Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Additional Chief Engineer (Army), Okara Cantt. and others vs Messrs1991 CLC 1476 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an ex parte judgment and decree passed by a learned single Judge under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a suit against government officials by their official designations without naming the Federal Government as a party under Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the computation of limitation under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908, and the court's discretion to condone delayed payment of court-fee under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of gross negligence. The Sindh High Court held that public officers cannot be sued by their official designations unless they constitute a corporation sole, and suits against the government must properly name the government as a party. Furthermore, the court condoned the delay in paying deficit court-fees since the appellants were not guilty of contumacious delay. The court laid down the principle that an ex parte judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 should not be pronounced straightaway if the plaint suffers from fundamental legal defects or infirmities.
Questions settled- Whether a public officer can be sued solely by their official designation without being a corporation sole?
- Can an ex parte judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be pronounced when the plaint suffers from fundamental legal defects?
- Whether the court can exercise discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to condone delayed payment of court-fee in the absence of gross negligence?
- Is a suit maintainable against the government without complying with Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Adbul Qadeer vs Manager, Telephone Industries of Pakistan Ltd.1991 PLD Karachi 299 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Third Sindh Labour Court and another1991 PLC 637 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Adamjee Insurance Co Ltd vs Sindh Labour Court and another1991 PLC 435 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Adam Khan And Others vs Mumtaz Khan And Other1991 SCMR 832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioners' revision application, which had challenged concurrent findings of lower courts dismissing their suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioners claimed exclusive ownership of the suit property through adverse possession following the restitution of a mortgage in 1952 by their father. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had perfected their title by adverse possession against co-sharers and co-owners. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that possession of a co-sharer is deemed to be on behalf of all co-owners and cannot become adverse without a clear, unequivocal, and notorious disavowal of the true owners' title resulting in complete ouster. The key principle laid down is that the possession of one co-sharer does not constitute adverse possession against other co-sharers unless there is an open, hostile revolt and complete ouster of the other co-sharers.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer claim adverse possession against other co-sharers without establishing complete ouster in an open and hostile manner?
- Does the restitution of a mortgaged property by one predecessor-in-interest alone extinguish the ownership rights of other joint owners?
- What constitutes the conversion of permissive possession into adverse possession against a true owner?
- Adam Al1 vs ISHAQALIOpponent1991 MLD 1365 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-24Read full judgment →
- Abu Saeed vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 49 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
- Abu Bakar and another vs Abdul Haleem1991 PLD Supreme Court 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the High Court judgment maintaining their ejectment from a commercial shop under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, obtained by the respondent, a retired civil servant, for personal requirement. The core legal question was whether the respondent's ejectment application was barred under subsection (1) proviso or subsection (2) of section 14 because he had rented out residential flats or possessed other premises. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that section 14 is a beneficial provision allowing specified persons to recover possession without proving good faith, and that to attract the statutory bar against ejectment of a shop, the landlord must have rented out or been in occupation of premises of the same nature and character, namely a shop, rather than residential flats or a factory. The key principle laid down is that the character of the premises rented out or occupied by the landlord must correspond to the nature of the building sought to be recovered under section 14 of the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does the omission of the words 'in good faith' in section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, distinguish it from section 15(2)(viii) regarding a landlord's right to seek eviction?
- Can a residential flat rented out or occupied by a landlord be equated with a shop for the purposes of applying the bar contained in section 14(1) proviso and section 14(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Must a landlord seeking the ejectment of a shop under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, have rented out or been in possession of a shop specifically in order to trigger the statutory embargo?
- Abru through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Siddique1991 CLC 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
- Abid Rasool vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain Qureshi vs Syed Tahir Hussain Gardezi1991 CLC 929 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
- Abdus Samad Khan vs Messrs Pakistan Petroleum Ltd.1991 PLC 739 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
- Abdus Salam And 2 Others vs Ch. Noor Muhammad1991 SCMR 2346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-21Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Zonal Chief, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Lahore1991 PLC 789 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-18Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Bashir Ahmed1991 MLD 647 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Azad Government of State of Jammu and. Kashmir1991 PLC (C.S.) 175 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Aslam Ahmed and another1991 MLD 649 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Akram Khan and 3 others1991 MLD 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman Mian vs Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 310 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-03-31Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1593 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Abdur Razzaq vs Abdul Aziz and another1991 MLD 889 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of a compromise agreement entered into by one of two defendants in a suit challenging a gift deed. The core legal question was whether a compromise, not consented to by all defendants, could be enforced against the consenting defendant to the extent of their share. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a court may record a compromise that adjusts a suit wholly or in part. The Court determined that while a compromise cannot prejudice the rights of a non-consenting party, it remains binding upon the party who voluntarily entered into it, provided that the agreement is severable and does not cause injustice to others. The principle laid down is that where a defendant satisfies a part of the subject-matter of a suit, the court is empowered to pass a decree in accordance with that compromise to the extent of the consenting party's interest, even if the compromise is not binding on other non-consenting defendants.
Questions settled- Can a compromise agreement be enforced against a defendant who signed it even if a co-defendant did not consent to it?
- Does a compromise agreement that is not signed by all defendants automatically become void in its entirety?
- Is a party bound by an admission of law made by their counsel in a previous proceeding?
- Under what circumstances can a court pass a decree based on a partial compromise of a suit?
- Abdur Razzaq Alias Billu And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rauf Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and 3 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by a senior judicial officer addressed whether appointments to the post of District and Sessions Judge must necessarily be made on the recommendation of the High Court and whether the Provincial Government was justified in departing therefrom. The Supreme Court held that under the North-West Frontier Province Senior Judicial Officers (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1979, appointments to senior judicial posts must be made on the recommendation of the High Court, and recourse to general rules or interference by the Provincial Selection Board to override or substitute these recommendations is impermissible. The Court ruled that the recommendation of the High Court is sacrosanct and binding, given its constitutional backing and the mandate for the separation of the judiciary. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Service Tribunal's decision and declaring that promotions made in departure from the High Court's recommendations are illegal.
Questions settled- Whether appointments to the post of District and Sessions Judge must necessarily be made on the recommendation of the High Court?
- Can the Provincial Government or Provincial Selection Board depart from or substitute the recommendations made by the High Court for the appointment of senior judicial officers?
- Do the North-West Frontier Province Senior Judicial Officers (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1979 override the general Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975 in matters of judicial promotions?
- Abdun Naseer vs Muhammad Saleem1991 CLC 926 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-01Read full judgment →
- Abdulraufahmad vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-07Read full judgment →
- Abdullah vs Mohabbat and others1991 CLC 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Memon vs Inspector-General of Police and 6 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 1066 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-05-23Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Khan vs Addl. Commissioner (Rev.) Gujranwala Division And Other1991 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a series of unsuccessful challenges by the petitioner, Abdullah Khan, against an order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujrat, in 1959. The petitioner sought to challenge this order through revision petitions filed decades later, which were dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Gujrat, and subsequently by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, on the grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner's explanation for the significant delay was rejected by both revenue authorities. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, which was also dismissed, affirming that the explanation for the delay was insufficient. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the matter and held that the question of delay is a question of fact that had been concurrently decided against the petitioner by three lower forums. Finding no illegality in the impugned orders and noting the lack of merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, thereby upholding the finality of the concurrent findings regarding the limitation period.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding delay by lower courts?
- Is an order dismissing a revision petition on the grounds of limitation subject to interference if the explanation for delay is rejected by multiple forums?
- Abdullah Industries Shama Workers' Union (Regd.) vs The Occupier_Manager Abdullah Industries1991 PLC 502 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1991-02-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wali Khan vs Nawab Zulfiqar Ali Mamdot1991 CLC 109 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs The Superintendent of Police, Shikarpur and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 17) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 2 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 451 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Waheed vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 224 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahad vs Yasmin Saigal for the State.1991 P Cr. L. J 1110 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahad vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab vs The State1991 MLD 1875 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab And 26 Others vs Haji Muhammad Hussain1991 SCMR 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision against a judgment of the Majlis-e-Shoora, Sibbi. The underlying dispute concerns a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the ownership of land in Mauza Thattar, Tehsil Bhag. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners, but this decision was reversed by the Majlis-e-Shoora, whose findings were subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioners contend that the appellate court and the High Court failed to properly scrutinize evidence, specifically alleging that the documents supporting the respondent's claim of a land grant from the Khan-e-Azam of Kalat were fictitious. Furthermore, the petitioners argue that their own oral and documentary evidence, including revenue receipts, demonstrates long-standing physical possession. Upon preliminary hearing, the Supreme Court found that the impugned judgment requires further examination to determine if it is based on misreading or misrepresentation of evidence. Consequently, leave to appeal is granted, and the status quo is maintained pending final disposal.
Questions settled- Does the misreading or misrepresentation of evidence by a lower appellate court constitute sufficient grounds for granting leave to appeal?
- Can a High Court's dismissal of a civil revision be challenged in the Supreme Court when findings of fact are contested?
- Abdul Shakoor vs The State1991 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Shakoor against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his appeal and confirmed his conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of an 8-year-old child. The prosecution alleged that following altercations over trivial matters involving cattle trespassing and a disputed right of way, the petitioner attacked and killed the child with a hatchet. The petitioner pleaded grave and sudden provocation, claiming the child's father had outraged his sister's modesty and the child had used filthy language. The Supreme Court noted that the death sentence already stood converted to life imprisonment due to a general amnesty. The Court held that the trivial nature of the prior altercations and the exchange of abuses did not bring the brutal killing of a child within the purview of the sought exceptions for grave and sudden provocation. Finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and upheld the conviction.
Questions settled- Does an exchange of abuses over trivial matters constitute grave and sudden provocation to reduce murder to a lesser offense?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and High Court regarding guilt warrant interference by the Supreme Court when supported by medical and ocular evidence?
- Abdul Sattar. vs Muhammad Sarwar and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 105 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar, Ex Budget And Accounts Officer, Banking, WAPDA vs Federal1991 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service matter wherein the petitioner, an Accounts Clerk promoted to Budget and Accounts Officer in WAPDA, was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act following departmental inquiries. He was subsequently convicted by a Summary Military Court but granted a pardon and reinstatement order by the Deputy Martial Law Administrator. Upon WAPDA's refusal to reinstate him, the Federal Service Tribunal allowed his initial appeal. However, WAPDA subsequently issued a fresh dismissal order under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, which the Federal Service Tribunal upheld upon a second appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan is whether an employee who has been granted a pardon and reinstated by martial law authorities, and whose appeal was allowed by the Service Tribunal, can be validly dismissed again under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act on the same grounds. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioner warranted consideration and granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an employee granted pardon and reinstatement after conviction can be afresh dismissed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act on identical grounds?
- Whether WAPDA has the power to issue a fresh dismissal order under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act after the Federal Service Tribunal has already accepted an employee's appeal against a previous removal?
- Abdul Sattar vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 103 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs The State and 9 others-1991 P Cr. L J 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Mst. Zahida Parveen and 10 others/Accused1991 MLD 403 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenged the dismissal of a complaint filed under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and the Pakistan Penal Code, alleging bigamy against a woman who remarried following a decree of dissolution of marriage. The core legal question was whether such a remarriage, contracted after the decree but before the expiry of the statutory notice period, constitutes a criminal offence or renders the marriage void. The court held that the revision was meritless, affirming that a decree for dissolution of marriage, once passed and notice sent, attains finality. It further held that a marriage contracted during the Iddat period is merely irregular (Fasid) and not void (Batil), and thus does not trigger criminal liability for bigamy. Crucially, the court emphasized that criminal intent (mens rea) is a prerequisite for conviction under the Hudood Ordinance. In the absence of such intent, and given the presumption of regularity in judicial acts, the court concluded that no offence was committed, thereby upholding the dismissal of the complaint.
Questions settled- Is a marriage contracted by a woman during the Iddat period following a decree of dissolution of marriage void or merely irregular?
- Does the non-service of notice of a dissolution of marriage decree to the Chairman render the decree ineffective?
- Is criminal intent (mens rea) a necessary element for conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a husband unilaterally revoke a decree of dissolution of marriage passed by a Family Court?
- Abdul Sattar vs Mst. Azra Khanam And 5 Other1991 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a review application by the High Court, which had refused to restore a Regular Second Appeal that was previously withdrawn by the plaintiff. The core legal question concerns whether a third-party purchaser pendente lite can compel the court to restore and prosecute a second appeal that the original appellant chose to withdraw. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to restoration of the appeal simply because he purchased the property during the pendency of the litigation and the plaintiff subsequently withdrew the appeal. The Court dismissed the leave petition, affirming that the petitioner may seek any other independent remedy available to him under the law as observed by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a pendente lite purchaser cannot force the continuation of an abandoned appeal by the original vendor.
Questions settled- Can a pendente lite purchaser compel the court to restore a regular second appeal withdrawn by the original appellant?
- Does the withdrawal of an appeal by a plaintiff deprive a purchaser pendente lite of independent remedies available under the law?
- Abdul Sattar Khan vs Secretary, Housing, Town Planning and Local1991 PLC (C.S.) 241 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar Bachani vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2171 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar Alias Bagga vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sami vs Abdul GhaffarK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Samad And Another vs Dilmurad Sajidi1991 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court which allowed a revision application, setting aside the judgment of the Majlis-e-Shoora and restoring the decree of the Qazi in favour of the respondent for declaration and possession of land. The core legal questions examined were whether the High Court could interfere in revisional jurisdiction with findings of fact by the first appellate court, and whether it erred in relying on revenue record entries not formally proved. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly exercised its revisional jurisdiction as the first appellate court had misread and ignored material evidence, and the pleadings established the respondent's ownership without specific denial from the appellants. The key principle laid down is that a High Court may interfere in revisional jurisdiction against a perverse or palpably erroneous judgment of an appellate court that misreads or ignores material evidence, particularly where facts pleaded in the plaint are not specifically denied in the written statement.
Questions settled- Whether it is permissible for the High Court in revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact reached by the first appellate court?
- Can the High Court rely on entries in the revenue record when the facts regarding them are pleaded in the plaint and not specifically denied in the written statement?
- Does keeping quiet for a few years disentitle a landowner from claiming their property when no plea of adverse possession is established?
- Abdul Rehman vs The State1991 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of the appellant for criminal breach of trust regarding an alleged shortage of lead stereo-plates at a government printing press. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the element of 'entrustment' of the property to the appellant to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the goods were ever entrusted to the appellant. The Court observed that the trial and appellate courts relied on presumptions rather than positive evidence, noting that the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other regarding the delivery of goods, and no receipts were obtained from the appellant. The Court emphasized that in criminal trials, guilt must be proven through evidence, not inferences or the shifting of blame by co-accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing the principle that without proof of entrustment, a charge of criminal breach of trust cannot be sustained, and an accused cannot be convicted based on mere presumptions.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted of criminal breach of trust based solely on presumptions without proof of entrustment?
- Does the statement of a co-accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute evidence against another co-accused?
- Is the failure of the prosecution to prove the entrustment of property fatal to a charge of criminal breach of trust?
- Abdul Rehman vs Haji Mir Ahmad Khan1991 PLD Supreme Court 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court addressed whether a tenant's deposit of monthly rent on the first day of the re-opening of civil courts after summer vacations constitutes valid compliance with a tentative rent order when the due date fell within the vacation period. The respondent landlord had filed for ejectment alleging default because the rent for May 1985 was deposited on July 1, 1985, rather than by June 10, 1985. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the High Court allowed the landlord's revision and struck off the tenant's defence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Rent Controller's order, holding that under Section 9 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956, where a court or office is closed on the day an act is required to be performed, the act is done in due time if performed on the next day the court or office is open. The Court established that closure of the court for annual vacation includes its offices unless expressly provided otherwise, and a bona fide delay in depositing rent under such circumstances does not constitute a wilful default.
Questions settled- Whether the deposit of rent on the first day of the re-opening of civil courts after summer vacations is considered timely when the due date falls within the vacation period?
- Does Section 9 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956 apply to extend the time for depositing rent ordered by a Rent Controller when the court is closed for long vacations?
- Can a tenant's failure to deposit rent during court vacations be classified as a wilful default warranting the striking off of their defence?
- Do the terms 'Court' and 'office' in Section 9 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956 operate to excuse non-compliance when a court remains closed for annual vacation?
- Abdul Rehman vs Anwar Jillani(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 284) · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs Adam Panjari, President, Seamen Union and another1991 PLC 263 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs Abdul Ghafoor And 4 Other1991 SCMR 1544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Commissioner, Faisalabad, and restored an earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner regarding the reinstatement of the petitioner, Abdul Rehman, into service. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred in its decision, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner's original order was without jurisdiction and legally non-existent. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the respondent, Abdul Ghafoor, had challenged a government directive that had ordered the Commissioner to decide the case afresh, and that the respondent's constitutional petition should have been dismissed on the grounds of laches. The Supreme Court, finding that the contentions raised by the petitioner require further examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court ordered the appeal to be prepared on the existing record, while allowing the parties to file additional documents if necessary, to resolve the legal questions surrounding the jurisdiction of the authorities and the maintainability of the writ petition.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition can be maintained when it is hit by laches?
- Does a Deputy Commissioner have the jurisdiction to pass an order that is subsequently challenged in a writ petition?
- Can a High Court set aside an order of a Commissioner that was passed pursuant to a government directive?
- Abdul Razzaque vs Bor Muhammad1991 SCMR 1879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had upheld an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Quetta. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Rent Controller correctly determined that the landlord had a bona fide requirement for the demised premises for his son, Noor Muhammad, thereby justifying the tenant's eviction. Upon reviewing the record and hearing the petitioner's arguments, the Supreme Court found no legal or factual basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord's bona fide need. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. However, exercising its discretion, the Court granted the petitioner a period of four months to vacate the premises, contingent upon the petitioner's undertaking to hand over possession to the respondent without the necessity of formal execution proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement, when supported by evidence, are generally not subject to interference in appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a tenant be evicted if the landlord proves a bona fide requirement for the premises for their son?
- Is the Supreme Court likely to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's personal requirement in a rent matter?
- Can the Supreme Court grant a grace period for vacating premises upon an undertaking by the petitioner?
- Abdul Razzaq Alias Kala vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Karachi Development Authority1991 CLC 1591 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for a temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff to restrain the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) from alienating a commercial plot after the plaintiff’s bid at a public auction was rejected by the KDA’s Governing Body. The core legal question was whether a concluded contract for the sale of the plot existed between the parties and whether the KDA’s contractual right to reject bids without assigning reasons was void as against public policy or in violation of the Contract Act 1872. The Court dismissed the application, holding that no concluded contract existed because the bid constituted an offer that remained subject to the Governing Body’s approval under the KDA (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1971. The Court affirmed that an auctioneer’s request for bids is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the KDA’s reservation of the right to reject bids was a valid exercise of its statutory authority and did not violate the Contract Act 1872 or public policy, as the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Questions settled- Does a bid at a public auction constitute a binding contract before its acceptance by the relevant authority?
- Is a clause in an auction agreement reserving the right to reject bids without assigning reasons void as against public policy?
- Does the request for bids at a public auction constitute an offer or an invitation to treat?
- Can a party claim specific performance of a land sale agreement where the statutory conditions for bid approval were not met?
- Abdul Razzak vs Akeel and another1991 CLC 1873 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak Limited vs Intrasea (Pvt). Limited. and 4 others1991 CLC 1894 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak Abbasi vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government1991 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a probationary D.M.G. Officer, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal against an order of the Establishment Division. The impugned order stipulated that his probationary period would not be terminated until he cleared all subjects of the Final Passing Out Examination, that he would lose his seniority permanently and be superseded by officers clearing the examination before him, and that he would not be entitled to increments until passing the examination. The core legal question concerned the legality of deferring the completion of probation, loss of seniority, and withholding of increments upon failure to pass the mandatory departmental examination. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal, as section 6 of the Civil Servants Act expressly mandates that a probationer must pass the prescribed examination to satisfactorily complete the probationary period. The key principle laid down is that satisfactory completion of probation and consequent seniority and increments are contingent upon successfully passing mandatory departmental examinations as prescribed by law.
Questions settled- Whether a probationer civil servant can complete their probationary period satisfactorily without passing the prescribed departmental examination?
- Does failure to pass the Final Passing Out Examination warrant loss of seniority and withholding of increments?
- Can the Establishment Division defer the termination of a probationer officer's probationary period upon failure to clear departmental examinations?
- Abdul Razaq Sheikh vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1991 PLC (C.S.) 896 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-03-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razak vs Abdul Sattar Khan1991 MLD 326 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1559 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf vs Engineer Stores Depot, Lahore Cantt1991 PLC (C.S.) 309 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Mst, Ismat Aziz and others1991 CLC 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Abdul Salam And Other1991 SCMR 2012 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from execution proceedings concerning a compromise decree in a partition suit. The core legal question was whether the executing court acted legally in substituting properties within the decree under the guise of correcting a clerical error, and whether the High Court correctly dismissed the appellant's challenge as time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the executing court's order, which substituted a specific shop with a distinct plot of land, was patently illegal as it exceeded the scope of the original compromise and the objections raised. The Court emphasized that an erroneous order by a court cannot be utilized to the benefit of a party, nor can a party be non-suited due to such judicial errors. The Supreme Court found that the appellant's challenge to the order was both competent and timely, as the substitution of properties was not a mere clerical correction but a substantive alteration. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Can an executing court substitute properties in a compromise decree under the guise of correcting a clerical error?
- Does an erroneous order by a court provide a valid basis to non-suit a party in execution proceedings?
- Is an appeal against an order substituting property in a decree competent if the original objection did not pertain to that specific property?
- Abdul Rashid Khan vs Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases203 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-07-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid And Others vs The Chief Settlement1991 SCMR 1767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition regarding the cancellation of a property transfer. The core dispute arose when the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Nathey Khan, obtained a transfer of land that was subsequently claimed by respondent No. 2 as part of a larger industrial concern previously transferred to him. Following an appeal, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cancelled Nathey Khan's Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) on the grounds of fraud and the filing of a belated application under Scheme No. VI without condonation of delay. The petitioners were eventually ejected from the land in 1980. After exhausting administrative remedies, they filed a writ petition in 1985, which the High Court dismissed due to delay, laches, and the suppression of material facts. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the petitioners failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in challenging the cancellation order and had suppressed material facts in their writ petition. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches?
- Does the suppression of material facts in a writ petition justify its dismissal?
- Is a belated application for the transfer of land under Scheme No. VI maintainable without condonation of delay?
- Abdul Rasheed Khan vs Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 763 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-07-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahim vs Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and 10 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 837 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahim vs Muhammad Hussain And Other1991 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a property in Gujranwala, originally allotted to the respondent by rehabilitation authorities in 1957. The petitioner sought the transfer of the property based on a belated LH form, claiming possession prior to 1958, supported by an affidavit. However, subsequent judicial proceedings by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner determined that the petitioner failed to prove possession or construction on the site. Conversely, the respondent was found to be the allottee in possession, supported by departmental records. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, affirming the concurrent findings of fact regarding the lack of possession. The Supreme Court, upon review, held that the initial report regarding the petitioner's possession was not definitive and was superseded by subsequent judicial findings made in the presence of both parties. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact regarding possession, which had also become final in earlier un-challenged proceedings, could not be interfered with. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the transfer of the property to the respondent.
Questions settled- Can a preliminary report regarding possession, made behind the back of a party, override subsequent judicial findings of fact made in the presence of both parties?
- Is a finding of fact regarding possession, which has become final due to a failure to challenge it in earlier proceedings, binding in subsequent litigation?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower settlement authorities and upheld by the High Court?
- Abdul Rahim vs Mst. Sher Bano1991 MLD 1130 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Rent Controller's order directing the appellant to vacate the first floor of a building owned by the respondent. The core legal question is whether the respondent established the bona fide personal requirement for the premises, particularly when the tenant argued that the landlord failed to provide sufficient details in the application and that existing accommodation was adequate. The Court held that the landlord's bona fide need is determined by the entire evidence on record, not merely the initial pleadings. It found that the respondent, a family of three, required more than the two rooms currently available to them, especially considering the son's retirement from service and the subsequent loss of employer-provided housing. The Court affirmed that a landlord is not required to plead every minute detail in the application if the evidence subsequently establishes the genuineness of the need. The key principle laid down is that in personal requirement cases, courts must assess the landlord's bona fide need based on the totality of evidence, and a family is entitled to reasonable living space commensurate with their status.
Questions settled- Is a landlord required to plead every minute detail of their personal requirement in the initial ejectment application?
- Can a court determine the bona fide nature of a landlord's personal requirement based on the entire evidence rather than just the initial pleadings?
- Does the possession of other premises by a landlord automatically negate a claim of personal requirement for additional space?
- Is a family entitled to reasonable living space commensurate with their status in the context of a personal requirement claim?
- Abdul Rahim Khan vs The State1991 MLD 2448 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Chief Executive of a public limited company, by the Sessions Judge (South) Karachi under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, for failing to file half-yearly accounts. The core legal question was whether a Court of Session has independent statutory jurisdiction under section 476(4) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, to try offences under the Ordinance, or whether such jurisdiction is contingent upon a notification empowering it by the Federal Government pursuant to section 7 of the said Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that the trial of criminal offences under the Ordinance is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that section 476(4) inherently empowers a Court not inferior to that of a Court of Session to try penal offences carrying imprisonment, without requiring any notification under section 7, which applies to civil company matters and the delegation of High Court powers to Civil Courts. The key principle laid down is that statutory provisions conferring criminal jurisdiction on a Court of Session must be interpreted harmoniously to avoid rendering penal provisions redundant, and a direct statutory enactment prevails over the necessity of an executive notification.
Questions settled- Whether a Court of Session has jurisdiction to try offences under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, without a notification issued by the Federal Government under section 7 of the Ordinance?
- Do proceedings relating to the trial of offences under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, fall under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does section 7 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, apply to criminal trials or exclusively to civil matters relating to companies?
- Whether subsection (4) of section 476 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, independently empowers a Court of Session to adjudicate upon penal defaults under the statute?
- Abdul Rahim And Another Through L.Rs. vs Additional Settlement1991 SCMR 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The appellants, claiming possession and construction on a plot in Lyallpur, were impleaded as parties by the Additional Settlement Commissioner during remand proceedings. The High Court subsequently set aside this order, ruling it without lawful authority. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court, in its limited constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with the Settlement Department's decision to implead necessary or proper parties in a transfer dispute. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction in impleading the appellants to prevent multiple litigation and ensure effective adjudication. The Court emphasized that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the addition of parties are applicable to such proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order, establishing that authorities have the power to add parties whose interests are directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Does an Additional Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to implead a necessary party in proceedings pending before him?
- Are the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before an Additional Settlement Commissioner?
- Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 interfere with an order of a Settlement authority regarding the impleading of parties if that order was made within jurisdiction?
- Abdul Raheem vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2225 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum vs Muhammad Ikram Ul Haq And 3 Other1991 SCMR 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the High Court, which had originated from a dispute concerning the appointment of a Lambardar. The matter had previously been decided against the petitioner by the Board of Revenue, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the writ petition challenging that decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant discretionary relief in a writ jurisdiction matter involving a Lambardari appointment warranted interference by the Supreme Court. Upon hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. The Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in such administrative matters does not justify interference by the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing to grant relief under its writ jurisdiction in administrative or revenue-related cases, affirming the finality of the High Court's discretionary determination in such contexts.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's refusal to grant discretionary relief in a writ petition arising from a Lambardari case?
- Is the High Court's decision to decline discretionary relief in a revenue-related matter subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court?
- Abdul Qayyum And Another vs The State-1991PCr.LJ 98 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Qayum And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 568 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Federal Shariat Court arose from the conviction of the appellants, Abdul Qayyum and Mst. Ghulam Sakina, under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were caught red-handed committing zina in an abandoned house by a complainant and his brother. The appellants contended that the case was fabricated due to prior enmity and that they were arrested from a cobbler's shop. The Court observed that the prosecution's story was highly improbable, noting that the testimony of the complainant's brother failed to corroborate the actual act of zina and that the prosecution suppressed their familial relationship. The Court held that the charge of zina requires strict proof and must not be casually brought on flimsy allegations. Relying on Islamic injunctions against spying, the sanctity of privacy, and the strict evidentiary requirement of four eye-witnesses under Shariah, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary standard required under Islamic Shariah and the Hudood laws to sustain a conviction for the offence of zina?
- Can a conviction for zina be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of closely related witnesses where there is evidence of prior enmity?
- How does Islamic jurisprudence view the act of spying and violating the privacy of individuals to detect moral sins?
- Abdul Qadir and others vs The Settlement Commissioner and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals through leave of the Court arose from land settlement disputes involving fraudulent allotments made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. In Civil Appeals Nos. 5 & 6 of 1987, a Mukhbari application led to the resumption of land allotments originally made in favour of one Nathu, which had been sold to various vendees. Some vendees received notice of the cancellation proceedings while others did not, leading to conflicting judgments in the High Court regarding whether the lack of notice vitiated the proceedings entirely. A similar issue regarding lack of opportunity of hearing and being impleaded as a party arose in Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1989. The Supreme Court examined the merits and held that while the right to a hearing (audi alteram partem) is vital, it is linked to factual and legal realities; if a preliminary examination shows that remanding the case would yield the exact same result and serve no practical purpose other than prolonging litigation, courts are not bound to remand it. Two appeals were dismissed and one was allowed accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to afford an opportunity of hearing necessitates a remand when examination of the merits reveals that the final result would remain unchanged?
- Does a violation of the rule of audi alteram partem in administrative proceedings always require setting aside the impugned order regardless of factual impossibility of success for the aggrieved party?
- Whether subsequent good-faith vendees who purchased land from original allottees are entitled to protection when the initial allotment is found to be fraudulent?
- Abdul Qadir and another vs The State1991 PLD Karachi 353 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application arose from an order of the Special Judge (Customs & Taxation), Karachi, granting pre-arrest bail to the applicants, Abdul Qadir and Muhammad Ibrahim, in a case involving alleged smuggling under the Customs Act, 1969. The applicants challenged the bail condition requiring a surety of Rs. 500,000 each, contending that the amount was excessive and punitive. The core legal question was whether the surety amount fixed by the trial court was reasonable given the circumstances and the nature of the evidence. The High Court observed that the prosecution had admitted no offending goods were recovered from the applicants and that the case was based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. The Court held that the purpose of surety is to ensure the accused's presence, not to penalize them. Finding the original amount excessive and tantamount to punishment, the Court reduced the surety to Rs. 100,000 each. The key principle laid down is that surety amounts must be fixed with due regard to the accused's means and the nature of the offence, without creating needless impediments to bail.
Questions settled- What is the primary legal objective of requiring an accused to furnish a surety bond?
- Should the financial means of an accused be considered when fixing the amount of a bail bond?
- Does the imposition of an excessively high surety amount constitute a form of punishment?
- Can a High Court reduce the amount of surety fixed by a trial court in a criminal case?
- Abdul Qaddus vs Govt of Punjab Etc(K.L.R 1991 Labour & Service Cases 73) · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qaddus and others vs Government of Punjab and 266 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 471 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Munir vs The Home Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and Another(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 308) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Mubeen Kazi vs Messrs Wahid Rehman Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.1991 MLD 201 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Manna N vs The State1991 MLD 2462 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant by a Special Court for the attempted hijacking of a PIA flight, which resulted in injury to a security guard. The appellant challenged the Special Court's jurisdiction regarding offenses under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance 1965, and contested the imposition of the death penalty for an attempted offense. The High Court held that the Special Court possessed jurisdiction, as the offenses were committed during the same transaction as the hijacking, which is a scheduled offense. Regarding the sentence, the Court affirmed the conviction but modified the death sentence for hijacking under Section 402-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to life imprisonment. The Court established that while both hijacking and attempted hijacking are punishable by death or life imprisonment, the judiciary must exercise discretion. In this instance, because the attempt was foiled and the plane was not successfully hijacked, the Court determined that life imprisonment was the appropriate sentence, emphasizing that no hard-and-fast rule mandates the death penalty for attempts.
Questions settled- Does a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act 1975 have jurisdiction to try offenses like attempted murder when committed in the same transaction as a hijacking?
- Is the death penalty mandatory for an attempt to commit hijacking under Section 402-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an appellate court convert a death sentence to life imprisonment for an attempted hijacking offense based on the specific circumstances of the case?
- Abdul Malik vs The State1991 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s conviction was sustainable and if the sentence warranted reduction based on a plea of grave and sudden provocation arising from the deceased’s alleged taunts regarding the petitioner’s fiancée. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence, finding the prosecution's case proved and the defense's plea of provocation unreliable. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, determining that no extenuating circumstances existed to justify a reduction in sentence under Section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court noted that the petitioner's death sentence had already been commuted to life imprisonment via a Presidential Order. The key principle established is that appellate interference is not warranted when lower courts have concurrently and reasonably rejected a defense plea based on the evidence presented. Furthermore, the Court granted the petitioner the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the computation of his sentence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be reduced to Section 304-I based on a plea of grave and sudden provocation if the defense version is found unreliable?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a convict whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the reliability of a defense plea?
- Abdul Majid vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Lahore And 41991 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the High Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition concerning a pre-emption dispute under the Land Reforms Regulation. The core legal question was whether the respondents, claiming a superior right of pre-emption as tenants under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 of 1972, could maintain their claim over land that was largely classified as 'Ghair-Mumkin Khundar' (uncultivable land) and not under actual tenancy. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents/plaintiffs had admitted in their own testimony that the vast majority of the suit land was not under cultivation. Although the respondents raised a technical objection that the appellant's specific argument regarding the nature of the land had not been advanced in the same manner before the lower forums, the Court overruled this objection, noting the respondents' own categorical admissions of fact. Consequently, the Court held that the pre-emption claim was only valid for the portion of land actually under cultivation. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the decree to limit the respondents' pre-emption rights to the specific area proven to be under their tenancy.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption claim under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 of 1972 be sustained for land that is not under actual tenancy or cultivation?
- Does a party's categorical admission of fact in their testimony override technical objections regarding the scope of arguments raised in lower forums?
- To what extent does the classification of land as 'Ghair-Mumkin Khundar' affect a tenant's right of pre-emption?
- Abdul Majid vs Income-Tax Officer and others1991 PTD 58 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot and others1991 CLC 1995 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution petition challenged the auction and transfer of land by the Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar, which the petitioner alleged was unallotted evacuee property. The core legal questions were whether the authorities possessed the jurisdiction to auction the land and whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the transaction. The Court held that the land in dispute was, in fact, evacuee trust property, which vested in the Federal Government and was subject to the management of the Evacuee Trust Property Board. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar lacked the legal authority to auction or transfer such property, rendering their orders a nullity. Regarding locus standi, the Court affirmed that the term 'aggrieved party' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 should be construed liberally, granting the petitioner standing to challenge the illegal administrative action. The key principle laid down is that evacuee trust properties are distinct from general evacuee properties and can only be disposed of by the competent authority under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975.
Questions settled- Does the Deputy Commissioner have the authority to auction land classified as evacuee trust property?
- What is the scope of the term 'aggrieved party' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Are administrative orders passed without jurisdiction by a public official considered a nullity in the eyes of the law?
- Under which statute is the Evacuee Trust Property Board empowered to manage and dispose of evacuee trust properties?
- Abdul Majid and others vs Abdul Waheed and others1991 CLC 299 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed and others vs Senior Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi and others1991 CLC 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Inspector-General of Police and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 303 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif Shaikh vs General Manager/Personnel, P.W.R., Lahore and1991 PLC 587 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif Khan vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1991 SCMR 786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged the decision of the Service Tribunal which had rejected his claim for restoration of seniority following his promotion to BPS-19. The core issue arose because the petitioner was initially denied promotion in 1982 due to an adverse remark in his 1980 Annual Confidential Report (ACR), while his juniors were promoted. Although the petitioner was subsequently cleared for promotion in 1983 once his 1981 ACR became available, he sought seniority over his juniors, arguing that had his 1981 ACR been considered earlier, his promotion would have been deferred rather than denied, allowing him to retain his seniority. The Supreme Court examined the petition for leave to appeal against the Service Tribunal's dismissal of his claim. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of the terms and conditions of his service. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and determined that the case did not warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Does the failure to consider a subsequent ACR during a promotion board meeting automatically entitle a civil servant to restoration of seniority?
- Can the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 where no violation of service terms and conditions is demonstrated?
- Abdul Latif Khan Sheerani vs Messrs Shahid Akhtar & Co. and 11 others1991 CLC 1148 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif Ansari vs Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 350 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 194 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-28Read full judgment →