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.
- Abdul Khaliq And Others vs Subedar Muhammad Sharif And Other1991 SCMR 1751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a pre-emption suit in revision following previous Supreme Court judgments regarding the requirement of making Talabs and the cutoff date of 31-7-1986. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor's suit could be dismissed for failure to mention Talabs in the plaint when claiming a superior right as a co-sharer, in light of intervening case law. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, holding that pursuant to its precedent in Ahmad's case (PLD 1989 SC 771), the trial Court is entitled to examine the question of a pre-emptor's superior right as a co-sharer in the Khata notwithstanding the absence of Talabs in the plaint. The appeal was accordingly admitted for regular hearing upon furnishing security.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit can be dismissed for failure to mention Talabs in the plaint when the pre-emptor claims a superior right as a co-sharer?
- Does the trial court have the right to examine the question of a pre-emptor's superior right as a co-sharer in the Khata despite the absence of pleadings regarding Talabs?
- Abdul Karim vs S.H.O. and others-1991 P Cr. L J 966 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Siddique1991 P Cr. L J 2431 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Ahmed Din and others1991 CLC 1358 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and others vs Muhammad Younas1991 CLC 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and others vs Muhammad Nawab and 4 others1991 CLC 207 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and Other vs Reham AliK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 606 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-07-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim and 2 others vs Rehm Ali1991 MLD 63 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged an order of the Sub-Judge, Mirpur, which restored a suit dismissed for want of prosecution. The respondent’s suit for perpetual injunction was dismissed on May 6, 1987, when the plaintiff failed to appear on a date fixed for arguments regarding the suit's abatement. The respondent filed an application for restoration over two years later. The trial court restored the suit, incorrectly reasoning that the dismissal date was not a date of hearing. The High Court held that a date fixed for arguments on a substantive issue, such as abatement, constitutes a date of hearing for the purposes of Order 9, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the dismissal was valid. Furthermore, the court emphasized that an application for restoration must be filed within 30 days under Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908. As the respondent failed to provide sufficient cause for the substantial delay, the High Court set aside the restoration order and dismissed the application as time-barred.
Questions settled- Does a date fixed for arguments on the abatement of a suit constitute a date of hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a suit liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution if the plaintiff fails to appear on a date fixed for arguments?
- What is the limitation period for filing an application to restore a suit dismissed for default?
- Abdul Kadir And Another vs Muhammad Yaqoob1991 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which set aside the Rent Controller's order granting the landlords' ejectment application against the tenant on the ground of default. The core legal question was whether the tenant committed a default in the payment of rent under the relevant statutory provisions after receiving a notice of change of ownership, given that the tenant had already paid rent for certain months to the previous owner and deposited subsequent rent with the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the tenant's payment of rent to the previous owner prior to receiving the notice of change of ownership was lawful, and the subsequent deposit of rent for the remaining period negated any allegation of default. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant is legally justified in paying rent to the previous landlord until duly notified of a change of ownership, and subsequent offers of refund by the previous landlord do not render the tenant's prior lawful payment a default.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant commits default in rent when rent has already been paid to the previous owner prior to receiving notice of change of ownership?
- Is a tenant obliged to accept a refund of rent offered by a previous landlord after having lawfully paid the same to him?
- Does the deposit of rent with the Rent Controller upon receiving notice of change of ownership absolve the tenant from default allegations?
- Abdul Jamil vs Messrs Pakistan Machine Tool Factory1991 PLC 369 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2004 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs Muhammad Aslam1991 SCMR 2335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that ordered the eviction of a tenant from a shop on the grounds of the landlord's personal need. The core legal question was whether a landlord, who is currently occupying a rented shop, is legally precluded from seeking the eviction of a tenant from his own shop under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Additional District Judge had previously held that the landlord's occupation of another rented shop defeated his claim of personal need. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the landlord's personal need was bona fide. The Court held that the phrase 'not occupying' in the relevant section of the Ordinance refers specifically to premises owned by the landlord. Consequently, the fact that a landlord occupies a rented property does not constitute a legal impediment to seeking eviction from his own property; rather, it may indicate the unsuitability of the rented premises. The petition was rejected, granting the tenant four months to vacate.
Questions settled- Does the occupation of a rented shop by a landlord prevent him from seeking the eviction of a tenant from his own shop on the grounds of personal need?
- How should the phrase 'not occupying' in the context of the Rent Restriction Ordinance be interpreted regarding a landlord's personal requirement?
- Is the occupation of a rented building by a landlord a legal impediment to seeking eviction from a building owned by him?
- Abdul Jabbar through Legal Heirs and 16 others vs Messrs Star Textile1991 PLC 686 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Khan vs The Chief Secretary & AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 2 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-08-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Khan vs Chief Secretary and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 457 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-08-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hayee vs Secretary, Ministry of Communications and 9 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 57 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haq Horticul Turist vs Government of Balochistan And Other1991 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's claim for pro forma promotion as a Horticulturist in Grade-18 with retrospective effect from 28-5-1979, along with financial benefits. The core legal question was whether a civil servant whose promotion case was deferred due to pending criminal proceedings is entitled to retrospective pro forma promotion upon acquittal, notwithstanding the absence of supersession or confirmation in the lower post at the relevant time. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appeal lacks merit, affirming that promotion is not a matter of right where no junior officer was promoted in supersession of the appellant, and that the appellant could not have been considered for promotion in 1979 as he was not yet confirmed in the lower post of Assistant Horticulturist. The key principle laid down is that pro forma promotion based on executive policy following an honorable acquittal requires a determination that the civil servant would have been promoted on the due date based on service record and performance, and promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right when no supersession has occurred.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant is entitled to pro forma promotion with retrospective effect as a matter of right when no junior officer has been promoted in supersession?
- Can a government servant claim pro forma promotion from a date when their promotion was deferred due to pending criminal proceedings if they were not yet confirmed in the lower post?
- Abdul Haq Afghan vs The Chief Secretary to Govt. of Sindh and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour Service Cases 83) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-09-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haq Afghan vs Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh1991 PLC (C.S.) 465 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1990-09-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid, D.R. for Appellants. vs Mir Ahmad Ali, G. Abbas Chatha, M.1991 PTD 946 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1751 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 478 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Secretary, Planning Development Division and 10 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 790 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Ghulam Samdani1991 CLC 773 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Shah and another vs Muhammad Yar and 13 others1991 PLD Supreme Court 815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over an open space (compound) in front of Faridia Market in Pakpattan. The respondents, shop owners, filed a suit claiming ownership of the compound and seeking removal of constructions made by the appellants. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, finding they owned the compound. In revision, the High Court held that while ownership was not proved, the compound existed as an easement of necessity. The Supreme Court examined whether a right of easement existed under section 13 of the Easements Act, 1882. The Court held that ownership rights in the compound had not passed to the respondents under their sale-deeds, and the lower courts had misread the evidence. Regarding the easement of necessity, the Court ruled that an easement requires absolute necessity for beneficial enjoyment, not mere convenience. Since a twelve-foot space comprising the platform and passage was sufficient for accessing the shops, the respondents' easement right was confined strictly to that platform and passage. The appeal was accepted and the High Court decree altered accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether an easement of necessity can be claimed over a property when ownership of the same has not been established by the claimant?
- What is the strict legal test for establishing an easement of necessity under section 13 of the Easements Act, 1882?
- Does a right of easement extend to making the enjoyment of property merely convenient or must it be absolutely necessary for its beneficial user?
- Abdul Hameed vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 786 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs Province of Punjab and others1991 CLC 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs Mahmood and 5 others1991 CLC 398 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the applicant, Abdul Hameed, seeking to set aside a decree passed in a suit regarding the management of a Muslim Waqf-alal-Aulad. The applicant, a former Mutawalli, challenged the court's jurisdiction to order him to render accounts, arguing that the Waqf-Deed did not mandate accounting. The core legal question was whether a Mutawalli of a Waqf-alal-Aulad is legally obligated to render accounts and subject to removal by the court for misconduct. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that a Mutawalli is indeed bound to render accounts and may be removed by the court upon proof of misfeasance, breach of trust, or unfitness. The court emphasized that even if a founder directs that a Mutawalli cannot be removed, the court retains the authority to remove them for misconduct. Furthermore, the court noted that suits against a Mutawalli for accounts are not barred by any length of time, and the applicant failed to show good cause for his previous failure to contest the suit.
Questions settled- Is a Mutawalli of a Waqf-alal-Aulad legally obligated to render accounts of the trust property?
- Can a court remove a Mutawalli for misfeasance or breach of trust despite directions in the Waqf-Deed to the contrary?
- Is a suit against a Mutawalli for the rendering of accounts barred by the lapse of time?
- Can a founder remove a Mutawalli after the delivery of possession of the Waqf property?
- Abdul Hameed vs Chief Minister. Punjab And 2 Other1991 SCMR 1529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was brought against the refusal of the High Court to grant interim relief to the petitioner during the pendency of his writ petition involving a service matter. The core legal question was whether the High Court is bound in law to grant interim relief merely upon admitting a writ petition for regular hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there is no such command in law and that the High Court was fully justified in declining interim relief to avoid stifling the administrative machinery of the Government. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the grant of interim relief in service matters during the pendency of a writ petition is discretionary and the High Court is not bound to issue it simply because a petition has been admitted for regular hearing.
Questions settled- Is the High Court bound in law to grant interim relief when a writ petition is admitted for regular hearing?
- Can the refusal of interim relief by the High Court in a service matter be a valid ground for grant of leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Abdul Hameed Naz And 7 Others vs Mst. Razia Begum And 4 Other1991 SCMR 1530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over a residential property previously requisitioned by the Federal Government. The core legal question involves whether an ejectment petition is maintainable before a Rent Controller when there is a serious and bona fide dispute regarding the landlord's title to the property, particularly after the claimant had previously withdrawn a civil suit filed to establish title. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that where a serious challenge to the title exists and a prior title suit was withdrawn, an ejectment petition may not be maintainable until the title is duly determined by a competent civil court. The key principle laid down is that summary rent proceedings cannot be effectively utilized to determine complicated questions of title when the relationship of landlord and tenant is stoutly denied on plausible grounds.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment petition is maintainable when there is a serious and bona fide challenge to the title of the landlord?
- Can a Rent Controller proceed with an ejectment application when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied and title is sub judice or unresolved in a civil court?
- What is the effect of withdrawing a civil suit for declaration of title on subsequent rent proceedings between the same parties?
- Abdul Hameed and others vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and others1991 PLD Supreme Court 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed & Company vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore 4 others1991 PLD Lahore 30 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Hakim and others vs Mst. Farakh Jehan Begum and others1991 CLC 1613 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hakeem vs (M/s) National Bank of Pakistan(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 39) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hafiz Khan vs Muhammad Anwar and others1991 CLC 1364 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an appellate order of the Additional District Judge reversing the Rent Controller's eviction order under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The petitioner claimed ejectment of respondents based on default, damage to property, and personal need, asserting ownership of the premises. The respondents denied the landlord-tenant relationship and disputed the exact identity and property number of the premises in their possession. The Additional District Judge held that evidence was insufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. The High Court affirmed the appellate decision, holding that where the landlord's title to the property is disputed and not free from doubt, and the identity of the premises is uncertain, the landlord must first establish title before a Civil Court. Relying on binding Supreme Court precedent, the High Court dismissed the petition while granting explicit permission to the petitioner to establish title in the Civil Court.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment petition can proceed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 when the landlord's title and the identity of the premises are disputed and uncertain?
- Must a claimant establish title in a Civil Court before seeking eviction where the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied on a genuine dispute of property title?
- Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction grant permission to a petitioner to file a civil suit for declaration of title after an ejectment petition is dismissed for lack of proven landlord-tenant relationship?
- Abdul Hafeez vs Amir1991 PLD Supreme Court 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the respondent claimed a superior right based on ownership of a house contiguous to the suit property. The appellant contested this, asserting ownership of the same contiguous house, a matter subject to separate, pending litigation. The trial court dismissed the pre-emption suit, but the District Judge and the High Court decreed it in the respondent's favor, failing to adjudicate the title of the contiguous house on merits due to technicalities regarding the absence of cross-objections. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the pre-emption matter could be adjudicated without resolving the underlying title dispute. Holding that the interests of justice required a comprehensive resolution, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment. It remanded the case, directing that the pre-emption appeal and the pending civil revision concerning the contiguous house's title be heard together. The Court emphasized that hyper-technicalities should not obstruct the resolution of core issues, allowing the High Court to decide the title dispute on the available evidence to achieve complete justice.
Questions settled- Can a court remand a case to ensure that two related matters are heard together to achieve complete justice?
- Should a pre-emption suit be decided without resolving a disputed question of title regarding the contiguous property upon which the pre-emption right is based?
- Does the failure to file cross-objections preclude an appellate court from examining a core issue of title necessary for complete justice?
- Abdul Hafeez Pirzada vs Agha Ghulam Ali Buledi and others1991 CLC 2093 · Chief Election Commissioner · 1991-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an election petition filed under section 39(6), section 103, section 103AA, and section 108(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, read with Articles 218(3) and 219(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the bye-election of the returned candidate from a provincial assembly constituency. The core legal questions involved whether the election was vitiated by grave illegalities, manipulation of votes, blockage of polling stations, and police interference. The Chief Election Commissioner held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegations of massive rigging, bogus voting, and official interference through cogent evidence or by complying with procedural requirements for summoning official witnesses and records. The court ruled that mere assertions, low voter turnout, or unverified documents on plain paper cannot invalidate an election without concrete proof. Consequently, the election petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that allegations of election fraud must be strictly proven through competent evidence and cannot be presumed from low turnout or unverified copies of polling forms.
Questions settled- Whether an election can be declared void under section 103AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, on the basis of unverified documents and bare allegations without concrete proof?
- Does a low voter turnout at certain polling stations ipso facto prove that grave illegalities or rigging were committed during an election?
- Can an election petitioner succeed in setting aside an election result without complying with official procedures for summoning presiding officers and producing original election records?
- Whether the presumption of regular performance of official acts stands rebutted merely by producing photocopies of forms not maintained on the prescribed pro forma?
- Abdul Hafeez Bhatti And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2250 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Muhammad Shafi1991 CLC 1708 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Additional District Judge and 10 others1991 CLC 1375 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani and 4 others vs Abdul Razzak Chachar and 7 others1991 PLC 87 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 752 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 451 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Jamil Ahmad And Another1991 SCMR 1406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal petitions arise out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-12-1987, involving cross-petitions for the enhancement of a sentence and against a conviction for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question pertained to whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court warranted interference, either by enhancement or setting aside. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that both petitions lacked merit, declining leave to appeal and dismissing them. The Court reasoned that the High Court properly evaluated the evidence establishing the guilt beyond doubt, and noted that mitigating factors such as the accused's young age (under seventeen at the time of the occurrence) and the motive of suspicion justified maintaining the sentence of imprisonment for life rather than enhancing it, while the concurrent findings on the evidence precluded any re-appraisal by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence concurrently appreciated by the trial court and the High Court?
- Does the young age of the accused and a motive based on suspicion constitute valid grounds for refusing an enhancement of sentence to death in a murder case?
- Are concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts liable to interference when the evidence has been properly discussed and considered?
- Abdul Ghafoor Khan And Others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land)1991 SCMR 1891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court concerning the cancellation of land allotments. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 obtained allotments against verified claims and sold a portion of land to the petitioners. Subsequently, discovering excess allotment, respondents Nos.2 and 3 suggested cancelling the allotment in village Preme Kot, which affected the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the cancellation via a writ petition in the High Court but later abandoned their primary contention, instead seeking permission to purchase the land. The High Court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioners to apply to the relevant authorities for purchase under Section 3 of Act XIV of 1975. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in disposing of the writ petition based on the petitioners' own offer to purchase the land. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court's order was based on the position adopted by the petitioners themselves, it was not a fit case for interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court order based on a position adopted by the petitioners themselves?
- Can a bona fide purchaser for value seek to purchase land under Section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 when an original allotment is cancelled due to excess allotment?
- Abdul Ghafoor Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 245 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and others vs Raeesuddin and another1991 MLD 376 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and anothers vs Jagdev and another1991 CLC 318 · Board of Revenue · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Zaiur Rahim And Other1991 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding concurrent findings of the lower courts which decreed a declaratory suit filed by the respondents against the transfer of a disputed property through a Deed of Association, P.T.O., and P.T.D. in favour of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the issue of limitation, specifically whether Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to render the respondents' suit time-barred. The Supreme Court noted that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents did not challenge the transfer instruments during his lifetime, and his silence and conduct gave rise to an inference of acceptance. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to consider all points arising from the case, while directing the maintenance of status quo pending final disposal.
Questions settled- Whether Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to a suit challenging a transfer document and allied instruments?
- Does the silence and conduct of a predecessor-in-interest during his lifetime raise an inference of acceptance regarding a property transfer?
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Raees Muhammad Khan and 5 others1991 CLC 185 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from a pre-emption suit. The primary legal question was whether the right to file a Second Appeal is a vested right that remains unaffected by subsequent amendments to Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which increased the valuation threshold for such appeals. Additionally, the Court examined whether the pre-emptor had sufficiently established ownership of the adjoining land to exercise the right of pre-emption. The Court held that the right of appeal is a substantive right that vests at the time of the institution of the suit. Consequently, because the suit was filed before the amendment to Section 102, the right to file a Second Appeal remained intact and was not barred by the new valuation threshold. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the pre-emptor's ownership, noting that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of truth attached to the Record of Rights under the Sindh Revenue Code. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the right to file a Second Appeal vest in a party at the time of the institution of the suit?
- Does an amendment to Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, increasing the valuation threshold for appeals, apply retrospectively to suits instituted before the amendment?
- Is an entry in the Record of Rights presumed to be true under the Sindh Revenue Code until the contrary is proved?
- Can a respondent who has not filed an appeal against a judgment and decree assail its legality or propriety?
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Karachi Development Authority1991 PLC 585 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar Virani vs Messrs Roche Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1991 PLC 657 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-09-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi vs Secretary, Commerce Division and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 921 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar Khan vs The State1991 MLD 1823 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Bari vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1743 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Wajid vs Rana Zahoor, S.I., Actg. S.H.O. and 2 others-1991 P Cr. L J 1551 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Wajid vs Rana Zahoor and 2 OtherK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 540 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs The State and another1991 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Shaikh Muhammad Rafiq1991 MLD 1316 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Ashiq and others1991 CLC 820 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which upheld the trial court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction to the petitioner in a suit concerning a disputed plot. The petitioner claimed to be the lawful transferee of the plot since 1972, alleging that he was illegally dispossessed through forged powers of attorney and an agreement to sell, the execution of which he categorically denied. The courts below had initially refused the injunction solely on the ground that the powers of attorney were registered documents carrying a presumption of correctness. The core legal question was whether a registered document retains its presumption of correctness and sanctity when its execution is expressly denied by the alleged executant. The Lahore High Court held that once the execution of a registered document is denied, the presumption of correctness is displaced, and its veracity must be established through proper evidence, including the production of attesting witnesses pursuant to Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were restrained from altering the nature of the plot or alienating it pending the final decision of the suit.
Questions settled- Does a registered document retain a presumption of correctness when its execution is categorically denied by the alleged executant?
- Must the execution of a denied registered document be proved by producing attesting witnesses under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
- Can a temporary injunction be refused to a plaintiff merely on the basis of the registration of disputed powers of attorney without requiring proof of their execution?
- Abdul Aziz vs Mirza And 5 Other1991 SCMR 408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a dispute over land ownership and possession. The petitioner sought a declaration of ownership, claiming title through a mutation, while the respondents asserted their own title and possession, alleging the petitioner's claim was based on collusive entries. The trial court initially decreed the petitioner's suit, but upon remand, both the appellate court and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's suit, finding that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged sale in favor of his predecessor and that the mutation relied upon had been rejected. The core legal question was whether the lower courts misread the evidence and whether the Supreme Court should re-appraise the factual findings. The Supreme Court held that the petition raised only factual controversies already settled by concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court affirmed that entries in the column of 'Lagan' cannot take precedence over the column of cultivation without corroboration, and refused leave to appeal, reiterating that it will not re-appraise evidence where no point of law is involved.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal where there are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
- Do entries in the column of 'Lagan' take precedence over the column of cultivation in revenue records without corroborating evidence?
- Abdul Aziz vs Inayat Ali1991 MLD 344 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Ahmed and another1991 CLC 957 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a landlord's appeal against the dismissal of his rent case seeking the eviction of his tenant and alleged sub-tenant from residential premises on the ground of subletting. The core legal question was whether allowing another person to reside in the demised premises and obtaining utility connections in that person's name constitutes subletting or handing over of possession under the relevant rent legislation. The Sindh High Court held that the phrase "handed over the possession" requires a complete transfer or surrender of possession whereby the tenant divests himself of the premises, and merely allowing a relative or another person to live with the tenant as a family member does not amount to subletting or unlawful handing over of possession. The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal, establishing that co-residence without divesting possession does not furnish a ground for eviction.
Questions settled- Does allowing another person to reside in a rented premises with the tenant constitute subletting?
- What is the legal meaning of "handed over the possession" under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Whether mere utility connections in the name of a co-resident prove the existence of a sub-tenant?
- Can a tenant be evicted for subletting when the tenant has not divested himself of the possession of the rented premises?
- Abdul Aziz Marwat vs Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan And Other1991 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging his dismissal from service. The petitioner, an employee of the Education Department, was convicted by a Summary Military Court in 1979, resulting in imprisonment and dismissal from service. Ten years later, in 1989, the petitioner challenged his dismissal in the High Court. The core legal questions were whether the dismissal could be challenged without challenging the underlying conviction, and whether the petition was maintainable given the inordinate delay and the nature of the grievance. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was a direct consequence of the conviction, which remained unchallenged; therefore, the dismissal could not be agitated. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petition suffered from an inordinate delay of ten years and that matters relating to terms and conditions of service are not maintainable under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the dismissal of the petition on grounds of laches and lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a dismissal from service be challenged in a constitutional petition if the underlying criminal conviction remains unchallenged?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable regarding terms and conditions of service in the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction?
- Does an inordinate delay of ten years constitute sufficient grounds for the dismissal of a constitutional petition?
- Abdul Aziz and others vs The State1991 MLD 2425 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz And 2 Others vs Sikandar Ali1991 SCMR 1347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Aziz and two others against Sikandar Ali, reported as 1991 SCMR 1347. The core legal question was whether possession under an agreement to sell amounts to possession under a sale and whether a question of law arose from the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the three lower courts had consistently recorded concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners on this controverted question, and no question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent factual determinations.
Questions settled- Does possession under an agreement to sell amount to possession under sale?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when three lower courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact on a controverted issue?
- Does a question of law arise from concurrent factual determinations regarding possession under an agreement to sell?
- Abdul Aziz Admani vs Messrs Mapara & Sons1991 PLC 737 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ali Khan, DR for Appellant. vs Ehsanul Haq, Itp for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 30 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-05-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aleem Khan vs Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sukkur and another1991 PLC 298 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ahid vs Khadim Hussain1991 P Cr. L J 563 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
- Abbas Khan And 8 Others vs Haji Saifullah1991 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the petitioners/defendants' civil revision by the High Court, arising out of a concurrently decreed civil suit for pre-emption. The core legal question is the determination of the correct pre-emption price (Zar-e-Shufa) payable by the pre-emptor, where the appellants/vendees claimed the consideration was Rs. 45,000 as stated in the registered sale deed and paid before the Sub-Registrar, whereas the courts below had fixed it at Rs. 4,212. The Supreme Court held that in the presence of strong circumstantial evidence, including the actual payment before the Registrar and the prevailing market value of the land in District Mianwali, and the lack of strong evidence supporting the respondent's version that the amount was returned, the appeal must be allowed. The principle laid down is that assertions of the return of consideration paid before a Sub-Registrar require very strong evidence to outweigh strong documentary and circumstantial evidence supporting the stated sale consideration in a pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Whether the pre-emption amount should be determined based on the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed and paid before the Sub-Registrar?
- What kind of evidence is required to substantiate the claim that the consideration paid before the Sub-Registrar was subsequently returned in a pre-emption suit?
- Abbas And 4 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 122 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
- Abbas Ali Siddiqui for Appellant. vs Ilyas Shaikh, D.R. for Respondent.1991 PTD (Trib.) 210 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
- A.M. Qureshi vs Government of Sindh And Other1991 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court setting aside an ejectment order and a tentative rent order passed against the Government of Sindh in respect of a nationalized school building. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is legally bound to determine the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant as a jurisdictional prerequisite before passing a tentative rent order under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, when such relationship is disputed. The Supreme Court held that the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant is a jurisdictional fact that must be determined by the Rent Controller prior to issuing a tentative rent order, and that failure to do so renders subsequent proceedings and orders striking off defence illegal and void. The Court affirmed that such a fundamental jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by a subsequent appellate finding on the merits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the matter remanded to the Rent Controller for a proper determination of the preliminary issue.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller required to determine the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant before passing a tentative rent order under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Does the failure of a Rent Controller to determine the preliminary question of tenancy render a subsequent order striking off defence a nullity in law?
- Can a defect in a jurisdictional finding at the initial rent controller stage be cured by a subsequent determination of the issue by the appellate court on the merits?
- Does the nationalization of a school under martial law regulations ipso facto create the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Government and the owner of the building?
- A.H. Najfee, Legal Advisor and Farid-ud-Din Qaiser, DR. for Appellant. vs Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, for Respondent1991 PTD 963 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
- A.F. Abadan and Another vs Government of Baluchistan and AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 130 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
- A.C.T. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.s vs Additional Secretary to Government of Pakistan Ministry of Finance (Central Board of Revenue) Karachi and 2 others1991 CLC 1530 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
- A. Stratta vs Government of West Pakistan and others1991 CLC 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- A. Razak Adamjee and another vs Messrs Datari Construction1991 MLD 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This representative suit was filed under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by residents of K.D.A. Scheme No. 5 (Clifton), Karachi, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the construction of a multi-storeyed building by Defendant No. 1, alleging it would constitute a public nuisance, cause overpopulation, and violate privacy and easement rights. The core legal question was whether an anticipatory injunction against a potential public nuisance caused by high-rise construction can be granted, and whether the building plans and subsequent additional floors approved by the Karachi Building Control Authority were legal and valid. The Sindh High Court held that while anticipatory injunctions against a nuisance can be granted if the injury is practically certain, general apprehensions do not suffice, and construction strictly within approved limits does not constitute a nuisance. The court held that the initial approval for ground plus five storeys was valid and created a vested right, but the subsequent approval for the 6th and 7th floors was unlawful and violative of easements. The suit was accordingly decreed in part, restraining construction beyond ground plus five storeys.
Questions settled- Whether an anticipatory injunction can be granted to restrain a threatened public nuisance?
- Can a negative declaration be sought under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 in respect of a matter not concerning the status or character of the plaintiffs?
- Whether the approval of additional floors on a building plan after final approval violates building regulations and private easements?
- Does an owner acquire a legally vested right upon acting on duly approved building plans?
- A. Rashid Rizwani vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf and others1991 MLD 2387 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
- 77-Club through Secretary vs Secretary, Ministry, Government of Pakistan and others1991 MLD 1729 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
- (SMT).Manorama Srivastava and Another vs (SMT). Saroj SrivastavaK.L.R. 1991 CivU Cases 160 · Allahabad High Court · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
- (Retd.) Group Capt. A.M. Morad vs Muhammad Azmatullah Siddiqui And 3 Other1991 SCMR 2415 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over agricultural land allotted by the Government under the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912. The core legal question was whether Revenue authorities possess the jurisdiction to order the dispossession of occupants under Sections 19 and 32 of the Act when a private dispute regarding title and possession is simultaneously pending before Civil Courts. The High Court had previously declared the Revenue Officer's ejectment order without lawful authority. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that Revenue authorities are not precluded from exercising their statutory powers to enforce conditions of tenancy—such as ejecting unauthorized transferees—merely because a private title dispute exists, unless a specific stay order is obtained from a Civil Court. The Court affirmed that transfers of government land made without the requisite written consent of the Revenue Officer, as mandated by Section 19, are void. Consequently, the Revenue authorities were directed to finalize proceedings regarding possession, while the pending civil suits regarding title were permitted to continue.
Questions settled- Can Revenue authorities order the ejectment of a transferee of government land for violating Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912, despite a pending civil suit regarding title?
- Does a transfer of government land made without the written consent of the Revenue Officer, as required by Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912, render the transaction void?
- Are Revenue authorities precluded from performing their statutory functions under the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912, solely because a private dispute of title is pending in a Civil Court?
- (M/s). Coffee Shop vs National Bank of PakistanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 405 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
- (M/s) Taj Company Ltd vs Tabassum Shahzad EtcK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 317 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
- (M/s) Manzoor Ahmad and Other vs Islamic Republic of PakistanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 337 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s) Kohinoor Marble Industries Limited through A.S. Quraishi(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 80) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Fatima Bibi vs Mohammad AslamK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
- (Mst). Safia vs Muhammad RamzanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 127 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
- (Mst). Ruqeyya Khanum Etc vs Sarbuland Khan EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 126 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
- (Mst). Khairan Bibi vs The State(K.L.R.1991 Shariat Cases 4) · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- (Mst). Hena Tayub vs Iind Senior Civil Judge and AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 629 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-18Read full judgment →
- (Mst). Fatima Bibi vs Mohammad Aslam(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 48) · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
- (Mst). Bashiran Bibi vs (Mst) Basharat Batool Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 151 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Shahnaz Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 275 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Safia vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 235 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-23Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Mehrun-Nisa Etc vs (Mst) Zubaida Begum EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 220 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-15Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Mausooda Begum vs (Mst) Aisha Bili EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 229 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-17Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Hafeezan Begum vs Salamat AliK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →