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.
- Mehboob Ali Sani vs Additional District Judge And Other1991 SCMR 1880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding an election dispute for membership of the Municipal Committee, Toba Tek Singh, Ward No.16, held in November 1987. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court or the Supreme Court can reappraise factual findings of an Election Tribunal regarding the tampering of ballot papers. The Supreme Court held that the finding of tampering with ballot papers is a finding of fact and that the High Court rightly declined to reappraise the evidence recorded by the Election Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that superior courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by a competent tribunal based on an inquiry into election matters such as the tampering of ballot papers.
Questions settled- Can the High Court reappraise evidence recorded by the Election Tribunal in an election dispute?
- Is a finding regarding the tampering of ballot papers considered a finding of fact?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings of an Election Tribunal and the High Court?
- Mehboob Ali and another vs Mst. Sharifan Bibi and 21 others1991 CLC 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Lahore High Court addresses two regular second appeals arising from a remand order by the Supreme Court concerning suits for possession of land. The core legal question revolved around the admissibility of a pedigree-table (Exh.P3) originating from India and whether the seal of the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India amounted to substantial compliance with the mandatory certification requirements under sub-section (6) of Section 78 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, the appellants argued that they were prejudiced because the trial court exhibited the document without ruling on its admissibility and that the appellate court could not exclude it without giving them an opportunity to cure the defect. The court held that the document lacked the requisite certificate from the legal keeper and necessary consular/diplomatic attestation mandated by law, and thus was rightly held inadmissible. The court further held that an appellate court possesses full powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass orders that the trial court ought to have passed. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the seal of the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India on a foreign document constitute sufficient compliance with sub-section (6) of Section 78 of the Evidence Act?
- Can an appellate court exclude a document from consideration if the trial court exhibited it without deciding an objection as to its admissibility?
- Whether an appellate court has the power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pass any decree or order that ought to have been passed by the trial Court?
- Mehboob Alam vs Deputy Commissioner, Okara and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 615 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a Junior Clerk, challenged his removal from service following allegations of misappropriation of stationery in the Nazarat Branch. While the appellant and two co-accused were initially penalized, the appellate authority (Commissioner) reinstated the two co-accused, citing a lack of specific charges and the absence of individual show-cause notices. The appellant, however, was denied similar relief. The Punjab Service Tribunal examined the Duty Roster and found that the duties were shared among the three officials, making it improper to single out the appellant for sole responsibility. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner’s failure to extend the same benefit of procedural fairness to the appellant constituted discrimination. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the removal order and reinstated the appellant, emphasizing that disciplinary proceedings must be consistent. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that reinstatement should be effective from the date of the penalty (removal/retirement), not the date of suspension, as an employee remains in service during the suspension period.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate authority can discriminate between co-accused in disciplinary proceedings when the grounds for relief are identical?
- Does the reinstatement of a civil servant take effect from the date of suspension or the date of the penalty of removal?
- Can a civil servant be solely held responsible for misappropriation when duties are shared among multiple officials according to the Duty Roster?
- Mehboob Ahmed vs The State and 5 others-1991 P Cr. L J 792 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mechanised Construction of Pakistan Ltd. Through Usman Shah Afridi1991 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents, former WAPDA employees transferred on deputation to the petitioner company, filed an application before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, seeking deputation allowance. The Authority asserted jurisdiction, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging this jurisdiction. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the respondents are civil servants based on the precedent in WAPDA v. Saeed Ahmed Butt (1987 SCMR 298). Consequently, the petitioner argued that the Authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning terms and conditions of service, including deputation allowance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the respondents qualify as civil servants and whether the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, possesses the jurisdiction to grant the relief of deputation allowance to such employees. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the claimed amount, which is to be invested pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- Are employees transferred on deputation from WAPDA to a company considered civil servants?
- Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for deputation allowance by employees who are civil servants?
- Mazharul Islam and another vs Mst. Mafia1991 PLD Supreme Court 835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment maintaining ejectment orders against tenants based on alleged rent default. The core legal question was whether a new property owner is entitled to seek ejectment for rent defaults occurring prior to the property's purchase, absent an express assignment of such arrears in the sale deed. The Supreme Court held that the right to recover rent arrears is an actionable claim that does not automatically pass with the property transfer. Consequently, a transferee cannot maintain ejectment proceedings for default regarding the period preceding the transfer. The Court established that without an express covenant in the sale deed assigning the right to recover pre-transfer arrears, such arrears are not legally due to the new owner, and their non-payment does not constitute a default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. As the High Court failed to adequately address whether a default occurred specifically after the purchase, the case was remanded for re-hearing on that limited issue.
Questions settled- Can a transferee of property maintain ejectment proceedings for rent default occurring prior to the transfer of ownership?
- Is the right to recover arrears of rent an actionable claim that requires express assignment in a sale deed?
- Does the non-payment of rent for a period prior to the transfer of property constitute default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Mazhar Mir vs The State.1991 P Cr. L J 454 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the Sessions Court, Abbottabad, convicting the appellant Mazhar Mir under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant fired at the deceased from the roof of his house during a dispute, while the defence raised a plea of self-defence, contending that the deceased had criminally trespassed into the house of the appellant's sisters with the intent to kidnap and molest them, and was killed by one of the sisters during the ensuing struggle. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence, found the ocular testimony of the interested and related witnesses to be unreliable, uncorroborated, and inconsistent with medical evidence and the site plan, and noted that the prosecution had suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused parties. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the defence established a plausible case of private defence under Section 96 read with Sections 100 and 102 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the enhancement revision petition.
Questions settled- Whether interested and related ocular testimony can be relied upon without independent corroboration when it is contradicted by medical evidence?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused persons cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
- Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of a weak and unproved motive when the eyewitness account is inherently defective?
- Under what circumstances is a person protected by the right of private defence of person and property under sections 96, 100, and 102 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Mazhar Illahi vs The StateK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 373 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Illahi vs The State1991 MLD 1024 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
- Maza Din vs Mirza Ali and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 208 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
- Maulana Zahid Ur Rashid And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 822 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
- Maulana Riazul Hassan vs Muhammad Ayub Khan And Another1991 SCMR 2513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a civil suit concerning the possession of land purchased by the plaintiff at a public auction conducted by the Settlement Department. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. However, the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, reversed this decision, holding that the original sales to non-Muslims were prohibited under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act 1900, and thus the property could not be treated as evacuee property after 1957. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could introduce new grounds in revision and the legal effect of the prohibited alienations. The Supreme Court held that under Section 14 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act 1900, such unauthorized alienations take effect as usufructuary mortgages. Consequently, the property vested in the Custodian under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1949. The Court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to possession as a mortgagee unless legal sanction is obtained or further proceedings occur, setting aside the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in revisional jurisdiction introduce new grounds not raised by the parties?
- What is the legal effect of a permanent alienation made without the required sanction under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act 1900?
- Does property subject to an unauthorized alienation vest in the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
- Does the limitation period for redeeming property run against the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
- Maulana Ghulam Dastgir and 2 others vs Mrs. Benazir Bhutto1991 CLC 571 · Election Tribunal · 1990-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns election appeals filed against the Returning Officer's decision to accept the nomination papers of Ms. Benazir Bhutto for a National Assembly constituency. The appellants challenged her nomination on grounds of disqualification under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, alleging she lacked good character, violated Islamic injunctions, failed to practice obligatory Islamic duties, and acted prejudicially to the ideology, sovereignty, and judiciary of Pakistan. The Election Tribunal examined various documents, including foreign press reports and cabinet minutes, to determine if these grounds were substantiated. The Tribunal held that the Returning Officer's summary inquiry was sufficient and that the appellants failed to establish disqualification. It ruled that newspaper reports and stale allegations from the distant past do not constitute valid grounds for disqualification under Article 62. Furthermore, the Tribunal clarified that the Returning Officer has a duty to conduct a summary inquiry but must confront the candidate with adverse material. It concluded that no case for disqualification was made out, affirming that the Returning Officer's rejection of the objections was legally sound.
Questions settled- Does the Returning Officer have an independent duty to hold a summary inquiry into a candidate's qualifications even in the absence of specific objections?
- Can a candidate be disqualified under Article 62 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 based on newspaper reports and allegations regarding events occurring 15 to 17 years prior?
- Is a candidate required to personally attend scrutiny proceedings before the Returning Officer under the Representation of the People Act 1976?
- Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the exclusive jurisdiction to decide disqualification questions arising under Section 8-B of the Political Parties Act 1962?
- Must a Returning Officer confront a candidate with all adverse material or rejoinders during summary inquiry proceedings?
- Maula Bakhsh and others vs The Custodian of Evacuee Property and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the status of land measuring 1,741 kanals, previously held by the appellants' predecessors, which was declared non-evacuee property by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The core legal question was whether the possession of land transferred under "Basiga Malguzari" pursuant to Section 71 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, could ripen into adverse possession against the original owners, thereby extinguishing their title. The Supreme Court held that possession acquired under Section 71 is permissive and subservient to the real owner's title. The Court ruled that the Collector’s failure to restore possession after the statutory term does not prejudice the true owner's rights or convert the transferee's possession into a hostile one. Consequently, the High Court’s finding of adverse possession was set aside, restoring the Custodian’s order. The key principle laid down is that possession commencing under statutory authority is presumed to continue as permissive, and cannot transform into adverse possession without a clear, positive disclaimer of the real owner's title, which was absent in this case.
Questions settled- Can possession of land transferred under Section 71 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, ripen into adverse possession against the original owner?
- Does the failure of a Collector to restore possession of land after the expiry of the statutory term under Section 71 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, extinguish the title of the true owner?
- Is possession that commences under statutory authority considered permissive or hostile?
- Mauj Din vs Mst. Bang Through Legal Heirs And Other1991 SC M R1556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction regarding land located in Tehsil Vehari, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. Upon a regular second appeal, the Lahore High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment and restored the trial court's dismissal, concluding upon re-appraisal of the evidence that the sale mutation in favor of the plaintiff was fraudulently and collusively secured and rightly cancelled by the Collector. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question involved the re-appraisal of evidence and the validity of the sale mutation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusion, reached after re-appraising the evidence, was in accordance with law and subject to no exception. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that no case for leave to appeal was made out and dismissed the petition, laying down that concurrent findings based on proper appreciation of evidence regarding fraudulent transactions warrant no interference.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can re-appraise evidence in a regular second appeal to set aside findings of the first appellate court?
- Does a clandestine and collusively sanctioned sale mutation confer valid ownership rights?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the impugned judgment is based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
- Matli Town Committee vs Abdul Majeed And Other1991 SCMR 878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court decision declaring a notification for octroi tax revision invalid following the repeal of the Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner’s approval of the tax schedule, granted under the 1972 Ordinance, remained valid and enforceable after the enactment of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and whether the subsequent publication of the notification was protected by the saving provisions of the new Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the notification was valid. The Court reasoned that Section 120 of the 1979 Ordinance, which contained a broad saving clause for "things done" and "proceedings commenced," preserved actions initiated under the repealed law, provided they were not inconsistent with the new enactment. Since the revision process was substantially matured upon the Commissioner's approval, the subsequent publication was a procedural continuation of a "thing done." Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming that the saving clause and the Sindh General Clauses Act, 1956, effectively preserved the validity of the tax revision process.
Questions settled- Whether a notification for the revision of an octroi schedule issued under the Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972, remains valid after the repeal of said Ordinance?
- Does the saving clause in Section 120 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, preserve actions and proceedings commenced under the repealed Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972?
- Is the publication of a tax schedule after the repeal of the enabling statute a 'thing done' protected by the saving provisions of the successor legislation?
- Mastak vs Lal and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that declined to interfere with a Commissioner's order regarding a civil dispute adjudicated under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901. The core legal question was whether the Balochistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976, which mandated the transfer of pending civil suits and appeals to Qazi courts or Majalis-e-Shura, also encompassed revision petitions pending before the Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the term 'appeal' in remedial and procedural statutes should be interpreted broadly to include revision petitions, as both serve the same essential purpose of invoking a superior authority to rectify errors of a lower tribunal. Consequently, the Court ruled that the pending revision proceedings were liable to be transferred to the Qazi court for adjudication in accordance with Shariat law. The Court established that procedural statutes altering forums for trial are generally retroactive, and that the legislative intent to shift substantive law to Shariat necessitated the transfer of all pending matters, including revisions, to the newly established competent forums to ensure justice and procedural regularity.
Questions settled- Does the term 'appeal' in a procedural statute include revision petitions for the purpose of transferring pending cases to a new forum?
- Are procedural statutes that alter the forum of trial and mode of adjudication generally applicable to pending proceedings?
- Does the Commissioner under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, function as a 'Tribunal' for the purposes of transferring pending cases under the Balochistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976?
- Masooda Begum vs District Education Officer, Toba Tek Singh and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 155 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Masood Khan vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1991 SCMR 1304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over Shop No. 835 in Bahawalpur Town, which was evacuee property purchased by the petitioner through a public auction in 1960. A Provisional Transfer Order was issued in his favour after he deposited his compensation book. Subsequently, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner resumed the shop and transferred it to another party on a negotiation basis, citing non-payment or discrepancies in adjustments, without providing notice to the petitioner. The petitioner's departmental appeals were dismissed on limitation grounds, and his subsequent writ petition before the High Court also failed. The core legal question concerns the legality of the resumption order passed without notice and despite the deposit of the demanded price by the auction purchaser. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the legality and lack of notice in the resumption order require detailed examination, and ordered that status quo regarding possession be maintained during the pendency of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a property transferred through a Provisional Transfer Order can be legally resumed without notice to the auction purchaser?
- Does the deposit of the demanded price by a purchaser invalidate a subsequent order of resumption passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner?
- Masood Ahmed Chaudhari, T.G.T., F.G. Boys Middle School, Barakau, District Islamabad vs Director General, Federal Government Educational Institutions, Islamabad And Other1991 SCMR 1851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal as incompetent. The petitioner, a teacher in Grade-15, was superseded for the selection grade (B-17) while his juniors were promoted. The Government maintained that the petitioner's service record was unsatisfactory and he was not considered suitable. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in holding the appeal incompetent and declining to interfere with the promotion matter involving selection and suitability. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any supplementary statement or challenge before the Tribunal regarding uncommunicated adverse remarks or factual controversies, the matter pertained to selection and suitability, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction did not extend to substituting its own judgment for that of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, laying down the principle that factual controversies and challenges to service records must be raised before the Tribunal, and the assessment of suitability for promotion by a departmental committee cannot be substituted where no such foundation was laid.
Questions settled- Does the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal extend to matters of selection and suitability for promotion?
- Can a petitioner raise a new factual controversy regarding adverse ACRs for the first time before the Supreme Court without raising it before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the judgment of the Departmental Promotion Committee regarding suitability prevail when no supplementary statement is filed to challenge uncommunicated adverse remarks?
- Masood Ahmad Malik vs Mst. Fouzia Farhana Quddus And Other1991 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns the jurisdictional competence of Pakistani courts to adjudicate a matrimonial dispute between parties who are Muslim but have acquired American citizenship. The petitioner pronounced Talaq on respondent No.1 in Islamabad, subsequently initiating proceedings for finalization of divorce and later a suit for jactitation of marriage or declaration. The High Court ruled that neither the Civil Court nor the Family Court had jurisdiction, reasoning that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, applied only to Muslim citizens of Pakistan, and the Family Courts Act, 1964, was subject to it. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that the Family Courts Act, 1964, has a wider scope. The Court clarified that the phrase "subject to the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961" in Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, means that the Ordinance prevails in case of inconsistency, but does not restrict the Family Court's jurisdiction solely to cases where the Ordinance applies. Consequently, the Senior Civil Judge/Judge, Family Court, Islamabad, had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the parties resided and the cause of action arose within its limits. The suit, however, would be adjudicated by the proper law applicable to the parties, determined by principles of Conflict of Laws, not the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
Questions settled- Can a Pakistani Family Court exercise jurisdiction over a suit for jactitation of marriage where the parties are Muslim but not Pakistani citizens?
- Does the phrase "subject to the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961" in Section 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, limit the Family Court's jurisdiction exclusively to cases where the Ordinance applies?
- What law governs a matrimonial dispute between non-Pakistani Muslim citizens when adjudicated by a Pakistani court?
- Can a Senior Civil Judge, also exercising powers as a Judge Family Court, entertain a suit for jactitation of marriage for parties to whom the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, does not apply?
- Masood Ahmad and 2 others vs United Bank Limited, Commercial1991 MLD 1030 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-01-24Read full judgment →
- Masjid-E-Rizwan through Haji Abdul Salam vs Niazuddin1991 MLD 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
- Masjid Mauza Mathruma through Sajjada vs Makhdoom Shah and others1991 MLD 1726 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Masihuzzaman Khan vs Secretary, Labour Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1991 PLC (C.S.) 624 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
- Mashkoor Hasan vs Janna T Bibi1991 CLC 933 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
- Mascot (India) Tools and Forgings P. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 91 · Allahabad High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Market Committee, Kanganpur Through Administrator vs Rayyat Ali And Other1991 SCMR 572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a land acquisition matter where the High Court enhanced the compensation for acquired land from Rs.372.60 per kanal to Rs.150 per marla. The Supreme Court examined the legality of the compensation determination under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly determined the market value by relying on post-notification sales and future potential uses resulting from the acquisition itself. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed multiple legal errors, notably by taking into consideration post-acquisition enhancements in land value and subsequent post-notification sales mutations contrary to express statutory prohibitions. The Court laid down that statutory averages of preceding sales cannot be ignored without valid reasons, post-notification transactions are inadmissible, and future profits or value increases from the specific public use of the acquired land must be excluded when determining compensation under Section 23 and Section 24 of the Act. The appeal was accepted and compensation was modified to Rs.50 per marla.
Questions settled- Can a court rely on post-notification sale mutations to determine the market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Whether an increase in land value resulting from the specific public use to which the acquired land is put can be factored into the initial compensation assessment?
- Is it permissible to discard a one-year pre-notification average of sales without finding any deficiency or flaw in it?
- What factors constitute valid plus and minus factors when evaluating the market value and potential of acquired land?
- Market Committee, Chichawatni District Sahiwal through Chairman vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1991 CLC 118 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions filed by Market Committees challenging memorandums issued by National Savings authorities directing the compulsory deduction of Zakat from the petitioners' funds. The core legal question was whether Market Committees established under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 qualify as 'local authorities' and are thus exempt from payment of Zakat under Section 2(xxiii)(a) of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980. The Lahore High Court allowed the petitions, holding that because Market Committees are body corporates entrusted with statutory self-governing functions, powers to issue licences, and control of an independent local fund subject to local fund audit, they satisfy the definition of a 'local authority' under Section 3(28) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, as local authorities, they are excluded from the definition of 'Sahib-e-Nisab' under Section 2(xxiii)(a) of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, making the impugned memorandums demanding Zakat unlawful and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether a Market Committee constituted under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 is a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 3(28) of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
- Whether Market Committees are excluded from being 'Sahib-e-Nisab' and exempted from payment of Zakat under Section 2(xxiii)(a) of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980?
- Does the statutory duty and power to maintain, control, and spend a local fund qualify an entity as a local authority under the law?
- Market Committee vs Federation of Pakistan Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 536 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
- Market Committee vs Federation of Pakistan Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
- Marine Fisheries Department, Karachi vs Nusratullah, Managing1991 PLD Karachi 301 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Abdul HAMIDs vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1991 MLD 672 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a decision by the District Judge, Sargodha, rejecting a plaint for rendition of accounts and vacating a temporary injunction. The core legal questions were whether an Appellate Court possesses the authority to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during an appeal against an interlocutory order, and whether the subsequent suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and limitation. The High Court held that under Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, an Appellate Court has co-extensive powers with the trial court to reject a plaint, provided the suit is on its file. The Court affirmed the rejection, finding the suit barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the claims had been previously adjudicated. Furthermore, the Court ruled the suit was time-barred, noting that Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 was inapplicable as prior proceedings did not prevent the institution of the current suit. The judgment confirms that an Appellate Court may reject a plaint if the suit is transferred to its file.
Questions settled- Can an Appellate Court reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during an appeal against an interlocutory order?
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit for rendition of accounts when the claims were previously adjudicated?
- Does Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to exclude time spent in previous civil proceedings where those proceedings did not prevent the institution of the subsequent suit?
- Marine Fisheries Department Versus Nusratullah Marine FisheriesK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 463 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mardan Ali and others vs Not1991 CLC 82 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration regarding ownership and possession of agricultural land, wherein the trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. The petitioners challenged these concurrent findings, arguing that the plaint was defective because it lacked a specific prayer clause, thereby violating Order VII Rule 1(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioners could not raise a point not specifically pleaded in their revision petition. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the absence of a formal prayer clause is not fatal to a suit if the relief sought is decipherable from the plaint as a whole. The Court affirmed that pleadings must be read in their entirety, prioritizing substance over form. It established that a court is competent to grant relief not specifically prayed for, provided such relief is consistent with the pleadings, supported by evidence, and does not cause surprise to the adversary.
Questions settled- Can a court grant relief that was not specifically prayed for in the plaint?
- Should a plaint be interpreted by looking at the document as a whole or only the prayer clause?
- Is the absence of a formal prayer clause fatal to a civil suit if the relief is otherwise decipherable from the pleadings?
- Maqsood Elahi vs Secretary Education EtcK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 632 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ali vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 346 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmed (Akhtar) Alias Sooda vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1627 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmad vs Mst. Musarratara1991 CLC 294 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-08Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 233 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-17Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Hussain vs The Managing Director, Piac And Another1991 SCMR 1764 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), challenged his exclusion from promotion consideration following a penalty of censure imposed in 1980. While posted in Abu Dhabi, the petitioner alleged that junior colleagues were promoted over him. After his departmental appeal against the censure failed, he approached the Service Tribunal, seeking the setting aside of the penalty and a direction to be considered for promotion with effect from August 1982. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the technical ground that no appeal lies before it against the imposition of a minor penalty. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal failed to address the petitioner's core grievance regarding his entitlement to be considered for promotion during the period he served abroad, irrespective of the minor penalty issue. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal erred in failing to adjudicate the promotion claim, emphasizing that the merits of the promotion eligibility required judicial consideration beyond the technical dismissal concerning the minor penalty.
Questions settled- Does an appeal lie before the Service Tribunal against the imposition of a minor penalty?
- Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an entire appeal on technical grounds without addressing the merits of a promotion claim?
- Maqbool Hussain vs Haji Muhammad Ashraf1991 MLD 1134 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns applications for the appointment of a receiver and temporary injunctions in a suit for possession filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The core legal question was whether a court is empowered to grant temporary injunctions or appoint a receiver in a suit instituted under Section 9, given the statute's limited scope and the bar on appeals against its orders. The Court held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, specifically Order 39 and Order 40, are not excluded in such suits. The ratio is that a court must possess the authority to preserve the property in dispute to prevent it from being wasted, altered, or destroyed, thereby ensuring that any eventual decree for possession is not rendered futile or infructuous. The key principle laid down is that while Section 9 restricts the scope of the suit to possession, it does not strip the court of its procedural authority to protect the subject matter of the litigation through interim measures pending final adjudication.
Questions settled- Can a court appoint a receiver in a suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Is a court empowered to grant a temporary injunction in a suit for possession instituted under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Does the bar on appeals in Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 prevent the application of Order 39 and Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Maqbool Ahmed vs Sh. Aziz Din and others1991 CLC 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1991 MLD 2533 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-09Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad Khan vs Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 61 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
- Maosood Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 950 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Manzur Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1865 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Manzoorulhaq vs Mst. Zainab and others1991 CLC 790 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
- Manzoorahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1888 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
- Manzoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 287 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-22Read full judgment →
- Manzoor vs The State1991 MLD 1165 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ullah vs Sabir Zameer Siddiqui And Another1991 SCMR 1127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed by Manzoor Ullah seeking a review of a previous judgment, raising grievances regarding the omission of his appearance in the judgment copy and the denial of his seniority against appellant Sabir Zamir Siddiqui. The core legal question concerns the petitioner's entitlement to seniority in both lower and higher grades against a direct recruit and regularized promotees. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the review petition is misconceived on merits, noting that the petitioner's lower grade seniority was already determined by a prior judgment, while in the higher grade, he could not claim seniority over a direct recruit because earlier promotions in the department were held to be in violation of the rules and subject to revision and proper regularization. The key principle laid down is that a promotee whose promotion is found to be in violation of rules and pending regularisation cannot claim seniority over a direct recruit in a higher grade.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition is maintainable to claim seniority against a direct recruit when previous promotions have been found to violate applicable rules?
- Can a government employee claim seniority over a direct recruit in a higher grade pending the regularisation of their promotion?
- Does a clerical omission in recording a party's presence in a judgment copy warrant a review of the case on merits?
- Manzoor Hussain Wassan vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 425 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-21Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain Wassan vs The State1991 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-21Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs Talib Hussain And Other1991 SCMR 1894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-21Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs Mst. Naheed Akhtar and 14 others1991 MLD 724 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-17Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs Azad Government of Jammu and Kashmir and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 334 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain and others vs Bhole Khan and others1991 CLC 640 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a civil suit concerning the competence of a legal guardian under Mahomedan Law to alienate or agree to sell the immovable property of his minor wards, alongside subsidiary issues regarding court-fee deficits. The core legal questions involve whether a natural/de jure guardian can bind minor wards through an agreement to re-convey property to avert pre-emption litigation, and the consequences of inadequate court-fee payment on alternative reliefs. The Lahore High Court held that a de jure guardian (such as a father) possesses the power to alienate or enter into an agreement to sell minor's immovable property provided the transaction satisfies the stringent conditions of absolute necessity and manifest benefit to the minors. The Court ruled that the enumerated instances in classical texts are illustrative of this underlying rule of necessity and benefit. Furthermore, court-fee matters are primarily between the suitor and the State, and parties must be afforded an opportunity to make good any discovered deficiencies before penal consequences ensue. The appeal was dismissed, and parties were directed to make up the deficit court-fees.
Questions settled- Whether a de jure guardian under Mahomedan Law is competent to bind a minor by entering into an agreement to sell immovable property?
- Are the classical conditions permitting the alienation of a minor's immovable property exhaustive, or are they illustrative of the broader rule of absolute necessity and benefit?
- Can a court direct a party to make good a deficit court-fee on a plaint or memorandum of appeal before resorting to punitive rejection or dismissal?
- Whether an agreement to re-convey pre-emptible property executed by a natural guardian for the benefit of minor vendees is specifically enforceable?
- Manzoor Hussain And 9 Others vs Malik Karam Khan And 2 Other1991 SCMR 2451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that rejected an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the correction of a decree due to discrepancies in the description of suit property. The plaintiffs' claim for possession of land and water rights was founded on a specific written agreement, which was incorporated by reference in the plaint. However, the description of the property in the plaint title differed from the description in the underlying agreement. The core legal question was whether a court can correct a decree under Section 152, C.P.C. to align it with the title deed when the plaint incorporated that deed by reference. The Supreme Court held that where a claim is founded on a deed incorporated by reference, incorrect specifications in the plaint can be resolved by referring to the deed. The Court established that such discrepancies, even if discovered at the execution stage, allow for the correction of the decree under Section 152, C.P.C. to bring it into conformity with the title deed.
Questions settled- Can a decree be corrected under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to align it with the title deed when the plaint incorporated that deed by reference?
- Does the principle of incorporation by reference allow for the resolution of discrepancies between a plaint's property description and the underlying title deed?
- At what stage of proceedings can a court permit the correction of a decree to bring it into conformity with the title deed?
- Manzoor And 3 Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed Ex-Patwari Halqa Manak Teh Narowal Distt Sialkot(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 310) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs (Mst). Akhtar Begum & 2 Other(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 110) · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 341 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad and others vs The State1991 MLD 866 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad and others vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communications and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 39 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-04-23Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad Alias Shami vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
- Mansib Dar vs The State;1991 P Cr. L J 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Mansha vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 560 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-06Read full judgment →
- Mansha Ullah And Others vs Allah Ditta1991 SCMR 1296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal concerning a land dispute over approximately 14 kanals and 13 marlas of shamilat-e-deh land in village Natha, Tehsil Nankana Sahib. The core legal question involves the propriety of civil proceedings instituted by estate owners to retain possession after forcibly ousting a non-owner possessor, while concurrent revenue proceedings regarding the restoration of possession were actively pending before the revenue hierarchy. The Supreme Court held that the civil suit appeared to be a device to frustrate the orders of the Revenue Authorities, and since the revenue orders directing restoration of possession to the dispossessed occupant had been affirmed by the Commissioner and were awaiting final adjudication before the Board of Revenue, the High Court committed no infirmity in dismissing the civil revisions. The key principle laid down is that civil suits cannot be utilized as a collateral mechanism to circumvent or frustrate lawful proceedings and orders of Revenue Authorities concerning the forcible eviction and restoration of possession of land.
Questions settled- Can a civil suit be maintained to retain possession obtained through the forcible ouster of a person when proceedings for restoration of possession are pending before revenue authorities?
- Do Revenue Authorities possess the jurisdiction to restore possession to a tenant or occupant in the event of their forcible eviction?
- Whether the High Court's dismissal of a civil revision against concurrent findings in such circumstances suffers from any legal infirmity?
- Manik And 2 Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1918 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mangta Khan vs Mst. Azeeb Akhtar and others1991 MLD 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Manak vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2388 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
- Manager, Forest Development Corporation and others vs Haji Gul1991 PLD Peshawar 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Manager Central Cotton Mills (Pvt) Ltd vs Mahmood Ahmed(K.L.R 1991 Labour & Service Cases 38) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
- Malik Zafar Hussain vs Abdul Rashid and others1991 MLD 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Malik Zafar Ali vs Malik Khalid Aziz And Other1991 SCMR 1362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an ejectment order against the petitioner based on the reconstruction of a property. The core legal question was whether a sanctioned plan from a Municipal Committee, relied upon to justify ejectment, required formal proof or if the courts below erred in dispensing with the standard mode of proof for such a document. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a plan duly sanctioned by a Municipal Committee constitutes a public document. Consequently, the Court affirmed that such a document is deemed genuine unless proven otherwise, and there is no legal bar to dispensing with the formal mode of proof for such public records. The decision reinforces the principle that public documents, such as sanctioned municipal plans, carry a presumption of genuineness, thereby streamlining evidentiary requirements in ejectment proceedings where such documents are central to the claim of reconstruction.
Questions settled- Is a plan sanctioned by a Municipal Committee considered a public document?
- Can the formal mode of proof be dispensed with for a public document in ejectment proceedings?
- Does a sanctioned municipal plan carry a presumption of genuineness?
- Malik Sultan Mahmood Through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Arshad Khan1991 SCMR 1542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption filed by the petitioner, which was initially dismissed by the trial court but subsequently decreed in the petitioner's favor by the Additional District Judge, Multan. The respondent challenged this decision through a revision petition in the High Court, which set aside the appellate decree and restored the trial court's judgment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having purchased specific field numbers from the sole owner of a Khata, could be considered a co-sharer in the remaining Khasra numbers of that same Khata, thereby establishing a superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioner, as a purchaser of specified field numbers from the sole owner, did not qualify as a co-sharer in the remaining property purchased by the respondent. The Court affirmed the principle that the purchase of specific field numbers from a sole owner does not confer the status of a co-sharer in the remaining portions of the Khata for the purposes of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of specific field numbers from a sole owner of a Khata make the purchaser a co-sharer in the remaining Khasra numbers of that Khata?
- Can a purchaser of specific field numbers claim a superior right of pre-emption over the remaining property in the same Khata?
- Malik Siddiq Ahmad and 11 others vs WAPDA through Chairman and 21991 MLD 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-12Read full judgment →
- Malik Paiker Maqsood and 106 others vs Sh. Muhammad Amin and 6371991 M LD 106 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Malik Nasim Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan And 31991 SCMR 1877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petitions by the High Court, which had upheld the orders of the lower forums restoring a suit that was previously dismissed for default. The core legal question concerned the justification for setting aside the dismissal of the suit for default and whether the date of dismissal constituted a date of hearing. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the High Court in its discretionary writ jurisdiction suffered from no infirmity of law or principle. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings regarding the restoration of a suit dismissed for default, when properly arrived at without legal infirmity, will not be interfered with in discretionary writ jurisdiction or leave to appeal proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction can be invoked to interfere with the restoration of a suit dismissed for default?
- Does a date of dismissal for default constitute a date of hearing requiring specific notice?
- When will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the restoration of suits?
- Malik Muzaffar vs Muhammad Sher And Other1991 SCMR 1865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the dismissal of his suit for a declaration of title. The petitioner claimed ownership of the suit property based on his status as a mortgagee, asserting that his rights had matured through the efflux of time. The High Court, however, found that the property was subject to an earlier mortgage in favour of a non-Muslim, which subsisted post-1947/48, thereby creating evacuee interest. Consequently, the Custodian was deemed to be in possession of the land in place of the evacuee mortgagee. The High Court further observed that the petitioner obtained his mortgage in 1959 from a mortgagor who lacked the legal right to transfer possession. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, holding that the petitioner possessed no valid mortgage rights and lacked a cause of action. The suit was correctly dismissed as misconceived, and the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does a mortgagee acquire ownership rights through efflux of time if the mortgagor lacked the legal right to transfer possession?
- What is the legal status of possession when a mortgage involves evacuee property?
- Can a suit for declaration of title be maintained if the plaintiff lacks an existing mortgage right?
- Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Syed Ali Raza Asad Abidi vs Ghulam Ishaq1991 PLD Lahore 420 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 sought a writ of quo warranto to restrain respondent No. 1 from functioning as the President of Pakistan, to declare his election and orders null and void, and to direct fresh presidential elections. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Articles 41(3), 41(5), 41(7), and 49 of the Constitution, specifically whether the presidential election held on 12 December 1988 was premature based on the contention that the tenure of the preceding President extended until 20 March 1990. The Lahore High Court held that Article 41(7) was a particularized provision applicable exclusively to late President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq and became inoperative upon his demise, necessitating an election within thirty days of the conclusion of the general elections under Article 41(5) and Article 49. The Court ruled that the election of respondent No. 1 was valid, the petition was barred by laches due to unexplained delay, and dismissed the petition accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether Article 41(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is a particularized provision that lost its utility and efficacy upon the demise of President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq?
- Does laches apply to a constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto when the petitioner exhibits inordinate delay and questionable bona fides?
- Whether an election to fill the vacancy in the Office of the President must be held within thirty days of the general elections to the National Assembly when the Assembly stood dissolved at the time of the vacancy?
- Malik Muhammad Munawar Man vs Election Tribunal District Judge, Lahore and 8 others1991 CLC 180 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order by the Election Tribunal declaring the petitioner’s election as a Zila Council member void and declaring the respondent the winner. The core legal question concerns whether an Election Tribunal can rely on unsealed and tampered election records to conduct a recount and overturn an election result. The High Court held that the Election Tribunal committed a grave illegality by basing its decision on records that were neither properly maintained nor sealed, as required by Rule 43 of the Election Rules. The Court observed that the ballot envelopes were open and empty, indicating tampering. Consequently, the Court ruled that such compromised records cannot form the basis for declaring an election void. Instead, the initial count prepared by the Presiding Officer at the conclusion of the polls, as reflected in Form XII, must prevail. The impugned order was declared to have been passed without lawful authority and was quashed, effectively restoring the petitioner as the returned candidate.
Questions settled- Can an Election Tribunal rely on unsealed and tampered election records to conduct a recount and overturn an election result?
- Does the initial count prepared by the Presiding Officer at the conclusion of the polls prevail when subsequent election records are found to be tampered with?
- Is an Election Tribunal required to follow the sealing procedures prescribed by the Election Rules for election records?
- Malik Muhammad Kabir vs Haji Shah Jehan1991 SCMR 1331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of three lower courts which dismissed the petitioner's suit for possession of a plot on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner, having acquired the property via a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) in 1962, initiated a suit for possession in 1970. The core legal question is whether the suit was barred by time, specifically considering the statutory relationship between a transferee and an occupant under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner argued that if the occupant's possession was long-standing, a statutory landlord-tenant relationship was created upon the transfer, and the occupant's repudiation of this title necessitated a decree for possession. Alternatively, if the occupant entered possession after the 1962 transfer, the 1970 suit was timely. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the legal implications of the statutory relationship created by the Act and the timing of the occupant's possession require further examination to determine if the suit was indeed time-barred.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 automatically create a statutory landlord-tenant relationship between the transferee and the occupant?
- If an occupant repudiates the statutory title of a landlord created under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, is the landlord entitled to a decree for possession?
- Does the limitation period for a suit for possession differ depending on whether the occupant's possession predates or postdates the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Malik Muhammad Kabir And Others vs Haji Shah Jehan And Another1991 SCMR 2022 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the judgments of the High Court holding his suits for declaration and possession to be time-barred. The appellant had obtained Permanent Transfer Deeds for evacuee property in 1962 and instituted suits in 1970 against occupants setting up adverse claims. The lower courts and the High Court dismissed the suits as barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, finding that the plaintiff was out of possession for more than 12 years. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the issue of limitation. The Court held that the property in question was evacuee land transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and section 30 thereof established a statutory relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and the occupant. Consequently, the ordinary rules regarding dispossession and limitation did not apply, and the burden was on the occupants to prove effective repudiation of the statutory tenancy, which they failed to do. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the suits decreed.
Questions settled- Does the statutory relationship created under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 affect the application of the ordinary law of limitation regarding dispossession?
- Whether the burden lies on the transferee of evacuee property to prove continuous possession or on the occupant to show repudiation of title?
- Are suits filed by a transferee of evacuee property against occupants barred by time under Article 142 of the Limitation Act when a statutory tenancy exists?
- Malik Muhammad Hanif, Assistant Food Controller vs Government of Punjab through1991 PLC (C.S.) 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-22Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Bashir vs Mahmoodulhassan1991 CLC 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 94 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Anwar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2335 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Anwar vs The State1991 PLD Karachi 351 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Special Criminal Revision Application filed under Section 185-F of the Customs Act 1969 challenged an order of the Special Judge (Customs & Taxation), Karachi, which dismissed the applicant's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to recall a prosecution witness for cross-examination. The applicant faced trial under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act 1969 for heroin smuggling. On the day the witness was examined, the applicant's counsel was unable to cross-examine him due to being engaged before a Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court set aside the trial court's order, directing that the witness be recalled for cross-examination. The court held that cross-examination is a fundamental right crucial to uncovering the truth, and judicial discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be exercised soundly rather than arbitrarily. An accused should not be penalized or prejudiced in defence due to the genuine professional engagement of counsel.
Questions settled- How should judicial discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be exercised when deciding an application to recall a witness for cross-examination?
- Can an accused person be deprived of the right to cross-examine a material prosecution witness due to the pre-occupation of defence counsel in another court?
- Whether technical non-appearance of counsel warrants the refusal of an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall an essential witness?
- Malik Manzoor Ahmad vs Sardar Muhammad1991 CLC 877 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was filed against the order of the District Judge, Gujranwala, which affirmed the Rent Controller's order striking off the petitioner's defence under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether a tenant's failure to state the landlord's name in column No. 2 of the rent deposit challan forms—instead entering his own name—constituted a willful default justifying defence striking off, despite citing the case title in column No. 3. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that omitting the landlord's name for whose benefit the rent was deposited rendered the deposit unlawful and invalid tender under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The Court established that depositing rent without identifying the landlord in the appropriate challan column is deliberate default rather than a mere technical error, and concurrent factual findings of willful non-compliance by lower courts cannot be re-examined under constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does omitting the landlord's name in the rent deposit challan form constitute a willful violation under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a defect in entering the landlord's name in column No. 2 of a rent challan form be cured by mentioning the case title in column No. 3?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding a tenant's willful non-compliance subject to interference under Article 199 constitutional jurisdiction?
- Malik Lal Khan vs District and Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi1991 PLC (C.S.) 109 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of a copy clerk from service by the District and Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, on charges of corruption under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The core legal question revolves around whether the mandatory procedural requirements regarding the separation of functions between the 'Authority' and the 'Authorised Officer' under the rules were violated, and whether the evidence sufficed to establish the charge. The Lahore High Court held that the District and Sessions Judge illegally combined the roles of the Authority and the Authorised Officer without proper empowerment, completely ignoring imperative procedural safeguards, which severely prejudiced the appellant. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution evidence was contradictory and failed to establish the charge of illegal gratification on merits. The appeal was accepted, the impugned dismissal order was set aside, and the appellant was reinstated with back benefits.
Questions settled- Can an Authority under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 combine in itself the role of an Authorised Officer without explicit authorization?
- Does the failure to route an inquiry through an Authorised Officer vitiate disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Whether conflict between the charge-sheet and prosecution evidence is fatal to a disciplinary charge of corruption?
- Are the procedural provisions regarding departmental inquiries mandatory for ensuring a fair probe into charges against a civil servant?
- Malik Iftikharul Haoue vs Abdur Rashid1991 SCMR 1940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed his first appeal in limine and maintained the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The respondent landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the residential property was required in good faith for his personal occupation. The Rent Controller evaluated the evidence and ruled in favor of the landlord, finding the personal need proved, which decision was affirmed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the landlord's need was not bona fide and real, pointing out that the landlord's uncle owned other properties and that the landlord was already residing with him. The Supreme Court observed that these factual aspects were not put to the landlord during cross-examination in the witness-box. Holding that no question of law arose for further examination, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can dismiss a first appeal against an ejectment order in limine by a detailed order?
- Does the failure to cross-examine a landlord on crucial factual assertions preclude a tenant from raising those points on appeal?
- Whether a concurrent finding of fact regarding personal bona fide need by the Rent Controller and the High Court warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Malik Iftikhar Ahmad vs Inayat Ali and others1991 CLC 978 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
- Malik Ibrar Sharif vs The State1991 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal and upholding his conviction. The petitioner was intercepted at Karachi Airport by Customs officials upon arriving from Abu Dhabi, and a search of his baggage led to the recovery of twenty-nine slabs of gold concealed within household appliances. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution sufficiently established the recovery of contraband from the petitioner's possession and whether the absence of a formal expert report rendered the proof of the recovered metal as gold legally deficient. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was based on a proper appraisal of evidence, noting that the petitioner admitted material facts regarding his travel and arrest, and that an evaluation certificate had been produced without challenge from the defense. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, affirming that admissions and uncontested evaluation certificates suffice to prove recovery and identity of contraband when corroborated by official testimony and circumstance.
Questions settled- Whether an expert report is strictly essential to prove the nature of contraband when an evaluation certificate is produced and goes unchallenged by the defence?
- Can the admissions of an accused person regarding travel and arrest be used to corroborate the recovery of contraband from his baggage?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the identification of baggage and recovery of gold warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Malik Haji Nazar Muhammad and another vs WAPDA and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses the question of whether a District Judge or the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to determine the sufficiency of compensation for damage caused by the installation of a 500 K.V. Transmission line by WAPDA over the appellants' land. The appellants argued that WAPDA, as a licensee under the Electricity Act, 1910, attracted the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the District Judge under section 16 of the Telegraph Act. The Supreme Court held that section 14 of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, provides a specific mechanism and forum—namely, the Deputy Commissioner of the district—to resolve disputes concerning the sufficiency of compensation for damage done on land, and attaches finality to his decision. The Court reasoned that section 51 of the Electricity Act does not provide a forum or mechanism for awarding compensation and that the WAPDA Act constitutes a special provision prevailing over general provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the District Judge or the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to determine the sufficiency of compensation for damage caused by WAPDA's transmission lines?
- Does section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910 provide a forum or mechanism for the award of compensation?
- Are the provisions relating to the determination and award of compensation under the WAPDA Act, 1958 of a special nature compared to general provisions?
- Does section 14 of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 apply exclusively to the preparation stage of a scheme or does it extend to damage and compensation issues?
- Malik Ghulam Sabir And Another vs Qazi Rehmatullah And 7 Other1991 SCMR 1261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the criminal prosecution of two public servants (magistrates) who were present during a political procession that resulted in violence and property damage. The core legal question was whether the magistrates could be prosecuted for alleged criminal omissions (failure to disperse an unlawful assembly or prevent violence) without the prior sanction of the Provincial Government as required by Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court had directed their trial, reasoning that their failure to act was not connected to their official duties. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the alleged omissions were directly related to the performance of the appellants' official duties as magistrates deputed to the scene. The Court established the principle that the protection afforded by Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, applies equally to acts of commission and omission, provided the conduct is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duties. Consequently, in the absence of the mandatory government sanction, the trial court could not take cognizance of the offences against the public servants.
Questions settled- Does the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to criminal omissions as well as acts of commission?
- Is a public servant entitled to the protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the alleged offence is an omission to perform an official duty?
- Can a court take cognizance of an offence against a public servant acting in the discharge of official duties without the sanction of the appropriate government?
- What is the test for determining whether an act or omission by a public servant is connected to their official duties for the purpose of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Malik Ghulam Haider And Others vs Deputy Commissioner/District1991 SCMR 1485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit filed by tea shop and restaurant owners against state respondents for declaration and permanent injunction, alongside an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had obtained commercial licences to operate televisions and VCRs on their premises but alleged unlawful police interference and seizures. The trial court refused the temporary injunction, and subsequent appeals before the Additional District Judge and the High Court of Baluchistan were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the core legal question concerned whether the police could interfere with the petitioners' business or seize equipment without a violation of law. During proceedings, the Assistant Advocate-General assured the Court that the respondents would not close the shops or seize equipment unless the petitioners operated them in breach of the relevant law, in which case action would be taken strictly in accordance with law. Relying on this assurance, the petitioners chose not to press the petition, and it was dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Can the police interfere with a licensed business or seize apparatus in the absence of a violation of relevant law?