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.
- Farman Ilahi vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 353 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
- Farkhanda Akhtar vs Mian Naeem-Ur-RehmanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 129 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-07Read full judgment →
- Farida Khanum vs Maqbul Ilahi and 2 others1991 MLD 1531 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three writ petitions challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which affirmed a Family Court's decision regarding the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner sought dissolution on grounds including cruelty, misappropriation of dowry, and Khula. While the Family Court decreed the dissolution, it simultaneously ordered the petitioner to forego her dower and maintenance claims, treating the dissolution as based on Khula. The core legal question was whether a wife can be compelled to relinquish dower and maintenance when the marriage is dissolved on grounds of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry in addition to Khula, and whether such compensation can be ordered absent a specific demand by the husband. The Court held that when dissolution is granted on grounds like cruelty, which are independent of Khula under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, the wife cannot be penalized by forfeiting her financial rights. Furthermore, the Court established that a wife cannot be directed to pay compensation for Khula unless the husband has specifically demanded it in his pleadings or evidence.
Questions settled- Can a wife be compelled to forego dower and maintenance when a marriage is dissolved on grounds of cruelty and misappropriation of dowry alongside Khula?
- Is a court empowered to order the relinquishment of dower and maintenance as compensation for Khula if the husband has not specifically demanded such compensation in his pleadings or evidence?
- Does the dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, entitle a wife to her dower and maintenance?
- Farida Khanum and another vs Mian Muhammad Luqman and others1991 CLC 1663 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
- Farid Khan And Another vs Jabbar Khan Through Legal Heirs; And Other1991 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a revision petition and restored the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit regarding inheritance. The core legal question concerns whether the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, Waris Khan, was a full brother or a consanguine brother of the deceased Sargand Khan, and thereby entitled to a share in the estate. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish that Waris Khan was a full brother, and further noted that the petition was improperly documented due to the withholding of important documents (Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3) referred to by the lower courts. The principle laid down is that a petition for leave to appeal must be properly documented with all relevant exhibits, and failure to provide necessary documents can result in the dismissal of the petition, alongside the affirmation of findings on the burden of proof in inheritance disputes.
Questions settled- Whether the plaintiffs discharged the burden of proof to establish that their predecessor-in-interest was a full brother of the deceased?
- What is the consequence of failing to provide important documents and exhibits in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Whether a consanguine brother is entitled to share in the property of the deceased alongside a full brother under the applicable inheritance rules?
- Farid And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Fareew Ahmad vs Fikree Development Corporation Ltd.1991 MLD 2609 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
- Farazuddin and another vs Pakistan Navy through Commanding Officer1991 CLC 1866 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing a Fatal Accidents Act 1855 suit as time-barred regarding adult legal heirs while keeping it alive only for minor plaintiffs. The deceased died in a 1981 accident, and the suit was instituted in 1988 by minor grandchildren alongside adult legal heirs (widow and son). The core legal questions were whether the rights of legal beneficiaries under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 are joint or several, and whether Section 7 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to save limitation for adult claimants when co-claimants are under minor legal disability. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that legal heirs under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 are tenants-in-common with distinct interests, and no adult claimant could grant a valid discharge without the concurrence of the minor claimants. Thus, under Section 7 of the Limitation Act 1908, limitation did not run against any claimant, making the entire suit timely.
Questions settled- Whether the legal beneficiaries under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 hold a joint substantive right or distinct and several substantive rights?
- Does Section 7 of the Limitation Act 1908 save limitation for adult legal heirs when minor co-claimants are under a legal disability?
- Can an adult beneficiary under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 give a valid discharge without the concurrence of minor co-beneficiaries?
- Farasat Ali Shah Alias Cheena Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Farasat Ali Shah Alias Cheena Shah vs The StateK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 474 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Faqir vs Gul Zaman and 7 others1991 MLD 1870 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- Faqir Sain And Others vs Ghulam Ahmed And Another1991 P Cr. L J 1566 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs Muhammad Sharif1991 MLD 1578 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs Haji Muhammad Latif And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 2074 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad and others vs Mst. Muhammad Bibi and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff’s plaint and Vakalatnama were found to contain forged thumb-impressions rather than those of the plaintiff. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaint was not properly instituted. The Lahore High Court, however, set aside these findings, treating the non-signing of the documents as a curable procedural irregularity under Order VI, Rule 14, C.P.C. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reversed the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that while Order VI, Rule 14 permits the curing of defects arising from bona fide oversight or inadvertence, it does not extend to cases involving forgery, impersonation, or mala fide conduct. The ratio established is that courts of law exist to assist litigants approaching with clean hands; therefore, where pleadings are forged, the defect is not a mere irregularity but a fundamental illegality that cannot be ratified or cured. Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit, emphasizing that judicial indulgence is unavailable to parties guilty of fraudulent acts.
Questions settled- Can a plaint bearing forged signatures or thumb-impressions be cured under Order VI, Rule 14, C.P.C.?
- Does the doctrine of curing procedural irregularities apply to pleadings involving forgery or mala fide conduct?
- Can an illegal act, such as the forgery of a Vakalatnama, be ratified by the court?
- Is a suit maintainable if the plaint and Vakalatnama are not signed or thumb-impressed by the plaintiff?
- Faqir Muhammad and others vs Chief Land Commissioner and another1991 CLC 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
- Faqir Gul vs Chief Engineer And Other1991 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed in limine the petitioner's appeal against his termination from service as a Lineman-II. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's appeal, filed nearly a decade after the termination order, was maintainable given the significant delay. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation of two months. Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, ruling that the termination order was not subject to departmental appeal or challenge before the Tribunal after the expiry of nine years. The key principle laid down is that service appeals must be filed within the statutory period of limitation, and an inordinate delay of nine years renders such an appeal time-barred and non-maintainable. The petition was dismissed as not being a fit case for further consideration.
Questions settled- Is an appeal against a termination order maintainable if filed nine years after the order was passed?
- What is the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Falak Sher vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 352 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher vs The Additional District Judge, Faisalabad And Other1991 SCMR 1882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition in limine, upholding the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge directing the petitioner to vacate the demised premises and deposit the mortgage money. The core legal question concerns the scope of interference by a High Court in writ jurisdiction regarding concurrent findings of fact rendered by competent rent tribunals. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact recorded by competent tribunals regarding the non-existence of an agreement to sell cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of any illegality, jurisdictional error, misreading, non-reading of evidence, or disregard of superior court principles. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by rent tribunals can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an agreement to sell oust the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller when lower tribunals find no such agreement exists?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against the dismissal of a constitutional petition where no legal error is shown?
- Falak Sher vs Alam Sher And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 2432 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 237 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-11Read full judgment →
- Fakir Muhammad Behlim vs Exxon Chemicals Pak. Ltd.1991 MLD 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Fakir Muhammad and another vs Federation of Pakistan and another1991 PLC 830 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Fakhruddin and another vs Messrs Gestetner (Pakistan) Ltd.1991 CLC 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
- Faiz Elahi vs Shamir1991 CLC 2005 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, which had declared a previous consent decree regarding the sale of land as void. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell land, originally granted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, was invalid due to the absence of the Collector's permission under Section 19 of the Act. The High Court held that the vendor had attained absolute ownership of the land upon paying the full price to the government in 1958, prior to the agreement to sell. Consequently, the statutory restriction on alienation under Section 19 was inapplicable. The Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree, affirming the validity of the sale. The key principle laid down is that an occupancy tenant under the Act becomes the absolute owner of the land the moment the full price is paid, and title is not contingent upon the formal execution of a conveyance deed.
Questions settled- Does an occupancy tenant under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, become the absolute owner of land immediately upon payment of the full price to the government?
- Is the prior permission of the Collector under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, required for the transfer of land once the full price has been paid to the government?
- Can a consent decree be challenged on the ground that the underlying agreement was void due to statutory restrictions on alienation?
- Faiz Ahmad vs Munir Ahmad and 2 OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 467 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad vs Deputy Postmaster General, Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service as a postman in the Postal Department for withholding money order payments. The core legal question raised was whether the Tribunal erred by limiting its examination to procedural irregularities in the departmental inquiry rather than reviewing the proof of the charge. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the contention was based on wrong premises because the Tribunal had in fact perused the record and concurred with the inquiry findings regarding the petitioner's misconduct. The key principle laid down is that where a service tribunal examines the record and concurs with factual findings of misconduct, a petition for leave to appeal raising unsubstantiated claims of limited review has no merits and will be refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is required to examine whether a departmental charge was proved rather than only looking for procedural irregularities?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against the dismissal of a service appeal where the Tribunal has concurred with the finding of misconduct based on the record?
- Faiz Ahmad Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 44 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad and anothers vs Mst. Qudsia Khatoon1991 MLD 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first rent appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellants after striking off their defence for failure to deposit arrears of rent and monthly rent. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in ordering tentative rent and striking off the defence where the appellants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant based on an alleged agreement of sale. The Sindh High Court held that the Rent Controller had duly framed an issue regarding the relationship and that the appellants failed to produce the ownership documents or original agreement of sale, using delaying tactics. The Court ruled that an agreement of sale does not absolve a tenant from paying rent unless there is a clear term extinguishing the tenancy. The key principle laid down is that a tenant who enters into an agreement of sale for the rented premises remains liable to pay rent and continue as a tenant until the tenancy is legally determined.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller is bound to frame an issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant when denied by the tenant?
- Does an agreement to sell property between a landlord and tenant extinguish the obligation of the tenant to pay rent?
- Is a tenant justified in withholding rent merely on the basis of an unproved agreement of sale?
- Whether the Rent Controller is justified in striking off the defence of a tenant upon failure to comply with a tentative rent order?
- Faiz Ahmad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad and Another vs Mst. Qudsia KhatoonK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 453 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad And 16 Others vs Muhammad Sharif Khan And 8 Other1991 SCMR 689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter addresses leave to appeal granted to examine the correct interpretation of section 56 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950, specifically whether it bars a revision by the Board of Revenue where the Commissioner has already exercised revisional powers. The core legal question involves the nature and extent of the revisional powers possessed concurrently by the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner under the Act, and whether the exercise of jurisdiction by one exhausts the remedy to bar the other. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in applying analogies from section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, finding instead that the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner under section 56 are concurrent but not co-extensive in a manner that excludes the Board of Revenue from examining orders passed by the Commissioner. The Court laid down the principle that the Board of Revenue retains its overarching supervisory and revisional jurisdiction over subordinate authorities, including the Commissioner, in line with the hierarchical structure established by the Tenancy Act.
Questions settled- Whether section 56 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 bars a revision petition before the Board of Revenue once the Commissioner has exercised revisional powers?
- Are the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 co-extensive so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue over orders passed by the Commissioner?
- Can limitations from section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be imported into the interpretation of revisional powers under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950?
- Faiyaz Ahmad vs Messrs A.E.G. Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.1991 PLC 229 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
- Faisal Rashid vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2331 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- Faisal Rashid And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2040 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- Faisal Mahmood vs General Manager, Fauji Sugar Mills, Tando1991 PLC 461 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Fahmida Begum and others vs Khalid Roheel Alam and others1991 CLC 1644 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Faheemuddin vs Sabeeha Begum and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 1074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Lahore High Court, wherein the appellant challenged criminal proceedings initiated against him under section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage without obtaining prior permission from the Arbitration Council. The core legal question was whether the second wife has the locus standi to file a criminal complaint as an "aggrieved party" under the Ordinance, given that such legislation is typically intended to protect the rights of the first wife. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the second wife qualifies as an aggrieved person and a party competent to file the complaint, as she suffers direct legal, social, and emotional grievances from the husband's failure to obtain statutory permission. The key principles laid down are that the connotation of "aggrieved person" in matrimonial and penal contexts must be interpreted expansively rather than restrictively, and that a second wife is directly affected by the criminal omission of the husband.
Questions settled- Whether the second wife has the locus standi to file a criminal complaint against her husband for contracting a polygamous marriage without permission under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Can a second wife be considered an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Does the term "party" in Rule 21 of the rules framed under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 restrict the right of complaint exclusively to parties who participated in prior proceedings before the Arbitration Council?
- What is the proper legal interpretation of the word "aggrieved" in the context of matrimonial offenses and special penal statutes?
- Exxon Corporation and anothers vs Syed Nisar Ahmed Jafree and another1991 MLD 2485 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-05Read full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division No. 1, Larkana1991 PLC 913 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, Guddu Barrage Division, Kashmore vs General1991 PLC 919 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
- Executive Director (South) Mechanised Construction of Pakistan vs Muhammad Abid and 14 others1991 PLC 450 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
- Employees Union vs Treet Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad1991 PLC 784 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- Emmanual Ojagar And Others vs Miss Rozina Mall1991 SCMR 1863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed a decree for possession of a residential property in favour of the respondent, Miss Rozina Mall. The petitioner had previously engaged in multiple rounds of unsuccessful litigation, including a failed suit for declaration of title and a failed suit for perpetual injunction, both of which established that the petitioner lacked legal title to the property. In the third round of litigation, the respondent sought recovery of possession, asserting that the petitioner occupied the property as her licensee. The trial court decreed the suit in her favour, a decision upheld by the appellate court and the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent, as an allottee of the house, possessed sufficient title to maintain an action for possession. The Court held that the allotment created a clear right in the property, allowing the allottee to maintain an action for possession against an unauthorised occupant. Consequently, the Court found the petitioner to be a trespasser without legal right to possession and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does an allotment of property create sufficient title for an allottee to maintain an action for possession against an unauthorised occupant?
- Can a person who has previously failed to establish title to a property in earlier litigation continue to claim a right to retain possession?
- Emirates Bank International Limited vs Messrs Fair Commission Agency1991 CLC 450 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves several applications filed by the defendants under Order 37, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for leave to appear and defend a recovery suit originally instituted by Union Bank of the Middle East Ltd., which later became Emirates Bank International Limited. The core legal questions concern the validity of the merger of Dubai Bank Ltd. With UBME under Section 48 of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962, the accrual of limitation for suits filed against guarantors under guarantees payable on written demand, and the applicability of the doctrine of indoor management regarding corporate guarantees. The court held that the merger was validly sanctioned under Section 48 of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962, that limitation against guarantors whose liability arises upon written demand commences from the date of such demand rather than the execution date, and that the defence raised was vague and lacking in bona fides. Consequently, the court granted conditional leave to defend subject to the furnishing of security for the claimed amount.
Questions settled- Does Section 48 of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 apply exclusively to banks incorporated in Pakistan?
- When does the period of limitation begin to run for filing a recovery suit upon a bank guarantee payable on demand in writing?
- Are corporate guarantees executed by directors binding under the doctrine of indoor management when not ultra vires the company?
- Is a defendant entitled to unconditional leave to defend a summary recovery suit where the debt and borrowing are not denied?
- Ellahi Bakhsh and 12 others vs Muhammad Hussain and 3 others1991 MLD 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-06Read full judgment →
- Elite Publishers Employees' Union vs Elite Publishers (Pvt.) Limited1991 PLC 513 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
- Elis D. Silva vs Salahuddin and another1991 MLD 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Elis D. Silva vs Salahuddin and an OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 482 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-1991 PTD 1131 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Elahi Bux vs The State1991 MLD 226 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Elahi Bakhsh vs Project Director, Cooperative Karkhana Alaat-E-1991 PLC 392 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ejaz Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others1991 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
- Eid Muhammad And Another vs The State1991 SCMR 1422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the petitioners under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Shamas Khan, along with compensation orders under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners' death sentence should be maintained or altered in light of executive clemency. The Supreme Court held that in view of the amnesty ordered by the President, the sentence of death imposed upon the petitioners must be converted to imprisonment for life, with liberty to apply for revival of the petitions on merits if the amnesty order is set aside. The Court laid down the principle that presidential amnesty warrants the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment while preserving the right to seek disposal on merits if the amnesty is subsequently revoked, along with the statutory benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- How does a presidential amnesty affect a death sentence imposed under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Are petitioners entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their death sentence is converted to life imprisonment?
- What recourse is available to convicted persons if an executive amnesty order is subsequently set aside?
- Ehsanullah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Ehsan vs Mrs. Maimoona Begum1991 CLC 243 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
- Ehsan Ullah Bajwa vs Chairman City & Regional Planning DepartmentK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 308 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ehsan Ul Haq vs Shahnaz Begum And Other1991 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the concurrent findings of the Family Courts regarding the fixation of maintenance. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the maintenance allowance awarded to the respondent and the mode of its payment considering the financial standing of the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that no good ground existed to interfere with the quantum of maintenance fixed at Rs. 1,000 per month by the Family Courts. However, taking into consideration the straitened financial circumstances of the petitioner, the court modified the manner of payment, permitting him to pay the outstanding balance in seventeen equal monthly instalments subject to strict default conditions. The key principle laid down is that while appellate or revisional courts will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent factual determinations regarding maintenance amounts without valid cause, equitable relief in the schedule of payment may be granted to a judgment debtor facing proven financial hardship, coupled with default clauses to protect the decree-holder's rights.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of Family Courts regarding the fixation of maintenance without good ground?
- Can a petitioner be allowed to pay maintenance arrears in instalments in view of straitened circumstances?
- Ehsan Ali vs District Food Controller (R), Lahore1991 PLC (C.S.) 386 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
- E. in C, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi vs Muhammad Ashraf Bajwa1991 SCMR 1653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the E. in C., G.H.Q., Rawalpindi against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated a government servant (a Superintendent in the M.E.S.) who was removed from service following an extended absence. The respondent claimed he was absent due to illness (Tuberculosis) and had submitted medical certificates for leave extensions, though he was subsequently informed of his removal from service. The core legal question identified by the Supreme Court is whether a government servant who fails to formally apply for an extension of leave after the expiry of sanctioned leave, and who remains continuously absent from duty, is subject to departmental disciplinary action. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this issue further, noting that the question requires detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court stayed the implementation of the Federal Service Tribunal's order pending the final outcome of the appeal, while allowing the parties to submit additional documents.
Questions settled- Can a government servant who fails to apply for an extension of leave after the expiry of sanctioned leave and remains absent be subject to departmental disciplinary action?
- Dyno Pakistan Limited vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1991 PTD 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
- Duria Aman vs People Furnishers (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi1991 PLC 596 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-06Read full judgment →
- Dura Foam (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Union Council Kamahan, Tehsil Cantt., District Lahore and 4 others1991 MLD 1492 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Zulfiqar Haider vs Riaz Mahmud1991 SCMR 1298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a dispute over the specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of a plot of land. The petitioner agreed to sell a property to the respondent, but subsequently sold a portion of the land to a third party, Faheem-ul-Islam, prior to the initiation of the suit. The trial court decreed the specific performance of the agreement, and the High Court modified this decree, maintaining it only for the remaining portion of the land not sold to the third party. The respondent did not challenge the sale to the third party, which attained finality. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the original agreement for sale remains intact and capable of specific performance despite the inconsistent decree resulting from the partial sale of the property. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine the viability of the specific performance decree under these circumstances and ordered a stay of execution regarding the remaining land pending the final decision of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can an oral agreement for the sale of land be specifically performed if a portion of the property has already been sold to a third party?
- Does the partial sale of property subject to an agreement for sale render the original agreement incapable of specific performance?
- Is a decree for specific performance maintainable when it is inconsistent with the actual availability of the property due to a prior third-party transfer?
- Dr. Zubeda Hamid Ali Khan vs Mrs. Shibli1991 MLD 1383 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Dr. Syed Inamur Rehman vs Chief Secretary and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 86 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-12-04Read full judgment →
- Dr. Syed Anwar Ali Shah vs Government of N. W.F.P. Through Chief1991 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his promotion and seniority. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, contended that he became eligible for promotion to BS-19 in 1981, but his promotion was delayed while juniors were promoted. He argued that he was entitled to retrospective promotion effective from 1981, citing the precedent of a colleague, Dr. Muhammad Hanif Qureshi, who was granted such relief. The petitioner alleged that the failure to grant him retrospective promotion resulted in his supersession by junior officers. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective promotion to rectify the alleged supersession and ensure parity with similarly situated colleagues. Upon reviewing the contentions, the Supreme Court held that the case warranted further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the issues raised regarding seniority and the timing of promotion required a deeper examination of the departmental actions and the principles of service law governing such promotions.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to retrospective promotion when a junior officer has been promoted earlier?
- Does the failure to consider a senior officer for promotion while promoting juniors constitute grounds for judicial review of service matters?
- Can a service tribunal's order denying retrospective promotion be challenged on the basis of discriminatory treatment compared to other employees?
- Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui vs Mian Abdul Malik and 4 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal concerns a seniority dispute between government employees. The primary legal questions addressed were whether departmental comments submitted in a High Court writ petition constitute a final order enabling Service Tribunal jurisdiction, and whether the retrospective regularization of ad hoc appointments can lawfully prejudice the vested seniority rights of other civil servants. The Supreme Court held that the departmental comments, having been treated as a final order by the High Court, permitted the appellant to approach the Service Tribunal. The Court ruled that seniority is a vested right in Punjab that cannot be overridden by the Governor except in accordance with law. Consequently, the retrospective regularization of respondent No. 1’s appointment, which adversely affected the appellant's seniority, was declared without lawful authority. Additionally, the Court found that seniority determinations based on erroneous interpretations of service rules and non-existent transfer provisions were invalid. The appeal was allowed in part, granting the appellant seniority over respondents 1, 2, and 4, while upholding the position regarding respondent 3 based on established selection principles.
Questions settled- Can departmental comments submitted in a High Court writ petition be treated as a final order for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal?
- Does the Governor have the authority to regularize an ad hoc appointment from a retrospective date if such action adversely affects the vested seniority rights of other civil servants?
- Does the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, mandate the abatement of pending civil suits concerning terms and conditions of service?
- Is seniority a vested right that cannot be overridden by the Governor except in accordance with the law?
- Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui vs Mian Abdul Malik And 4 Other1991 SCMR 1130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for review regarding the determination of seniority between two direct recruits selected through the Public Service Commission. The petitioner contended that his seniority should not be adversely affected by a delay in assuming charge, which was attributable to the department, and argued that the 'older-in-age' principle should be applied to resolve the seniority dispute. The Supreme Court examined the established principles governing seniority for direct recruits. The Court held that when candidates are selected through the Public Service Commission, their merit position assigned by the Commission determines seniority, regardless of the date they assume charge. The Court further clarified that the 'older-in-age' formula is not a primary rule of seniority but is only applicable as a tie-breaker when two candidates assume charge on the same date. Finding no merit in the petitioner's submissions regarding the misapplication of these principles, the Court dismissed the review petition, affirming that the established merit-based seniority criteria must prevail over the petitioner's proposed alternatives.
Questions settled- Does the date of assuming charge determine seniority for direct recruits selected through the Public Service Commission?
- When is the 'older-in-age' formula applicable for determining seniority between two direct recruits?
- Does a delay in assuming charge caused by the department entitle a recruit to seniority based on merit position regardless of the date of joining?
- Dr. S.S. Naeemul Hamid vs Mst. Tahira Sultana and others1991 CLC 853 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as an appeal against an appellate court's dismissal of an appeal on the ground of limitation. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court correctly computed the limitation period for filing the appeal, specifically regarding the date an application for a certified copy of the decree was made, and whether a cross-appeal could be treated as cross-objections even if the original appeal was withdrawn. The High Court, treating the appeal as a revision petition, held that the limitation period must be calculated from the date the copying agency entertained the application, regardless of when court fees were affixed or internal sanctions obtained. Furthermore, the court held that a cross-appeal filed while another appeal is pending can be treated as cross-objections, and such cross-objections must be decided on merits even if the original appeal is subsequently withdrawn. The key principle laid down is that the date an application is entered in the copying agency's register constitutes the date of application for limitation purposes, and procedural technicalities regarding the labeling of an appeal should not preclude substantive justice.
Questions settled- Does the date an application for a certified copy is entered in the copying agency's register determine the start of the limitation period, regardless of when court fees are affixed?
- Can a cross-appeal be treated as cross-objections even if the original appeal is subsequently withdrawn?
- Is an appellate court required to decide cross-objections on their merits even if the main appeal is withdrawn?
- Can a second appeal be treated as a revision petition if the valuation of the suit does not support a second appeal?
- Dr. Obaidurrehman and 5 otherss vs Messrs M.R. Sons and 2 others1991 CLC 1768 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-05Read full judgment →
- DR. Munawar Hussain vs Government of the Punjab and AnotherK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 166 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Siddique vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Shaukat Iqbal and others vs Muhammad Luqman Arshad1991 MLD 1919 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord against his tenant for rent-default and subletting of a shop. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but upon appeal, the lower appellate court set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for a fresh inquiry on the recast issue of rent-default. Following remand, the Rent Controller found the tenant to be a defaulter and ordered his ejectment, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The petitioner challenged these concurrent findings through a constitutional petition under Article 199, arguing that the remand was legally defective under the relevant rent ordinance and that the courts below disregarded material evidence. The Lahore High Court held that appellate authorities possess inherent powers of remand governed by the principles of the Civil Procedure Code, that the previous remand order having been accepted could not be reopened, and that questions of fact regarding rent payment appraised concurrently by the lower courts are not open to review in constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate authority has the power to remand a case for a fresh trial or further inquiry under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding rent-default recorded by the lower courts be interfered with in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Where a party accepts a remand order and participates in subsequent proceedings without challenge, can the legality or propriety of that remand order be questioned subsequently?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the payment, discharge, or satisfaction of rent liability in an ejectment proceeding?
- Dr. Muhammad Shafiq vs Secretary, Health Division and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 794 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Saeed vs Ahsan Raza and another1991 CLC 1266 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Latif Kazi vs Secretary, Health Department, Government1991 PLC (C.S.) 158 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Akhtar vs The Secretary, Government of N. W.F.P., Health and Social Welfare Department, Peshawar And Other1991 SCMR 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Medical Officer in the Health Department of the Government of N.W.F.P., challenged his reversion from the post of Senior Registrar (BPS-18) to Medical Officer (BPS-17). Initially appointed as Senior Registrar on an ad hoc basis, the petitioner claimed that the enactment of the N.-W.F.P. Act No. I of 1988 regularized his appointment to the post of Senior Registrar (BPS-18) effective from January 23, 1988. Despite this, while on deputation abroad, the government issued an order reverting him to his previous rank and appointing another doctor in his place. His departmental appeal and subsequent appeal before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal were dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the provisions of the N.-W.F.P. Act No. I of 1988 conferred regular status upon the petitioner, thereby rendering his subsequent reversion illegal, void, and ultra vires. The Court found the matter fit for further examination and granted leave to appeal, allowing the parties to proceed on the existing record with the option to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Does the N.-W.F.P. Act No. I of 1988 confer regular status upon an ad hoc appointee holding a post on the date of its enactment?
- Can a civil servant who has been regularized under the N.-W.F.P. Act No. I of 1988 be lawfully reverted to a lower grade without specific legal justification?
- Whether an order of reversion issued after the regularization of a post under the N.-W.F.P. Act No. I of 1988 is ultra vires.
- Dr. Mahboob Ali Sooniro vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. Khalid Karim vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 10 others1991 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-03Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ishar Fatima vs Haji Muhammad and others1991 CLC 2074 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Appellant. vs Shaukat Ali Babar, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 643 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Dr. Haider Ali Mithani and anothers vs Ishrat Swaleh and 4 otherss1991 CLC 409 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
- Dr. H.H. Mirza vs Mst. Waheeda Kahtoon1991 MLD 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ghulam Hussain And 6 Others vs Qazi Rehmatullah And Another1991 SCMR 1267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a criminal complaint involving charges under sections 302, 307, 436, 219, 218, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question concerned whether the appellants, who were not public servants, required prior sanction for prosecution, and whether the inclusion of an offence under Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, necessitated the transfer of the case to a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. Following the precedent set in a connected appeal arising from the same facts, the Supreme Court held that since the appellants were not public servants, no prior sanction for prosecution was required. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court observed that while Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is a scheduled offence triable by a Special Court, the presence of other charges, specifically Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, maintained the jurisdiction of the Court of Session. The Court dismissed the appeal, directing the appellants to move the trial court regarding the specific charge under Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while the trial proceeds on other charges.
Questions settled- Is prior sanction for prosecution required for accused persons who are not public servants?
- Does the inclusion of a scheduled offence under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 automatically oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Session when other non-scheduled offences are also charged?
- Can a trial court proceed with a case involving both scheduled and non-scheduled offences?
- DR. Fazlullah Pechuho vs The Federation of Pakistan and 3 Other(K.L.R 1991 Labour & Secvice Cases 237) · Balochistan High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. Fazlullah Pechuho and others vs The Federation of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 960 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. Farooq Hamid And Others vs Kaka Muhammad Khan And 6 Other1991 SCMR 1235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a landlord-tenant dispute over commercial premises. The core legal question involved the lawful resolution of the eviction and reconstruction dispute through a mutually agreed compromise between the parties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the written compromise agreement filed by the parties, disposing of the appeals in terms of the settlement. The court held that the parties must strictly adhere to the agreed conditions, which permitted the landlord to reconstruct the building subject to the tenants retaining their right of occupation in the newly constructed shops, with rent to be subsequently determined by the Rent Controller. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may dispose of matters in accordance with lawful compromises reached between contesting litigants, and that breach of solemn undertakings given to the court pursuant to such settlements constitutes contempt of court.
Questions settled- Can appellate proceedings be disposed of in terms of a written compromise reached between landlords and tenants?
- Whether breach of an undertaking given to the court pursuant to a settlement terms amounts to contempt of court?
- How is the rent of newly-reconstructed premises determined when parties agree to such terms in a compromise?
- Dr. Atta Muhammad Mangi vs Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad1991 PLC (C.S.) 400 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
- Dr. Arshad Kamal Khan vs Mrs. Saeeda Khalid Kamal Khan1991 CLC 520 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ahmed Salman Waris vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Health and others ,1991 PLC (C.S.) 670 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Dr. Adil Hamid vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief1991 PLC (C.S.) 1195 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal by a senior Civil Medical Officer challenging a notification promoting his juniors to National Pay Scale No. 18 while ignoring his own claim for promotion. The core legal question revolved around the extent of the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction to review promotion orders passed on the recommendations of the Selection Board and whether promotion could be denied based on minor disciplinary penalties in the absence of adverse Annual Confidential Reports. The Tribunal held that while promotion cannot be claimed as an absolute right and tribunals do not act as selection boards, the Tribunal possesses full jurisdiction to examine selection proceedings in cases of material mistake, oversight, or violation of rules, and that minor penalties like censure cannot permanently bar a civil servant from due promotion. The Tribunal set aside the promotion selection process regarding the appellant, directing the Selection Board to reconsider his case afresh on merits, seniority, and service record.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to review proceedings and recommendations of a Selection Board in promotion matters?
- Can a civil servant claim promotion to a higher grade as a matter of right?
- Does a minor penalty such as censure permanently bar a civil servant from being considered for promotion?
- What elements constitute selection on merit for the promotion of civil servants?
- Dr. Abdur Rauf And Other, Major (Retd.) Mufti Nazar Muhammad And Other vs Sh. Muhammad Iqbal And Other Government of the Punjab And Other1991 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common order disposes of two petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that invalidated orders of the Government of Punjab. The provincial government had granted relaxed sanction to convert permanently prohibited green open spaces into residential plots within private town planning schemes approved under Section 260 of the City of Lahore Corporation Act, 1941. Private plot purchasers successfully challenged the relaxation orders via writ petitions. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that private respondents lacked locus standi and that the underlying land remained private property. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that proper statutory procedure for altering an approved scheme was not followed and jurisdictional requirements were not met. Relying on precedent, the Court affirmed that plot owners possessing a personal interest in the performance of a statutory duty have sufficient locus standi to file a writ petition. Further, while ownership of open space is not automatically divested from the scheme's framer, permanent building prohibitions under an approved statutory scheme cannot be arbitrarily removed. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Does a purchaser of a residential plot in an approved town planning scheme have locus standi to challenge a government order relaxing statutory building prohibitions on reserved open spaces?
- Can the government dispense with or remove permanent building prohibitions under an approved town planning scheme without following the prescribed statutory procedure?
- Does the approval of a town planning scheme prohibiting building operations on green open spaces automatically divest the original landowner of ownership of that land?
- Dr. Abdul Raziq vs Mr. Mubeenul Haq Khan And Other1991 SCMR 1527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Baluchistan High Court upholding the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement and subletting. The core legal question concerns whether a landlord's plea of personal bona fide requirement is negated or rendered lacking in bona fide merely because the eviction application was filed prior to the landlord shifting to the city where the premises are located. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement is not expected to sit idle and their bona fide need is not affected by being away or filing the application prior to relocating. The key principle laid down is that prior filing of an eviction application before physical relocation does not invalidate the landlord's claim of personal bona fide requirement.
Questions settled- Whether filing an eviction application prior to shifting to the city proves a lack of bona fide personal requirement?
- Does a landlord's absence or engagement in gainful occupation elsewhere affect their claim of personal bona fide requirement for a rented premises?
- Dr. Abdul Hafeez vs Province of Punjab through the Secretary Education, Lahore and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the summary dismissal of a first appeal by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court without summoning the lower court's record. The High Court had held that a prima facie case must first be established before summoning the record and hearing the respondents under Section 24(3) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a first appeal preferred under the said provision could be disposed of in limine without summoning or examining the record. The Court held that the plain language of Section 24(3) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963, as amended by Ordinance IX of 1985, mandates that the High Court make an appropriate order only after perusing the record and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. Drawing a parallel with similar provisions in the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, the Court ruled that the duty to call for the record is imperative, and a first appeal cannot be dismissed in limine. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded.
Questions settled- Can a first appeal preferred under Section 24(3) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 be summarily dismissed without summoning or examining the record of the case?
- Whether the requirement to peruse the record and hear the parties under Section 24(3) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 is directory or mandatory?
- Does the appellate authority under rent restriction laws have the power to dismiss a first appeal in limine without calling for the record from the Controller?
- Dr. (Miss) Kamar Ansari vs Prime Minister of Pakistan and 4 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 257 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-02-26Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1763 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing) And Other1991 SCMR 84 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner challenged the transfer of certain shops and houses through a P.T.O. and P.T.D. issued in favour of the respondents' predecessor-in-interest. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner could belatedly challenge the transfer documents decades after their issuance and after having previously attorned as a tenant to another party. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was guilty of gross negligence and delay in prosecuting his claim, having failed to challenge the transfer from 1959 until 1984, and that his belated attempts were merely designed to forestall an eviction decree passed against him. The key principle laid down is that gross laches, negligence, and acquiescence—such as attorning as a tenant—disentitle a party from seeking discretionary relief against long-standing property transfers.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a property transfer order and permanent transfer deed decades after their issuance?
- Does attorning as a tenant to another party preclude a person from subsequently claiming ownership of the same property?
- Will a belated attempt to secure property transfer be entertained when it is initiated merely to forestall an eviction decree?
- Dost Muhammad vs Babar Munir1991 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant of a shop situated in the Cantonment area of Rawalpindi, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his eviction order passed by the Cantonment Rent Controller on the ground of bona fide personal need of the respondent landlord. The core legal questions involved whether pending litigation regarding the property's transfer under rehabilitation laws bars eviction proceedings, and whether the withdrawal of a prior eviction petition by the landlord's predecessor disables the current landlord from seeking ejectment. The Supreme Court held that the existence of a provisional transfer order (P.T.O.) establishes the statutory landlord-tenant relationship independently of ongoing title disputes, and that the predecessor's withdrawal of a prior petition does not estop the current owner from proving his own independent personal need. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, while granting the tenant three months to vacate upon conditions of regular rent payment and peaceful surrender.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a challenge regarding the transfer of property under rehabilitation laws bar eviction proceedings by a provisional transferee?
- Whether the withdrawal of a prior eviction petition by a predecessor-in-interest inhibits the right of a subsequent transferee to seek ejectment on the ground of personal need?
- When does the entitlement of a transferee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act arise to establish a statutory relationship with the tenant?
- Dost Muhammad And 6 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →