Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Ghulam Rasul vs Lady Doctor Tauheed Akhtar and others1991 MLD 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10
  tenancy disputeenhancement of rentjurisdictionsuppression of material factsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil/revenue matter arising from a dispute over the increase of agricultural land rent between co-related parties. The respondent landladies moved an application before the revenue authorities for enhancement of rent from Rs.400 per acre to a higher rate based on prevailing market rates. The tenant contested the proceedings, leading to multiple rounds of litigation before revenue courts, culminating in orders by the Member, Board of Revenue fixing the rent at Rs.2,500 and subsequently Rs.3,000 per acre. The tenant challenged these orders through a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the revenue courts lacked jurisdiction and whether the rent could be enhanced. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a plea of jurisdiction not raised before the lower forums cannot be entertained at a belated stage when the party participated in proceedings on merits. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts regarding a parallel civil suit, and was not entitled to equitable relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise the question of jurisdiction for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction after participating in proceedings on merits?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by revenue courts on the quantum of rent can be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the suppression of a material fact, such as the dismissal of a parallel civil suit, disentitle a petitioner to equitable relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs Judge, Family Court1991 CLC 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13
  dissolution of marriageKhularestitution of conjugal rightsbridal giftsfamily lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, whereby the respondent-wife's suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed on the ground of Khula despite other issues being decided against her. The petitioner contended that dissolution on the ground of Khula was unjustified when other allegations failed and no consideration was returned, noting that ornaments and cash were given at the time of marriage. The Lahore High Court held that Khula is an independent ground for dissolution of marriage and is not contingent upon the outcome of other issues. Furthermore, the Court noted that bridal gifts become the absolute property of the wife under the relevant statute, and contributions toward marriage expenses do not constitute benefits derived by the wife that must be returned for Khula. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, laying down the principle that Khula operates independently of other matrimonial fault-based grounds and that bridal gifts cannot be arbitrarily claimed back upon dissolution.

  Questions settled

  • Is Khula an independent ground for dissolution of marriage that is contingent on the outcome of other issues?
  • Do bridal gifts bestowed upon a wife at the time of marriage become her absolute property under the law?
  • Whether contributions towards marriage expenses can be classified as benefits derived by the wife requiring restitution upon Khula?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs Assistant Commissioner, Daska And Another1991 SC M R1924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-18
  refugee allotmentmaintenance allotmentcancellation of allotmentleave to appealdouble allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's land allotment. The core legal question was whether a refugee who was included as a family member in his father's maintenance land allotment was lawfully entitled to a separate, additional land allotment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having been included in his father's family for the initial allotment, having claimed compensation regarding his father's allotted land, and having received a subsidy for a tubewell on that same land, could not claim an independent and unconnected status to obtain a separate allotment. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless, affirming the cancellation of the subsequent allotment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person included as a family member in a refugee father's maintenance land allotment is entitled to a separate allotment?
  • Does claiming compensation and subsidies in respect of a father' preclude a separate land allotment for a refugee claimant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2294 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul And Another vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1826 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2358 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Syed Ghulam Murtaza and others1991 CLC 254 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Waris Bismil1991 CLC 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Sharif and others1991 CLC 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Ghulam Haider, Girdawar And Others1991 PCr.LJ 1818 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Deputy Commissioner, Charsadda and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 307 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Abdullah1991 SC M R 1964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-29
  ex parte decreeex parte proceedingsdetentioncriminal convictionabsence of defendantMajlis-i-Shooracivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court upholding an ex parte decree and the dismissal of an appeal by the Majlis-i-Shoora. The core legal question was whether an ex parte order and subsequent decree could be lawfully passed against a defendant who was absent due to detention under a criminal conviction and whether appellate interference was barred for failure to apply under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant's absence was involuntary due to his incarceration and the trial court had knowledge of his detention, it was obligatory for the court to issue a process to him before proceeding ex parte, rendering the ex parte proceedings illegal. The Court laid down the principle that where a party's absence is beyond their control due to detention and known to the court, ex parte proceedings cannot be legally drawn without issuing a proper process, and such illegality can be examined in appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can ex parte proceedings be lawfully drawn against a defendant who is absent due to detention under a criminal conviction?
  • Is it obligatory for a court to issue process to a detained defendant whose incarceration is within the court's knowledge before proceeding ex parte?
  • Whether an appellate court can examine the validity of an ex parte decree when no application to set it aside under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Abdul Aziz1991 MLD 299 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Javid and others vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways and others1991 PLC 484 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and 3 others vs Mahboob Ali and another1991 CLC 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and 13 others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and 31991 CLC 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Alias Rehmat vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1903 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Raider vs S.H.O., Police Station Qaimpur, Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur and 2 others1991 P Cr. L J 1486 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim vs Mahmood and others1991 CLC 319 · Board of Revenue · 1990-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim Alias Muhammad Qasim And Another vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2418 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Zeeshan Ahmad and others1991 CLC 1425 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 71 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Esab Khan And Other1991 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-07
  acquittalleave to appealappreciation of evidenceeye-witness testimonySection 342 statementcriminal liabilityforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges. The complainant alleged that the accused, armed with firearms, killed the deceased due to a prior dispute regarding witness testimony in a separate criminal case. The trial court had convicted one accused, Esab Khan, while acquitting the others. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Esab Khan, citing the acquittal of his co-accused, the lack of corroborative evidence, the failure to send recovered weapons for forensic analysis, and the rejection of the prosecution's motive. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's acquittal was legally sustainable. The Court held that where eye-witness testimony is disbelieved regarding certain accused, and the motive is rejected, the remaining evidence against the other accused requires careful scrutiny. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an accused's statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. Finding no misappreciation of evidence by the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Must a statement of an accused recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused provide a valid ground for the acquittal of the remaining accused when the prosecution's evidence is disbelieved?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the motive is disbelieved and the recovered weapons were not subjected to forensic examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Abbas And 5 Others1991 P Cr. L J 1823 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and others vs Mst. Muhammad Bibi and others1991 CLC 2088 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir And Another vs Mst. Kundan Bibi And Another1991 SCMR 1935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-29
  civil revisionproduction of evidencemutationdiscretion of trial courtleave to appealprocedural delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed their civil revision petition in limine. The petitioners had originally filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding a revenue mutation, which was dismissed by the trial Court and subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge. Before the High Court, the petitioners contended they were denied a proper opportunity to lead evidence on additional issues. The Supreme Court considered whether the trial Court acted arbitrarily in closing the petitioners' evidence and whether proper opportunity was afforded. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were grossly negligent in producing evidence, failed to comply with procedural requirements to submit documentary evidence alongside the plaint, and that the trial Court's discretion in closing evidence was exercised properly given the time constraints mandated by the High Court. The Court laid down the principle that parties cannot claim a right to additional time for evidence when negligent and failing to produce mandatory documents at the earliest stages, especially when judicial directions require expeditious disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court acts arbitrarily in closing evidence when a party fails to produce required documents and witnesses within the stipulated time?
  • Is a party entitled to additional time to produce evidence when failing to file necessary documents along with the plaint as required by procedural law?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent findings and discretionary orders of lower courts regarding the closure of evidence absent any arbitrariness?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir And 3 Others vs Mst. Kundan And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-30
  inheritancetamleekco-sharerslimitationoustercivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, upholding the lower appellate court's decision in a suit for declaration regarding inheritance and Tamleek. The core legal question concerns whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation when the defendants sought to oust their sisters from inheritance on the basis of Tamleek. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit and dismissed it. The Court laid down the key principle that sisters being co-sharers shall be deemed to have remained in possession through their co-sharers, and therefore, the plea of ouster cannot be successfully raised against them to establish limitation bars.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sisters as co-sharers can be ousted from inheritance through a plea of limitation?
  • Does possession of one co-sharer constitute possession of all co-sharers for the purpose of limitation?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal succeed against concurrent findings of fact regarding inheritance and Tamleek?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nafeez vs Government of Sindhh and OtherK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 192 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State s1991 P Cr. L J 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Muhammad Asghar and 3 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-13
  past maintenanceMuslim Law of Maintenanceminor childrenfather's duty to maintainconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the High Court which allowed a Constitutional petition granting past maintenance to the minor children of the appellant, subject to the law of limitation. The core legal questions involved whether past maintenance could be claimed by or for minor children under Muslim Law in the absence of a prior court decree or fixation by the father, and whether grandparents providing voluntary sustenance relieve the father of his duty to maintain. The Supreme Court held that past maintenance is permissible for children just as it is for a wife, finding no valid distinction or justification to deprive children of this benefit. Furthermore, the Court held that the primary and priority-wise duty to maintain minor children rests upon the father, even if maternal grandparents or other relatives have been voluntarily providing sustenance. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can minor children claim past maintenance from their father under Muslim Law if it has not been previously fixed by a court decree or by the father?
  • Does the provision of voluntary sustenance by grandparents relieve a father of his legal duty to maintain his minor children?
  • Does the priority-wise duty to maintain minor children rest upon the father in the presence of grandparents?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Allah Ditta and 5 others1991 CLC 708 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Pirzada vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf and others1991 MLD 1515 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and others vs Member Board of Review and others1991 CLC 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and another vs Shahidur Rehman and another1991 PLD Azad J & K 47 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1991 MLD 1356 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Messrs Sindh Road Transport Corporation and 21991 PLC 289 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Judge, Family Court and another1991 CLC 2082 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Versus The State. Ghulam Mustafa vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 312 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Shaikh and 2 others vs Chief Secretary, Government1991 PLC (C.S.) 390 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1988-12-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Mughal and anothers vs Azad Government of the State of J&K through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 5 others1991 MLD 2681 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-08-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa And Others vs Mst. Muhammadi Begum And Other1991 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantco-ownershiprelationship of landlord and tenantconstitutional petitionpurchase of share
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a long-standing ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent landlady against the petitioner tenants on the ground of reconstruction. During the proceedings, the petitioner No.1 purchased a fractional share of the property and subsequently raised pleas challenging the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application, but successive appeals and remands resulted in orders for eviction, which were upheld by the Lahore High Court in a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the purchase of a share in the joint property by a tenant extinguishes the relationship of landlord and tenant and bars ejectment proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the purchase of a share in the property by a tenant does not terminate the pre-existing relationship of landlord and tenant established through a rent deed and acknowledgment of rent. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant who purchases a fractional share of the rented property remains a tenant qua that shop and cannot resist ejectment on the ground of co-ownership without partitioning the property, and is bound by the admission of tenancy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the purchase of a fractional share in a rented property by a tenant extinguish the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Can a tenant resist ejectment proceedings on the ground of becoming a co-owner without partitioning the joint property?
  • Whether a tenant who has admitted the execution of a rent deed can subsequently deny the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa alias Ziau vs The State1991 PLD Supreme Court 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-22
  last seen evidencecircumstantial evidencemurderrapeappreciation of evidenceextra-judicial confessioncorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302 and section 404 P.P.C. for the rape and murder of a minor girl. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction for murder based solely on uncorroborated 'last seen' evidence, in the absence of any incriminating recoveries, motive, or credible extra-judicial confession, is sustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant. The Court held that the circumstance of the deceased having been last seen in the company of the accused is not by itself sufficient to sustain a charge of murder without further corroborating evidence such as incriminating recoveries, a strong motive, or close proximity of time, particularly when the sole 'last seen' witness is an interested witness related to the complainant and the subsequent conduct of the witnesses renders the prosecution's narrative unnatural.

  Questions settled

  • Is the circumstance of the deceased having been last seen in the company of the accused sufficient by itself to sustain a charge of murder?
  • Whether uncorroborated 'last seen' testimony from an interested or related witness can form a safe basis for a capital conviction?
  • What additional evidence is required to link an accused to a crime when relying on circumstantial last seen evidence?
  • Does the absence of enmity between a witness and an accused guarantee the truth of the witness's testimony regarding last seen evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1521 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1991 MLD 1759 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza And 2 Others vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1820 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2288 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Mst. Murad Bakhta and 6 others1991 PLD Federal Shairat Court 78 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-29
  Zina-bil-JabrHudood Ordinancecriminal revisioncompromiseunconscionable agreementsuo motu jurisdictionIslamic Injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner against the acquittal of respondents in a case involving allegations of Zina-bil-Jabr under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner subsequently sought to withdraw the revision petition based on a compromise agreement, which included monetary compensation and the future marriage of two minor girls to minor boys upon attaining puberty. The Federal Shariat Court rejected the withdrawal application, characterizing the compromise as unconscionable and akin to bartering children, which is repugnant to Islamic Injunctions and ethical standards. The Court held that an offence punishable with Hadd under Shari'ah cannot be compromised, withdrawn, or pardoned once brought before the Court, as it involves the enforcement of Hudoodullah. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it possesses the authority and duty to examine the legality and propriety of any order passed by a Criminal Court regarding Hudood, regardless of a party's desire to withdraw the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence punishable with Hadd under Shari'ah be compromised or withdrawn by the parties?
  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the authority to review a criminal acquittal involving Hudood offences regardless of a party's request to withdraw?
  • Is a compromise agreement involving the future marriage of minor children legally permissible in the context of criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Naheed Qureshi1991 CLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs Shaukat Ali Khan and others1991 MLD 193 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs Administrator, T.D.A. and another1991 CLC 1417 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad And Another vs Sadiq And 13 Other1991 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-22
  suit for possessionauction purchasecivil revisionleave to appealproperty descriptionabandonment of issue
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision in a suit for possession. The respondents claimed title to the suit property through an auction purchase. The petitioners, while failing to establish their own title, contended that the property belonged to the Central Government, rendering the auction sale by the Provincial Government legally ineffective. A central point of contention raised by the petitioners involved an issue concerning the correct description of the suit property and the consequences of failing to submit a Jamabandi or site plan. The Supreme Court observed that this issue had been abandoned in the trial court, re-agitated before the appellate court, but ultimately not pressed in the High Court. Finding no reasonable explanation for this conduct and determining that the property in dispute was sufficiently described and identifiable, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the lower court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party re-agitate an issue in a higher court that was explicitly abandoned in the trial court?
  • Is a property sale invalid if the petitioners fail to prove their own title but allege the property belongs to the Central Government?
  • Does the failure to submit a Jamabandi or site plan necessarily invalidate a suit for possession if the property is otherwise identifiable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and another vs Ahmad Khan and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-02
  Jammu and Kashmir refugeestemporary allotmentDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Actcancellation of allotmentChief Settlement Commissionerwrit petitionjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the dismissal of the appellants' writ petitions by the Lahore High Court. The core question is whether the Settlement Authorities had the jurisdiction under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to cancel lands temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for maintenance. The Supreme Court held that lands temporarily transferred to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for subsistence and maintenance were expressly excluded from the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and did not constitute an 'allotment' in lieu of verified claims under the Act. Furthermore, such lands fell outside the compensation pool, having become the property of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs. Consequently, neither the Chief Settlement Commissioner nor his delegate had the jurisdiction to cancel the temporary grant or resume the land. The appeal is allowed, and the cancellation orders are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for maintenance can be cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Does a temporary grant of land to Jammu and Kashmir refugees constitute an 'allotment' within the definition of section 2(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Did the delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition for the cancellation of land held by Jammu and Kashmir refugees for maintenance only?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Altaf vs The State(K.L.R. 1991 Shariat Cases 5) · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others vs Mst. Ishrat Ara Begum1991 CLC 135 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 11 others vs Bakeish and 5 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-10
  pre-emptiondivisibility of salesinker principlevendee sharesale considerationright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  These review petitions challenged a consolidated judgment concerning the principle of 'sinker' in pre-emption cases, specifically whether a sale transaction is divisible when the vendees' shares are specified but the individual price contributions are not. The core legal questions were whether the absence of specified price contributions prevents a sale from being considered divisible for pre-emption purposes, and whether a partial success in a pre-emption claim can retrospectively improve a vendee's status to defeat the remaining claim. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a sale remains indivisible unless both the shares of the vendees and the proportionate price paid by each are explicitly specified. The Court rejected the argument that general principles of the Transfer of Property Act could substitute for specific price allocation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a pre-emptor's right is determined at the time of the suit and cannot be defeated retrospectively by a judgment that excludes a portion of the property from the pre-emption claim. The established principle remains that without clear price specification, the sale is joint and indivisible.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sale transaction considered divisible for the purposes of pre-emption if the shares of the vendees are specified but the individual price contributions are not?
  • Can the principle of sinker be avoided by inferring proportionate price contributions in the absence of explicit specification in the sale deed?
  • Does a partial success in a pre-emption claim, which excludes a portion of the property, retrospectively improve the status of the vendee to defeat the remaining pre-emption claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Alias Ghammoon vs The State--.1991 P Cr. L J 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad A. Memon vs Government of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 998 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-10-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohammad Bhanbharo Etc vs The Chief Secretary and AnotherK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 207 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Mehdi vs The State1991 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-28
  post-arrest bailballistic expertdirect evidencefurther inquiryocular testimonyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of murder and causing injuries with firearms. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value of ballistic expert reports vis-a-vis direct eyewitness testimony in determining whether a case falls within the scope of further inquiry for the grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that in the presence of direct, definite, forthright, and creditworthy ocular and injured testimony implicating the accused, contrary findings or opinions from a ballistic expert carry lesser weight and cannot outweigh the direct evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that expert evidence is merely confirmatory or explanatory in nature and does not create a ground for further inquiry when robust direct evidence exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does a ballistic expert report outweigh direct eyewitness and injured testimony for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Can expert evidence be considered as primary evidence instead of confirmatory or explanatory evidence?
  • Whether contradictions between weapon recovery reports and direct allegations constitute a case of further inquiry under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Khawaja And Another vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1821 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Khaliq vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Qriminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jillani vs Deputy Commissioner/Districtcollector and others1991 CLC 1813 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05
  MaintenanceDivorceEx-wifeMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceArbitration CouncilJurisdictionConstitutional petitionArrears of maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Arbitration Council granting maintenance to an ex-wife. The core legal question was whether an ex-wife could invoke Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to recover maintenance for a period when the marriage was subsisting, notwithstanding its subsequent dissolution. The petitioner argued that jurisdiction under Section 9 only applies during the subsistence of marriage, as the respondent had ceased to be a 'wife'. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 9 is a beneficial piece of legislation. It ruled that an ex-wife can indeed seek maintenance for the period during which the marriage was intact, and the term 'wife' in Section 9 includes an ex-wife making such a claim. The court emphasized that once a liability for maintenance accrues, it can be recovered under Section 9, even after divorce.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ex-wife file an application for maintenance under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, for a period when the marriage was subsisting?
  • Does the term 'wife' in Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, include an ex-wife seeking maintenance for the period the wedlock was intact?
  • Can arrears of maintenance be recovered under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, even after the dissolution of marriage?
  • Is Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, a beneficial piece of legislation to be construed broadly?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jillani and 3 others vs Niamat Ullah and 2 others1991 MLD 789 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jili.Ani vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1003 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jilani And 3 Others vs Ghulam Muhammad And 7 Other1991 SCMR 2001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-26
  pre-emptionTalab-e-MowasibatTalab-e-IshhadHanafi lawjudicial restraintstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of a pre-emption suit by the High Court. The appellants, claiming a right of pre-emption based on land contiguity, failed to establish the proper performance of Talab-e-Ishhad. The core legal question was whether the requirements for making Talab-e-Ishhad were satisfied, particularly regarding the presence of the buyer, seller, or the subject premises. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to prove that the demand was made in the presence of the buyer, seller, or on the premises, as required by established Hanafi law. The Court emphasized that Talab-e-Ishhad must confirm the earlier Talab-e-Mowasibat. Furthermore, the Court observed that recent legislation, such as the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 and the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, explicitly incorporates the requirement of 'confirmation' in the context of pre-emption demands, reflecting the necessity of ratifying the initial demand. The Court also reiterated the principle of judicial restraint, noting that long-standing interpretations of law should generally be left to the legislature to amend rather than being overturned by the judiciary.

  Questions settled

  • Is it a mandatory requirement for Talab-e-Ishhad to be made in the presence of the buyer, the seller, or on the premises subject to sale?
  • Does the term 'confirmation' in the context of pre-emption laws imply the ratification of an earlier act?
  • Should the judiciary refrain from overturning long-standing interpretations of religious or personal law in favor of legislative action?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 471 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder vs Mukhtiarkar & Authorized Officer and 2 others1991 CLC 404 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1752 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Syed Anwar Hussain EtcK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 485 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Syed Anwar Hussain and 2 others1991 MLD 523 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1991 PLC 801 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-26
  constitutional petitionsuperannuationdate of birthmedical opinionservice recordbenefit of doubtlabour dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, a driver working under the District Manager, P.R.T.C., challenging the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which had set aside the Labour Court's decision reinstating the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the employer could rely on inconsistent service record entries regarding the employee's date of birth to force retirement, while ignoring a subsequent medical opinion obtained at the employer's own instance. The Lahore High Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal acted arbitrarily in treating an old service form as sacrosanct while ignoring the medical board's certificate and the contradictions in the departmental record. The Court ruled that where an employer's record regarding an employee's age is inconsistent and untrustworthy, and the employer itself referred the employee for a medical examination, the benefit of the doubt in matters of age must be resolved in favor of the employee, giving preference to the medical opinion over contradictory administrative records.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer can rely on an inconsistent departmental service record to determine retirement age while ignoring a medical opinion obtained at its own instance?
  • Should the benefit of doubt regarding an employee's age and date of birth be resolved in favor of the employee or the employer?
  • Whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is justified in treating an unverified old service form as conclusive proof of age over a subsequent medical certificate?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1991 MLD 2379 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Lahore Development Authority through its Director1991 MLD 670 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer and 2 others1991 PLC 530 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Hyderabad1991 PLC (C.S.) 167 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Deputy Inspector General Police, Hyderabad Range(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 5) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain through Legal Heirs and anothers vs Mahboob Alam and others1991 MLD 437 · Sindh High Court
  court-feead valorem court-feevaluation of suitdeclaration and injunctionimmovable propertyinterpretation of fiscal statutesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court arose from a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction where the plaintiffs claimed title to an evacuee house on the basis of a sale under a PTD. The core legal questions were whether such a suit based on alleged sale requires ad valorem court-fee under Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and whether the value of the property for court-fee purposes should be the current market value at the time of filing or the value stated in the alienation document. The Court held that a suit for declaration with consequential relief regarding title to immovable property based on a sale, gift, exchange, or mortgage falls squarely under Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, thereby requiring ad valorem court-fee based on the value given in the alienation document rather than the current market value. The key principle laid down is that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly in favour of the subject, and the phrase 'value of the property' in Section 7(iv-a) refers to the value specified in the relevant transfer document rather than the fluctuating current market value.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for declaration and injunction where title is claimed on the basis of a sale is governed by Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870?
  • Should the value of the property for payment of ad valorem court-fee under Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, be the current market value at the time of filing or the value shown in the document of alienation?
  • Does the phrase 'value of the property' under Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, carry the same meaning as 'market value' under Section 7(v) of the said Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Shah vs Ghulam Muhammad1991 SCMR 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-05
  compromise agreementproperty disputesettlement of appealcivil litigationdefault clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal involving a property dispute between Ghulam Hussain Shah and Ghulam Muhammad. The parties presented a joint application to the Court containing the specific terms of a compromise they had reached to resolve the litigation. The core legal question was whether the Court should accept and record the compromise agreement reached by the parties to dispose of the appeal. Upon reviewing the terms, which included a payment schedule of Rs. 70,000 by the respondents to the appellant in exchange for the transfer of ownership of the suit-property, and a default clause stipulating that the appeal would be accepted if the payment was not made within six months, the Court found the compromise to be lawful. Consequently, the Supreme Court recorded the compromise and disposed of the appeal in accordance with the agreed-upon terms, establishing that parties are free to settle disputes through lawful compromise agreements which the Court will enforce as the final resolution of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court dispose of an appeal based on a compromise agreement filed by the parties?
  • Is a compromise agreement in a property dispute enforceable if it includes a default clause regarding payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Baloch vs Govt. of Slndh, through the Chief(K.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 255) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain And Others vs Ghulam Asghar (Deceased) Represented1991 SCMR 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-26
  pre-emptionprinciple of sinkerco-vendeesstrangersdivisible sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-emption suit where the courts below applied the principle of sinker because three of the four co-vendees were strangers to the property while only one was a tenant. The core legal question concerned the applicability of the rule of sinker when a vendee associates strangers in a sale transaction that is not divisible. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the principle of sinker applies and the pre-emption suit is to be decreed against the vendees where a vendee having an equal or superior right associates a stranger with an inferior right, unless the impugned sale is divisible by specifying the share and the specific price paid by each vendee. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of sinker operates to defeat a joint sale involving strangers unless the transaction clearly demarcates individual shares and respective purchase prices.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of sinker apply when a vendee associates strangers who have an inferior right of pre-emption?
  • What conditions must be met for a sale transaction to be considered divisible in pre-emption suits?
  • What is the legal effect on a transaction when a person having an equal or superior right associates a person with an inferior right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain And Others vs Allah Bakhsh And Other1991 SCMR 1386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-03
  Shamilat landabandonmentadverse possessionlimitationsaving of shamilatanimus revertendico-sharers
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arose from a suit for possession and declaration of ownership over a share in Shamilat (common land). The predecessors-in-interest of the respondents had sold their proprietary land holdings between 1883 and 1901 to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, but the sale deeds did not explicitly mention the transfer of Shamilat rights. Following the partition of the Shamilat in 1957, the respondents filed a suit in 1960 claiming their share. The appellants contended that the Shamilat rights were impliedly transferred, and alternatively, that the respondents had abandoned their rights by leaving the village. The Supreme Court held that under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Land Dispositions (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance 1959, Shamilat rights are independent of proprietary land holdings and are not transferred unless specifically mentioned in the deed. The Court further ruled that abandonment requires both physical relinquishment and a clear intention never to return (animus revertendi), which was disproved. Since adverse possession was not established, the suit was governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908 and was within time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sale of proprietary land automatically conveys the appurtenant Shamilat rights under the West Pakistan Land Dispositions (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance 1959?
  • What legal elements must be established to prove the abandonment of rights in common land (Shamilat)?
  • Does the mere absence of a co-sharer from a village and non-payment of land revenue constitute abandonment of Shamilat rights?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a suit for possession of Shamilat land based on title where adverse possession is not specifically proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and Another vs Haji Safarash KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and another vs Faiz Muhammad and 7 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-10
  inheritance mutationfemale inheritance rightsdeclaratory suitlocus standipredeceased daughterOrder XLI Rule 33 CPCinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of an inheritance dispute concerning land left by Lal Khan, who died in 1952. Inadvertently, a surviving daughter (Mst. Mureedan) was excluded from the inheritance mutation, and instead, a predeceased daughter (Mst. Amiran) was recorded, leading to subsequent mutations in favor of her surviving husband and his children. The sons of Lal Khan filed a declaratory suit. The First Appellate Court decreed the suit, recognizing the rights of the lawful heirs, but the High Court reversed it on the ground that under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, a suit could not be decreed solely for the benefit of a non-contesting pro forma defendant (Mst. Mureedan). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It held that the respondents had no locus standi to appeal. Furthermore, under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the CPC, the Appellate Court possessed ample power to grant a decree in favor of a non-appealing respondent to prevent an un-Islamic devolution depriving a female heir.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the power under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant a decree in favour of a non-appealing or non-contesting respondent?
  • Whether persons claiming inheritance through a predeceased daughter of the deceased land-owner have locus standi to challenge a decree passed in favour of the rightful surviving legal heirs?
  • Can a declaratory suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act be sustained and decreed where the primary beneficiary of the relief sought is arrayed as a respondent rather than a plaintiff?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 431 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain And 11 Others vs Government of West Pakistan And Other1991 SCMR 1641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-26
  leave to appealAdna MalikanShamlat Dehrevenue recordpartitioncivil revisiondeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for declaration by the lower courts. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners held the status of Adna Malikan in the disputed Shamlat Deh land and whether their rights were lawfully affected or extinguished by a prior partition or consolidation of holdings under Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the factual and legal questions regarding the revenue record entries concerning the petitioners' status as Adna Malikan, the validity of their subsequent alteration, and the resultant legal effects require thorough judicial examination. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized or unassociated alterations in revenue records and partitions affecting recorded proprietary statuses like Adna Malkiyat necessitate substantive examination by the appellate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the status of petitioners as Adna Malikan could be altered to Ghair Dakhilkaran through an alleged partition without associating them?
  • What is the effect of changes made in the record of rights regarding Adna Malkiyat prior to the enforcement of Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959?
  • Does an alleged partition of Shamlat Deh land without the association of recorded Adna Malikan bind them?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hamdani vs Muhammad Iqbal And 9 Other1991 SCMR 1668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-24
  pre-emptionIslamic law of Shufaleave to appealstatutory vacuumcivil revisionpre-emption suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The core legal question is whether, following the Supreme Court's decision in Government of N.W.F.P v. Malik Said Kamal Shah, which invalidated certain statutory provisions regarding pre-emption, the Islamic law of Shufa automatically filled the resulting legal vacuum in the Punjab, thereby allowing pre-emption claims to be adjudicated based on Islamic principles even in the absence of specific legislation. The petitioner argued that the Islamic law of Shufa, as practiced in other provinces, should apply to transactions occurring after the target date established in the Malik Said Kamal Shah judgment. The Supreme Court, recognizing that the questions raised are of general public importance, granted leave to appeal to further examine whether the Islamic law of Shufa became enforceable in the Punjab post-judgment. The Court's decision to grant leave signifies that the legal status of pre-emption claims in the interim period requires authoritative resolution by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Islamic law of Shufa automatically fill the legal vacuum in pre-emption law created by the judgment in Government of N.W.F.P v. Malik Said Kamal Shah?
  • Can pre-emption claims be enforced in the Punjab based on Islamic law principles for transactions occurring after the target date set in the Malik Said Kamal Shah judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs The State1991 MLD 1801 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Sardar Bi and 2 others1991 MLD 39 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Allah Bakhsh and others1991 CLC 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Abdul Hafeez KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 475 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Abdul Hafeez Khan1991 MLD 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider And Others vs Muhammad Ismail And Other1991 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-24
  pre-emptionleave to appealland salesuit for pre-emptionappellate jurisdictioncivil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court regarding pre-emption suits. The core dispute arose from the sale of land parcels by a vendor to a vendee, which were subsequently challenged by a pre-emptor. The trial court decreed the suits in favor of the pre-emptor regarding two-thirds of the land but disallowed the remaining one-third. The High Court dismissed subsequent appeals. Before the Supreme Court, the legal heirs of the pre-emptor argued that the High Court erred in denying the decree for the remaining one-third of the land, asserting that since the original suits challenged the entirety of the land parcels, the pre-emptors were entitled to seek restoration of the disallowed portions. The Supreme Court found that the submissions raised substantial legal questions requiring further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in the petitions filed by the pre-emptors' heirs, while dismissing the petitions filed by the original vendee. The Court directed the parties to furnish security and permitted the filing of additional documents for final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emptor seek the restoration of a disallowed portion of land in a pre-emption suit if the original suit challenged the entire parcel?
  • Does the denial of a decree for a portion of land in a pre-emption suit constitute a legal error subject to appellate review?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider And Another vs The State1991 SCMR 268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-15
  murderleave to appealocular evidencecommon intentionmedical corroborationrecovery of weaponmotivegeneral amnesty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by two convicts challenging their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where their death sentences had subsequently been commuted to life imprisonment under a general amnesty. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners assaulted the deceased with hatchets following a rejected marriage proposal and insulting eviction from the deceased's house, resulting in sixteen injuries and immediate death. The core legal issues revolved around whether the ocular testimony was credible despite the darkness of a winter evening, whether the recovery evidence of blood-stained clothes and weapons supported the conviction, and whether the alleged false implication on account of party faction held merit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ocular account was fully corroborated by medical evidence showing multiple incised wounds inflicted over sufficient time, the prompt recoveries, and the close familial relationship among the parties which negated false implication. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether close familial relationship between the accused, deceased, and eye-witnesses mitigates against the likelihood of false implication in the absence of prior deep-rooted enmity?
  • Whether the presence of numerous incised wounds on the deceased can substantiate that the occurrence lasted long enough to allow eye-witnesses attracted by alarms to arrive and witness part of the assault?
  • Whether a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when supported by credible ocular evidence, consistent medical testimony, and prompt recoveries of blood-stained articles?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hafeez vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Labour, Sindh1991 PLC (C.S.) 530 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27
  Constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantstatutory ruleswrongful dismissalreinstatementservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Audit Officer in the Sindh Social Security Institution, challenged his dismissal from service following a conviction by a Military Court, which was subsequently set aside by the Deputy Martial Law Administrator. The core legal question was whether a Constitutional petition is maintainable for an employee of a statutory body whose service conditions are governed by regulations framed by the institution's Governing Body rather than by statutory rules. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that where an employee's terms and conditions are governed by internal regulations rather than statutory rules, the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, such an employee cannot seek reinstatement through a writ petition, as they lack the protection of statutory rules and are not considered a civil servant. The Court concluded that the petitioner's remedy, if any, for wrongful dismissal lies in a claim for damages rather than a Constitutional petition, and thus dismissed the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Constitutional petition maintainable for an employee of a statutory body governed by internal regulations rather than statutory rules?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of a statutory body when service conditions are not governed by statutory rules?
  • Can an employee of a statutory body seek reinstatement via a writ petition if their service conditions are not protected by statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Din vs Muhammad Asghar1991 CLC 1688 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →