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.
- Ghulam Dastgir vs Niazi And Other1991 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which allowed an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and quashed proceedings directed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a revision. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of a second complaint involving both identical and distinct offences following the dismissal of a prior complaint for non-prosecution and acquittal under Section 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the second complaint was maintainable to the extent of the new offences (Sections 406 and 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860) and should have been processed under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, but could not proceed regarding the offence of which the accused had already been acquitted. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the second complaint strictly limited to the new offences, and clarified the bar against double jeopardy regarding the previously acquitted charge.
Questions settled- Whether a second complaint is maintainable when it includes offences different from those in a previously dismissed complaint?
- Can an accused be tried a second time for an offence for which they have already been acquitted?
- How should a second criminal complaint involving both previous and new allegations be handled by the trial magistrate?
- Ghulam Dastagir and others vs Mst. Mariam others1991 CLC 1526 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming inheritance rights in the estate of their deceased uncle, Abdul Ghaffar. The defendants moved to reject the plaint, contending that the plaintiffs were signatories to a prior consent statement filed during execution proceedings of an earlier suit, which effectively relinquished their claims in favor of the deceased's daughters. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs were estopped from re-litigating their inheritance rights given the prior family settlement. The Court held that the consent statement constituted a valid family settlement and an adjustment under Order 23, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging the arrangement, as they failed to plead that the settlement was fraudulent or void. The Court established that a family settlement, once acted upon, creates a binding estoppel against the signatories, precluding them from filing a subsequent suit on the same subject matter. Finding no cause of action, the Court rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Does a consent statement filed in execution proceedings constitute a binding family settlement?
- Can a party be estopped from challenging a family settlement if they have not pleaded fraud or illegality?
- Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaintiff is estopped by a prior family settlement?
- Does the lack of registration invalidate a family settlement between parties?
- Ghulam Ali vs Akbar alias Akoor and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which resulted in the dismissal of the appellant's appeal as time-barred. The appellant had initially filed an appeal in the District Court, despite the subject matter's value requiring filing in the High Court under Section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing an appeal in a court lacking jurisdiction, based on a counsel's erroneous advice, constitutes "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the mistake of counsel in choosing the wrong forum does not amount to "good faith" or "due care and caution" as defined under the Limitation Act. The Court established that where the law regarding the proper forum is plain and unambiguous, a counsel's failure to identify it constitutes gross negligence rather than a basis for condonation. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal in the correct forum could not be excused.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an appeal in a wrong forum due to a counsel's mistake constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Can time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act if the proceeding was not prosecuted with due care and caution?
- Is a client entitled to condonation of delay under the Limitation Act when the delay is caused by the ill-advice of their counsel?
- Ghulam Ali And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Akbar vs Abdul Rashid1991 CLC 959 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellant tenant on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, finding both default and personal need established. The appellant challenged the rent rate, arguing it was Rs. 100 rather than Rs. 300, and contested the personal requirement claim. The High Court observed that neither party produced cogent evidence to conclusively establish the rent rate, rendering the finding of default unsustainable on that basis. However, regarding personal bona fide requirement, the Court found the respondent's existing accommodation of two small rooms insufficient for his family of nine. The Court held that the growing needs of the respondent's seven children justified the requirement for the premises, rejecting the appellant's apprehension of re-letting as speculative, noting that statutory penalties would apply if the respondent re-let the premises. The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellant six months to vacate. The principle established is that a landlord's personal bona fide requirement is determined by the objective insufficiency of current accommodation relative to family size and growth.
Questions settled- Can a landlord's personal bona fide requirement be established based on the growing needs of a family?
- Does an inadvertent admission in a written statement regarding rent rate preclude a tenant from proving a different rate?
- Is a landlord entitled to ejectment if the current residential accommodation is insufficient for the family's size?
- Ghulam Ahmed vs Mst. Azizan1991 MLD 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ahmad Ghauri vs Messrs Adamjee Construction Co. Ltd.1991 PLC 551 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-04Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ahmad and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 878 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abuzar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 344 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abuzar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 697 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of appellants Ghulam Abuzar and Mst. Ruqayya Bibi for the murder of the latter's husband, Dost Muhammad, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged the deceased was throttled and electrocuted. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence, including an alleged judicial confession, extra-judicial confession, and motive, was sufficient to sustain a conviction when the medical evidence failed to establish the cause of death as unnatural. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti, as the medical report was inconclusive due to decomposition and the Chemical Examiner's report was negative. The Court found the judicial confession unreliable, noting it was recorded after prolonged illegal detention, and dismissed the extra-judicial confession and other circumstantial evidence as weak and contradictory. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, holding that when the chain of circumstantial evidence is broken and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution's theory of death, a conviction cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the medical evidence fails to establish the cause of death as unnatural?
- Does a judicial confession recorded after a period of prolonged illegal detention possess legal validity?
- What is the effect on the prosecution's case when the chain of circumstantial evidence contains missing links?
- Is a conviction for murder permissible based solely on an uncorroborated and retracted confession of a co-accused?
- Ghulam Abbas vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs The State1991 MLD 884 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 370 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs Mohammad Iqbal EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 234 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs Mazher Abbas and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 1059 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the sentence of death awarded to the convict for murder was reduced to imprisonment for life on the ground that the accused considered the deceased responsible for the murder of his uncle. The petitioner sought the enhancement and restoration of the death sentence. The core legal question revolved around whether the involvement of family honour and duty in avenging a previous murder constitutes a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser penalty, and whether there is a conflict in case-law regarding private revenge versus family honour. The Supreme Court held that there is no conflict of authority; the delicate balance of whether family honour or private revenge predominated depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, requiring psychological analysis and rationalization by the judge. The Court further noted that interference with a sentence reduction or acquittal requires tests such as misreading of evidence or a miscarriage of justice, which were not met. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the commission of a murder out of a sense of family honour and duty to avenge a previous murder can be treated as a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser penalty?
- Is there a conflict of authority in case-law regarding the distinction between private revenge and family honour in determining the quantum of sentence in murder cases?
- What are the governing principles and tests for an appellate court to interfere with the reduction of a sentence or to enhance a sentence to death?
- How does the presence of partial conditions of exceptions under Section 300 P.P.C. affect the discretion of the court in awarding the lesser sentence for a conviction under Section 302 P.P.C.?
- Ghulam Abbas Shah and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1764 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Ghee Corporation of Pakistan vs Registrar, Trade Unions and another1991 PLC 207 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the Ghee Corporation of Pakistan challenging the registration of respondent No. 2 as a trade union by the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The petitioner argued that the union's members belonged to the 'Management Cadre' (specifically Assistant Managers of Grades I and II) and were not 'workmen' under the law, and that the petitioner was condemned unheard. The respondent contended that the members had no hire-and-fire powers and qualified as workmen. The Lahore High Court analyzed the service rules and pay scales, concluding that Assistant Managers were part of the management cadre and excluded from the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(xxviii) of the Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court held that although the statute does not explicitly mandate notice to the employer, compliance with Section 7(2) regarding the verification of workmen status and membership thresholds cannot be effectively achieved without associating and hearing the employer. Consequently, the registration was declared illegal for violating the principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Whether employees classified under the management cadre with distinct service rules can be considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Is the Registrar of Trade Unions required to associate and hear the employer before registering a new trade union under Section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Does the failure to provide notice and a hearing to an employer prior to registering a trade union violate the principles of natural justice?
- Ghulam Muhammad And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2279 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Ghasilal Kasturchand vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 51 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1989-03-02Read full judgment →
- Gharib Alam vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Ghani Farooq vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar1991 CLC 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Ghalib Hussain Alias Ghali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2247 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
- George Masih And Another vs The Additional District Judge, Jhelum1991 SCMR 1856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering the eviction of the petitioners from the disputed property. The respondents had filed an ejectment application on the grounds of default, personal need, damaging the property, and subletting. The petitioners resisted the application, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and alleging that the property had been sold to petitioner No.2 under an agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether the denial of the landlord's title and the assertion of an agreement to sell ousted the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and warranted the dismissal of the ejectment application. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. The Court laid down the principle that mere assertion of ownership or a rival title, unsupported by valid established transfer, does not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship where concurrent findings of fact establish the same.
Questions settled- Whether the denial of a landlord's title by a tenant automatically ousts the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant be re-appraised by the Supreme Court?
- Whether an alleged agreement to sell terminates the tenancy and justifies the dismissal of an ejectment application?
- General Manager, Pakistan Railways and 3 others vs Hazoor Bux1991 PLC 533 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Pakistan Railways and 2 others vs Muhammad1991 PLC 525 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
- General Manager, National Radio Telecommunication Corporation, Haripur District, Abbottabad vs Muhammad Aslam And 2 Other1991 SCMR 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the General Manager, National Radio Telecommunication Corporation, challenging the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside the orders of the Labour Courts and reinstated the respondent, Muhammad Aslam, into service with back benefits. The respondent was dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry after being detected attempting to remove iron gates using a gate pass meant for chip-board. Following his dismissal, the respondent voluntarily applied for and received all his service dues, including salary, provident fund, bonus, and leave encashment, without protest. The core legal question is whether an employee who has voluntarily claimed and received all terminal service dues in full satisfaction after dismissal is subsequently entitled to challenge the dismissal and seek reinstatement. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine this question, as well as whether the dismissal was warranted for serious reasons, and suspended the payment of back benefits pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an employee who has voluntarily claimed and received all service dues in full satisfaction after dismissal is entitled to seek reinstatement?
- Whether dismissal from service for attempting to remove items using an irregular gate pass constitutes a serious reason justifying termination?
- Does the acceptance of terminal benefits without protest estop an employee from challenging their dismissal before a Labour Court?
- General Manager, Federal Directorate of Fertilizer vs Noor Alam1991 PLC 259 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-03Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Central Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Amir Zaman1991 PLC 732 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Administration and Personnel, Utility Stores1991 PLC 568 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-01Read full judgment →
- General Bank of Netherland Limited vs Commissioner of Incometax, Central Karachi (1991 PLD Supreme Court 675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the taxability of interest income earned by a non-resident banking company on securities deposited outside Pakistan. The appellant, a foreign bank, deposited securities with its New York branch to comply with statutory requirements under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. The tax authorities sought to tax the interest accrued on these securities, arguing it was income deemed to accrue within Pakistan under Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether interest earned on securities held outside Pakistan, mandated by local banking regulations, constitutes income accruing or arising within Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the Banking Companies Ordinance and its associated Rules are regulatory frameworks for banking operations and do not determine the place of income accrual for tax purposes. The Court ruled that interest income accrues to the owner at the place where the securities are issued and are payable. Since the interest was earned and received outside Pakistan, it did not constitute income accruing within Pakistan under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court emphasized that the first receipt of income determines taxability, not subsequent remittances.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of securities outside Pakistan for regulatory compliance under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, render the interest earned thereon taxable as income accruing in Pakistan?
- Does the regulatory framework of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, govern the determination of the place of accrual of income for tax purposes?
- At what location does interest income on securities accrue for the purpose of taxation?
- Is income that has already been received outside Pakistan chargeable to tax if it is subsequently remitted to Pakistan?
- General Bank of Netherland Limited Messrs American Express1991 PTD 687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns income tax references regarding whether interest earned by a non-resident banking company on securities deposited outside Pakistan, as a regulatory requirement, constitutes income accruing or arising within Pakistan under Section 42(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The High Court had ruled in the affirmative, concluding that the securities were assets transferred to Pakistan, thus making the interest taxable. The Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Court held that the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and its associated rules are regulatory frameworks for banking operations and do not determine the place of income accrual for tax purposes. The Court established that interest income on securities accrues to the owner based on ownership, not the physical location of the securities. Furthermore, interest accrues at the place where the securities are issued, encashable, and receivable. Since the interest was earned and received outside Pakistan, it was not taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court emphasized that the 'receipt' of income occurs when the recipient first gains control of the money, and subsequent remittances do not create a new taxable receipt.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of securities outside Pakistan for regulatory compliance under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, render the interest earned thereon taxable in Pakistan?
- Does the regulatory requirement to maintain capital reserves in Pakistan determine the place of accrual of interest income for tax purposes?
- At what location does interest income on securities accrue for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Does the remittance of income already received outside Pakistan constitute a new 'receipt' of income taxable in Pakistan?
- Gadia Wires vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 83 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1989-03-02Read full judgment →
- G.Z. Malik vs Mrs. Khayyam Baig1991 CLC 1748 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
- G.M.Central Cotton Mills (Pvt) Ltd vs Amir Zaman(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 37) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
- G.M. Gangat, Itp for Appellant. vs Ilyas Shaikh, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 135 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
- G. Z. Malik vs Mrs. Khayyam Baig1991 PLD Karachi 370 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
- G. Abbas Chatha for Appellant. vs Saeed-ur-Rehman, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 319 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
- G Hulam Sarwar vs Ghous Bux and another1991 MLD 301 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
- Fida Muhammad vs Muhammad Hayat1991 SCMR 1354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against a tenant by the Rent Controller, Quetta, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Baluchistan. The respondent landlord sought eviction based on the tenant's default in rent payments and the personal requirement of the property for his sons. The tenant contested the landlord's title, asserting a tenancy agreement with a firm rather than the respondent, and argued that rent payments were adjusted against goods provided. The Supreme Court examined whether the tenant's denial of the landlord's title was justified and whether the default and personal need were established. The Court held that the mere issuance of rent receipts in the name of a firm does not negate the established landlord-tenant relationship inherited from the deceased owner. It further ruled that the tenant's denial of title was unjustified, the default was not legally excusable through the claimed adjustment, and the findings regarding the landlord's bona fide personal need were concurrent. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the eviction order.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of rent receipts in the name of a firm, rather than an individual, automatically negate the landlord-tenant relationship between a tenant and the deceased owner's heir?
- Can a tenant justify a default in rent payment by claiming an adjustment against goods supplied to the landlord's agent?
- Is a tenant's denial of a landlord's title considered unjustified when the tenancy relationship is established through the devolution of property?
- Fida Hussain And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 849 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
- Fiazuddin vs Messrs Shezan Kohsar1991 PLC 528 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-02Read full judgment →
- Fiaz vs The StateK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ferozuddin Shamsi and 5 others vs Haji Arif and 4 others1991 CLC 1864 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
- Feroze vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1777 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- Feroze Khan vs Fateh Khan And 2 Other1991 SCMR 2220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of murder charges. The core legal question involved the propriety of setting aside an acquittal and the principles governing the re-appraisal of evidence, particularly ocular testimony and corroborative recovery, where the High Court had discounted witness testimony and granted the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a mere difference of opinion regarding the appreciation of evidence is insufficient to set aside an acquittal unless the view taken by the High Court is shown to be one that no reasonable person could possibly hold. The Court laid down that the extension of the benefit of the doubt to certain accused does not automatically render the eye-witnesses untruthful as to the remainder, but requires the strictest scrutiny of their testimony, and an order of acquittal will not be interfered with unless it passes the rigorous test of impossibility regarding the unreasonableness of the impugned view.
Questions settled- Can an order of acquittal be set aside merely on the ground of a difference of opinion regarding the appreciation of evidence?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the extension of the benefit of the doubt render eye-witnesses completely unreliable against the remaining accused?
- What test is applied by appellate courts when evaluating the correctness of a High Court's view in an appeal against acquittal?
- Is corroborative evidence regarding recoveries sufficient to sustain a conviction when the primary ocular testimony fails the test of strict judicial scrutiny?
- Feroze Ali vs Mst. Hafeezunnisa Begum1991 CLC 626 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs vs The Publicatlarge1991 PLD Supreme Court 459 · Shariat Appellate BenchRead full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Interior, Islamabad1991 SCMR 1663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The respondent, a police official, was suspended and subsequently charge-sheeted for misconduct and inefficiency regarding the escape of two suspects from police custody. Following an inquiry, the Inspector General of Police imposed a major penalty of reduction in pay from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 950 per month with permanent effect. The respondent appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal, which modified the penalty to a reduction in pay for a limited period of three years. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Federal Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to modify the specific quantum of punishment awarded by the competent authority in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this limited point regarding the scope of the Tribunal's appellate authority in reviewing administrative penalties imposed on civil servants. The case remains pending for further adjudication on this specific legal issue.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the authority to modify the quantum of a penalty imposed by a competent authority in disciplinary proceedings?
- Can a service tribunal interfere with the specific punishment awarded for misconduct by an administrative authority?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And 2 Others vs Jameel Ahmad Saleem1991 SCMR 1847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Federation of Pakistan challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified a disciplinary penalty imposed on the respondent. The respondent, a National Savings Officer, had been removed from service for misconduct, including willful absence and non-compliance with transfer orders. Following a departmental appeal, the removal was converted to a reduction in rank from BPS-16 to BPS-14. The Tribunal subsequently modified this penalty further, substituting the reduction in rank with the withholding of annual increments for four years. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in its factual premise, mistakenly believing the reduction in rank placed the respondent below his initial entry grade. The Supreme Court acknowledged the Tribunal's factual error regarding the respondent's entry grade but held that the decision to impose a lesser penalty was ultimately based on the Tribunal's assessment that the respondent's misconduct did not warrant a major penalty. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a factual error regarding a civil servant's initial entry grade necessarily invalidate a Service Tribunal's decision on the proportionality of a disciplinary penalty?
- Is a reduction in rank from BPS-16 to BPS-14 considered a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Can the Supreme Court refuse leave to appeal if the impugned judgment does not involve a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi And 2 Others vs Asadullah1991 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan and its functionaries filed a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 9-2-1988. The respondent, a Junior Auditor, had been dismissed from service by the competent authority under Rule 8(a) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 following his conviction and sentence by a criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude. The Federal Service Tribunal set aside the dismissal on the ground that the respondent was entitled to a show-cause notice prior to dismissal, relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence. The core legal question raised before the Supreme Court was whether a show-cause notice is mandatory prior to dismissal when action is taken pursuant to a criminal conviction involving moral turpitude, notwithstanding the procedural exemption under Rule 8 of the Rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this legal proposition.
Questions settled- Is the issuance of a show-cause notice mandatory prior to dismissing a civil servant whose dismissal is based on a criminal conviction involving moral turpitude?
- Does Rule 8 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 dispense with the requirement of a show-cause procedure upon a civil servant's conviction by a criminal court?
- Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Communications, Islamabad1991 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a decision of the Service Tribunal dated 18 September 1988, which had favored the respondent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine two specific legal questions. The first question pertains to whether the Service Tribunal correctly determined that the respondent's departmental appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. The second question addresses whether the respondent, having submitted a reply to the charge-sheet and allegedly admitted guilt regarding the charges, could still benefit from procedural irregularities in the enquiry proceedings to secure reinstatement. Pending the final adjudication of these issues, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the impugned order passed by the Service Tribunal. The case highlights the court's role in reviewing service matters where questions of limitation and the impact of admitted misconduct on procedural fairness arise.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal correctly determined that the respondent's departmental appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit?
- Can an employee who has admitted guilt to charges in response to a charge-sheet still rely on procedural irregularities in enquiry proceedings to secure reinstatement?
- Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence and 2 others vs Muhammad Khan and another1991 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 33 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan And Others vs Punjab Steel Limited And Other1991 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the High Court, which had accepted the respondents' writ petitions. The core legal questions presented for the Supreme Court's consideration concern the competency of a writ petition when statutory remedies of appeal or revision under the Customs Act, 1969, have not been exhausted. Furthermore, the Court is tasked with determining whether the High Court erred in disregarding the legal effect of three specific notifications issued by the competent authority on 30-12-1987. Additionally, the petition raises the issue of whether the High Court improperly relied on the precedent established in the Al-Samrez Enterprises case, given the subsequent legislative intervention through the insertion of Section 31-A into the Customs Act, 1969, via the Finance Ordinance, 1988. Finally, the Court must decide if the High Court acted appropriately in disposing of the writ petition without providing the Federal Government an adequate opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court, having heard both sides, granted leave to appeal to resolve these significant legal questions.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition competent when statutory remedies of appeal or revision under the Customs Act, 1969, have not been exhausted?
- Does the insertion of Section 31-A into the Customs Act, 1969, via the Finance Ordinance, 1988, render the precedent in Al-Samrez Enterprises inapplicable?
- Is the High Court justified in disposing of a writ petition without affording the Federal Government an adequate opportunity to be heard?
- Federation of Pakistan And Another vs Iiabib Ahmad And Another1991 SCMR 1677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against the judgment of the High Court, which accepted a constitutional petition and set aside concurrent findings of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Board and a Joint Secretary regarding an urban settlement case concerning evacuee property. The core legal question involves the propriety of the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent factual and legal findings, alongside issues concerning internal conflicts in the impugned judgment, the character of the property as evacuee trust property, and the principle of approbate and reprobate regarding the respondent's inconsistent pleas. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court erred in its exercise of writ jurisdiction and treatment of factual aspects, directing that the interim order previously passed shall continue in operation.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can competently set aside concurrent findings of fact and law rendered by administrative tribunals in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether a party is barred from pleading that a property is not evacuee trust property when they had earlier claimed otherwise?
- Whether an impugned judgment suffering from internal conflict of findings and inadequate discussion warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- When should the High Court decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction in favour of a litigant?
- Federation of Pakistan And 3 Others vs Muhammad Arif Goraya1991 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which accepted the respondent-auditor's appeal against his dismissal from service and ordered his reinstatement, while granting petitioners the choice to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings. The respondent had been dismissed following departmental inquiries regarding a financial fraud. The core legal question concerns the legality and necessity of initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings and reinstating an employee where a preliminary enquiry and detailed departmental proceedings had already been conducted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the case required further consideration as there were no conducive circumstances or necessity for a fresh enquiry given that all relevant material was already on record. The implementation of the impugned order of the Tribunal was suspended.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is justified in ordering reinstatement while permitting fresh disciplinary proceedings on the same charges?
- Is a fresh departmental enquiry necessary when all relevant material has already been placed on record during previous proceedings?
- Federation of Pakistan And 2 Others vs Major (Retd.) Wazir Ahmad And Other1991 SCMR 2284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning retired Armed Forces personnel who were permanently inducted into civil departments and had their military pensions deducted from their civil pays by the Accountant-General. The respondents successfully challenged these deductions before the Tribunal, which held that section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 guaranteed full pay for the civil post without such deductions. The core legal question is whether the competent authority is legally empowered under the relevant rules to deduct military pensions when fixing the pay of re-employed military personnel in civil departments under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Tribunal's judgments, holding that section 17 makes a civil servant's entitlement to pay explicitly subject to the relevant rules, including Regulation 526 of the Civil Service Regulations, which permits the competent authority to take military pensions into account when fixing pay in civil employment. The Court laid down the principle that section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 does not confer an unqualified right to pay, but is duly regulated and qualified by applicable service rules regarding pay fixation.
Questions settled- Whether section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 gives an unqualified right to a civil servant to receive the full pay of a post without deductions?
- Does Regulation 526 of the Civil Service Regulations remain valid and applicable after the enactment of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Is the competent authority legally empowered to deduct military pensions when fixing the pay of retired military personnel re-employed in civil departments?
- Do rules regarding the fixation of pay operate as a qualification upon the statutory right to pay under section 17 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Federation of Pakistan and 2 others vs Major (Retd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan1991 PLD Supreme Court 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which had allowed a Constitutional Petition filed by the respondent seeking restoration of possession of disputed agricultural land and a declaration against his dispossession. The respondent claimed ownership via registered and unregistered sale deeds, whereas the appellants contended the land belonged to the Government of Balochistan for use by Mahsud Scouts and remained under their control. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution could be invoked to resolve serious disputes regarding title and possession of land involving contested documents. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising writ jurisdiction because the matter hinged upon disputed documents, conflicting versions, and serious factual controversies that could only be determined through a proper trial and recording of evidence. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving contested questions of title and possession.
Questions settled- Whether a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable to resolve serious factual controversies regarding title and possession of land?
- Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction adjudicate upon disputed documents and conflicting factual versions without recording evidence through a proper trial?
- Should parties involved in a bona fide title and possession dispute be relegated to seek remedy before a Civil Court instead of the High Court in writ jurisdiction?
- Federal Land Commission Through Its Secretary vs Mst. Bibi Mehr UN Nisa1991 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federal Land Commission sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that declared its order under the Land Reforms Regulation to be without lawful authority. The dispute concerned whether certain land alienations occurred before or after the crucial date of 1-3-1967. The Commission had disregarded secondary evidence (certified copies of a statement made on 25-2-1967) because the original record was untraceable, relying instead on suspicion regarding the timing of mutation entries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that an administrative authority's finding on a jurisdictional fact does not enjoy immunity from judicial review. It established that where an administrative officer is empowered to act only upon the existence of certain circumstances, the objective existence of those circumstances is a condition precedent for the order's validity. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and secondary evidence must be considered when primary records are unavailable, particularly regarding the genuineness of alienations.
Questions settled- Does a finding on a jurisdictional fact by an administrative authority enjoy immunity from constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can an administrative officer's determination of the existence of circumstances required for an order bind the courts?
- Is suspicion a valid substitute for proof in determining the date of land alienation?
- Should secondary evidence be utilized when the original record of a declaration is untraceable?
- Federal Government vs Muhammad Saleh And 5 Others1991 P Cr. L J 2344 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Fazlur Rehman And Another vs The State1991 SCMR 1577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals arise from a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in relation to fraudulent land mutations executed through an alleged fictitious power of attorney. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the fabrication of the power of attorney and the requisite mens rea of the accused appellants in the fraudulent transfer of allotted land. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the fabrication of the power of attorney through expert handwriting analysis or judicial comparison and found no mens rea or criminal liability in the conduct of the appellants and revenue officials. The Court consequently accepted the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants, laying down the principle that mere suspicious land transactions without proof of forged documentation or guilty intention cannot sustain a criminal conviction under anti-corruption and cheating laws.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for cheating and corruption can be sustained regarding a disputed power of attorney without expert handwriting or finger print verification?
- Does the mere identification of a vendee before a revenue officer by a relative constitute a criminal offence absent proof of a fraudulent transaction?
- Can revenue officials be held criminally liable for attesting a mutation when a formally complete power of attorney is presented before them?
- Fazli Rabbi And Another vs The State1991PCr.LJ 212 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-08-13Read full judgment →
- Fazalur Rehman vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1392 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Fazalur Rehman vs Muhammad Ilyas and 2 others1991 MLD 2178 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Muzaffarabad, which granted a decree for specific performance of a contract in a suit to which the appellant was not a party. The core legal question was whether a person who is not a party to the original proceedings, but is adversely affected by the resulting decree, possesses the locus standi to file an appeal. The High Court held that while the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not explicitly provide for appeals by non-parties, it also does not prohibit them. Emphasizing that procedural law must be construed liberally to advance the administration of justice rather than creating technical hurdles, the Court ruled that a stranger to a suit who is adversely affected by a decree or order is entitled to challenge it in appeal. Consequently, the Court found the trial judge erred by passing a decree without first disposing of the appellant's pending application for impleadment. The decree was set aside, and the case was remanded for the trial court to decide the impleadment application before proceeding further.
Questions settled- Can a person who is not a party to a suit file an appeal against a decree passed therein?
- Does the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prohibit a stranger to a suit from filing an appeal if they are adversely affected by the decree?
- Is a trial court required to dispose of a pending application for impleadment before passing a final decree in a suit?
- Fazal-Ur-Rehman vs Muhammad Younis and 2 others1991 MLD 1574 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Fazal-Ur-Rehman alias Pappu vs Superintendent, Jail Kot Lakhpat, Lahore1991 MLD 1942 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad vs Shah Baig And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had allowed a revision application and set aside the appellate judgment of the Majlis-e-Shoora that had decreed the petitioner's suit. The core legal question concerned the correctness of revenue entries and whether the plaintiff's suit for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding correction of revenue entries was barred by time, given that the petitioner had knowledge of the settlement records and remained silent for nearly twenty years. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly concluded that the suit was hopelessly barred by time and that the plaintiff failed to prove joint possession or take timely steps during the settlement operations. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, laying down the principle that unexplained and prolonged delay, coupled with admissions from the plaintiff's own witnesses regarding awareness of adverse revenue entries, renders a suit for correction of revenue entries time-barred and unsustainable.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for correction of revenue entries is barred by time when the plaintiff remains silent for a prolonged period despite knowledge of adverse entries?
- Can a court entertain a suit that is manifestly barred by time based on the plaint and statements of the plaintiff's own witnesses?
- Fazal Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and others1991 CLC 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim And Others vs Muhammad Boota And Another1991 SCMR 2157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court order that upheld a Sessions Court's revisional direction requiring a Magistrate to summon the accused in a private complaint case. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Judge, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is strictly limited to ordering "further inquiry" under Section 202, or if the Judge may direct the Magistrate to summon the accused directly without such inquiry. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Sessions Judge possesses the authority to direct the Magistrate to summon the accused directly. The Court reasoned that Section 436 must be read in conjunction with Sections 202, 203, and 435. Since a Magistrate has the discretion to summon an accused without inquiry under Section 202, the revisional court, upon finding an order of dismissal illegal or improper, may direct the Magistrate to perform any act the Magistrate was originally empowered to do, including summoning the accused without further inquiry. This interpretation ensures procedural practicality and aligns with the broader powers of revision.
Questions settled- Can a Sessions Judge, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, direct a Magistrate to summon an accused without ordering further inquiry?
- Does the power of a Sessions Judge to order 'further inquiry' under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the direct summoning of an accused?
- Is a Magistrate empowered to summon an accused in a private complaint case without conducting a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Fazal Karim Alias Kareeman vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2393 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs The Collector and others1991 MLD 2377 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs Musharaf Sultana1991 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision, arising out of pre-emption litigation. The core legal question concerns the legal effect of a pre-emptor withdrawing the pre-emption money from court without permission following the dismissal of their suit, and whether such withdrawal renders the pre-emption decree totally ineffective or results in the dismissal of the suit, notwithstanding the subsequent re-deposit of the amount upon the revival of the suit in revision. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention raised by the petitioner—that the withdrawal of the pre-emption money without the court's permission distinguishes this case from precedents permitting such withdrawal and results in the loss of the pre-emption right—requires detailed consideration. The key principle noted is that the propriety and legal consequences of withdrawing pre-emption money without express judicial permission warrant a full review by the apex court.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of pre-emption money without the permission of the court after the dismissal of a pre-emption suit render the decree totally ineffective?
- Whether withdrawal of the pre-emption amount defeats the pre-emptor's claim on technical grounds when the amount is subsequently re-deposited after the success of a revision petition?
- Can a pre-emptor maintain a decree for possession after withdrawing the pre-emption deposit without prior judicial sanction?
- Fazal Hussain vs Mst. Bundu Hajjan1991 MLD 651 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs (Mst) Bundu HajjanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 593 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain Shah vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1881 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain And Another vs Suleman Khan And Another1991 SCMR 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order disposed of two petitions: one by the complainant for enhancement of compensation and another by the convict against his conviction for murder and theft. The core legal question was whether the conviction, based on a judicial confession and other circumstantial evidence, should be upheld, and if the death sentence should be commuted due to the convict's alleged young age. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding sufficient material to connect the accused to the crime, including a judicial confession, recovery of stolen goods, false identity, recovery of the weapon, and last seen evidence. The Court held that the mere youth of an accused is not a sufficient mitigating circumstance to avoid the normal penalty of death, especially when the accused's mens rea, betrayal of trust, and mature understanding of the crime are evident. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder and theft be sustained based on a judicial confession, recovery of stolen goods, false identity, weapon recovery, and last seen evidence?
- Is the mere youth of an accused a sufficient ground for awarding a lesser punishment than the normal penalty of death for murder?
- Does a plea of minority, raised for the first time at a later stage and supported by a post-offence birth register entry, have evidentiary value?
- Can mens rea be inferred from an accused's actions such as disclosing a wrong name and betraying trust?
- Fazal Dad and others vs Jehandad and others1991 CLC 1783 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil second appeal before the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arose from a suit seeking rectification of a registered sale-deed and a perpetual injunction. The plaintiff claimed that the vendor-appellants had agreed to sell and delivered possession of land comprising survey numbers 154, 349, and 349/1, but fraudulently entered survey numbers 324 and 254 in the sale-deed. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed the decision. The core question was whether the registered sale-deed warranted rectification based on oral and documentary evidence regarding possession, ownership, and previous alienations. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the concurrent findings, noting that the vendors had already alienated survey numbers 324 and 254 in 1971 and lacked the legal competence to sell them. Furthermore, the revenue records established the plaintiff's continuous possession over survey numbers 154, 349, and 349/1. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence, or misreading of material evidence, and adverse inference is drawn against a party who fails to testify in support of their pleadings.
Questions settled- Can a vendor legally convey title to land that has already been alienated and is no longer under their ownership?
- Under what circumstances can concurrent findings of fact recorded by subordinate courts be interfered with in a second appeal?
- Does an adverse legal presumption arise against a defendant who fails to appear as a witness to substantiate the contents of their written statement?
- Can minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses be a sufficient ground to discredit the credibility of their overall evidence?
- Fazal Bib! and others vs Abdul Haq and others1991 CLC 291 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an ex parte decree passed by the trial court after the case was transferred. The core legal question was whether a defendant, against whom ex parte proceedings had already been ordered in the transferor court, is entitled to notice from the transferee court before the case proceeds further. The court held that a defendant does not cease to be a party to the suit merely because of an order for ex parte proceedings; they remain a party to the litigation and are entitled to notice of the transfer and the date of hearing in the transferee court. The court emphasized that the defendant has a right to appear and join proceedings at any stage. Consequently, the court set aside the ex parte decree, ruling that the failure to issue notice rendered the decree illegal, and remanded the case to the trial court to proceed from the stage of ex parte evidence after providing proper notice to the parties.
Questions settled- Does a defendant against whom ex parte proceedings have been ordered cease to be a party to the suit?
- Is a transferee court required to issue notice to a defendant who was proceeded against ex parte in the transferor court?
- Can a court pass an ex parte decree against a defendant without providing notice of the transfer of the case?
- Fazal and 7 others vs Allah Ditta and 3 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a civil dispute concerning the possession of a Haveli in village Jamalpur, Tehsil Nankana. The respondents, identified as 'Malkan-e-Deh' (village owners), sought a declaration of ownership and eviction of the appellants, who were 'mueens' (village helpers) in long-standing occupation. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge decreed it, and the High Court maintained this decision in revision. Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether the 'Malkan-e-Deh' could legally evict the appellants, considering the entries in the 'Wajabularz' and 'Rewaj-e-Aam'. During the proceedings, the appellants failed to advance arguments on the specific point for which leave was granted, instead attempting to re-argue ownership and adverse possession, which were rejected. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on merits. However, the Court facilitated a settlement where the respondents voluntarily permitted the appellants to retain possession as licensees, subject to specific conditions regarding continued occupation and construction. The Court commended this resolution as an act of grace and Islamic brotherhood, disposing of the matter accordingly.
Questions settled- Can Malkan-e-Deh evict village mueens from a Haveli based on entries in the Wajabularz and Rewaj-e-Aam?
- Does the failure to argue the specific point for which leave to appeal was granted warrant the dismissal of the appeal?
- Fazal Akbar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1124 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Fazal Akbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 450 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Ahmad vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Ahmad vs Government of the Punjab1991 PLC (C.S.) 153 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Ahmad Chaudhry for Appellant. vs Mian Masood Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent1991 PTD (Trib.) 294 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
- Fateh Sher and others vs Khanan and others1991 MLD 120 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Registrar, Trade Union and another1991 PLC 158 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Abdul Ghafoor And Other1991 SCMR 1310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's regular second appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The petitioner, a vendee, had purchased land in 1970, which was subsequently pre-empted by two rival claimants on the basis of being collaterals of the vendor. The trial court decreed the suits in favour of the respondents, and the appellate courts affirmed these decisions. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the oral evidence presented to establish the relationship between the vendor and the pre-emptors was admissible and sufficient under the law, specifically regarding the requirement to express the special source of knowledge for such testimony. The petitioner contended that the pedigree tables relied upon were incomplete and failed to prove the requisite relationship. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the points raised regarding the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts' findings suffered from legal infirmities regarding the proof of collateral relationship.
Questions settled- Is oral evidence regarding a relationship between a vendor and a pre-emptor admissible without the witness expressing their special source of knowledge under the Evidence Act 1872?
- Does the failure to connect pedigree tables constitute a failure to prove a collateral relationship in a pre-emption suit?
- Fateh Muhammad and others vs Settlement Commissioner and others1991 CLC 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad And Others vs Naziran Bibi And Other1991 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns a dispute between rival pre-emptors regarding the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court due to a deficiency in court-fee. The appellants' suit was initially decreed, but the first appellate court set aside this decree on merits. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the appellants' Second Appeal solely because of an admitted deficiency in the court-fee, without addressing the merits of the case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without affording the appellants an opportunity to rectify the court-fee deficiency. Relying on the principle established in the case of Siddique Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289), the Supreme Court held that the High Court should have provided the appellants at least one opportunity to make up the deficiency before applying punitive measures. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for a decision on the merits, deeming the Second Appeal as pending.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court required to grant an opportunity to make up a court-fee deficiency before dismissing an appeal?
- Can an appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of deficient court-fee without first allowing the appellant to rectify the defect?
- Does the failure to provide an opportunity to rectify court-fee deficiency warrant the setting aside of an appellate dismissal order?
- Fateh Mohummad vs The State Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) Department, Lahore and 2 others1991 CLC 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan vs Boze Mir1991 PLD Supreme Court 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed the suit ex parte and directed the appellant to deposit the remaining purchase money 'before 20-4-1983'. The appellant deposited the amount on 20-4-1983. The executing court rejected the execution application on the ground that the deposit was made out of time, a decision ultimately upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether, under Order XX, Rule 14(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), a court has the option to direct the deposit of purchase money either 'on' or 'before' a specified date, or whether 'on or before' must be treated as a composite, mandatory phrase. The Supreme Court held that 'on or before' is an integrated, composite phrase that must be used jointly to give the debtor the option of paying on the final day or earlier. Since the trial court failed to specify the date in accordance with this mandatory rule, the successful pre-emptor could not be penalized for an act of the court. The appeal was allowed, and the execution was restored.
Questions settled- Whether the phrase 'on or before' in Order XX, Rule 14(1) of the Civil Procedure Code is a composite phrase or can be used disjunctively by a court?
- Does a trial court have the discretion under Order XX, Rule 14(1)(a) of the C.P.C. to direct a pre-emptor to deposit purchase money strictly 'before' a specified date to the exclusion of 'on' that date?
- Can a successful pre-emptor's suit be dismissed for late deposit if the trial court's deposit order failed to comply with the mandatory terminology of Order XX, Rule 14(1)(a) of the C.P.C.?
- Fateh Haider Shah vs The State1991 MLD 638 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
- Fasahat Ali vs Mst. Noor Jehan Begum1991 CLC 1902 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a landlord's first rent appeal arising from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed on the ground of personal bona fide need under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question is whether the appellant-landlord successfully established a genuine and bona fide personal requirement for the disputed premises, particularly considering that the landlord's family size remained static, other properties owned by the landlord were bypassed, and the ejectment application closely followed the dismissal of a previous eviction proceeding on the ground of default against the same tenant. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to prove both the objective necessity of personal requirement and the requisite good faith under Section 15 of the Ordinance. The court laid down the principle that while a landlord generally has the discretion to choose which property to vacate for personal use, such choice must be backed by good faith and satisfactory explanations where suspicious circumstances, such as the selective targeting of a tenant or successive dubious eviction applications, exist.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord must establish both personal requirement and good faith under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the failure to join a ground of personal need in an earlier default eviction application affect the bona fides of a subsequent ejectment application?
- Does a landlord have absolute discretion in choosing which property to vacate when multiple properties are owned, regardless of good faith?
- Can the lack of explanation for bypassing other available properties reflect negatively on the bona fides of a landlord's personal requirement?
- Farzand Ali And Another vs Muhammad Yasin And Other1991 SCMR 1540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an eviction order passed against respondent No. 1 under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The petitioners sought the eviction of respondent No. 1 from a part of House No. 3/2 on the ground of default in rent. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding no landlord-tenant relationship existed, but the Additional District Judge reversed this finding and ordered eviction. The High Court accepted respondent No. 1's writ petition, reasoning that a prior civil court statement regarding joint possession of an adjacent plot barred the eviction proceedings. The core legal question was whether the civil court arrangement regarding the adjacent plot precluded eviction from the disputed house. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that as the parties had confused the boundaries of the separate properties and treated them as one, the High Court ought to have directed them to the Civil Court for final determination of title and possession.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement regarding joint possession of an open plot in a civil suit bars eviction proceedings concerning a separately allotted house?
- Should the High Court direct parties to a Civil Court for final determination when boundaries and identities of contiguous properties are confused?
- Faryad Hussain vs Messrs Faran Sugar Mills Ltd. and another1991 PLC 453 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
- Faryad Hussain And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
- Farrukh K. Captain vs Exxon Chemical Pakistan Ltd. and 8 others1991 PLD Karachi 441 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Farrukh Ejaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1828 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Farooq Waste Co. vs WAPDA and others1991 CLC 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-18Read full judgment →
- Farman Sher Gill vs Mst. Seema Safdar1991 CLC 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →