions of limitation relating to title, possession, and dispossession must be determined after a proper and full trial.
Questions settled- Whether mutation proceedings possess determinative value regarding the question of title?
- Can a civil suit for title and possession be held time-barred by reference to an ex parte mutation entry made without notice to the affected parties?
- Does the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction have the power to set aside a remand order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue directing a fresh trial on merits?
- Nook Hassan And Another vs Sakhi Muhammad And Other1991 SCMR 783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the cancellation of agricultural land measuring 11 Bighas 8 Biswas previously held in the name of one Dona, whose sons are the petitioners. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioners are entitled to be offered the disputed land for sale under the provisions of Act XIV of 1975, notwithstanding any alleged lack of original title, given that the land has not been allotted to any other party under the impugned orders. The Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners' counsel merit detailed examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, ordered security in the sum of Rs. 2,000, directed that status quo be maintained, and permitted the processing of the appeal on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Whether petitioners are entitled to be offered cancelled agricultural land for sale under Act XIV of 1975?
- Does a contention regarding statutory entitlement to purchase unallotted cancelled land warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- No Name vs Administration AuqafK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 100 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
- Nizamuddin vs Qamaruddin Jaffar Valiant and another1991 CLC 1937 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from four rent appeals challenging a common judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karachi, which dismissed the appellants' appeals against eviction orders. The first respondent filed eviction applications against the original tenants and the appellants on grounds of default and subletting. The core legal question was whether a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the first respondent and the appellants, and whether evidence on default was necessary when such relationship was negated. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants failed to establish their tenancy through reliable evidence or rent receipts, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The key legal principle laid down is that a person claiming the status of a tenant must secure it through evidence of a high order, and where a person fails to establish the tenancy or relationship, eviction proceedings against them are properly maintained when the primary tenant has defaulted and failed to contest the matter.
Questions settled- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant can be established without reliable documentary evidence or rent receipts in the tenant's name?
- Is it mandatory for a Rent Controller to record evidence on the question of default when the primary claimant fails to prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-existence of a landlord-tenant relationship warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction?
- Nizam Ud Din vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2229 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
- Nizam Din vs Syed Ashfaq Ali Shah And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court involving a dispute between rival pre-emptors regarding the superior right of pre-emption over a suit property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed a right based solely on contiguity, possessed a superior right compared to the respondents, who claimed rights based on both contiguity and the existence of an easement (windows opening towards the suit property). The Supreme Court held that the respondents established a superior right because the petitioner failed to specifically deny the respondents' claim regarding the easement, and the petitioner admitted that the respondents' windows opened towards the suit property. Consequently, the Court found the respondents' case fully covered under the relevant statutory provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, concluding that the respondents held the superior right of pre-emption, and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Does the existence of an easement, such as windows opening towards a suit property, establish a superior right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Is a failure to specifically deny an opponent's claim in a written statement considered an admission of that claim in pre-emption litigation?
- Nizam Din vs Fateh Muhammad and others1991 CLC 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Nizam Din and others vs Additional Commissioner and others1991 MLD 2182 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmed vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities Affairs, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others1991 MLD 1401 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-26Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad vs Muhammad Ishaque and 5 others1991 MLD 11 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-09-28Read full judgment →