Latest Judgments

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

• Siraj vs The State1990 MLD 2079 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs Sultan and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-28
  land reformsreview jurisdictionsuo motu powerwrit jurisdictionstatutory limitationinherent powersnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside orders of the Land Commissioner, which had reviewed a previous land sale. The core legal question was whether the Land Commissioner could review an order upon a time-barred application and whether the High Court should interfere with such a review when it corrects a manifest injustice. The Supreme Court held that while an interested party cannot claim review as a right after the twenty-day limitation period prescribed by Rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, the Land Commissioner possesses the power to review orders suo motu without time limits. The Court established that where a statutory functionary has such power, it is analogous to the inherent powers of courts to prevent injustice. Consequently, the High Court’s discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 should not be exercised to perpetuate an illegality or injustice. The appeal was allowed, and the Land Commissioner’s order was restored, as the original order had caused a clear injustice to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Land Commissioner review an order on a time-barred application if the power to review is exercisable suo motu?
  • Does the High Court have the discretion to interfere with a review order that corrects a manifest injustice under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the power of a statutory functionary to review an order without a time limit analogous to the inherent powers of a Civil Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Road Transport Corporation vs Mehfooz Ahmed1990 PLC 455 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sindh Road Transport Corporation vs Alamdin1990 PLC 454 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
• Sindh Road Transport Corporation vs Abdul Rahim1990 PLC 453 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
• Sindh Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman vs Muhammad Ali G. Khokhar1990 SCMR 1404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-03
  master and servantstatutory ruleswrongful terminationconstitutional jurisdictiondelegated legislationwrit petitionservice regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns whether the Sindh Road Transport Corporation Service Rules, 1971, are statutory in character, thereby rendering a Constitutional petition maintainable for their non-compliance. The respondent, an employee of the Corporation, had his service terminated under Rule 23.4. The High Court had previously declared the termination illegal, ruling that the Chairman lacked the delegated authority to terminate service under that specific rule. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Service Rules, 1971, framed under Rule 139 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, are non-statutory regulations rather than statutory instruments, as they do not require government approval for validity. The Court affirmed that where a corporation frames its own service regulations without statutory prescription, the relationship between the corporation and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, the Court ruled that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ in this matter, as the respondent could not claim statutory protection, and the Chairman was indeed the competent authority to terminate service.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Sindh Road Transport Corporation Service Rules, 1971, considered statutory in character?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of a corporation where service rules are non-statutory?
  • Can a Constitutional petition be maintained for the violation of non-statutory service regulations?
  • Is the authority competent to dismiss an employee also considered the competent authority to terminate service under Rule 23.4 of the Sindh Road Transport Corporation Service Rules, 1971?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Employees Social Security Institution vs Employer, Premier1990 PLC 6 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-03
  social security contributioncontract labourestablishment liabilityWest Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinancecorporate identityemployer liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a decision by the Social Security Court, which had exempted the respondent, Premier Tobacco Industries Ltd., from paying social security contributions for workers engaged through contractors. The core legal questions were whether the respondent establishment remained liable despite changes in its corporate name and management, and whether an employer is statutorily obligated to pay social security contributions for employees hired via independent contractors. The High Court held that the establishment's identity persists regardless of changes in ownership or management; once an establishment is notified under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, the liability continues. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an employer is liable for social security contributions for all workers engaged in or in connection with the work of the establishment, regardless of whether they are employed directly or through contractors. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's decision, and restored the Commissioner's order requiring the respondent to pay the outstanding contributions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the liability of an establishment to pay social security contributions cease upon a change in its name or management?
  • Is an employer liable to pay social security contributions for workers engaged through independent contractors?
  • Do employees continue to be covered under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, if they work in connection with the establishment despite changes in the employer's identity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindbad Travels (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs P.Ia. Corporation, Lahore1990 MLD 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29
  preliminary issuespiecemeal trialcivil revisionmixed questions of law and factjurisdictiontrial court discretionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a money suit filed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation against Sindbad Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. for the recovery of Rs. 4,81,831.10, instituted in 1971. The petitioners challenged an order of the trial court declining to decide certain preliminary issues first and opting instead to adjudicate all issues on merits. The core legal question is whether the trial court was bound to try certain preliminary issues of law before proceeding to record evidence and decide the entire suit on merits under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that while pure questions of law touching on jurisdiction, limitation, or bar to a suit may be tried as preliminary issues to avoid protracted litigation, issues that are mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence cannot be so isolated. The court established that piecemeal trial is generally deprecated, a successor judge is competent to regulate the course of trial, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion in deciding to hear the full case on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to try preliminary issues of law before settling issues of fact under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can issues raising mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence be treated as preliminary issues?
  • Does a successor judge have the authority to alter a procedural course or mode of trial previously adopted in a suit?
  • When should a court exercise its discretion to try an issue as a preliminary issue to prevent protracted litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindbad Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. and 6 others vs Pakistan International1990 MLD 1794 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 396 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-08
  murderdying declarationoral dying declarationocular testimonyinterested witnesscriminal appealbenefit of doubtsection 342 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the III Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karachi, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing the murder of the deceased by means of a dagger, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of written and oral dying declarations, the necessity of corroboration for interested witnesses, and the legal implications of failing to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses, that the dying declaration was uncorroborated and recorded under suspicious circumstances without medical certification, and that material evidence was omitted from the examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can an uncorroborated dying declaration recorded after considerable delay and in the absence of a medical certificate form the sole basis for a murder conviction?
  • Whether the failure to put material incriminating circumstances to an accused person under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the reliance upon such evidence?
  • Is the testimony of a related eye-witness reliable when it is contradicted by other prosecution witnesses and the initial police report?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when independent mashirs fail to support the police version?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Khan vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and others1990 SCMR 943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-01
  proprietary rightsState landlease schemeConstitutional Petitionleave to appealBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitutional Petition by the High Court, which originated from a dispute over the transfer of proprietary rights in State land. The core legal questions for the Supreme Court to determine include whether the High Court dismissed the petitioner's case on grounds independent of those relied upon by the Board of Revenue, and whether the petitioner's entitlement to proprietary rights was governed by specific lease schemes from 1971, 1972, or other relevant periods. Furthermore, the Court must examine whether the original lease was obtained illegally, whether the alienation of the petitioner's own land to his heirs disqualified him from receiving proprietary rights, and whether the petitioner failed to satisfy the requisite conditions for the grant. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues, noting that the case requires a thorough examination of the applicable lease schemes and the validity of the petitioner's claim to the land in dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred by dismissing a Constitutional Petition on grounds independent of those considered by the Board of Revenue?
  • Does the alienation of one's own land in favour of heirs disqualify an individual from being granted proprietary rights in State land?
  • Which specific lease scheme governs the grant of proprietary rights in the disputed State land?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat Shaheen and others vs Government of Pakistan1990 PLC (C.S.) 516 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• Sikandar and others vs Muhammad Ayub and others1990 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-08
  tenant-at-willdispossessionejectmentleave to appealjurisdictioncivil suitstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding a dispute over the possession of land measuring 98 kanals. The petitioners, who purchased the land in 1970, faced claims from respondents asserting rights as tenants-at-will. Following a series of litigations, including a dismissed criminal complaint and a suit under the Specific Relief Act, the respondents eventually secured a decree for possession from the District Judge, which was upheld by the High Court following a difference of opinion between the judges of a Division Bench. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether a tenant-at-will is legally entitled to file a suit for dispossession or ejectment in either a Civil or Revenue Court, a matter on which there is no settled precedent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative pronouncement on this issue, noting the divergence of judicial opinion in the High Court. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo subject to the provision of security for compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant-at-will file a suit for dispossession or ejectment in a Civil Court?
  • Can a tenant-at-will file a suit for dispossession or ejectment in a Revenue Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sibte Zahid Naqvi, Boiler Operator vs IV Sind Labour Court at Karachi1990 PLC 45 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
• Sibte Zahid Naqvi vs Pakistan Steel Fabricating Co. Ltd.1990 PLC 292 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Shrin Munir and others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Health, Lahore and anothers1990 PLD Supreme Court 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-20
  Fundamental RightsGender DiscriminationMedical College AdmissionsEqual Protection of LawReasonable ClassificationHarmonious ConstructionQuota SystemCo-educational InstitutionsPrinciples of Policy
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose from constitutional petitions filed by female candidates who obtained higher marks in their F.Sc. examination than admitted male students but were denied admission to co-educational medical colleges due to a fixed quota restricting female seats. The High Court's single bench allowed the petitions, but the Intra-Court Appeal bench reversed the decision, holding that Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution served as a special provision overriding the general equality guarantee under Article 25(2). The Supreme Court examined whether fixing a maximum seat quota for female students in co-educational institutions constituted unlawful sex discrimination under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Harmonizing Articles 22 and 25, the Supreme Court held that while separate single-sex institutions may be established based on reasonable classification, allocating a ceiling on female admissions in co-educational institutions violates Article 25(2). The Court ruled that Article 25(3) permits quotas for women only as a protective minimum floor, not as a restrictive ceiling that favors less meritorious male candidates. The appeals were accepted, declaring female students entitled to compete freely on merit against male candidates in upcoming admissions without disturbing past admissions.

  Questions settled

  • Does capping the maximum number of seats for female applicants in co-educational medical colleges violate Article 25(2) of the Constitution?
  • Can Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution be construed to override or exclude the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex under Article 25(2)?
  • Does Article 25(3) of the Constitution permit the State to establish quotas that operate to the detriment and prejudice of women?
  • Is it constitutionally permissible under Article 25 to establish exclusive educational institutions for males or females based on reasonable classification?
  Read full judgment →
• Shri Vija Yalakshmi Rice Mill Contractors Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 552 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• Shitab Khan vs Sultan and others1990 SCMR 945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26
  leave to appealland allotmentsettlement proceedingsproduce index unitsverified claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging orders passed by the Settlement authorities regarding the cancellation and allotment of land. The core legal question concerns whether a verified area left in India can be properly converted into the entitlement of the petitioner in terms of produce index units when his units remain unsatisfied. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the conversion and assessment of the verified claim against produce index units requires detailed consideration by the Court. The key principle laid down is that unsatisfied verified claims and their conversion into produce index units must be thoroughly examined to determine actual entitlements and excess land cancellations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a verified area left in India be converted into the entitlement of a petitioner in terms of produce index units when their units are still unsatisfied?
  • Whether the High Court is bound to consider the proper assessment of land entitlements based on produce index units before upholding the cancellation of excess land?
  Read full judgment →
• Shermast Khan, Advocate and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1959 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sher Shah vs Administrator Auqaf, West Paksitan and 8 others1990 PLD Lahore 198 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Zulfiqar And Another1990 CLC 283 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-21Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Khan vs Ghulam Khan1990 MLD 334 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-25Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 755 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and 2 others vs Muhammad Ali and 11 others1990 MLD 232 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-19
  redemption of mortgagelis pendenspendente litesecond appealnon-joinder of partiesmortgagee rightsrevenue authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  The dispute concerns the redemption of mortgaged land where the mortgagee rights were transferred during the pendency of redemption proceedings before Revenue Authorities. The appellants, having purchased the mortgagee rights pendente lite, challenged the subsequent redemption order, arguing that they should have been impleaded as parties and that the order was not binding on them. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the transfer of interest during the pendency of litigation does not affect the validity of the proceedings or the resulting order. Applying the doctrine of lis pendens, the Court ruled that the assignee is bound by the decision against the assignor. Furthermore, the Court noted that Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is permissive, and the appellants' failure to formally apply to be impleaded precluded them from challenging the proceedings on the ground of non-joinder. The Court affirmed that the redemption order remained valid and binding on the successors-in-interest, who could separately seek to withdraw the deposited mortgage amount.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decision regarding the redemption of mortgaged land binding on an assignee who purchased mortgagee rights during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Does the failure to implead an assignee of mortgagee rights who did not apply to be joined as a party vitiate the proceedings?
  • Is the rule contained in Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or permissive regarding the continuation of a suit by an assignee?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad alias Shera vs The State1990 PLD Karachi 271 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-28
  possession of automatic weaponrecovery mashirfinger-print expertexpiry of ordinancepending proceedingsspecial courtappellate remand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the judgment of the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Karachi convicting the appellant under section 13B(b) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 and sentencing him to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the recovery of the weapon (a sten gun) was proven through proper mashirs despite non-compliance with strict locality requirements, and whether the Special Court retained jurisdiction to decide the case after the amending Ordinance creating the offense had expired by efflux of time. The Sindh High Court held that the evidence of the recovery mashir was reliable as his presence was naturally explained at a bus stop, and that the proceedings were saved under Article 264 of the Constitution upon the expiry of the Ordinance because the lis was pending continuously through appellate remand. The key principle laid down is that the expiry of an Ordinance by efflux of time constitutes a repeal for the purposes of Article 264 of the Constitution, thereby saving pending legal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a recovery mashir who is not a resident of the immediate locality can be relied upon when the arrest takes place near a busy public place?
  • Does the expiry of an amending Ordinance by efflux of time operate as a repeal for the purpose of invoking the saving provisions of Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are pending legal proceedings saved under Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan when a case is remanded by an appellate court and reheard after the temporary law under which it was instituted has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs Messrs Masjideallama Iqbal Colony1990 MLD 965 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
• Sher Jan vs Karim Dad Khan Through Legal Heirs1990 CLC 1845 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
• Sher Hayder vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1143 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur vs The Government of N.W.F.P. through the Secretary for Agriculture and another1990 SCMR 1519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-02
  service appeallimitation periodcondonation of delayservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. Specifically, the Tribunal had found that the appeal was filed one day beyond the prescribed period of limitation and that the petitioner had failed to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to seek condonation of this delay. Upon hearing the petitioner in person, the Supreme Court examined the record and determined that the petitioner could not demonstrate any error in the Tribunal's finding regarding the delay or the absence of a condonation application. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no valid grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that an appellate forum is justified in dismissing an appeal as time-barred when the statutory period of limitation has expired and no formal application for condonation of delay has been submitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal as time-barred if no application for condonation of delay is filed?
  • Is a delay of one day in filing an appeal sufficient grounds for dismissal by a Service Tribunal if no condonation is sought?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher And 17 Others vs Lal And 2 Other1990 CLC 1956 · Board of Revenue · 1990-01-01Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs Mst. Hashmat Aziz1990 MLD 1869 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmad vs Bati and 6 others1990 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20
  leave to appealacquittalmurderidentificationstar lightappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondents in a murder case. The core legal question involved the assessment and appreciation of evidence regarding the identification of the culprits during a dark night by star light, and the grounds required for interfering with an order of acquittal. The Supreme Court held that in petitions against acquittal, an appellate court will not set aside the acquittal merely on a difference of opinion regarding the assessment of evidence unless the lower court's judgment suffers from well-known infirmities such as the non-reading or misreading of evidence on substantial points. Since the lower courts' findings regarding identification and the lack of reliable corroboration did not suffer from such legal infirmities, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not lightly interfere with an acquittal based on a plausible evaluation of evidence, particularly regarding identification in adverse visibility conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Will an acquittal be set aside by the Supreme Court merely on a difference of opinion regarding the assessment of evidence?
  • Can an eyewitness identification made during a dark night by star light sustain a conviction if accepted by the lower court?
  • What infirmities must be shown in the appreciation of evidence to interfere with an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmad Khan vs Alam Khan and others1990 PLD Revenue 21 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-10-10
  consolidation of holdingswanda allotmenthissadari possessionrevisional jurisdictionappellate authoritysuo motu powersrevenue law
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Rawalpindi, which reduced the land allotment (wanda) granted to the petitioner by the Collector (Consolidation) in a consolidation scheme. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the Collector's order, had sought an increase in his allotment based on his hissadari possession. The core legal question was whether an appellate or revisional authority, such as the Additional Commissioner, could suo motu reduce an allotment granted by a lower authority when the respondents had not challenged that lower order. The Board of Revenue held that the Additional Commissioner erred in law by assuming the role of the respondents and granting them relief they had not sought. The Board affirmed that consolidation proceedings must respect the finality of unchallenged orders and that hissadari possession does not constitute a valid basis for the apportionment of wandas. Consequently, the Board set aside the Additional Commissioner's order and restored the Collector's original decision, establishing that an appellate authority cannot grant relief to parties who have not contested the lower court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate or revisional authority reduce an allotment granted by a lower authority if the respondents have not challenged that order?
  • Does hissadari possession constitute a valid basis for the apportionment of wandas in consolidation proceedings?
  • Can an appellate authority grant relief to parties who have not sought such relief or challenged the lower court's order?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Zafar Iqbal vs Government of Sindh EtcK.L.R. 1990 Labour and Service Cases 282 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-09-25Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Saadi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 973 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Nasim vs Municipal Committee, Wazirabad and others1990 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21
  service terminationlimitation periodcondonation of delaydue diligenceconstitutional jurisdictionlabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Octroi Clerk for the Municipal Committee, Wazirabad, challenged his removal from service through various forums, including an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and grievance petitions before the Punjab Labour Court, all of which were dismissed, primarily due to limitation issues. Subsequently, the petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, challenging the removal order and the appellate dismissal. The High Court examined whether the time spent pursuing remedies before the wrong forum could be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908. Finding that the petitioner had not acted with due diligence and was indolent in pursuing his remedies, the High Court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the petition, finding no jurisdictional defect or illegality in the impugned orders. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that it would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to condone the delay where the petitioner failed to demonstrate diligent prosecution of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time spent pursuing a case before a wrong forum be excluded from the period of limitation if the party was not diligent?
  • Does the High Court have discretion to refuse condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when a petitioner is found to be indolent?
  • Is a dismissal of a service grievance petition on the grounds of limitation and lack of diligence subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Arif through Legal Heirs vs Syed Ahmed E Arooq and others1990 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18
  rent restrictionres judicatawrit jurisdictionejectment applicationpersonal requirementappellate findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that remanded a rent dispute case. The dispute arose from a second ejectment application filed by a landlord under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, following the dismissal of an initial application. The Rent Controller had dismissed the second application on the grounds of res judicata, but the Additional District Judge, while dismissing the appeal on merits regarding the lack of bona fide personal requirement, explicitly disagreed with the finding of res judicata. The High Court, however, proceeded on the erroneous premise that the Additional District Judge had upheld the res judicata finding. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court exercised its jurisdiction incorrectly by misconstruing the appellate court's findings. The core principle established is that a High Court, when exercising writ jurisdiction, must accurately reflect the findings of the lower appellate court and cannot set aside an order based on a factual premise that contradicts the record of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court set aside an appellate order based on a factual premise that contradicts the record of the proceedings?
  • Does a second rent application based on a different ground of personal requirement constitute res judicata when the first application was dismissed on a different ground?
  • Is the High Court justified in remanding a case when it misinterprets the findings of the lower appellate court regarding the applicability of res judicata?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Khurshid Anwar vs The State1990 MLD 620 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ghulam Rasool vs Karamat Hussain and another1990 P Cr. L J 844 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Allah Rakha vs Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf1990 MLD 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 217 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-24Read full judgment →
• Sharif Khan vs Seenar Gul and another1990 P Cr. L J 142 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-28
  bail cancellationabscondencetrial commencementjudicial discretioncriminal proceduremurder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for cancellation of bail arose from a murder case where the accused-respondent, having allegedly absconded for nine years, was granted bail by the Illaqa Magistrate, a decision upheld by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner sought cancellation of bail primarily on the ground of the accused's long-term abscondence. The Peshawar High Court examined whether bail should be cancelled when the trial has already commenced. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that where the trial of an accused has commenced or is scheduled to commence shortly, interference with an existing bail order is generally improper, even if the accused was previously a fugitive from law. The Court emphasized that the discretion exercised by lower courts in granting bail should not be disturbed at such a stage merely on the ground of prior abscondence. Consequently, the High Court declined to cancel the bail, dismissed the petition, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be cancelled solely on the ground that the accused was an absconder for a long period?
  • Is it proper for an appellate court to interfere with a bail order when the trial of the accused has already commenced?
  • Does the fact that a co-accused has been acquitted affect the grounds for cancelling bail for the remaining accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharif Hussain Shah vs Bisvil Spinners Ltd.1990 PLC 521 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
• Sharif and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
• Shankarrao Dajisaheb Shinde through Legal Heirs vs Vithalrao1990 MLD 1355 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Tariq and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 939 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
• Shan Ali alias Shan Khan vs Ch. Muhammad Akram and others1990 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-04
  election petitionrecounting of votestampering of election recordwrit petitionleave to appeallocal government election
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding a local government election dispute. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 contested the election for membership of the Municipal Committee Kasur, and the petitioner was initially declared the winner. Respondent No. 1 challenged the election through an election petition alleging improper rejection and acceptance of votes. The Election Tribunal initially dismissed the petition, but upon a constitutional petition, the High Court remanded the matter for recounting. Upon recounting, respondent No. 1 was declared successful. The petitioner challenged this before the High Court, alleging tampering of the election record. The High Court inspected the record, concluded there was no tampering, and upheld the Election Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court evaluated the arguments that the petitioner's applications were arbitrarily dismissed and held that since the High Court itself conducted an inquiry and verified the integrity of the record, no ground for interference was made out. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can examine election records and conduct an inquiry to satisfy itself regarding allegations of tampering?
  • Does an order of the Election Tribunal following a court-ordered recount warrant interference when the High Court has verified the integrity of the election material?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas Din vs Jallu1990 PLD Revenue 18 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-11-29Read full judgment →
• Shakar Khan and 9 others vs Member, Board of Revenue, Balochistan1990 PLD Supreme Court 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25
  revisional jurisdictionrevenue courtland ejectmentsecond appealstatutory interpretationconstitutional petitionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a land ejectment case under the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978. The appellants' ejectment order was initially upheld by the Collector, but an appeal before the Commissioner set aside the subordinate orders and remanded the case. The Member, Board of Revenue, accepted the respondents' revision and declared the Commissioner's second appellate order void for lack of jurisdiction, a view affirmed by the High Court in a constitutional petition. The core legal question concerned the harmonious interpretation of subsections (3) and (4) of section 71 of the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978, regarding the revisional powers of the Commissioner versus the Board of Revenue, and whether an incompetent appeal could be treated as a revision. The Supreme Court held that while a second appeal was indeed barred where the original order was confirmed on first appeal, subsections (3) and (4) of section 71 must be reconciled: subsection (3) applies when final orders, decrees, or final proceedings are to be modified or reversed (requiring the Commissioner to submit his opinion to the Board of Revenue), whereas subsection (4) applies to interlocutory or non-final orders. Furthermore, an appellate forum may treat a competent revision as an appeal or vice versa. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders of the High Court and Board of Revenue, and the case was remanded to the Board of Revenue to treat the Commissioner's order as a submitted opinion under section 71(3) for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second appeal lies against an original order or decree confirmed on first appeal under the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance 1978?
  • How are subsections (3) and (4) of section 71 of the Balochistan Tenancy Ordinance 1978 reconciled regarding the finality of orders a Commissioner can pass?
  • Can an appellate forum treat a pending appeal as a revision when the appeal is otherwise incompetent?
  • Does the non-mention of a specific provision of law vitiate an otherwise valid order passed by a statutory authority acting within its powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Munawar Butt vs Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab1990 CLC 316 · Lahore High Court
  university examinationlost answer bookaverage marksstatutory interpretationwrit petitionadministrative practicePunjab University Calendar
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed before the Lahore High Court concerned the entitlement of a student to average marks for a lost examination script under university regulations. The petitioner appeared in the Second Professional B. Pharmacy examination, but his written answer book for Pharmaceutical Chemistry-II (Physical) was reported untraceable by the university. The university denied him average marks under the proviso to Regulation 6 of the Punjab University Calendar Volume-I, relying instead on result sheets and award lists showing his marks, and cited past departmental practice. The core legal question was whether the university could resort to alternative materials to determine marks when an answer book was lost, bypassing the proviso to Regulation 6. The Court held that the amended Regulation 6 is clear and unambiguous: when an answer book received by an examiner is lost, a candidate is entitled as of right to the award of average marks obtained in other papers, with an option to reappear. The Court laid down the principle that a patently wrong and absurd departmental construction of a clear statutory rule or regulation cannot be permitted to perpetuate injustice, and that alternative materials cannot be used to defeat the right to average marks or render the re-checking provision nugatory.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate is entitled as of right to average marks under Regulation 6 of the Punjab University Calendar Volume-I when an answer book is lost after being received by an examiner?
  • Can university authorities rely on alternative materials, such as award lists or result sheets, to determine marks when an answer book is lost?
  • Whether a patently wrong and absurd construction of a regulation followed as a past departmental practice can be allowed to perpetuate injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahmurad Sugar Mills Ltd. vs The Union Council, Jhoke Sharif and 21990 MLD 305 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-07Read full judgment →
• Shahida Parveen vs Saeed Mirza And Another1990 CLC 938 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-20
  execution proceedingsattachment of propertyobjection petitionsummary dismissalevidentiary investigationcivil proceduretitle deeds
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from execution proceedings where the Executing Court dismissed objections to the attachment and sale of property, primarily because the objectors produced only photocopies of their title deeds. The core legal question was whether an Executing Court can summarily dismiss an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without conducting a formal investigation or recording evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the Executing Court's summary dismissal was legally unsustainable. The Court ruled that under Order XXI, Rules 58 and 59, the Executing Court is mandatorily required to conduct a proper judicial investigation into the claims. This necessitates framing issues, allowing parties to lead evidence, and considering rebuttal evidence, rather than dismissing claims based on the technicality of producing photocopies. The Court emphasized that a perfunctory approach violates the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision after a full evidentiary inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Executing Court summarily dismiss an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence?
  • Is an Executing Court required to frame issues and record evidence when adjudicating claims of title to attached property?
  • Does an appeal lie against an order passed by an Executing Court dismissing objections to the attachment of property under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid M. Akhtar and 4 others vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 411 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
• Shahid Javed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1153 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
• Shahid Agency [M/s.]. vs Collector Of Customs (Appraisement) AndPTCL 1990 CL. 381 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahbaz Afghan vs The District Magistrate and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 274 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-07
  preventive detentionMaintenance of Public OrderDistrict Magistrateconstitutional petitionpending criminal casesapplication of mindcyclostyled order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a detention order dated 21-09-1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Jhang, detaining the petitioner for three months under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The detention was premised on allegations of narcotic trafficking, involvement in 22 criminal cases, and failure to heed warnings against creating public discord. The High Court examined whether preventive detention could be validly ordered on pending criminal cases and vague, uncorroborated allegations using cyclostyled pro formas without independent application of mind. The Court held that preventive detention requires objective assessment based on tangible material showing reasonable, non-arbitrary satisfaction. Pendency of criminal cases cannot justify preventive detention, as detention cannot substitute for prosecution or pre-empt trial. Finding that the order was issued on stereotyped cyclostyled reports without independent application of mind, the Court declared the detention order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, accepting the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order of preventive detention under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 be validly grounded solely on the pendency of criminal cases against the detenu?
  • Is a preventive detention order sustainable if passed mechanically on a cyclostyled pro forma without independent application of mind by the detaining authority?
  • What standard of objective material and assessment is required by law for a statutory functionary to order the deprivation of a citizen's liberty under preventive detention laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
• Shahadat alias Shadda vs The State1990 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19
  Offence of ZinaHudood Ordinanceleave to appealcriminal convictionsentencing leniencyrape
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, while modifying the sentence from five years' rigorous imprisonment and 30 stripes to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to maintain the conviction and reduce the sentence warranted interference through a grant of leave to appeal. The Supreme Court examined the record, which included medical evidence confirming the rape of the 15-year-old victim, Mst. Rani, and corroborating testimony from her mother and other witnesses. The Court held that the High Court had already adopted an unnecessarily lenient approach in reducing the sentence. Finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, thereby affirming the conviction and the modified sentence imposed by the High Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts must carefully weigh evidence in Hudood cases before granting leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reduction of a sentence by the High Court in a case involving the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 constitute a ground for Supreme Court interference?
  • Is a conviction under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 sustainable when supported by medical evidence and corroborating witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahabuddin. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-I, West Zone, Karachi And 4 OtherPTCL 1990 CL. 153 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 553 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-02Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs The State1990 MLD 40 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Anwar Khalid and others1990 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-14
  leave to appealSettlement CommissionerDeputy Settlement CommissionerKNCH formPermanent Transfer DeedPTDspot inspectionremand orderstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 371 and 372 of 1986 were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order arising from writ petitions before the High Court. The Settlement Commissioner had originally remanded the matter to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to carry out a personal spot inspection and determine whether the property in possession of the revision petitioners was unallotted and eligible for transfer to them on their KNCH forms. The High Court, in two separate writ petitions, allowed one by remanding the appeal to the Notified Officer and dismissed the other on grounds of laches. The core legal controversy concerned whether the disputed property formed part of the premises transferred via a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) to respondent No. 1, or whether the petitioners were entitled to its transfer. The Supreme Court observed that the contention regarding the propriety of the Settlement Commissioner's remand order for factual verification and spot inspection required consideration. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted subject to furnishing security, and status quo was directed to be maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted to consider if a Settlement Commissioner's order remanding a case for spot inspection and factual verification of property possession and transfer was fair and lawful?
  • Whether properties occupied by petitioners formed part of an industrial premises already transferred under a Permanent Transfer Deed to a respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and another vs Muhammad Rafiq and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and 8 others vs Additional District Judge I, Bahawalpur and 7 others1990 PLD Lahore 64 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-10
  rent restrictionejectmentrent determinationfunctus officiodefault in rent depositlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a revision petition challenging an order of the Appellate Court, which had upheld an ejectment order against tenants for failing to deposit rent as directed by the Rent Controller under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller, after passing an ejectment order for non-compliance with a rent deposit direction, remains obligated to finally determine the actual rent due from the tenant. The High Court held that while the ejectment order itself was valid and remained intact due to the tenant's default, the Rent Controller is statutorily bound to finally determine the actual rent payable. The court affirmed that proceedings do not legally conclude upon the mere issuance of an ejectment order; the Rent Controller is not functus officio regarding the determination of rent. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Rent Controller with directions to take evidence and determine the final rent liability, ensuring that the statutory requirements for final adjudication are satisfied despite the prior ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Rent Controller remain functus officio after passing an ejectment order for non-payment of rent?
  • Is the Rent Controller statutorily obligated to finally determine the actual rent due even after an ejectment order has been issued?
  • Can an ejectment order based on non-compliance with a rent deposit direction be maintained while simultaneously remanding the case for final rent determination?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad alias Shaman vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1563 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad alias Manna vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• Shah Mansoor vs National Bank of Pakistan1990 PLC 718 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
• Shah Gul and others vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others1990 SCMR 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-26
  pre-emptionrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factmortgage versus saleconsent decreemisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court setting aside the concurrent judgments of the District Judge and Civil Judge, Abbottabad, and dismissing the appellants' pre-emption suit. The dispute concerned whether a land transaction was an outright sale or a mortgage, where the vendors were illiterate women who subsequently confessed judgment in a declaration suit stating it was a mortgage. The appellants filed a suit for pre-emption, claiming the consent decree was collusive to defeat their right. The trial and appellate courts decreed the suit, but the High Court reversed the finding in revision. The core legal question was whether the High Court was competent in revisional jurisdiction to reverse concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly interfered as the subordinate courts had misread evidence and overlooked vital material circumstances regarding the parties' conduct and the nature of the transaction. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is competent in revisional jurisdiction to reverse concurrent findings of fact recorded by subordinate courts?
  • Does a consent decree obtained by vendors declaring a transaction to be a mortgage bind a pre-emptor who was not a party to the suit?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact be interfered with if subordinate courts overlook material circumstances and misread evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Din and another vs District Manager, P.R.T.C. and others1990 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-29
  writ jurisdictionfindings of factmisconductlabour lawreinstatementspecial tribunaljudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which set aside orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal reinstating two conductors dismissed by the Punjab Urban Transport Corporation for misconduct. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal regarding the establishment of misconduct. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court does not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact by special tribunals, such interference is justified when those tribunals overlook material circumstances or base their findings on untenable grounds. In this case, the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal ignored the credible testimony of Inspectors who caught the petitioners failing to issue tickets to passengers who had paid fares. The Court affirmed that the Inspectors' reports and on-the-spot confrontation were sufficient evidence of misconduct, rendering the High Court's intervention lawful. The petitions were dismissed, confirming that tribunals cannot ignore material evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by a special tribunal in writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the testimony of an Inspector sufficient to establish misconduct in departmental proceedings against a bus conductor?
  • Does the failure to examine passengers as witnesses in departmental proceedings invalidate a finding of misconduct against a conductor?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Behram vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-20Read full judgment →
• Shah Bakhsh and anothers vs The State and 2 others1990 SCMR 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-17
  appeal against acquittalmurderocular evidencemedical contradictionabscondencerecovery of weaponbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by right and connected petition for leave to appeal arise from a judgment of the High Court setting aside the appellant's acquittal by the Trial Court and convicting him under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court was justified in reversing a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular testimony, medical evidence, recoveries, and abscondence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the acquittal, holding that the presence of the eye-witnesses was doubtful, their testimony contradicted the medical evidence, and the circumstantial evidence regarding weapon recovery and abscondence was flawed. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court should not lightly interfere with a plausible judgment of acquittal based on a proper appraisal of evidence unless there is a clear defect of law, jurisdiction, or misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in interfering with a plausible judgment of acquittal rendered by a Trial Court in the absence of any legal defect or misreading of evidence?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence warrant the rejection of the prosecution's case?
  • Can the recovery of a weapon from a locked room be attributed to the accused when exclusive possession and control of the premises are not satisfactorily established?
  • Is proof of abscondence sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction on a capital charge when the primary evidence remains doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Bibi vs Deputy Education Officer (Women), Tehsil and District Sahiwal1990 PLC (C.S.) 345 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-09
  transfer ordercivil servantadministrative discretiondictationvoid ab initiocompetent authoritycoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a primary school teacher. The appellant contended that the Deputy Education Officer (DEO) cancelled her transfer order solely due to a directive from the Minister for Revenue, rather than through independent administrative assessment. The core legal question was whether a transfer order issued by a competent authority under the dictation of an unauthorized official is legally sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was void ab initio. The Court reasoned that while the DEO is the competent authority for such transfers, the act of passing an order in mechanical obedience to an unauthorized Minister, without applying an independent mind or considering administrative necessity, renders the action coram non judice. The Court emphasized that government functionaries are creatures of law, bound to exercise their authority strictly within their legal sphere. Consequently, the Court set aside the transfer order, declaring it to have been passed without lawful authority, while clarifying that the competent authority remains free to initiate lawful transfers in the future.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority pass a transfer order based solely on the directive of an unauthorized official?
  • Is a transfer order passed without the application of an independent mind by the competent authority legally valid?
  • Does a Minister for Revenue have the authority to direct the transfer of primary school teachers?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ullah vs Director-General, F.Ia. and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 132 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Shafqat alias Shaukat Javaid and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Shafqat alias Mithoo and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 281 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali alias Furqan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 961 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-20Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 769 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah Khan and another vs The State1990 MLD 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
• Shafiqur Rehman vs Muhammad Ashraf And Other Non Petitioners1990 CLC 1806 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-04-05Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Ahmed vs The State1990 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirycriminal appealeyewitness testimonybail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail by the High Court in a murder case. The petitioner was charged with the murder of Muhammad Iqbal, based on the statements of two witnesses who claimed to have seen the petitioner leaving the deceased's house around midnight. The initial First Information Report did not implicate the petitioner or any other suspect. The High Court had previously denied bail, citing the existence of a motive due to prior litigation between the parties and the testimony of the eyewitnesses. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the alleged identification. The Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry, as the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish a prima facie case at the pre-trial stage to warrant continued incarceration. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted the petitioner bail, subject to the furnishing of sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of prior litigation between the accused and the complainant automatically disentitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
  • When does a criminal case qualify for 'further inquiry' under the law governing bail?
  • Is the testimony of witnesses claiming to see an accused leaving a scene of a crime sufficient to deny bail when the initial FIR was lodged against unknown persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs Muzaffaruddin and others1990 SCMR 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-11
  writ petitionstriking off defencewritten statementconstitutional jurisdictioncivil procedureleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, which had challenged an appellate order setting aside the trial court's order of striking off the respondents' defence. The core legal question was whether the Additional District Judge acted without jurisdiction or authority in setting aside the trial court's order where the written statement was submitted later on the same day fixed for filing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction as no legal defect was pointed out in the order of the Additional District Judge, who had permitted the filing of the written statement before the closing hours of the court. The petition was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit, affirming that a party should generally not be shut out from defending a suit where the written statement is tendered on the assigned date.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial court is justified in striking off the defence of a defendant for failing to file a written statement earlier in the day when the statement is tendered later on the same date?
  • Can the High Court interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with an appellate order that allows the filing of a written statement on the date fixed for that purpose?
  • Does an Additional District Judge act without jurisdiction by setting aside an order that struck off a defence when the written statement was submitted before the closing hours of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1157 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
• Shadid Khan vs Wali Khan and another1990 MLD 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-04Read full judgment →
• Shad Muhammad vs Shah Poor1990 PLD Supreme Court 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-20
  pre-emptionco-sharerreview petitionstare decisisprecedentland law
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition arose from a dispute concerning the right of pre-emption, specifically whether the partial retention of land by a petitioner allows them to assert a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer over the remaining land. The review petitioner sought to delay the proceedings pending a decision by a larger Bench on a reference regarding the interpretation of pre-emption rights. The Supreme Court examined the request in light of established precedents, particularly Gulzada v. Muhammad Usman (PLD 1990 SC 465) and Ahmad Khan v. Sattar Din (PLD 1981 SC 148). The Court held that the legal principles established in Ahmad Khan remained valid and binding, as the conditions for re-examining declared law were not met. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that existing law declared by the Supreme Court remains in force until altered by statutory or other appropriate means. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the request to keep the review petition pending and dismissed the petition, affirming that the established legal position on pre-emption rights continues to hold the field.

  Questions settled

  • Does the partial retention of land by a petitioner grant them a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer over the remaining land?
  • Should a review petition be kept pending awaiting the decision of a reference to a larger Bench regarding the same legal issue?
  • Does the law declared by the Supreme Court remain valid until it is changed by statutory or other means?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs District Magistrate, Sialkot and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 1534 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01
  preventive detentionMaintenance of Public Ordernon-application of mindconstitutional petitioncriminal prosecutionunlawful detentionhabeas corpus
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged a detention order dated 30-09-1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Sialkot, under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The petitioner was detained for three months based on a list of fifteen historical criminal cases. During proceedings, it transpired that the petitioner had already been acquitted in eight cases, was never named in two, had completed sentences in three minor/past cases, and was currently facing regular trial in the remaining three cases. The High Court held that where the state has chosen to prosecute an individual on substantive criminal charges, those pending charges, past convictions, or past acquittals cannot reasonably form the basis for preventive detention under the Ordinance. The Court further observed that the District Magistrate mechanically accepted the police recommendation without independent application of mind. Consequently, the High Court declared the detention order to be without lawful authority and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can pending criminal charges or past acquittals and convictions serve as a lawful basis for ordering preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  • Whether the mechanical acceptance of police recommendations by a District Magistrate without independent application of mind invalidates a preventive detention order?
  • Is it an unreasonable exercise of preventive detention powers to detain a person on grounds for which they are already facing regular prosecution before a criminal court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain Siddiqui vs Member, Administration, Corporate Law1990 PLC (C.S.) 85 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-09-02Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain Shah and another vs The State1990 MLD 1055 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-11Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad Sheikh vs Government of the Punjab through its1990 SCMR 1683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-12
  civil servicead hoc appointmentregularizationpenal interpretationstatutory constructionservice tribunalremoval from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Service Tribunal regarding the removal of a civil servant under Section 11-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The appellant, initially appointed on an ad hoc basis in 1974 and later regularized, had his appointment reviewed and re-regularized in 1977 following Martial Law Instruction No. 21. The core legal question was whether the appellant, whose appointment was reviewed and regularized after the cutoff date specified in Section 11-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, remained subject to removal under that provision. The Supreme Court held that Section 11-A, being penal in nature, requires strict interpretation. The Court determined that because the appellant’s appointment had already been reviewed and regularized by the competent authority after the period specified in the statute, the provision did not apply to him. Consequently, the Court set aside the Service Tribunal's judgment and the removal order, establishing the principle that penal provisions affecting civil service tenure must be interpreted strictly and cannot be extended to cases where regularization occurred after the statutory cutoff date.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 11-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 apply to civil servants whose appointments were reviewed and regularized after the cutoff date specified in the statute?
  • Should penal provisions in civil service legislation be given a strict interpretation?
  • Can a civil servant be removed under Section 11-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 if their appointment was already reviewed and regularized by the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbar Hayat vs The State1990 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14
  leave to appealre-appraisal of evidenceattempt to murderplea of insanitycriminal convictionsufficiency of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Shabbar Hayat against his conviction under sections 307/34 and 353/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as upheld by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner was initially convicted by the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials for an armed attack on a Sub-Engineer of the Irrigation Department. While the High Court acquitted the petitioner's co-accused, it maintained the petitioner's conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner initially raised a plea of insanity based on epilepsy, which was subsequently abandoned. The petitioner further challenged the sufficiency and independence of the prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had thoroughly examined the evidence and found the petitioner guilty. The Court affirmed that it would not undertake a re-appraisal of evidence at the leave-to-appeal stage unless the petitioner could demonstrate a specific error of law or a misreading of evidence by the lower courts. Finding no such error, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in a petition for leave to appeal where the lower courts have already examined the evidence?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding of guilt by lower courts in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Riaz Ahmad And Another vs Qamar Zaman Khan1990 CLC 892 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Zulfiqar vs Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Communication and Works Department and others1990 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-10
  service tribunalleave to appealsub-engineercivil servantsupreme court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sh. Muhammad Zulfiqar, Sub-Engineer, against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 20-4-1981. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal committed any legal or equitable error in its judgment warranting interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court heard the petitioner's counsel, who failed to raise any substantial ground to justify granting leave to appeal. Holding that the Punjab Service Tribunal had comprehensively considered all legal and equitable aspects of the case before rendering its decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no case made out for leave. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal from a Service Tribunal judgment where the Tribunal has duly weighed all legal and factual aspects and the petitioner fails to point out any justifiable ground for interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal can be granted against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal when the petitioner fails to urge a justifiable ground?
  • Did the Punjab Service Tribunal consider all legal and equitable aspects of the case before passing its judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Sharif Uppal vs Sh. Akbar Hussain and others1990 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-14
  administration suitpartition of propertyrendition of accountsbenami transactionpartnership deedregistration of documentssecond appealnecessary party
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for administration, partition, and rendition of accounts concerning the estate of the deceased Haji Muhammad Hussain. The primary legal questions involved the ownership of specific properties claimed by the appellant as his own or as partnership assets, the validity of alleged partnership agreements, and procedural issues regarding the amendment of the decree and the impleadment of a necessary party. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the existence of the alleged partnership firm or the transfer of properties to it, as the documents relied upon were either fabricated, unproved, or required registration which was absent. The Court affirmed that the deceased was the owner of the disputed properties. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a decree must strictly conform to the judgment under Order 20 Rule 6, and failure to include granted relief (rendition of accounts) in the decree-sheet necessitates amendment. The principle laid down is that registration of a document does not create a presumption of its execution when disputed, and a party cannot use additional evidence to fill lacunas in their case at a belated stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of a document raise a presumption of its execution when the execution itself is disputed?
  • Is a court required to amend a decree-sheet if it fails to reflect the relief granted in the judgment?
  • Can an appellate court allow the production of additional evidence to fill lacunas in a party's case at a belated stage?
  • Does the impleadment of a necessary party at the appellate stage violate the rights of the existing parties if no prejudice is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Sharif Uppal vs Sh. Akbar Hussain and others1990 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-19
  partition suitpartnership firmfindings of factsecond appealappraisal of evidenceadministration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of a suit for partition, administration, and rendition of accounts regarding the estate of late Haji Muhammad Hussain. The trial court decreed the suit, holding the appellant as an accounting party while excluding certain properties. On appeal, the Additional District Judge modified the decree, holding that a plot measuring 2 Kanals 19 Marlas belonged to the appellant as it had been invested in a partnership firm, Messrs Sharif Sons, and relinquished by the original owner. The Lahore High Court reversed this finding, holding that the partnership agreement and its dissolution were not duly proved. The Supreme Court examined the documentary evidence, including the partnership deed, bank records, and loan transactions, and held that the first appellate court's finding of fact was based on proper appreciation of evidence and should not have been interfered with by the High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment regarding the disputed plot, and restored the judgment of the Additional District Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with a concurrent or first appellate court's finding of fact in a second appeal based on the appraisal of evidence?
  • Does the registration of a firm under the Partnership Act alone constitute proof of the execution of a partnership agreement?
  • Can shares declared by a preliminary decree in a partition suit be varied due to subsequent events?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Saleem vs Muhammad Bashir and 4 others1990 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-26
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationforgeryfraudrevenue recordssettlement authoritiesland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five petitions for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court to respondents accused of forgery and fraud. The dispute involves land transferred by Settlement Authorities to private individuals, which was subsequently sold to a co-accused, Izharul Haq. The complainant, Shaheen Foundation, alleged that the sale deeds were forged to usurp property purportedly transferred to the Pakistan Air Force and subsequently to the Foundation. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting pre-arrest bail given the conflicting claims over the land's title and the absence of evidence in the revenue records supporting the Foundation's claim. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the revenue records and Register RL-II confirmed the transfers to the respondents, while no record existed supporting the Foundation's ownership. The Court held that the High Court's assessment of the record was well-founded and that no grounds existed to interfere with the exercise of discretion in granting pre-arrest bail. The principle affirmed is that bail should not be cancelled where the lower court's order is based on a sound examination of existing documentary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the cancellation of pre-arrest bail justified when the lower court's order is supported by existing revenue records?
  • Does the absence of mutation entries in favor of a complainant in revenue records undermine allegations of forgery against the current title holders?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Rafiq and others vs The Administrator, Municipal1990 SCMR 1520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-17
  municipal taxationadministrator powerslocal governmentultra viresprocedural compliancetransitional provisionsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition that challenged the levy of octroi and other taxes by the Administrator of the Municipal Committee, Qila Didar Singh. The core legal questions were whether the Administrator lacked the competency to levy taxes under the Punjab Local Government Act 1975, and whether the mandatory procedural requirements for imposing taxes under the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Imposition of Taxes) Rules 1960 were violated. The Supreme Court held that the Administrator was duly authorized to perform the functions of the Municipal Committee under existing transitional provisions, including Section 235(2) of the Punjab Local Government Act 1975, and that the taxation authority was legally sound. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the procedural requirements for taxation had been substantially complied with. The Court established that an Administrator appointed under valid transitional legal orders retains the authority to exercise the powers of a local council, and that factual findings regarding procedural compliance by the High Court are not to be disturbed absent clear error.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Administrator appointed to a dissolved Municipal Committee possess the legal authority to levy taxes under the Punjab Local Government Act 1975?
  • Can a court interfere with factual findings regarding procedural compliance in tax imposition if no error or misreading of the record is demonstrated?
  • Do transitional provisions in local government legislation allow an Administrator to continue exercising taxation powers until a new council is constituted?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Nazir vs Muhammad Iqbal and others1990 SCMR 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-04
  specific performancelimitationleave to appealcontractsale-deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision against concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which dismissed a suit for specific performance of a contract on the ground of limitation. The core legal question involves the determination of the starting point of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance when a specific date for performance was allegedly fixed through correspondence between the parties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the question of limitation in light of the correspondence that took place between the petitioner and the respondents. The key principle laid down is that correspondence establishing a fixed date for the performance of a contract can trigger the commencement of the period of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for specific performance of a contract is barred by limitation if filed beyond three years from the date fixed for performance in correspondence?
  • Can correspondence between parties establish a fixed date for the performance of a contract to start the running of limitation?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted to re-examine concurrent findings on the question of limitation based on documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Munir vs L.Da.1990 PLD Lahore 451 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Ibrahim vs Syed Abdul Aziz Shah and others1990 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-13
  tenant evictionpersonal requirementwithdrawal of applicationCode of Civil Procedurerent lawcause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the eviction of a tenant on the grounds of the landlord's personal requirement, following the dismissal of the tenant's writ petition by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a landlord, having previously withdrawn an eviction application based on personal requirement without seeking permission to refile, was barred from filing a fresh application for the same ground under the principles of Order XXIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action for personal requirement can arise periodically depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not strictly applicable to rent cases, and its equitable principles should be used to advance justice rather than to penalize a party. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, determining that the landlord was not barred from filing the subsequent application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of an eviction application without permission to refile bar a landlord from filing a subsequent application on the same ground of personal requirement?
  • Is the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 strictly applicable to rent cases?
  • Can the equitable principles of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be applied to penalize a party in a rent case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Aslam vs Akbar Ali and 12 others1990 MLD 216 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →