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.

• Ali Akbar and 4 others vs Sindh Labour Court No. IV and another1991 PLC 727 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-07-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad Etc. vs Muhammad Siddique Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 132 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad And Another vs Rahim Bakhsh Through Legal Heirs And Other1991 SCMR 1829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13
  leave to appealdismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of appealnegligence of counselsupreme court review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioners' application for restoration of an appeal previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerns whether the negligence of a counsel should penalize the client and whether the High Court erred in refusing to restore the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the reasoning of the High Court in refusing restoration was unexceptionable, and upon examining the merits of the appeal sought to be restored, found that it merited dismissal in any event. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that where an appeal lacks merit on its face, the refusal to restore it from a dismissal for non-prosecution does not warrant interference by the Supreme Court, and leave to appeal is accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Should the negligence of a counsel operate as a punishment to the client in the context of restoring a dismissed appeal?
  • Does an appeal that lacks merit warrant the granting of leave to appeal against the refusal to restore it from dismissal for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Alexander S. Tsavliris & Sons vs Manta Lines Inc. and others1991 MLD 1484 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
• Aleem Ud Din And Another vs Muhammad Aslam And 2 Other1991 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-15
  urban tenancyejectmentagreement of salepart performancespecific performancerent restrictioncivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition in an urban tenancy matter. The dispute arose over a plot permanently transferred to the respondent under settlement laws, from whom the respondent sought the appellants' ejectment before a Rent Controller. The appellants resisted ejectment, claiming protection under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act on the basis of an agreement of sale executed by the previous allottee. While the ejectment petition was initially dismissed, the District Court ordered eviction, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition. During the hearing, it transpired that a suit for specific performance concerning the property was pending before a Civil Court. The Supreme Court held that the decisions under the rent restriction hierarchy would remain subject to the final verdict of the Civil Court in the pending title suit. The eviction order was upheld as valid ad interim, and a limited one-month stay was granted to enable the appellants to seek interim relief from the Civil Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement of sale in favour of a tenant in possession protects them against dispossession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?
  • Do decisions rendered in the rent restriction hierarchy remain subject to the final verdict of a civil court in a pending suit for specific performance?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant limited interim protection to appellants to enable them to seek appropriate interim relief from the civil court where a title suit is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamgir And Another vs Divisional Forest Officer And Another1991 SCMR 1523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-24
  civil servicedisciplinary proceedingsefficiency and discipline rulesultra viresequal protectionleave to appealdispensing with inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed appeals filed by two civil servants, a Forest Guard and a Forester, against disciplinary penalties imposed upon them. The petitioners were penalized by the Divisional Forest Officer for the illicit removal of Shisham trees, with the disciplinary proceedings conducted by dispensing with a formal inquiry under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The petitioners challenged the validity of these disciplinary actions, arguing that Rule 6(3) is ultra vires Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as it allegedly permits discriminatory treatment. Furthermore, they contended that the actual perpetrators of the theft had already been apprehended and punished, with compensation recovered, a fact they claimed was ignored by the authorities. The Supreme Court found that the submissions raised by the petitioners regarding the constitutionality of the dispensing power under the rules and the factual circumstances of the case required deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions, subject to the furnishing of security.

  Questions settled

  • Is Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 ultra vires Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated by dispensing with a formal inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Sher vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 637 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Alahram Building Limited vs Ardeshir1991 CLC 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• Al-Qaim Textile Mills Ltd. vs Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution1991 PLC 81 · Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution · 1990-05-03Read full judgment →
• Al-Ghazi Tractors Limited vs The Province of Sindh through Government of Sindh, Department of Housing, Town Planning, Social Government, Karachi and 2 others1991 MLD 1616 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
• Al Qasim Traders vs Habib Bank Limited, Multan1991 SCMR 1147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-26
  leave to appealinterim orderexamination on commissiondiscretionary orderrecovery of moneywitness examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an interim order passed by the High Court, which was acting as the original trial court in a suit for the recovery of money. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's application seeking the examination of certain witnesses on commission. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant the commission for the examination of witnesses constituted a legal error or an improper exercise of discretion. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the witnesses resided in Karachi and Lahore, locations accessible from the seat of the trial court by short air journeys of approximately one and two hours, respectively. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretionary order refusing the facility of examination on commission was neither contrary to law nor against any established legal principle. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the High Court's decision to maintain the standard trial procedure given the accessibility of the witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Is the refusal of a trial court to appoint a commission for the examination of witnesses residing in accessible cities a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
  • Does the proximity of witnesses to the seat of the court justify the denial of an application for examination on commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Akrar Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 588 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Akram Ali Khan and others vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and others1991 CLC 1578 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Akmal Rasul vs The S.H.O. Police Station South Cantt: -1991 P Cr. L J 2329 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
• Akhter Hussain Alias Mulla Akhtar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Akhtarunnisa Begum vs Walayat Ali Balloury and others1991 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Trading Co. vs Food Department and otherss1991 CLC 258 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-17
  arbitration awardlimitation periodtime-barred objectionsnullity of awardarbitrator's authoritycontractual liabilityrule of the court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application to make an arbitration award the rule of the court. The core legal questions were whether objections to the award were time-barred, whether the award was a nullity due to the arbitrator's failure to record evidence on oath, and whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority by granting compensation based on an alternate route. The Court held that the objections filed by the defendants were time-barred, having been submitted approximately five and a half months after the service of notice, well beyond the statutory period. The Court rejected the argument that the award was a nullity, clarifying that an arbitrator is not required to record evidence on oath unless specifically requested by the parties. Furthermore, the Court held that findings of fact by an arbitrator, such as the justification for escalation costs due to an alternate route, cannot be challenged in these proceedings. The Court affirmed that the award did not suffer from any illegality on its face, overruled the objections, and made the award the rule of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Are objections to an arbitration award maintainable if filed after the statutory limitation period?
  • Is an arbitration award rendered a nullity if the arbitrator decides the case based on documents without recording evidence on oath?
  • Can an arbitrator's finding of fact regarding contractual escalation be challenged when objections are time-barred?
  • Does an arbitrator act beyond his authority by granting compensation based on an alternate route if the contractor was aware of the route requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Mehmood Khan vs Messrs National Construction Company1991 PLC 140 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-04-23Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-21Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain and 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 300 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-21Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Alias Mula Khtar vs The StateK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 457 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Aziz And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 974 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-03-28Read full judgment →
• Akhtar and Hafmann Ltd. vs Messrs ULBRICHT's Wwe, Ges, M.B.H. Austria1991 SCMR 1284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-15
  ex parte decreesubstituted servicecondonation of delayrendition of accountscivil revisionservice abroad
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the setting aside of an ex parte preliminary decree. A suit for rendition of accounts filed in 1973 underwent multiple defaults and restorations, culminating in an ex parte preliminary decree passed in 1984 after substituted service via a local newspaper against the respondents residing abroad. The core legal question was whether the respondents had sufficient knowledge of the proceedings and whether the lower appellate court and High Court were justified in condoning the delay and setting aside the ex parte decree given that the respondents lived abroad and the memo of appearance by an advocate before a Local Commissioner did not constitute valid authority for the main suit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding lack of proper service and knowledge warranted no interference, and no substantial question of law was involved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether substituted service through a local newspaper constitutes effective service on a party residing abroad?
  • Does the appearance of an advocate by filing a memo before a Local Commissioner amount to valid representation and notice of proceedings in the main suit?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact regarding the lack of knowledge of an ex parte decree open to interference in civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Alias Akka Ete. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 320 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-11Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali Hur and another vs Messrs Trustees of Port of Karachi and another1991 PLC 301 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-22Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmad vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore1991 MLD 737 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmad vs Supdt Central Jail EtcK.L.R. 1991 Crimanal Cases 378 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmad vs Government of Punjab EtcK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 326 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmad vs Government of Punjab and 2 others1991 MLD 739 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10
  constitutional petitioncriminal trial venueopen court principlejudicial independenceexecutive authoritytrial in jailjurisdictionnotification challenge
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Government of Punjab, Home Department, directing a criminal trial under Sections 302/307/148/149, P.P.C., to be held within the premises of Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat. The core legal question was whether the executive government or its Home Secretary possessed the authority to unilaterally determine the venue of a criminal trial, particularly to shift it from an open court to a jail. The Lahore High Court held that such a power rests exclusively with the Presiding Judge or Magistrate under Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court. The Court emphasized that criminal trials are generally to be held in open court, and while the presiding judicial officer may, for valid reasons, direct proceedings in camera or at a place like a jail, this requires obtaining sanction from the Government through the District Magistrate and informing the High Court. Executive authorities cannot unilaterally determine the venue of a trial, as this would undermine judicial independence. Consequently, the government's notification was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Government or Home Secretary have the authority to unilaterally direct the venue of a criminal trial to be held in jail?
  • Can a criminal trial be held in a place other than an open court?
  • What is the role of the Presiding Judge or Magistrate in determining the venue of a criminal trial?
  • Does Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower executive authorities to change the venue of a criminal trial?
  • What is the procedure for a Presiding Judge or Magistrate to hold a criminal trial in a jail or in camera?
  Read full judgment →
• Akber Khan vs The State1991 MLD 1829 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-21
  unlicenced armsjurisdictionAdditional Sessions JudgeMagistrate First ClassArms Ordinancecoram non judiceconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. The core legal question was whether an Additional Sessions Judge has the jurisdiction to try an offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, or if such jurisdiction is vested exclusively in a Magistrate of the First Class. The Sindh High Court held that pursuant to section 14-A of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, jurisdiction to try offences under section 13 or section 14 (unless falling under the specific proviso) is exclusively vested in a Magistrate of the First Class. Consequently, the trial conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge was coram non judice, and the conviction was a nullity in the eye of the law. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and considering the prolonged prosecution and custody, a re-trial was deemed unnecessary.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to try an offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  • Which court has exclusive jurisdiction to try offences falling under section 13 or section 14 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  • What is the legal effect of a trial conducted by a Court of Session in a matter exclusively triable by a Magistrate of the First Class under the Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  • Whether a re-trial should be ordered when a conviction is set aside due to a lack of trial court jurisdiction and the accused has already suffered a prolonged ordeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Akber Ali And Another vs Muhammad Khan And Other1991 SCMR 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-29
  perpetual injunctioninterim injunctionconcurrent findingsleave to appealpossessioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing them from a parcel of land, claiming they were in possession through a partnership with a lessee (respondent No. 34) who had an oral lease agreement with the respondent-owners. The trial court granted an interim injunction only for the portion of land covered by the lease, dismissing the application for the remainder. This decision was upheld by the District Judge in appeal and subsequently by the High Court in civil revision. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent-owners had no agreement with the petitioners and that the petitioners' claim based on the lessee's title did not extend to the entire land in dispute. Finding no evidence that the lower courts had excluded material evidence or erred in their concurrent findings, the Supreme Court held that mere possession of the land is insufficient to warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner claim an injunction based on a partnership with a lessee when the owner has no agreement with the petitioner?
  • Does mere possession of land constitute sufficient grounds to interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts in a civil revision?
  • Is an interim injunction grantable for land not covered by a lease agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Shahbaz And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 412 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-02Read full judgment →
• Akbar Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 550 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-19Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 845 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan and anothers vs Mst. Jehan Bakhta and others1991 MLD 1859 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Commissioner, Lahore Division Lahore and 2 Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 245) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-07-22Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Virk vs The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 31991 PLC 183 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali through Legal Heirs vs Bhalu through Legal Heirs and others1991 CLC 1155 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Sharif and 2 others vs Syed Jamaluddin and 2 others1991 MLD 203 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-12
  rectification of register of membersCompanies Ordinance 1984fraudulent share transfersummary proceedingstransfer of sharescorporate litigationforged documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the rectification of the register of members of a private limited company under Section 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, following allegations of fraudulent share transfers. The core legal question was whether the summary remedy provided by Section 152 was appropriate for resolving these disputes and whether the alleged share transfers were valid. The Court held that the summary remedy was suitable as the facts were not overly complex and the respondents failed to produce necessary transfer deeds. The Court determined that the purported transfers were fraudulent and void, as the respondents failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 76 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which necessitates a properly executed and stamped instrument of transfer. The Court affirmed that a forged or fraudulent transfer is a nullity and cannot defeat the title of the true owner. Consequently, the Court ordered the removal of the respondents' names from the register and the restoration of the petitioners' names, establishing that the true owner has a right to compel the company to rectify the register when shares are transferred without authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is the summary remedy under Section 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, available for resolving disputes regarding the rectification of a company's register of members?
  • Does a forged or fraudulent transfer of shares defeat the title of the true owner?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for the valid transfer of shares under Section 76 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can a court order the restoration of a member's name to the register if the transfer of their shares was based on fraudulent documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Sharif And 2 Other vs Syed Jamaluddin And 2 OtherPTCL 1991 CL. 209 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-12Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Etc. vs Member Board of Revenue(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 1) · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and 5 others vs Forest Department through the Divisional1991 MLD 2154 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
• Aj&K)J Aftab Hussain vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly1991 CLC 2026 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-08-12Read full judgment →
• Aitebar Shah vs Amir Shah and 3 others1991 MLD 1784 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ainuddin alias Tooran vs The State1991 PLD Quetta 43 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Khan vs Rai Sahib Roopchand and 3 others1991 MLD 1404 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Alias Jajji vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2233 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ahmed Khan and Other vs Chief Secretary to Govt. of Sindhh(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 334) · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Ahsan A. Shaque vs The Director General (Central) Directorate of National Savings And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-04
  service matterleave to appealabsence from dutytransfer orderdefiance of orderscompulsory retirementFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal while altering his removal from service into compulsory retirement. The core legal question pertained to the justification of the petitioner's absence from duty following a transfer order and the effect of a stay order on such absence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was relieved of his charge on account of the transfer order and that a subsequent stay order could not have retrospective effect to cover the prior period of absence. The Court concluded that the unauthorized absence from duty constituted serious defiance and disobedience of transfer orders, rendering the petitioner unfit to be retained as a civil servant. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the penalty of compulsory retirement was justified under the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a stay order can have retrospective effect to regularize a period of absence from duty?
  • Does unauthorized absence and disobedience of a transfer order justify the removal or compulsory retirement of a civil servant?
  • Is leave to appeal maintainable against a service tribunal order upholding disciplinary action for disobedience?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmon Alias Ahmad And Another vs Ghulam And 11 Other1991 SCMR 1922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14
  consolidation of holdingswrit jurisdictionres judicatafinality of litigationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court concerning a consolidation of holdings matter. The core legal question was whether a matter that had already been finally determined in previous litigation could be re-opened in subsequent writ proceedings simply because a party attempted to re-agitate the issue at the lower consolidation level. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to re-open the matter was unexceptionable. The Court reasoned that the mere fact that a party sought to re-open the issue at the lower consolidation level did not transform it into a fresh or different subject-matter for judicial examination. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners were already parties to the earlier proceedings where the matter had been finally determined. Consequently, the principle of finality of litigation applies, and the High Court correctly declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction to revisit a settled controversy. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the High Court's decision to maintain the finality of the previous adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can a consolidation matter be re-opened in writ jurisdiction after it has been finally determined in previous proceedings?
  • Does an attempt to re-agitate a settled matter at a lower consolidation level create a fresh subject-matter for judicial review?
  • Is a party who was involved in previous litigation precluded from challenging the finality of that decision in subsequent writ proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Mian vs Afzal Book Centre1991 CLC 2076 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Masood Piracha vs Muhammad Bashir Herl1991 MLD 58 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Maritime Breakers Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1991 MLD 2580 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Investment (Private) Limited through Managing Director vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad1991 PTD 618 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 369 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29
  criminal revisionconviction without chargecognate offencesappellate court powersdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from a trial where the petitioners were initially charged and convicted by a Magistrate under Section 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioners of the original charges but convicted them under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can convict an accused for an offence for which they were not originally charged, particularly when the new offence is not cognate to the original charge. The Court held that the conviction was bad in law because the petitioners were not charged under Section 324, and the offence under Section 324 is not cognate to the offence under Section 148/149. The Court established the principle that an accused cannot be convicted of a major offence without a specific charge, especially when the new offence is not cognate to the original charge for which the accused was tried. Consequently, the revision was accepted, and the petitioners were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court convict an accused for an offence for which they were not originally charged?
  • Is an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cognate to an offence under Section 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the conviction of an accused for a major offence without a specific charge violate legal principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs Abdul Aziz1991 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-20
  second review applicationinherent powerSupreme Court Rulesmiscellaneous appealfinal disposalreview petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous appeal was filed against an order of the Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, who returned an application filed against an order passed in a civil review application. The Assistant Registrar had returned the application on the ground that under the Supreme Court Rules 1980, no subsequent application for review lies after the final disposal of the first review application. The appellant contended that the Assistant Registrar erred in assuming a second review application was filed and argued that the application instead invoked the inherent powers of the Court. The Supreme Court held that the application was indeed in the nature of a second review application, as it sought the re-examination of a judgment passed by a seven-member Bench of the Court which had already disposed of the first review petition. The Court affirmed that the Assistant Registrar's order conformed with the rules, and further found no sufficient grounds to exercise its inherent powers to review the impugned order, thereby dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second application for review can be entertained by the Registry after the final disposal of the first review application?
  • Can the inherent powers of the Supreme Court be invoked to seek the re-examination of a judgment under the guise of a miscellaneous application after a review petition has already been decided?
  • Does an application seeking the re-examination of a judgment passed in a review petition constitute a second review application?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Tariq And Others vs Muhammad Nazir Hasrat Sehrai And 2 Other1991 SCMR 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31
  ejectment applicationwrit jurisdictionevacuee propertylandlord and tenant relationshipduty of High Courtjudicial discretionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that declined to adjudicate a writ petition involving an ejectment dispute. The petitioner had filed ejectment applications against a tenant, which were dismissed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge on the basis that the petitioner lacked permission from the Custodian of Evacuee Property, citing the Supreme Court precedent in Lakshmi Insurance Co. v. Nawa-i-Waqt Publications. Instead of deciding the merits of the challenge to these orders, the High Court directed the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court for clarification regarding the applicability of that precedent in light of the repeal of evacuee laws. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that it is the duty of the High Court to decide questions of law and fact raised before it, rather than directing parties to seek clarification from the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the case remanded to the High Court for a decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the High Court permitted to direct a party to approach the Supreme Court for clarification of a precedent instead of deciding the case itself?
  • Does a High Court's refusal to decide a question of law raised in a writ petition constitute a failure to exercise vested jurisdiction?
  • Is it the duty of the High Court to adjudicate the legality of orders passed by subordinate courts when challenged in a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Tariq and others vs Muhammad Nazir Hasrat Sahrai and others1991 MLD 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sher And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed and 16 others vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1991 PLC 52 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nadeem vs Chairman, Arbitration Council and others1991 MLD 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-04
  talaqeffective divorcenotice of divorceMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceArbitration Councilconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Arbitration Council declaring a pronouncement of talaq ineffective due to the absence of a separate formal notice under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The core legal question was whether a divorce deed itself could serve as a sufficient notice under Section 7 of the Ordinance, and whether the expiration of the 90-day period operates independently of the Arbitration Council's proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that since no specific form of notice is prescribed by the law, a divorce deed containing the requisite information communicated to the wife and Chairman constitutes substantial compliance with Section 7. The Court further ruled that talaq becomes effective ipso facto upon the expiry of 90 days from the date the notice is received by the Chairman, by efflux of time, without requiring any formal certificate from the Arbitration Council. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the impugned order was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a divorce deed executed by a husband can be regarded as a sufficient notice under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Does Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 prescribe any specific form for the notice of talaq?
  • Does a talaq become effective automatically upon the expiry of ninety days from the delivery of notice to the Chairman?
  • Does the filing of proceedings by the Chairman Arbitration Council before the expiry of the ninety-day period arrest the running of time for the effectiveness of talaq?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1512 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1991 MLD 2421 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Muhammad Shafi And 4 Other1991 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-05
  writ jurisdictionconstitutional petitionalternative remedymutationleave to appealdiscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition. The petitioner had sought to challenge the refusal of a mutation order in a property sale transaction involving allegations of fraud. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative, adequate remedy available, specifically the filing of a civil suit. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel was unable to challenge the High Court's decision to decline the exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's approach, noting that the availability of a proper remedy through a civil suit precluded the invocation of writ jurisdiction in such circumstances. Citing established precedent, the Court held that where an adequate alternative remedy exists, constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not a substitute for regular civil litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained when an adequate alternative remedy, such as a civil suit, is available?
  • Is the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court discretionary in matters involving property mutation disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 301 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-06
  murdercommon intentioninterested witnessappreciation of evidencedeath sentencebenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions for the murder of Abdul Ghani. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of related witnesses, the impact of prompt FIR registration, and the application of common intention under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court held that while the testimony of the complainant was credible and natural, the conviction of the two appellants who merely fired in the air could not be sustained under Section 34, as their actions did not demonstrate a shared intention to kill. Consequently, the court maintained the death sentence for the primary shooter, Amjad Hussain, but acquitted the other two appellants, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment establishes that relationship to a deceased does not inherently disqualify a witness, provided their testimony is truthful and natural. Furthermore, it clarifies that while prompt FIR lodging is a material factor, common intention requires evidence beyond mere presence or non-lethal acts when the fatal act is attributable to a single perpetrator.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between a prosecution witness and the deceased automatically render the witness 'interested' and unreliable?
  • Can the conviction of co-accused be sustained under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, if they only fired in the air and did not participate in the fatal act?
  • Does the prompt lodging of an FIR, by itself, exclude the possibility of false implication of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan Alias Ahmad and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Jan and 2 others vs Chief Secretary and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 363 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1990-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain vs Pakistan through Secretary, Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad1991 PLC (C.S.) 715 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hayat vs The State Respondent1991 P Cr. L J 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1810 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Faraz vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 407 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16
  contractual employmenttermination of servicecivil servantre-employment after retirementwrit petition maintainabilitypublic employmentnatural justicemaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by Ahmad Faraz, a well-known poet and literary figure, challenging the termination of his three-year contractual appointment as Chairman of the Pakistan Academy of Letters in Grade-21. The core legal question was whether the arbitrary termination of a contractual public employment, pursuant to a notice clause, was sustainable in law, whether the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 applied to such contractual re-employment after retirement, and whether a writ petition was maintainable to enforce a contractual employment. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, being employed on a contract after retirement, did not fall within the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and therefore statutory provisions such as sections 11 and 14 of the Act were inapplicable. The court ruled that contractual engagements are governed by the volition of the parties and the terms of the contract, and principles of natural justice or Quranic injunctions of Adal, Qist, and Ehsan do not override an expressly agreed termination clause. The court laid down the principle that a writ petition is not maintainable to enforce a contractual employment or to challenge its termination where the remedy lies in damages for breach.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person employed on a contract after superannuation falls within the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 be invoked to challenge the termination of a contractual re-employment?
  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce a contractual employment or challenge its termination?
  • Does the inclusion of a termination clause in a service contract override the principles of natural justice and Quranic injunctions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 318 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs The State1991 MLD 2086 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Allah Rakha1991 SCMR 1550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10
  leave to appealconstitutional petitionsettlement commissionerdeputy settlement commissionersettlement laws
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his constitutional petition. The core legal question raised was whether the Settlement Commissioner was legally bound to decide the case himself instead of remanding or sending it to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, relying on precedent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this specific legal proposition in detail, directing that the appeal be made ready on the present record and ordering the continuation of the status quo regarding possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Settlement Commissioner is bound under the law to decide a case himself rather than sending it to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din And Another vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1813 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh And Others vs Mst. Rasoolan Bibi And Other1991 SCMR 769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-01
  leave to appealcustomary rightsgiftpast and closed transactionabatement of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing their regular second appeal. The dispute arose from a gift made by Sher Muhammad in 1951, which the petitioners had successfully challenged under customary law, obtaining a decree in their favour in 1961. During the pendency of the appeal against that decree, the West Pakistan Personal (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 came into force, rendering decrees based on customary rights void. The Additional District Judge held the decree void and abated the appeal, a view affirmed by the High Court in limine. The core legal question concerned whether the 1961 decree constituted a closed and past transaction unaffected by the subsequent legislation, and whether it became void under the 1983 Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the interpretation of the effect of the West Pakistan Personal (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 on previously obtained customary decrees raises a question of public importance. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether such decrees represent closed transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decree obtained under customary rights before the enforcement of the West Pakistan Personal (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 constitutes a past and closed transaction?
  • Does the West Pakistan Personal (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 render previously passed decrees based on customary rights void and cause pending appeals to abate?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Arslan vs Additional District Judge and 4 others1991 MLD 1935 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Anwarul Azam vs Zawar Ahmad1991 CLC 1684 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Ahmad And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1811 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and others vs Nawab and others1991 MLD 2050 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Alias Ahmun And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16
  murdercommon intentiondeath sentence confirmationpresidential amnestycommutation of sentenceconsecutive sentencesconcurrent sentenceseyewitness evidenceballistic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, who convicted four appellants under Sections 302/34, 449/34, and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the premeditated murder of nine persons and causing firearm injuries to two others. The motive stemmed from long-standing enmity over past abductions and refusal to exchange women. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, recoveries of blood-stained daggers, and a positive ballistic report. The Lahore High Court evaluated the evidence, held that the presence of natural and injured eyewitnesses was established, and found the prompt FIR and corroborative recoveries reliable. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentences. It held that under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a death sentence passed by a trial court remains inchoate until confirmed by the High Court; thus, presidential general amnesty notifications commute death sentences only after final judicial confirmation. Furthermore, consecutive sentencing under Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is the general rule, while concurrent sentencing is an exception requiring reasoned judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a presidential amnesty commuting death sentences apply to condemned prisoners whose death sentences have not yet been confirmed by the High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether sentences of imprisonment for multiple offences tried at one trial must run consecutively under Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless explicit judicial reasons are given for running them concurrently?
  • Can capital punishment be awarded to multiple co-accused who act in furtherance of a common intention to commit multiple murders without extenuating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad & Three Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 565 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahdur Rahman vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 263 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ahdul Ghaffar vs (Mst) Ghulam FatimaK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ahbab Co-Operative Housing Socity Ltd vs The Commissioner Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 291 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-23Read full judgment →
• Agha Rafiq Ahmad vs Secretary, Food Department and 23 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1056 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Agha Muhammad Ashraf vs Chief Administrative Officer And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-12
  civil servantsurplus stafftermination of servicedeputationservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as a Cameraman on an ad hoc basis and later regularized in the Inter-Services Public Relations Directorate, was sent on deputation to Saudi Arabia. Upon his repatriation and reporting back for duty, he was informed that his services were terminated under Section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, as he had become surplus due to the non-availability of a substantive post, the existing one being occupied by another employee. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal, leading to the filing of a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the termination of the civil servant on the ground of becoming surplus was justified when no substantive post was available. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's termination was lawful as he failed to prove the availability of a vacant post upon his return. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a civil servant may be declared surplus and terminated under the law when no vacancy exists.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the services of a civil servant can be terminated on becoming surplus due to the non-availability of a substantive post?
  • Does a civil servant have a right to reinstatement upon repatriation from deputation if no vacant post is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Ghulam Ali vs Election Commission and others1991 PLD Karachi 396 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-12
  election disputepoll declared voidElection Commission powersriggingre-pollrepresentation of the peopleconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Election Commission of Pakistan declaring the provincial assembly election for constituency PS-14 Jacobabad-V as void under section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and directing fresh elections. The core legal questions involve whether the Election Commission possesses the jurisdiction to set aside an election after the notification of the returned candidate, whether section 103-AA is repugnant to Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and whether the entire constituency's election can be invalidated due to malpractices at a few polling stations. The Sindh High Court held that proceedings under section 103-AA are distinct from election petitions under Article 225, that the Election Commission retains jurisdiction within sixty days of the notification, and that where illegalities affect the result and a clear outcome is not determinable from the remaining polling stations, invalidating the poll and ordering a fresh election in the constituency is legally justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 is repugnant to Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the Election Commission become functus officio after the notification of a returned candidate under section 42(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Can the Election Commission declare an entire constituency election void on account of irregularities confined to a few polling stations?
  • Whether proceedings under section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 constitute an election petition within the meaning of Article 225 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Ali Imran Mirza for Appellant. vs Aftab Iqbal Lone, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 321 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-06-28Read full judgment →
• Aga Kafeel Barik, D.R. for Appellant. vs I.N. Pasha for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 979 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-20Read full judgment →
• Afzal Mehdi vs Chief Secretary and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 878 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-03-30Read full judgment →
• Afzal Hussain vs Mst. Naseem Fatima1991 CLC 892 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Afzaal Mehdi and 4 others vs Habib and 2 others1991 MLD 1177 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• Afzaal Hussain Shah vs The State1991PCr.LJ 113 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Aftab Zaman And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
• Aftab vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1808(2) · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam Khan vs General Manager (Personnel), Pakistan Railways1991 PLC 432 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Warsi vs Punjab Road Transport Corporation1991 PLC (C.S.) 484 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27
  deputationrepatriationwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionservice lawborrowing departmentlending departmentautonomous body
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the unilateral repatriation of the petitioner, a WAPDA employee, from his deputation position at the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) before the expiry of the agreed three-year term. The core legal questions were whether the respondent corporation was amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether a borrowing department possesses the authority to unilaterally terminate a deputation arrangement. The Court held that the PRTC, functioning as an agency or instrumentality of the State, is indeed subject to writ jurisdiction. Regarding the merits, the Court ruled that a deputation agreement is a binding arrangement between the lending and borrowing authorities. Consequently, a borrowing department cannot unilaterally repatriate a deputationist without the mutual consent of the parent department. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of specific rules permitting unilateral action, the premature termination of a deputation period requires the mutual consent of both involved authorities to ensure the protection of the employee's service rights and tenure.

  Questions settled

  • Is a corporation that functions as an agency or instrumentality of the State amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a borrowing department unilaterally terminate a deputation period before the expiry of the agreed term without the consent of the lending authority?
  • Does the lack of specific rules regarding premature repatriation authorize a borrowing department to unilaterally return a deputationist to their parent department?
  Read full judgment →
• Afraz Ahmed vs University of the Punjab through Controller1991 CLC 1283 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →