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.
- KSB Employees' Association vs KSP Pumps Company Limited1991 PLC 166 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- KSB Employees Association vs KSB Pumps Company Limited, Hassan1991 PLC 193 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Kifayat Ali Khan vs Messrs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1991 PLC 470 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Khushnood Hussain vs Nisar Ahmed Malik1991 MLD 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
- Khushnood Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1920 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge Customs, Lahore, under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969. The appellant was convicted for attempting to smuggle 2,750 grams of heroin, discovered in a false bottom of his luggage at the Lahore Railway Station. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the appellant's intent to smuggle the contraband out of Pakistan and the reliability of the recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the case through consistent testimony of Customs officials and documentary evidence, including the appellant's passport bearing an emigration clearance seal for India. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the appellant's defense—that he was merely a bystander—unsubstantiated. However, considering the appellant was a first-time offender and had been incarcerated since his arrest, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence from ten years to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a passport with emigration clearance in a Customs Zone sufficiently establish an intent to smuggle contraband out of Pakistan?
- Can a conviction under the Customs Act 1969 be sustained based on the testimony of Customs officials regarding the recovery of narcotics?
- Is a first-time offender entitled to a reduction in sentence for a conviction under the Customs Act 1969?
- Khushi Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1787 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad Alias Munshi And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Anwar vs Muhammadazhar Sajid And Other1991 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a disputed plot originally allotted in 1959, subsequently cancelled in 1963, and reallotted to respondent No.1. The core legal question is whether a subsequent purchaser from the original allottee can claim valid title when the original allotment was lawfully cancelled, and all legal challenges by the original allottee, including a dismissed civil suit and appeal, had failed. The Supreme Court held that once the original allottee's title was extinguished and the cancellation orders became final, no valid title could be derived or transferred to the petitioner through a subsequent agreement to sell. The court laid down the principle that a derivative title cannot survive when the foundational right has been lawfully extinguished through final judicial and administrative proceedings, rendering subsequent claims based thereon legally untenable. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent purchaser claim valid title from an allottee whose allotment was previously cancelled and whose legal challenges failed?
- Whether an agreement to sell executed by an allottee whose title has been extinguished carries any legal effect?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal maintain merit when the foundational title has ended in smoke through final orders?
- Khurshid Ahmed vs Chief Secretary, Govt. of Sindhh, Karachi, and Another(K.L.R. 1991 labour & Service Cases 331) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad and 4 others vs Syed Akhtar Hussin Gilani and 4 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had allowed the respondents' Regular Second Appeal and dismissed the appellants' pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a transfer of property made in pursuance of a decree for specific performance, accompanied by payment of the sale price and delivery of possession, amounts to a 'sale' subject to pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that a sale in pursuance of a decree for specific performance, where possession is delivered and the price is paid, constitutes a valid sale and is not excluded from the definition of 'sale' under section 3(5) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The key principle laid down is that transactions of sale need not necessarily be executed via a registered sale-deed where oral sales accompanied by physical possession or mutations are recognized, and decrees for specific performance resulting in such transfers are fully amenable to pre-emption suits.
Questions settled- Does a transfer of property pursuant to a decree for specific performance amount to a sale subject to pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Is a sale resulting from a decree for specific performance excluded under section 3(5) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Can a pre-emption suit be maintained on the basis of an oral sale followed by delivery of possession without a registered sale-deed?
- What is the starting point of limitation under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 when a sale is not followed by a mutation?
- Khudai Rahim vs The State1991 SCMR 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed his appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for illegal possession of a prohibited bore weapon. The core legal questions involved whether a 7.62 M.M. rifle falls within the prohibited bore category and whether police testimony alone, without public witnesses, is sufficient to prove recovery in emergent circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the 7.62 M.M. calibre is not excluded from the prohibited bore under the applicable government notification, and that the absence of public witnesses does not invalidate the recovery when the police acted promptly in an emergent situation. Furthermore, the Court held that releasing a first offender on probation or parole is discretionary and its denial is not illegal unless perverse. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, laying down principles regarding weapon classification under arms laws and the evaluation of police evidence during emergent recoveries.
Questions settled- Whether 7.62 M.M. calibre rifles fall within the category of prohibited bore arms under the Arms Ordinance?
- Is police evidence alone sufficient to prove the recovery of an illicit weapon when public witnesses are unavailable due to emergent circumstances?
- Whether the denial of probation or parole to a first offender constitutes a perversity or illegality warranting interference by the Supreme Court?
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Muhammad Yaqub1991 SCMR 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a suit for possession of land based on a superior right of pre-emption. The trial court initially dismissed the suit primarily due to a deficiency in the payment of court-fee. Although the appellate court reversed this finding, the High Court subsequently allowed a revision petition against that reversal, holding that the appellant was negligent and contumacious in filing an appeal with deficient court-fee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the High Court's judgment in light of the precedent established in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289). Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court's judgment could not be sustained in view of the cited authority. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the High Court for a rehearing of the revision petition on its merits. The judgment reaffirms the necessity of adhering to established Supreme Court guidelines regarding the treatment of deficient court-fee matters in litigation.
Questions settled- Can a suit or appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of deficient court-fee without following the procedural requirements established in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan?
- Is a finding of negligence and contumacy regarding court-fee payment sufficient to dismiss an appeal without further opportunity to rectify the deficiency?
- Khuda Bakhsh Khan vs Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur and others1991 MLD 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh And Others vs Muhammad Din And Other1991 SCMR 1507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from impugned orders concerning the inheritance of land allotted to a widow. The petitioners contend that the allotment was made in lieu of rights abandoned in India as a limited owner, wherein upon her marriage or demise, the property should revert to the last male owner, her husband, and pass to his heirs. The core legal question involves the nature of a widow's allotment and the proper mode of succession upon her death. The court held that the contentions raised require consideration and granted leave to appeal, directing that respondents shall not alienate the property in the meantime. The key principle laid down is that questions concerning the nature of a widow's land grant and subsequent inheritance rights warrant a full hearing by the court.
Questions settled- Whether land allotted to a widow in lieu of abandoned rights is held as a limited owner?
- Does property allotted to a widow revert to the last male owner upon her marriage or demise?
- Who is entitled to inheritance of property held by a widow as a limited owner?
- Khuda Bakhsh and anothers vs Mst. Iqbal Bibi and others1991 CLC 219 · Board of Revenue · 1990-08-24Read full judgment →
- Khizar Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 586 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Khial Din vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Wajihudiin vs The N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission, Peshawar and 7 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Muhammad Rafique vs Haji Allah Noor1991 SCMR 1345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which upheld a Rent Controller's decision dismissing the landlord's eviction application against a tenant. The landlord alleged default in rent payment from January to November 1984. The tenant contended that rent had been paid in advance, though no receipts were issued, and argued the eviction application was mala fide. The Rent Controller, noting the history of irregular rent collection and the landlord's unexplained delay in seeking eviction, exercised discretion to resolve the doubt in the tenant's favor. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the lower courts' reliance on the history of irregular rent acceptance conflicted with established Supreme Court precedents, which hold that irregular acceptance of rent does not absolve a tenant of default. The Supreme Court found that the submissions raised substantial legal questions regarding the interpretation of rent default and the application of established precedents, thereby granting leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the default.
Questions settled- Does the irregular acceptance of rent by a landlord absolve a tenant of the liability for default under rent laws?
- Can a Rent Controller resolve doubts regarding rent payment in favor of a tenant based on the landlord's unexplained delay in filing an eviction application?
- Khawaja Muhammad Rafiq vs Haji Allah Noor1991 SCMR 2039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the appellant-landlord against the respondent-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller and the High Court dismissed the eviction application, relying on the presumption of an established practice of irregular, lump-sum rent payments, and giving the tenant the benefit of the doubt regarding payment. The Supreme Court set aside these orders, holding that the lower courts erred by deciding the case on presumptions rather than evidence. The Court emphasized that the tenant failed to produce any receipts or credible evidence to prove payment for the period in question, despite admitting that the landlord historically issued receipts. The Court reaffirmed that a practice of irregular payment does not absolve a tenant of the statutory obligation to pay rent, nor can parties contract out of the provisions of the relevant rent restriction law. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered the eviction of the respondent.
Questions settled- Does a past practice of irregular or lump-sum rent payments absolve a tenant from the liability of default?
- Can parties contract out of the provisions of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Is a Rent Controller permitted to decide an eviction case based on presumptions rather than evidence?
- Khawaja Bashir Ahmad vs The Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi And Other1991 SCMR 1604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that remanded a property dispute to a 'notified officer' for further inquiry. The appellant had acquired property via a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) in 1964, which remained unchallenged for over a decade. The core legal question was whether, following the repeal of evacuee laws by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, a notified officer possessed jurisdiction to reopen a finalized settlement transaction where no proceedings were pending at the time of repeal. The Supreme Court held that because the transfer was a past and closed transaction and no proceedings were pending on the date of repeal (January 28, 1975), the notified officer lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Consequently, the Court set aside the remand order and the notified officer's decision, ruling that the settlement authorities were functus officio. The key principle established is that after the repeal of evacuee laws, settlement authorities cannot reopen closed transactions; aggrieved parties must instead seek redress through the civil courts.
Questions settled- Does a notified officer have jurisdiction to reopen a settlement transaction after the repeal of evacuee laws if no proceedings were pending at the time of repeal?
- Can a High Court remand a case to a notified officer regarding a property dispute that was already a past and closed transaction prior to the repeal of evacuee laws?
- What is the appropriate forum for seeking redress regarding property disputes after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Khanoo vs District Judge, Gujrat and others1991 MLD 2333 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
- Khan Zaman vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 928 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-14Read full judgment →
- Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 433 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
- Khan Sardar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 425 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
- Khan Saeed Alam vs Tariq Mustafa And Other1991 SCMR 1794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to grant a status quo order regarding the western half of a plot in the Blue Area, Islamabad, pending the disposal of the petitioner's regular first appeal. The petitioner had originally filed a suit for specific performance based on an alleged oral agreement for the sale of property, claiming payment of substantial sums. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the High Court subsequently refused to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the appeal, noting that the transaction was not free from blemish and lacked proper authorization from the respondents. The core legal question was whether the High Court's refusal to grant the interlocutory status quo order was justified. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s exercise of discretion was neither illegal nor capricious. The Court affirmed that it generally does not interfere in interlocutory matters where the lower court's order is proper and correct. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court generally interfere with interlocutory orders passed by the High Court?
- Can a status quo order be granted in a suit for specific performance where the underlying transaction lacks proper authorization?
- Khan Muhammad vs The State1991 SCMR 2015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction for receiving illegal gratification. The petitioner, a police official, was convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, receiving a sentence of one year imprisonment and a fine. The High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months, granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon review, the Supreme Court identified a critical legal omission: the lower courts failed to consider the evidence presented by the defence. Specifically, defence witnesses testified that the disputed funds were intended for disbursement as Travelling Allowance (TA) at the police station, a claim not addressed in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the failure to evaluate defence evidence constitutes a material irregularity in the judicial process requiring appellate intervention.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to consider defence evidence constitute sufficient grounds for granting leave to appeal?
- Is a conviction for illegal gratification sustainable if the defence evidence regarding the nature of the funds remains unexamined?
- Khan Muhammad vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 508 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-03Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad And Others vs The State And Other1991 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which modified the convictions and sentences of seven individuals previously convicted by a Sessions Judge for murder and attempted murder. The High Court had acquitted the petitioners of charges under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, substituting them with convictions under Sections 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, and 323/149, while maintaining convictions under Section 148. The core legal questions involve whether the evidence on record justified the original convictions and sentences, whether the High Court was legally justified in setting aside the convictions under Sections 302/149 and 307/149, and whether the High Court erred in awarding life imprisonment to a convict under Section 326/149 despite finding he did not inflict the fatal injury, and whether the sentences imposed on the other convicts were commensurate with their proven overt acts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these issues, noting the necessity of reviewing the evidentiary basis and the legality of the High Court's sentencing modifications.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside convictions under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a sentence of life imprisonment be awarded under Section 326/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the convict did not inflict the fatal injury?
- Whether the sentences awarded to convicts by the High Court were commensurate with the overt acts attributed and proved against them?
- Khan Bahadur vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1835 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
- Khan Bahadur vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 599 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
- Khan Alias Haji Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 323 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the applicant, Khan alias Haji Khan, seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in a murder case under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the words 'previously convicted offender' as used in the fourth proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether such previous conviction disentitles an accused to bail on the ground of statutory delay. The Sindh High Court held that a 'previously convicted offender' under the fourth proviso refers to a person previously convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or an offence detrimental to national interests or society, reflecting a depraved character and a propensity to commit serious crimes. However, the Court also held that in exceptional circumstances of shocking and inordinate delay amounting to an abuse of the process of law, bail may still be extended even to previous convicts. Applying these principles, since the applicant had a prior conviction for serious offences and the trial was at its concluding stage, the bail application was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within four months.
Questions settled- What is the proper interpretation of the words 'previously convicted offender' under the fourth proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a previous conviction for any minor offence bar an accused from claiming the benefit of the third proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding statutory delay?
- Can bail be granted to a hardened criminal or previously convicted offender on the ground of statutory delay in exceptional circumstances?
- What constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude in the context of disqualification from statutory bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Khan Agha vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Khalilur Rehman vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Central1991 PLD Peshawar 14 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-13Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ur Rehman vs WAPDA Through Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning the denial of the grant of BPS-16. The petitioner, a qualified Draftsman from the Army initially appointed in WAPDA in 1963 and subsequently promoted to Chief Draftsman, sought inclusion in BPS-16 pursuant to an office order governing non-Matric senior subordinates and diploma engineers. The core legal question involves the interpretation and applicability of office orders regarding eligibility criteria and deemed qualifications for the grant of BPS-16 to non-Matriculate employees holding specific technical posts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the import of the cited office order renders the petitioner's case worthy of consideration. The key principle laid down is that individuals appointed against specific technical posts under prescribed qualifications prior to a notification may be deemed to possess the requisite status for all service benefits.
Questions settled- Whether an employee appointed against a post prior to a notification can be deemed to fulfill the qualifications for all purposes under the relevant office order?
- Does the denial of BPS-16 to a senior subordinate non-Matriculate employee warrant leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Khalil Ahmad vs Messrs Pakistan Steel Fabrication Co. Ltd.1991 PLC 114 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
- Khalifa Muhammad Yaqub vs Muhammad Siddique and 3 others1991 MLD 532 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
- Khalid Waheed for Appellant. vs Ihsan Elahi Tarique, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 639 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervez vs Muhammad Hanif Kiani1991 MLD 2711 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervaiz vs Amir Akhtar Bhatti And Other1991 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioner, a tenant of a shop in Lahore Cantonment, challenged the eviction order, arguing that the respondents' claim of requiring the premises for personal use was not bona fide but a pretext to increase rent. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord's personal need for the property were supported by evidence and free from legal infirmity. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the Additional Rent Controller and the High Court were sound and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the landlord's requirement for personal use was established. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will generally not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in rent restriction matters unless a clear legal error or infirmity is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding a landlord's personal need for premises?
- Is a landlord's claim for personal use of a rented shop sufficient grounds for eviction under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act?
- Khalid Mumtaz vs Hamid Ali Khan1991 MLD 2064 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmud, Advocate And 3 Others vs Muhammad Yaseen And 31991 SCMR 1401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition that challenged the transfer of property (Unit No. NE-VIII-2-S-6) to the respondent under settlement laws. The appellants, who were occupants of various units within the property, claimed entitlement based on an order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 11-6-1963, which suggested transferring property to occupants to avoid dislocation. They further argued that an earlier order dated 14-7-1960 rejecting the respondent's claim had attained finality. The Supreme Court found that none of the appellants had filed valid forms for the specific property in question, nor were they parties to the proceedings where the respondent's claim was processed. The Court held that the initial rejection order of 14-7-1960 was legally ineffective against the respondent as he was not notified or heard in those proceedings. Consequently, the Court affirmed the transfer of the property to the respondent, ruling that the appellants lacked the locus standi to challenge the transfer as they had no valid competing claim to the property.
Questions settled- Does an order passed without notice to a party have legal effect against that party?
- Can a person challenge the transfer of property under settlement laws without having filed a valid claim form for that specific property?
- Does an observation in an order regarding the transfer of property to occupants create a vested right for those who did not file the requisite forms?
- Khalid Mahmood vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 994 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
- Khalid Khan vs Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan and 6 others1991 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
- Khalid Javed Virk vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
- Khalid Iqbal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 443 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, whereby the appellant Khalid Iqbal was convicted for the transportation of 185 K.G. of Charas and 7 K.G. of heroin under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the appellant's role as the driver of the vehicle carrying narcotics, the propriety of summoning an accused placed in Column No.2 of the police report, and whether separate convictions and sentences could be recorded under different clauses of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for a single transaction involving multiple narcotics. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly drawing an adverse inference under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for the appellant's failure to depose on oath in support of his defense. The Court further laid down the principle that where multiple narcotics are transported or possessed in a single transaction, punishments for lesser offenses merge into the major offense carrying an enhanced sentence, rather than resulting in separate convictions. The conviction under Article 3(1)(a) was accordingly set aside while the conviction under Article 3(2) was maintained with a modified sentence.
Questions settled- Must a trial court independently apply its mind before summoning a person placed in Column No.2 of the challan by the investigating agency?
- Does the failure of an accused to depose on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 warrant an adverse inference when a different version is claimed?
- Whether an offender charged with transporting multiple narcotics in a single transaction can be punished separately for each narcotic or if lesser offenses merge into the major offense carrying enhanced punishment?
- Khalid Hussain and Muhammad Amin Butt for Appellant. vs Sultan1991 PTD (Trib.) 786 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-08-29Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hameed vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal And Other1991 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the dismissal of the petitioner's constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent orders of the lower courts directing the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could validly pass an order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when the eviction application allegedly did not plead default in rent payment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention was factually incorrect as the eviction application indeed pleaded default, and consequently, non-compliance with the rent deposit order justified the striking off of the tenant's defence and subsequent ejectment. The key principle laid down is that where default in rent is duly pleaded and an order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is violated, the Rent Controller acts lawfully in striking off the defence and ordering eviction.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller make an order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 if default in payment of rent has been pleaded?
- Is the striking off of a tenant's defence justified upon failure to comply with a rent deposit order under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Khalid Farooq vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 20 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
- Khalid And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1633 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
- Khalid Akhtar vs Mst. Robina and others1991 MLD 2349 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenges a judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Lahore, which dissolved the marriage of the respondent after closing the petitioner's evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted arbitrarily and without lawful authority by refusing to record the statements of the petitioner and his father, who were present in court, despite the petitioner's counsel being unable to appear due to illness. The High Court held that the trial court's failure to record the statements of the petitioner and his father, who was listed as a witness, was unjustified and rendered the judgment without lawful authority. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned decree and remanded the case for a fresh decision, granting the petitioner one final opportunity to produce his witnesses. The key principle laid down is that a court must record the testimony of witnesses present in court, even if it denies a request for further adjournment, to ensure a fair trial and avoid arbitrary disposal of cases.
Questions settled- Whether a Family Court acts without lawful authority by refusing to record the statements of witnesses present in court?
- Can a trial court close evidence and decree a suit when the party and their witnesses are present in court?
- Is a judgment rendered without lawful authority if the court fails to record available evidence?
- Khak Hussain vs Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir1991 PLC (C.S.) 299 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
- Khairul Inam Rizvi vs Director-General, F.I.A., Islamabad and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 825 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Khair Shah And Another vs Muhammad Riasat And Other1991 SCMR 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondent, Muhammad Riasat, of murder charges and dismissed a revision petition filed by the complainant. The prosecution alleged that the respondent and others attacked the deceased, Muhammad Arif, resulting in his death. The trial court had initially convicted the respondent under Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the appellate court acquitted him, citing doubts regarding the presence of the ocular witnesses and contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the analysis of the evidence by the lower courts appeared confused and lacked the requisite scrutiny required by established legal principles regarding the appreciation of evidence. The Court found that the case warranted further examination to determine if the acquittal was based on a proper assessment of the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically regarding the acquittal of Muhammad Riasat, while dismissing the petition concerning the other respondents.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court's failure to properly scrutinize medical evidence and ocular testimony in a murder case warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
- Can a trial court's confusion regarding the cause of death and the reliability of recovery witnesses justify the acquittal of an accused in a homicide case?
- Khadum Hussain Khan vs Azad Government of Jammu and Kashmir1991 PLC (C.S.) 1193 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-07-16Read full judgment →
- Khadim vs The State1991 MLD 2080 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
- Khadim vs Judge, Family Court, Samundari District Faislaabad and another1991 MLD 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges a judgment and decree of the Family Court, Samundari, which dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 via Khula upon payment of Rs. 5,000. The petitioner raised two primary legal questions: first, whether the failure to administer oaths to witnesses in accordance with the Oaths Act, 1873, renders the decree void; and second, whether a decree for dissolution of marriage by a Family Court requires a separate notice of Talaq by the husband to the Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to become effective. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a mere irregularity in the administration of oaths does not invalidate proceedings absent demonstrated prejudice or failure of justice. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 21(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the Family Court is statutorily obligated to send a certified copy of the dissolution decree to the Chairman, which serves as a substitute for the notice of Talaq. The principle established is that procedural irregularities not causing a failure of justice do not vitiate a decree, and a judicial decree of dissolution is self-executing regarding the notice requirement.
Questions settled- Does the failure to administer an oath to witnesses as per the Oaths Act 1873 automatically render a Family Court decree void?
- Is a separate notice of Talaq required from the husband when a marriage is dissolved by a decree of the Family Court?
- What is the legal effect of a Family Court's failure to strictly comply with procedural requirements regarding the administration of oaths?
- Does the Family Court have a statutory duty to notify the Chairman regarding a decree of dissolution of marriage?
- Khadim Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1296 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2323 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, convicting four appellants for murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions involve the credibility of injured eye-witnesses in the presence of minor discrepancies and the application of vicarious criminal liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during a sudden chance encounter arising from prior enmity. The Lahore High Court held that minor discrepancies in the testimony of injured witnesses do not discredit their presence and core narrative, but where an occurrence is sudden and stems from a chance encounter, the principle of vicarious liability does not apply, and each accused is responsible solely for their individual acts. The court laid down that in sudden chance encounters without pre-planning, constructive liability under section 34 is excluded, requiring direct proof linking an individual accused to the fatal blow, resulting in the acquittal of three appellants and the upholding of the murder conviction for the specific assailant.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies in the statements of injured eye-witnesses are sufficient to discard their otherwise reliable testimony?
- Does the principle of vicarious criminal liability apply to a sudden occurrence arising from a chance encounter between parties?
- Can a conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the evidence shows individual acts without a pre-arranged plan during a sudden fight?
- Khadim Hussain Alias Khadu vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 183 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-02Read full judgment →
- Kh. Zubair Ahmad and others vs Directorgeneral, L.D A. and others1991 CLC 1812 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
- Kh. Zahid Hussain vs Judge, Family Court and others1991 CLC 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Kh. Shamshad Ahmad vs Gul Muhammad and others1991 CLC 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
- KH. Noor-Ul-Amin vs Col. (RTD) Muhammad Naqi Khan, Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 18 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
- Kh. Noor-Ul-Ameen vs Sardar Muhammad Abdul Qayum Khan and another1991 MLD 2658 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-09-04Read full judgment →
- Kh. Ashraf Ahmad and others vs Ashiq Hussain Bhatti and others1991 CLC 1664 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- KH Ush I Muhammad vs Sajjad Hussain and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 1102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The District Court initially set aside the decree on technical grounds regarding the deposit of Zar-e-Panjum, though it upheld the trial court's findings on merits like superior right of pre-emption and estoppel. The High Court subsequently set aside the appellate order and restored the trial court's decree without addressing the remaining merits. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the High Court erred by restoring the decree without deciding the other outstanding issues on merits. The Supreme Court observed that the controversy regarding Zar-e-Panjum had been settled by its earlier precedent in Malik Barkat Ali Dogar v. Muhammad Shafi. Consequently, the Court held that it was improper for the High Court to restore the trial court's decree without adjudicating the remaining factual controversies. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, while granting the appellant leave to file a formal appeal or cross-objection regarding the merits to ensure complete justice.
Questions settled- Can a High Court restore a trial court's decree in a pre-emption suit without deciding all outstanding issues on merits?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to remand a case to the High Court for a fresh decision when the High Court failed to address all factual controversies?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to permit the filing of a formal appeal or cross-objection to ensure complete justice in a remanded matter?
- Kenneth Marshall vs The State and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a criminal miscellaneous application by the High Court, which had refused to quash proceedings pending before a Special Judge (Customs & Taxation) against the appellant regarding the smuggling of heroin. The core legal question was whether the proceedings should be quashed on the premise that the prosecution evidence, even if accepted at its highest, failed to connect the appellant to the alleged offenses. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution’s challan contained specific, detailed allegations of the appellant's involvement, including unauthorized access to cargo facilities and bypassing standard operating procedures. The Court ruled that interfering with the trial at this stage would be premature and would stifle the proceedings. It affirmed that the trial must proceed, noting that the appellant retains the right to seek acquittal under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the evidence remains insufficient. The key principle laid down is that courts should not quash criminal proceedings when the prosecution's case rests on disputed questions of fact and specific allegations that require trial adjudication.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed when the prosecution's challan contains specific allegations connecting the accused to the crime?
- Is it appropriate to quash criminal proceedings when the case involves disputed questions of fact?
- What is the proper remedy for an accused seeking acquittal when the prosecution evidence is allegedly insufficient to sustain a conviction?
- Kazi Samuel Shad vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
- Kazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1991 PLD Federal Shariat Court 127 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
- Kashmiri Lal, Kasturi Lal & Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 250 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Karuna Rani Jain and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 703 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Karim Bux vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
- Karim Bashkh vs Muhammad Nawaz And 2 Other1991 SCMR 2268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the complainant to challenge the Lahore High Court's decision maintaining the conviction of two respondents under Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, instead of Section 302 of the same Code. The prosecution case arose from an incident where the respondents attacked the deceased with sticks (sotis) following an altercation from the previous day. The trial court had convicted the respondents under Section 304, Part II, P.P.C., noting that the weapons used were not capable of causing fatal blows, the fatal injury was not specifically attributed to any single accused, and there was no outstanding enmity. The High Court dismissed the State's appeal against this lesser conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court properly considered the gravity of the enmity, the immediate cause of the occurrence, the nature of the weapons, and the overall circumstances to determine the nature of the offence and the extent of liability, thereby violating no legal principles.
Questions settled- Whether an offence should be categorized under Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the fatal injury cannot be specifically attributed to any single accused?
- What factors must a court consider when determining the nature of an offence and the extent of liability in a physical assault resulting in death?
- Can a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the weapons used were not inherently lethal and there was no pre-existing deep-seated enmity?
- Karim Bakhsh vs The State1991 CLC 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh vs The District Judge, Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 1823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Karim Bakhsh, filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief. During the trial proceedings, the court fixed a date for recording evidence. On the scheduled date, the petitioner examined five witnesses but subsequently requested an adjournment to produce further evidence. The trial court refused this request, a decision later upheld by the District Judge in revision and subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the trial court was obligated to grant additional time for evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion. The Court emphasized that a party is responsible for prioritizing the examination of essential witnesses rather than delaying such production until the final stages of the trial. The judgment reinforces the principle that trial courts possess the discretion to manage proceedings and deny adjournments when a party fails to demonstrate due diligence in presenting their case, particularly when essential evidence is left for the last moment without justification.
Questions settled- Is a trial court legally bound to grant an adjournment for the production of further evidence upon the request of a party?
- Does the failure to examine essential witnesses in the first instance justify a trial court's refusal to grant further time for evidence?
- Can a trial court's refusal to grant an adjournment be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction if the party failed to exercise due diligence?
- Karim Bakhsh vs Haji Ghulam Dastgir And Other1991 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner on grounds of rent default and personal need. The petitioner resisted the application by denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and subsequently instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership regarding the disputed property. The Rent Controller found the relationship of landlord and tenant established against the petitioner and ordered his ejectment. This decision was affirmed by the appellate authority and upheld by the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether concurrent findings of fact establishing a landlord-tenant relationship warrant interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower forums. The Court laid down that concurrent factual determinations regarding tenancy relationships will not be disturbed, and the mere pendency of a declaratory suit regarding ownership does not preclude or invalidate ejectment proceedings under rent laws.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Does the filing of a civil suit for a declaration of ownership by a tenant oust or stay the jurisdiction of rent authorities to decide an ejectment application?
- Can concurrent findings of fact on tenancy be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Karamat Hussain Shah vs Khuda Bakhsh1991 SCMR 2058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant/vendee's Civil Revision arising out of a pre-emption decree passed in favour of the respondent. The appellant claimed exemption from pre-emption as a displaced person from Islamabad under a notification issued pursuant to the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The core legal question was whether the appellant could claim the exemption and whether he fulfilled the strict requirements of being a certified 'displaced person' under the relevant notification. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the certificate relied upon by the appellant declared him merely an 'oustee' rather than a 'displaced person', and such certification requirements must be strictly construed. The key principle laid down is that statutory notifications granting exemptions from pre-emption rights must be strictly complied with, and the conditions—including mandatory certification as a displaced person—must be rigorously satisfied.
Questions settled- Whether a vendee claiming exemption from pre-emption under a notification for displaced persons must strictly satisfy the certification requirement?
- Does a certificate declaring a person as an 'oustee' satisfy the condition of being a 'displaced person' under the pre-emption exemption notification?
- Whether a pre-emption suit abates automatically upon the issuance of an exemption notification if the conditions thereof are satisfied and proved before the court?
- Karam Hussain Shah Etc vs Hasil Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 82) · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-07Read full judgment →
- Karam Hussain Shah and others vs Hasil and others1991 MLD 2275 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
- Karam Din vs Mst. Zohra Begum1991 CLC 298 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
- Karam Din vs Hashmatey And Other1991 SCMR 1822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation Workers' Union vs Karachi1991 PLC 332 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation and anothers vs Latifur Rehman and 61991 MLD 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Karachi Metropolitan Corporation vs Mumtaz Ahmad1991 PLC 717 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
- Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and anothers vs Riaz Qadir Brohi1991 MLD 2042 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
- Karachi Flour Mills Union and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Department of Food Government of Sindh and 5 others1991 CLC 744 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Karachi Development Authority vs Nasim Ahmad Khan1991 PLC 522 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Karachi Development Authority And Another vs Wali Ahmed Khan And Other1991 SCMR 2434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated appeal arose from a High Court judgment under Article 199 of the Constitution regarding the removal of an employee from service by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA). The key issues were whether an employee of a statutory body/local authority whose service terms are not governed by statutory rules can invoke constitutional jurisdiction to challenge his removal, and whether a mala fide exercise of power overrides the general master-and-servant rule. The Supreme Court held that while the general rule governs service with statutory corporations as master and servant—precluding a declaration or reinstatement under writ jurisdiction unless statutory rules regulate service conditions or the employee holds a public office—an exception exists when the action is tainted with mala fides. The Court ruled that a mala fide exercise of statutory power is a fraud on the statute and void, making it amenable to judicial review under Article 199. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, maintaining the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Can an employee of a statutory corporation invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge their removal from service?
- Does the master-and-servant rule bar writ jurisdiction when the dismissal of a statutory employee is tainted with mala fides?
- Under what circumstances can a statutory power of removal from service be subjected to judicial scrutiny?
- Kamran Butt vs Lt.Col. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad1991 PLD Karachi 417 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from orders passed by the Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi, in a rent case filed under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act for the eviction of the appellant from a flat on the ground of default in rent. The appellant denied the tenancy, claiming he occupied the premises as security for loans advanced to the respondent and for amounts spent on fixtures and fittings. The Rent Controller found the relationship of landlord and tenant to exist and subsequently struck off the appellant's defence and ordered ejectment upon failure to deposit arrears of rent. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully established the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Sindh High Court held that the burden of proving the relationship of landlord and tenant rests squarely on the landlord, and the respondent's evidence was fraught with material contradictions and unreliable. The court laid down the principle that in the absence of convincing evidence to establish the foundational relationship of landlord and tenant, rent proceedings are coram non judice and unsustainable, thereby setting aside the impugned eviction orders and dismissing the rent case.
Questions settled- Upon whom lies the burden of proof to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant in an ejectment application?
- Can an order of ejectment be sustained under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act when the foundational relationship of landlord and tenant is not proved?
- What is the legal effect of material contradictions in the pleadings and evidence of a landlord regarding the creation of a tenancy?
- Kamil vs Mst. Latifan and others1991 CLC 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
- Kamil Bhai Ismail vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 712 · Allahabad High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Kamaluddin Memon vs The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Sindh Karachi(K.L.R 1991 Labour & Service Cases 41) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Kamaluddin Memon vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1027 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- Kamal Gul vs Muhammad Zaheer1991 MLD 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Kamal Ahmad Khan vs National Bank of Pakistan and another1991 PLC 834 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
- Kalu Etc vs Ghulam Siddiq and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 554 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Kalu and another vs Ghulam Siddiq and 4 others1991 PLD Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit house through an oral agreement and subsequent unregistered sale deeds executed by the heirs of the original owner, whereas the defendants-petitioners claimed title through a rival registered sale deed. The core legal questions involved were whether concurrent findings of fact based on evidence could be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction, and whether unregistered sale deeds were admissible in evidence following amendments to the Registration Act 1908. The Peshawar High Court held that concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse, based on no evidence, or on inadmissible evidence. The Court further held that, following the omission of the proviso and relevant clauses of section 49 of the Registration Act 1908 by the Registration Amendment Ordinance 1962, unregistered documents requiring compulsory registration are admissible in evidence, particularly for collateral purposes. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below can be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are unregistered documents that require compulsory registration admissible in evidence under section 49 of the Registration Act 1908 after the amendments introduced by the Registration Amendment Ordinance 1962?
- Can an unregistered sale deed be received in evidence for a collateral purpose?
- What are the limited grounds upon which erroneous decisions of fact by subordinate courts can be revised under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Kalpaka Bazar and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and another1991 PTD 451 · Kerala High Court · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
- Kala Khan vs Messrs E.M. Oil Mills and Industries Ltd., Karachi1991 PLC 695 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →