Latest Judgments

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

• Anjuman Masjid I Farooqia And 3 Others vs Mst. Fazal Begum And 31991 SCMR 2112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-10
  Waqf propertylong userdedicationdeclaration suitrecord of rightscharitable purpose
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for declaration filed by the respondents, claiming that certain shops were private property and not Waqf property, despite entries in the record of rights. The trial court and the first appellate court had dismissed the suit, primarily on the grounds of limitation and the finding that the property was Waqf due to long usage. The High Court reversed these findings, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court, upon review, addressed whether long user of property constitutes sufficient evidence to declare it as Waqf. The Court held that long user is not conclusive proof of Waqf status; it depends on the circumstances of each case, specifically whether the property itself was dedicated or merely its income was utilized for charitable purposes. Finding no evidence of permanent dedication of the property, the Court concluded that the mere use of rental income for a mosque did not render the property Waqf. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does long usage of a property as Waqf automatically establish it as Waqf property?
  • Does the use of income from a property for the maintenance of a mosque constitute a permanent dedication of the property as Waqf?
  • Is long user sufficient evidence to declare property as Waqf without proof of permanent dedication?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Falaho Bahbood Muhajreen vs Abdul Majeed1991 CLC 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Anjum Sohail vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Anees Akhtar vs Dr. Amanul14aque And Others1991 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
• Anees Ahmad Khan vs Karachi Transport Corporation1991 PLC 690 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
• Anar Gul vs Gulfam and another1991 PLD Supreme Court 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Amjad Rashid Khan Malik vs Mrs. Zubeda Rashid Khan Malik and 8 others1991 CLC 1986 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain vs Muhammad Zaeemurrehman and others1991 MLD 2253 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs Messrs Nagina Cotton Mills No. 21991 PLC 693 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
• Amirullah through Legal Heirs vs Surat Ali and 17 others1991 PLD Peshawar 29 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-17
  limited ownercustomary lawwidow estateinheritancealienation by giftburden of proofrefugee property allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for possession of land by inheritance. The core legal question was whether a widow who migrated from India following the partition and received an allotment of land in Pakistan held that land as a limited owner under customary law or as a full owner, thereby determining the validity of a subsequent gift made by her. The Peshawar High Court held that custom must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence, and since the plaintiffs failed to establish that the widow succeeded to her deceased husband's estate as a limited owner under custom in India, she was rightly regarded as a full-fledged owner competent to alienate the property. The court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, establishing the principle that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case and that the existence of a limited estate under customary law cannot be presumed merely from the status of a widow without affirmative proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a widow succeeding to her deceased husband's estate in India and receiving land in Pakistan in lieu thereof holds it as a limited owner under customary law without affirmative proof of such custom?
  • Does the mere description of a female as a widow in revenue records create a legal presumption of a limited estate?
  • Can a plaintiff succeed in a claim for inheritance by relying on the alleged weaknesses of the defendant's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Amirullah and Other vs Surat Ali and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 485 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
• Amirul Haq vs Attaur RehmanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 54 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
• Amir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 534 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-02
  statutory bailprolonged detentiontrial delayadjournmentcriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court concerns an accused, Amir, detained since November 1987 in connection with a case registered under sections 302, 504, 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial, given that he had been in continuous detention for approximately three years. The Court observed that the delay in trial disposal could not be attributed to the applicant, as his few requests for adjournments were based on genuine grounds, such as counsel illness or pre-occupation. The Court held that legitimate requests for adjournments do not bar an accused from invoking the statutory right to bail. Establishing that the applicant had exceeded the statutory period for detention without trial, the Court granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that an accused cannot be penalized for seeking adjournments on valid grounds, and such requests do not negate the statutory right to bail when the detention period exceeds the prescribed limit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a legitimate request for an adjournment by an accused bar the invocation of the statutory right to bail due to trial delay?
  • Can an accused be penalized for trial delays caused by the illness or pre-occupation of their counsel?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right if they have been in continuous detention for more than two years without the trial being concluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Nawaz Khan Jatoi vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and 4 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 735 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-29Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1628 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsi vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh Through Legal Heirs vs Sanwal Khan And Another1991 SCMR 1574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-15
  specific performancebona fide purchaseragreement to sellconcurrent findings of factnotice of prior agreementnovation of contractcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns a dispute over the specific performance of a contract for the sale of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the appellants, who entered into a subsequent agreement to purchase the land, qualified as bona fide purchasers for value without notice of a prior agreement between the seller and the respondent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellants had actual knowledge of the prior agreement and the pending litigation at the time they executed their agreement. The Court held that the subsequent agreement, which superseded the initial one, was entered into with full awareness of the respondent's prior claim. Consequently, the appellants could not claim the status of bona fide purchasers. The principle established is that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim protection against a prior contract if they had notice of the prior interest or pending litigation at the time of their transaction, and the Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent purchaser who has knowledge of a prior pending suit for specific performance qualify as a bona fide purchaser without notice?
  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a party's knowledge of a prior property transaction?
  • Does a subsequent agreement that supersedes an earlier contract constitute a new transaction for the purpose of determining notice of prior claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali Shah and others vs Hassan Muhammad and others1991 CLC 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Amir Ahmad vs Province of Punjab and others1991 CLC 1624 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Amir Ahmad and another vs Attaullah1991 PLD Revenue 4 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-03-22Read full judgment →
• Aminul Haq vs Messrs Fauji Sugar Mills1991 PLC 640 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
• Amina Nazli vs Government of the Punjab and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 233 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
• Amin vs Haji Abdul Sattar through his Legal Heirs and 21 otherss1991 CLC 517 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• Ami Chain vs Fajroo1991 PLD Supreme Court 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-12
  gifthibamutationdelivery of possessionfraudulent transfercivil appealdonor and donee
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration that a mutation of gift regarding agricultural land was fraudulent and void. The appellant, the donor, contested a gift mutation that allocated five-sixths of his land to a remote relative, Fajroo, while granting only one-sixth to his own daughters. The core legal question was whether the gift was validly executed, specifically concerning the delivery of possession and the donor's intent. The Supreme Court observed that the donor consistently denied making the gift and that the donee failed to establish the delivery of possession, a fundamental requirement for a valid gift. Furthermore, the court found the disproportionate distribution of property to a remote relative, to the detriment of the donor's daughters, highly suspicious and inconsistent with Islamic principles regarding the protection of female interests. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the gift was never made, set aside the impugned judgments of the lower courts, and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the absence of possession and the donor's denial invalidated the alleged transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the delivery of possession a mandatory requirement for the validity of a gift under Islamic law?
  • Can a mutation of gift be set aside if the donor denies the transaction and the donee fails to prove possession?
  • Does the unnatural distribution of property in a gift transaction constitute a valid ground for challenging the mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Muhammad Zaman Khan vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir1991 PLC (C.S.) 659 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan And Other vs The Federal Government Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And OtherPTCL 1991 CL. 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  stock exchange registrationconstitutional petitionmala fides of factministerial immunitystatutory hearingadministrative discretionfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves six appeals and two miscellaneous applications arising from a consolidated decision of the Lahore High Court concerning the refusal of registration applications and the subsequent grant of a no-objection certificate for establishing a Stock Exchange at Islamabad. The core legal questions involved whether the requirements of Section 5(3) of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 and the Rules of Business were complied with, whether the Minister of State for Finance acted with factual mala fides, and the extent of constitutional immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the order of the Minister of State granting registration suffered from fundamental statutory infirmities, specifically the failure to provide a hearing to refused applicants, failure to record reasons as mandated by Section 5, and failure to properly communicate the refusal. The Court ruled that while constitutional protections under Article 248 must be construed strictly and cannot be indirectly bypassed by natural justice without properly impleading a party for findings of factual mala fides, the administrative decision itself was unsustainable due to procedural and statutory non-compliance. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, the registration granted was set aside, and all applications were remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to provide a hearing to an applicant under Section 5(3) of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 vitiates the refusal of registration?
  • Does Article 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 afford absolute immunity to a Minister from court proceedings when actions are challenged on the grounds of factual mala fides?
  • Can a finding of factual mala fides be legally recorded against a protected public functionary without formally impleading them as a party to the proceedings?
  • Whether the delegation of powers under Section 28 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 prevents the delegator from concurrently exercising or reserving powers in a particular administrative matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah And 2 Others vs The State1991 SCMR 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-13
  bail cancellationexpedited trialfresh bail applicationeyewitness testimonycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Baluchistan, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by the Sessions Judge, Sibi. The core legal question involved the propriety of the bail cancellation in the context of pending trial proceedings and the availability of a key eyewitness. During the hearing, the Assistant Advocate General informed the Court that the sole eyewitness, Yar Muhammad, had not yet been examined in the trial under Section 302/307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The State proposed that the trial be expedited to record this witness's testimony. Consequently, the petitioners' counsel did not press the petitions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as not pressed, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and record the testimony of the eyewitness within one month. The Court held that upon the recording of this evidence, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh bail application before the trial court, which must decide the matter on its merits, uninfluenced by the High Court's previous cancellation order.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused file a fresh bail application after the recording of key prosecution evidence?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to direct the trial court to expedite the recording of a specific witness's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ullah Khan vs Chairman, WAPDA and 6 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 872 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs Riaz Hussain1991 MLD 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah Khan vs Addl District Judge Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 266 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-26Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 250 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-26Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur1991 PLC 662 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs Abdul Majeed1991 SCMR 2523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-27
  pre-emptioncustomary lawconcurrent findings of facturban propertyappreciation of evidencepre-emption suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court, challenged the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed a decree for possession through pre-emption granted by the District Judge. The core legal dispute concerned whether the custom of pre-emption prevailed in the specific locality (Taraf Ismail) where the disputed urban property was situated. The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of this custom. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the District Court and the High Court had rendered concurrent findings of fact, relying on a Municipal certificate and other supporting documentation to conclude that the property fell within a locality where the custom of pre-emption prevailed. The Court found the testimony of the vendor—the appellant's father—unreliable due to admitted ill-will toward his son. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower appellate courts, ruling that there was no justification to interfere with the factual determination. The Court further observed that a son filing a pre-emption suit against his father is not inherently indicative of collusion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a custom of pre-emption in a specific locality?
  • Is a pre-emption suit filed by a son against his father inherently indicative of collusion?
  • Does the testimony of a vendor who admits to having ill-will against his son carry significant evidentiary weight in a pre-emption dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmed vs Karachi Port Trust through its Chairman and 4 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 511 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmad Khan vs Dr. Muhammad Naseer Akhtar1991 CLC 1861 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Almehboob Industrial Multipurpose Cooperative Society and others vs Pak Cycle Manufacturing Co.Ltd. and others1991 CLC 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Almas Khakwani and 3 others vs The Additional District Judge, Lahore1991 MLD 965 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs International Complex Projects Ltd.1991 MLD 2599 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan LT.D. Muhammad Aslam vs Khalid Farooq the State1991 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-12-19
  post-arrest bailpre-arrest bailsuspension of sentencespecial courtbanking offencesouster of jurisdictionappellate jurisdictioninherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from two criminal appeals concerning the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, IX of 1984. The first appeal challenged the High Court's order allowing bail to an accused pending trial on the ground that an earlier pre-arrest bail granted by the Sessions Judge remained in force. The second appeal challenged the High Court's refusal to suspend a sentence and grant bail to a convict pending appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the interaction between the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the special provisions of the Ordinance. The Court held that while Section 5(6) of the Ordinance does not completely oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 497 of the Code to grant bail to an accused during investigation or trial, Section 10(1) of the Ordinance contains an express and absolute bar against the High Court suspending a sentence or releasing a convict on bail under Section 426 of the Code pending appeal. Consequently, the Court accepted the Bank's appeal, setting aside the High Court's bail order, and dismissed the convict's appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court retain jurisdiction under Section 497 of the Cr.P.C. to grant bail to an accused during investigation or trial under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does Section 10(1) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, bar the High Court from suspending a sentence and granting bail to a convict under Section 426 of the Cr.P.C. pending appeal?
  • Can the High Court invoke its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. to bypass an express statutory prohibition against releasing a convict on bail pending appeal?
  • Does a pre-arrest bail granted by a Sessions Court remain valid and effective after the accused has been subsequently arrested and the case transferred to a Special Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 960 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasayo vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 505 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1587 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Settlement Commissioner and others1991 CLC 1452 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Mst. Farida Bano and 2 others1991 CLC 1835 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Dhoonda and others1991 CLC 1428 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha and others vs Chandar Khan1991 MLD 1503 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha and another vs Muhammad Yousuf and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-11
  abatement of suitdeath of partyconclusion of hearingredemption of mortgagecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' Regular Second Appeal, which had challenged concurrent findings regarding the non-abatement of a redemption suit. The core legal question was whether the date fixed for hearing arguments constituted a step short of the conclusion of the hearing under Order XXII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thus causing the suit to abate upon the death of a plaintiff after the close of evidence but before judgment. The Supreme Court held that where parties fail to appear to address arguments, the hearing is deemed to have concluded with the close of evidence for the purposes of Order XXII, Rule 6, preserving the proceedings and preventing abatement. The key principle laid down is that the hearing of arguments is not strictly essential before disposing of a case if the parties do not avail themselves of the opportunity, and in such instances, the conclusion of evidence marks the end of the hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit abate if a party dies after the close of evidence but before the pronouncement of judgment?
  • Is the hearing of arguments essential under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before a case can be disposed of?
  • When does a hearing conclude for the purposes of Order XXII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 if parties fail to address arguments?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dma vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 370 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State and another1991 P Cr. L J 663 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State and another-1991 P Cr. L J 408 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-21
  habeas corpusillegal detentionremand orderpost-arrest bailprohibition
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition was filed seeking the production and release of the detenu, Mushtaq Ahmad, who was allegedly confined in District Jail, Lahore without a legal remand order. Upon examination of the record, it was revealed that the detenu was facing multiple cases, including one under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and that a remand order had been passed without the accused being produced before the trial court, rendering his detention prima facie illegal. Although the court noted the illegality of the detention due to the absence of a proper physical remand, it declined to order the immediate release of the detenu given the heinous nature of the charges. Instead, upon the petitioner's request, the petition was converted into one for post-arrest bail. Relying on established precedents regarding illegal remand, the Lahore High Court exercised its discretion to grant bail to the detenu subject to furnishing suitable sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Does detention become illegal when a remand order is passed without producing the accused before the court?
  • Can a habeas corpus petition be converted into an application for post-arrest bail?
  • Whether an accused held under an illegal remand order for a serious offence is entitled to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Sarwar and others1991 MLD 1335 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Government of Pakistan and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 522 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 306 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and anothers vs Saeed Ahmad1991 MLD 581 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-06
  second appealpre-emptionwaiverappreciation of evidencezar-i-panjumdeficit court-feefindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent was decreed, and the appellants' defense of waiver and contentions regarding limitation and deposit of zar-i-panjum were rejected. The core legal questions involved whether a second appeal is competent against concurrent findings of fact regarding waiver, and whether the extension of time for the deposit of court-fee and zar-i-panjum vitiated the proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the appreciation of oral evidence and witness credibility by the lower courts constitutes a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in second appeal under sections 100 and 101 unless an error of law or procedure is shown. The Court further ruled that waiver requires strong and convincing evidence, which was lacking in this case, and that the extension of time for depositing deficit court-fee and zar-i-panjum was legally justified. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding waiver in a second appeal?
  • Whether the appreciation of oral evidence and witness credibility by lower courts constitutes a ground for second appeal under sections 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the extension of time by the trial court for the deposit of zar-i-panjum require prior notice to the opposite party?
  • Is the payment of deficit court-fee within the time allowed by the court relatable to the question of limitation in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and another vs Rehmat Ali1991 PLD Supreme Court 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-12
  civil revisiondismissal in defaultrestoration applicationpre-emptionlimitation periodexclusion of time
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged the High Court's judgment accepting the respondent's civil revision in a pre-emption matter. The respondent's initial civil revision was dismissed in default, and a subsequent restoration application was also dismissed. Instead of challenging the restoration refusal, the respondent filed a fresh civil revision. The core legal questions were whether filing a restoration application exhausts the remedy and bars a fresh proceeding under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the time spent pursuing the restoration application can be excluded for limitation purposes. The Supreme Court held that the remedies of seeking restoration and bringing a fresh proceeding are not mutually exclusive, and a fresh proceeding is permissible subject to the law of limitation. Furthermore, the period spent pursuing the restoration application is excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908. The appeal was consequently dismissed, establishing that a party may pursue a fresh proceeding after the dismissal of a restoration application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a restoration application bar the filing of a fresh suit or revision under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can the time spent in pursuing an application for restoration of a dismissed proceeding be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Are the remedies of seeking restoration of a dismissed proceeding and filing a fresh proceeding mutually exclusive under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 392 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Din Akhtar vs The Deputy Director, Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha Ant Another1991 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-20
  leave to appealservice tribunaldepartmental inquirynegligenceloss of government propertyrailways commercial manual
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by Allah Din Akhtar against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed his appeal against the imposition of financial liability for the loss of government property. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner had the legal authority or departmental instruction to appoint a watchman for goods lying at a railway station, whether the railway watch and ward staff were responsible for the safe custody of the goods, and whether the established negligence of a railway constable in causing the fire exonerated the petitioner from liability. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these points, holding that the submissions required detailed examination, and suspended the recovery of the penalty pending the decision of the appeal. The key principle relates to the determination of departmental liability and negligence when multiple parties are involved in the custody of government goods.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it was the duty of the Railways Watch and Ward Staff for the safe custody of the goods lying under the shed at the Jauharabad Railway Station in view of the Pakistan Railways Commercial Manual?
  • Whether the petitioner had any authority under any provision of law or departmental instruction to appoint a whole time Chowkidar at the Jauharabad Railway Station for the safe custody of goods?
  • Whether the finding that the fire was caused by the negligence of a Railways Constable releases the petitioner from all liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Mehmood Shah And Other1991 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-04
  leave to appealres judicataOrder II Rule 2 CPCdeclaratory suitfrivolous litigationabandonment of claim
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision in a declaratory suit, having lost across all previous forums. The core legal question concerned whether the current suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given that the petitioner attempted to relitigate an alternative claim based on title documents allegedly not decided in the previous round of litigation spanning decades. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had effectively abandoned the alternative claim regarding title deeds during the initial trial and could not be permitted to reagitate the matter. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot initiate fresh litigation on alternative pleas that were abandoned or could have been raised and decided in earlier conclusive proceedings, and attempts to do so constitute frivolous litigation barred by res judicata and procedural estoppel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party can bring a fresh suit on an alternative claim that was abandoned or not pursued during previous litigation?
  • Does the principle of res judicata bar a subsequent suit based on title documents when the same were used or could have been adjudicated in earlier proceedings?
  • Whether the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to prevent splitting of claims in successive rounds of litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Government of Pakistan And Other1991 SCMR 1770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27
  leave to appealconcurrent findings of factsuit for declaration and possessionownership by prescriptionmortgagecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision by the High Court. The underlying litigation originated from a suit for declaration and possession, wherein the plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit land by prescription based on a mortgage after the lapse of sixty years, contesting primarily against the Government of Pakistan. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the District Court and the High Court subsequently dismissed the claim through concurrent findings of fact. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that documentary evidence, including the mislea haquiat, Khasra Pemash, and a musavi of 1872, supported his claim. The Supreme Court evaluated the reasoning of the lower courts and found that the High Court had adopted a reasonable approach without misreading or non-reading of evidence, particularly noting that the disputed Khasra number was situated within a compact block owned by the Government characterized as a civil-military Rakh. Concluding that no sufficient grounds existed to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
  • Can ownership of land be established by prescription on account of a mortgage after the lapse of sixty years against government property?
  • Does the misreading or non-reading of documentary evidence vitiate concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bukhsh vs Muhammad Bukhsh and OthersK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 462 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Baksh vs Abdul AzizK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 198 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Umar And Another1991 SCMR 1692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-29
  pre-emptionmarket valuelocal commissioneragricultural landcompensationN.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment regarding pre-emption suits and the determination of the market value of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in determining the market value of the suit land by ignoring evidence of its irrigation status and refusing to appoint a local commissioner when standard average data was unavailable. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to properly account for evidence indicating the land was partially Chahi (irrigated) rather than Banjar Qadeem (barren). While the Court acknowledged the procedural deficiency, it declined to remand the case for further evidence due to the parties' failure to provide necessary data despite being granted time. Instead, the Court exercised its discretion to enhance the compensation awarded to the appellant by Rs. 30,000. The judgment underscores that while courts must determine market value based on available evidence or statutory guidelines, they may exercise discretion to finalize compensation when parties fail to provide sufficient data for precise calculation, thereby avoiding unnecessary remands.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court required to appoint a local commissioner to assess market value when standard average data is unavailable in a pre-emption suit?
  • Can a court enhance compensation in a pre-emption suit when parties fail to provide sufficient data for market value determination?
  • Does the failure of lower courts to consider the irrigation status of land in a pre-emption suit constitute a legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1991 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-06
  post-arrest bailcriminal liabilityfirearm injuriesco-accusedpolice investigationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the petitioner, Allah Bakhsh, in a case involving charges under Section 307 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of attacking the complainant and another witness with firearms, sought bail on the grounds that two co-accused were found innocent by the police during the investigation and were not challaned, which he argued cast doubt on the prosecution's case. He further contended that a cross-complaint had been filed against the complainant party. The Supreme Court observed that the findings of innocence regarding other co-accused did not automatically entitle the petitioner to bail, nor did the filing of a subsequent cross-complaint assist his case. Crucially, the Court noted that the petitioner was specifically attributed with causing firearm injuries, including a grievous one, which remained uncontested. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for bail, finding no merit in the petition, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the police finding of innocence regarding some co-accused automatically entitle the remaining accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can a subsequent cross-complaint filed by an accused's relative against the complainant party serve as a valid ground for granting bail in a pending criminal case?
  • Is the attribution of specific firearm injuries to an accused a sufficient basis for refusing bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Muhammad Ramzan and another1991 MLD 514 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Muhammad Bakhsh and 5 others1991 MLD 797 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and 9 others vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Headquarters Office, Lahore and 7 others1991 MLD 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakfish vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachayo vs District Magisrate and others1991 CLC 226 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-16Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachaya vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 380 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachaya vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 152 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-08Read full judgment →
• Alimuddin vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Zaman vs Yaqub1991 SCMR 1933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-08
  pre-emptionlimitationattestation of mutationdelivery of possessioncivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld a pre-emption decree in favour of the respondent after reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. The core legal question concerned the correct starting point for the period of limitation in a pre-emption suit where mutation proceedings had been remanded and re-attested. The Supreme Court held that while the date of delivery of possession under a sale can be decisive for limitation—rendering the date of final attestation of mutation insignificant—the petitioner failed to substantiate the factual plea regarding the alleged earlier date of possession. Consequently, the High Court's view that limitation commenced from the date of final attestation of the fresh mutation order was unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that the limitation period for a pre-emption suit is determined by the actual established date of possession under the sale, failing which it runs from the final attestation of the valid mutation order following remand.

  Questions settled

  • Does the period of limitation for a pre-emption suit start from the date of the final attestation of a mutation when an earlier mutation order was set aside and remanded?
  • Does the date of delivery of possession under a sale override the date of final attestation of mutation for the purpose of computing limitation in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 262 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs Abid Saeed Kirmani EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 241 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Muzaffar vs Taj Muhammad And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-25
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantdisplaced personsagreement of associationadverse possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal need, and damage to the property. The appellant contested the application by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, claiming entry into possession via an agreement of association and asserting ownership by adverse possession. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application after finding no landlord-tenant relationship existed. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this finding and remanded the case. The appellant's subsequent writ petition before the Lahore High Court was dismissed. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. The Court held that since the agreement of association was not approved by the Settlement Authorities and the appellant was inducted into the premises, his status as a tenant was duly established under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is established under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 when a person is inducted into the property?
  • Can a party claim ownership by adverse possession against the transferee of a property under settlement laws?
  • Does an unapproved agreement of association with a settlement transferee confer ownership rights to override statutory tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Muhammad Mansha and 2 others1991 MLD 1572 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Mst. Skina Bibi and others1991 CLC 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 879 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad And Others vs Qaisar Mehmood Shah And Other1991 SCMR 1114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-19
  limitationfraudulent mutationsuit for possessionconcurrent findingsleave to appealancillary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioners' civil revision by the High Court, which maintained the concurrent decrees in favor of the respondents in a suit for possession of land. The core legal question raised was whether the suit was barred by limitation, specifically turning on whether the limitation period was governed by the rules applicable to fraudulent transactions or those applicable to a complete non-existence of an alienation. The Supreme Court held that where the transaction itself is proved to be non-existent and fabricated rather than merely procured through fraud or misrepresentation, the suit is one for recovery of possession on the basis of title and is governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, making it within time. The key principle laid down is that a distinction exists between challenging an alienation on the ground of fraud in its procurement, which triggers a limitation period based on knowledge, and challenging a transaction as wholly non-existent and forged, where a suit for possession based on title falls under Article 144 of the Limitation Act, and alternative pleadings or claims for setting aside a mutation are merely ancillary to the primary relief of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit challenging a mutation on the ground of complete non-existence of alienation rather than fraud is governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act?
  • Does an averment regarding knowledge of a fraudulent mutation in a mufassil drafted plaint deprive the plaintiff of relying on Article 144 of the Limitation Act for a possession suit?
  • Is a separate suit for cancellation of a mutation mandatory when seeking possession on the basis of title, or is it merely ancillary?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and others vs Mehnga1991 CLC 1574 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad And Others vs Bashir Ahmad Through Legal Heirs1991 SCMR 1928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-25
  arbitration awardpublic policystifling prosecutioncriminal proceedingscivil disputearbitrator jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an arbitration award. The dispute arose from a civil suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership, alongside a concurrent criminal complaint regarding misappropriation of funds. The parties referred all disputes, including the criminal case, to arbitration. The arbitrator's award directed the withdrawal of the criminal complaint as part of the settlement. The High Court held the award void, ruling that referring a criminal matter to arbitration and conditioning a settlement on the withdrawal of criminal proceedings is opposed to public policy. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that an arbitrator lacks jurisdiction over criminal proceedings, as the Arbitration Act is limited to civil disputes. The Court established that an award directing the withdrawal or non-prosecution of a criminal case is illegal and unenforceable, as it constitutes an attempt to stifle criminal prosecution through the judicial process, which is contrary to public policy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pending criminal case be validly referred to arbitration?
  • Is an arbitration award that directs the withdrawal of a criminal case enforceable?
  • Does an arbitrator have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon criminal matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad And Another vs Chief Mining Engineer And 5 Other1991 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-23
  daily allowancetravelling allowancelabour disputesupreme court of pakistanconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Baluchistan High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by school-van drivers employed by P.M.D.C. Collieries, Degari. The petitioners sought daily allowances for periods of driving school-vans transporting employees' children between Degari and Quetta. The core legal question was whether drivers performing routine daily school-transport duties are entitled to daily allowances under the P.M.D.C. Travelling Allowance Rules, or whether such duties fall under normal working hours compensated by overtime. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal correctly interpreted the rules, finding that daily allowance relates to touring duties and conveyance travel beyond specified limits, whereas driving a school-van on a fixed daily route does not constitute travelling on official tour under the rules, and the petitioners were rightly compensated through overtime allowances. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Are school-van drivers entitled to daily allowances under the Travelling Allowance Rules for regular daily runs between Degari and Quetta?
  • Does driving a school-van provided by the corporation constitute travelling on official duty for the purpose of claiming daily allowance under Rule 30?
  • Whether working beyond normal hours while operating school transport entitles an employee to daily allowances or overtime?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and 7 others vs The State1991 MLD 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad And 5 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2272 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Mardan vs Maqbool Ahmad And Other1991 SCMR 1836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-27
  ex parte decreecivil revisionremandleave to appealtrial on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which arose from the recall of an ex parte decree previously granted in the petitioner's favour. The trial court had initially dismissed the respondent's application to set aside the ex parte decree, but the appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case for trial. The petitioner challenged the appellate order in the High Court, which upheld the remand. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner reiterated technical arguments regarding the setting aside of the ex parte decree. The Supreme Court, having considered the arguments and the precedent established in Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory (Regd.), Bahwalnagar v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1981 SC 21, found no merit in the petitioner's attempt to avoid a trial on the merits. Consequently, the Court refused the leave to appeal, affirming that technical objections cannot be used to circumvent a trial on the merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner successfully challenge an appellate order remanding a case for trial on the basis of technical objections alone?
  • Is a trial court's dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree final if reversed by an appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan vs I.Atif Ullah Shah And Another1991 SCMR 2006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-04
  evictionbona fide requirementrent controllandlord-tenant disputereconstruction of premisespersonal need
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order passed against the petitioner by the Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The respondents had sought eviction of the petitioner from a shop on the grounds of personal need—specifically, to accommodate the respondent's son, Dr. Naseeb Ullah, to run a medical clinic—and for the reconstruction of the premises. The petitioner challenged the eviction, arguing that the respondent's need was not bona fide, citing the lack of a medical license for the proposed clinic and the potential for accommodating another son in the premises. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement. The Court affirmed that obtaining a medical license is not a legal prerequisite for initiating the reconstruction of a building. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the potential accommodation of an additional family member in the same premises does not negate the landlord's established bona fide requirement for the property.

  Questions settled

  • Is the possession of a medical license a prerequisite for a landlord to seek eviction for the purpose of constructing a clinic?
  • Does the potential accommodation of an additional family member in the same premises negate a landlord's established bona fide requirement?
  • Can a landlord seek eviction on the combined grounds of personal use and reconstruction of the premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1808(1) · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs District Manager, Sindh Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad1991 PLC 382 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul Khan vs Lahore High Court, Lahore And Other1991 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-11
  constitutional petitionfundamental rightsreinstatementjudiciarywithdrawal of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter is a Constitution Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, wherein the petitioner sought enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 13, challenging the refusal of the Lahore High Court to accept him back into the judiciary following reinstatement orders passed in his favour by the Governor of the Punjab as the Appellate Authority. During the proceedings, after an adjournment was previously granted to enable the Advocate-General to consult the Government regarding a suitable post, the petitioner made an oral request to withdraw the petition to seek an interview with the new Chief Justice. The Assistant Advocate-General having no objection, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner withdraw a constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 upon making an oral request?
  • Whether a petition seeking enforcement of fundamental rights can be dismissed as withdrawn when the respondents raise no objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar Khan vs Zeb Shah and another-1991 P Cr. L J 1397 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar Abro vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 453 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-08-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar Abro vs The Chief Secretarty to Govt. of Sindhh(K.L.R 1991 Labour & Service Cases 58) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-08-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Bakhsh and anothers vs Nazir Ahmad and others1991 MLD 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 358 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-09Read full judgment →
• Ali Aksar And Others vs Bagh Ali And Other1991 SCMR 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-28
  compromise decreeclarification of judgmentHigh Court orderjudicial reviewremedy for aggrieved party
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking clarification of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which had recorded a compromise between the parties in a Regular Second Appeal. The petitioners contended that a specific sentence added by the High Court judge in the judgment, intended to clarify the compromise, actually altered the fundamental basis of the agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court held that it could not review a judgment passed by a High Court judge that was based on the parties' own agreement and recorded in their presence with explanatory remarks. The Court determined that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners, if they felt aggrieved by the clarification or the recording of the compromise, was to approach the same High Court judge who passed the impugned order to seek necessary clarification. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the liberty reserved for the parties to move the original High Court judge for any required clarification of the impugned judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court review a High Court judgment based on a compromise between parties?
  • What is the appropriate forum for seeking clarification of a judgment recording a compromise?
  • Does a clarification added by a judge to a compromise order constitute an alteration of the agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 506 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs The State1991 MLD 2422 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →