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.

• Javed Iqbal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1827 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-06-14Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Awan vs The State and another1990 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustcheatingfinancial defaultinvestment companyrecovery of moneyconditions of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing criminal prosecution under sections 406, 409, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for operating an unauthorized investment company, defaulting on repayments exceeding Rs. 1.57 crores, and failing to repay private investors, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of his post-arrest bail petition and a constitutional petition challenging his prosecution. During the Supreme Court hearing, the challenge to the prosecution was withdrawn, leaving only the question of bail for consideration. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's continued detention was justified merely to effect the recovery of defaulted money. The Supreme Court held that continued detention solely for the purpose of recovering money is not justified, and that expeditious trial combined with securing the petitioner's availability and safeguarding liabilities through strict conditions is more appropriate. The Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted post-arrest bail subject to the petitioner pledging his disclosed assets, furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000, and providing ten substantial sureties, thereby laying down the principle that pre-trial detention cannot be used merely as a coercive tool for financial recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Whether continued detention of an accused is justified solely for the purpose of effecting the recovery of money in criminal proceedings?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused facing prosecution for financial default and fraud upon imposing stringent conditions to secure liabilities and trial attendance?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir1990 PLC (C.S.) 781 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1329 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar alias Yasin vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 445 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal vs Muhammad Din and another1990 SCMR 1309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-24
  inherent powerscriminal revisionleave to appealbreach of peacecivil litigationquashing of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal by the High Court of an application filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the maintainability and propriety of invoking inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A after a matter has already been concluded by a Sessions Court in its revisional jurisdiction, particularly regarding factual disputes and the pre-existence of a likelihood of a breach of the peace. The Supreme Court held that where a matter stands concluded by criminal revisional jurisdiction at the Sessions Court level, it is very difficult to make out a case for interference under section 561-A unless strict conditions are met. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the High Court rightly found the factual determinations of the Sessions Court unexceptionable, noted that the real dispute was the subject-matter of pending civil litigation, and observed that the necessary pre-condition of a likelihood of a breach of the peace was absent. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a matter stands concluded by the exercise of criminal revisional jurisdiction at the Sessions Court level?
  • Is interference under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warranted where the underlying dispute is already the subject-matter of pending civil litigation?
  • What is the effect of the absence of a pre-existing likelihood of a breach of the peace on proceedings initiated regarding dispossession?
  Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal vs Maosoodan Bibi and 4 others1990 SCMR 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07
  inheritancewillestoppelcivil revisionleave to appealbequestpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision in a suit for declaration regarding the inheritance of the estate of the deceased, Muhammad Din. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the principle of estoppel and the factual findings regarding possession of the land and the genuineness of a will executed by the deceased in favour of the plaintiff, Mst. Maqsoodan Bibi. The petitioner, a vendee from the deceased's nephews, challenged the lower courts' findings. The Supreme Court held that the principle of estoppel, as discussed in the cited precedent, was not applicable to the facts of the present case. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the findings of fact made by the appellate court regarding the validity of the will, noting that it was not unusual for the deceased to bequeath property to his wife's daughter, who was also his brother's daughter. Consequently, the Court found no justification for granting leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of estoppel apply to a claim of title based on a will where the claimant is the step-daughter of the deceased?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact regarding the genuineness of a will that have been concluded by the appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Javaid Akhtar Nawaz vs Mehr Kabir1990 CLC 1122 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-09
  pre-emption suitclosure of evidenceOrder XVII Rule 3Order XVII Rule 2adjournment at party requestex parte proceedingsremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose out of a pre-emption suit where the trial Court closed the defendant/appellant's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and decreed the suit after the appellant, his counsel, and witnesses failed to appear on an adjourned date. The lower appellate court affirmed the closure of evidence but remanded the case for decision after recording the plaintiff's statement. The appellant challenged the remand order, contending that Order XVII Rule 3 CPC was improperly applied as the specific date of 16-7-1983 was not adjourned at his request. The Lahore High Court held that Order XVII Rule 3 CPC applies only when time has been granted at the specific request of the defaulting party for the immediate date in question; previous adjournments at the party's request do not justify invoking Rule 3 on a later date not so adjourned. Furthermore, owing to the non-appearance of the appellant and his counsel, the trial Court should have proceeded under Order XVII Rule 2 read with Order IX Rule 6 CPC. The High Court set aside the decisions of both lower courts and remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply if the case was not adjourned to that specific date at the request of the defaulting party?
  • Do prior adjournments granted at a party's request provide a valid basis for closing evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC on a subsequent date not adjourned at that party's request?
  • What is the proper procedure for a trial court to follow under Order XVII CPC when a defendant and his counsel fail to appear on an adjourned hearing date?
  Read full judgment →
• Javaid Ahmad Bhatti vs The Directorgeneral, Federal Investigation1990 SCMR 1548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-19
  review petitiondisciplinary proceedingsremoval from serviceproportionality of punishmentreinstatementmisconductservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against an earlier order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had dismissed the petitioner's challenge to his removal from service by the Federal Investigation Agency. The petitioner, a former employee, had been removed from service in 1983 following allegations of misconduct involving misbehavior at a government office. The core legal question in the review proceedings was whether the disciplinary action, which was ostensibly taken under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules but allegedly based on an ex parte inquiry without the petitioner's association, warranted judicial intervention. Upon review, the Court observed that the penalty of removal from service was excessive given the circumstances. Consequently, the respondent authority, in deference to the Court's observations, agreed to recall the removal order and substitute it with a formal warning. The Court allowed the review petition, set aside the removal order, and directed the petitioner's reinstatement into service, albeit without entitlement to consequential benefits, emphasizing proportionality in disciplinary sanctions for public servants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court review a previous order if a material aspect regarding the procedure of a disciplinary inquiry was overlooked?
  • Is the penalty of removal from service disproportionate for a misconduct involving a single incident of misbehavior by a trainee employee?
  • Can a disciplinary authority substitute an order of removal from service with a warning upon judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• Januario Nunes vs The Algemene Bank Nederland and others1990 PLC 62 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
• Janat Bibi vs Sikandar Ali and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-31
  pardahnashin ladyilliterate womanburden of proofsale-deedfraud and misrepresentationfree consentconsiderationdeclaration and injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a suit for declaration and injunction filed by an illiterate pardahnashin lady challenging a purported mortgage deed-cum-agreement to sell and a subsequent registered sale-deed in favour of the respondents, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of consideration. The trial court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, which was subsequently affirmed by the High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the respondents had discharged the burden of proving that the documents were duly executed, understood, and supported by valid consideration. Setting aside the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court and restoring the trial court's decree, the Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the genuine execution of a document by a pardahnashin or illiterate woman lies squarely on the party relying on it. The beneficiary must affirmatively prove that the transaction was fully explained to and understood by her, free from undue influence or deception, which the respondents failed to establish.

  Questions settled

  • On whom does the burden of proof lie when a transaction or document is executed by an illiterate or pardahnashin lady?
  • What standard of proof must a beneficiary establish to prove the valid execution of a document by an illiterate or pardahnashin woman?
  • Does the legal protection and burden of proof applicable to pardahnashin ladies extend to illiterate and ignorant women generally?
  • Is mere admission of a thumb-impression by an illiterate person sufficient to prove conscious and valid execution of a document?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The State1990 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21
  criminal appealex parte dismissalrevision petitionenticing away a married womanreduction of sentencedelay in judicial proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 498 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was accused of enticing away the complainant's wife. The trial magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment, a decision subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge. A revision petition filed before the High Court was dismissed ex parte due to the non-appearance of the appellant's counsel. Upon grant of leave to appeal, the Supreme Court considered the legality of the ex parte dismissal and the merits of the case. Noting that the appeal had been pending for approximately twelve years and that the appellant had suffered a prolonged pendency, the Supreme Court, with the consent of the Advocate-General, Punjab, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that while maintaining a conviction, appellate courts may suitably reduce sentences to the period already undergone in view of protracted delay and the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revision petition can be dismissed ex parte when the appellant's counsel fails to appear at the hearing?
  • Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone in view of protracted delay in the disposal of the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad And Another vs Muhammad Sarwar And 2 Other1990 CLC 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-03Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad alias Ramzan vs A.C.D.S.C.(L), Vehari and others1990 SCMR 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-18
  Rehabilitation Commissionerland allotmentcancellation of allotmentvested rightConstitution petitionrevisional order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a Constitution Petition challenging the cancellation and subsequent reallocation of land allotments by the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The core legal question concerns the validity of the appellant's 1951 land allotment following the Rehabilitation Commissioner's 1956 order, which cancelled allotments in the area, and whether the subsequent reallocation to respondents was legally flawed due to a lack of notice to the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the 1956 revisional order, which quashed previous allotments, was valid and had been upheld in Abdul Hafeez v. Rehabilitation Commissioner. Consequently, the appellant possessed no vested right in the original allotment once it was legally cancelled. The Court further observed that the appellant failed to demonstrate that any portion of his own temporary allotment was improperly resumed or transferred to the respondents. The key principle established is that an allotment cancelled by a valid revisional order of a Rehabilitation Commissioner ceases to confer a vested right, and subsequent reallocations made in accordance with policy guidelines and judicial precedents are lawful, provided the claimant's own temporary allotment remains intact.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allotment cancelled by a valid revisional order of a Rehabilitation Commissioner continue to confer a vested right upon the allottee?
  • Can an allottee challenge the reallocation of land to others if their own temporary allotment remains intact?
  • Is a general notice and hearing by a Rehabilitation Commissioner sufficient to validate the quashment of multiple allotments?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Marker Brother Ltd. [M/s.]. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1990 CL. 420 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Iqhal vs Agricultural Engineer, D.G.Kman.and OtherK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 313 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1991-01-10Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Iqbal vs Agricultural Engineering, D.G.Khan and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 808 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1990-01-10Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Azam vs The State1990 SCMR 1393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-29
  suspension of sentencependency of appealreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine, challenged the Lahore High Court's order dismissing his application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of his appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to suspend the sentence when the arguments raised pertained to the merits of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that contentions relating to the reappraisal of evidence cannot be thoroughly examined at the bail or sentence-suspension stage and are properly reserved for the final hearing of the main appeal. Finding no prima facie legal error in the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that sentence suspension should not be granted based on a premature evaluation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended during the pendency of an appeal when contentions raised require a reappraisal of evidence?
  • At what stage is it appropriate to examine arguments relating to the merits of a conviction in a criminal case?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against an interlocutory order refusing to suspend a sentence where no prima facie legal error exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Ali vs Deputy Director Food, Multan and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 169 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• Jamshaid Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1175 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
• Jamroz Khan vs The State1990 SCMR 1313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-30
  surety bondforfeiture of surety bondbail bond forfeiturecriminal revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Jamroz Khan sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order dismissing his criminal revision against the forfeiture of his surety bond. The petitioner had stood surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000 for one Mushtaq Ahmad, accused under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who subsequently disappeared and failed to surrender. Consequently, notice under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was issued, resulting in the forfeiture of the surety bond. The core legal question was whether leniency should be shown in reducing the forfeiture of the bail bond when the surety claimed no gain and lack of connivance in the accused's disappearance. The Supreme Court held that it was the duty of the surety to procure the attendance of the accused charged with murder, and no ground appeared to show leniency in reducing the forfeiture of the full bond amount. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle regarding the strict liability of a surety to produce the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a surety liable for the full forfeiture of a bail bond when the accused absconds?
  • Whether lack of connivance in the disappearance of an accused is sufficient ground to reduce the forfeiture amount of a surety bond?
  • Does a surety standing bail without personal gain absolve them from the duty to procure the attendance of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamil Tahira vs Vice Chancellor, Gomal University, Dera Ismal Khan1990 CLC 1284 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
• Jamil Haidry vs The State1990 MLD 44 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmed Khan vs Province of Sindhh through SecretaryK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 50 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmed Khan vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Department1990 PLC (C.S.) 720 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmad Farooqui and others vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 782 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmad and another vs The State1990 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-18
  enhancement of sentencecriminal appealmurdermitigating circumstancesre-appraisal of evidencesupreme court leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal petitions arise out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-12-1987, involving an appeal for the enhancement of a sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to Jamil Ahmad, and a cross-petition by the convict challenging his conviction and sentence for the murder of Hamad Raza, committed on 13-11-1983 due to a motive of suspicion regarding illicit relations. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts warranted interference for either enhancing the sentence or setting aside the conviction. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for enhancement, noting mitigating factors such as the accused's youth and the motive, and declined to re-appraise the evidence as it was properly evaluated by the High Court. The Court laid down the principle that the Supreme Court will not normally re-appraise evidence concurrent findings of guilt are properly arrived at by the High Court, and that youth and motive of suspicion can constitute mitigating circumstances against the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence concurrent findings of guilt have been properly recorded by the High Court?
  • Can youth of the accused and suspicion serving as motive operate as mitigating circumstances to warrant withholding the death penalty?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent sentences of imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmad Khan and others vs A.C. and others1990 P Cr. L J 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-13
  quashment of FIRDrugs Actnon-cognizable offencejurisdiction of policeDrug Courtconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking the quashment of FIR No. 202/89 registered under Section 27(2)(b) of the Drugs Act, 1976, regarding the alleged sale of an expired medicine that aggravated a patient's eye disease. The core legal question was whether police could register an FIR and investigate a non-cognizable offence under the Drugs Act without proper authority and whether prosecution could be initiated by a private party rather than an authorized inspector. The Court held that the alleged offence of selling an expired drug falls exclusively under the Drugs Act, where prosecution can only be instituted by a Federal or Provincial Inspector, and the offence being non-cognizable, police investigation without proper legal competence is void. The Court laid down the principle that private complaints for offences under the Drugs Act cannot bypass the statutory mechanism requiring initiation by designated inspectors, and police lack jurisdiction to investigate such non-cognizable matters without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an FIR for an offence under the Drugs Act can be registered and investigated by the police on the application of a private individual?
  • Can a police officer investigate a non-cognizable offence under the Drugs Act without a competent magistrate's order?
  • Who is legally authorized to institute a prosecution for an offence under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamalur Rehman Durrani vs Secretary to Government, Establishment1990 PLD Supreme Court 719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-25
  civil servantcontract employmentad-hoc appointmentpensionservice tribunaldispensing power
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution examines whether a civil servant was entitled to count his contract employment period towards pension and join it with preceding and succeeding periods of ad-hoc appointments, and whether the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant such relief directly. The Supreme Court held that contract employment cannot automatically earn pension rights or be combined with other service periods unless specified by the contract or regularized by the competent authority, and that tribunals or courts cannot usurp the plenary and residual dispensing powers reserved for the executive under statutory provisions. The key principle laid down is that while strict legal entitlement may be lacking for the tacking of contract service to ad-hoc periods without specific rules or contract terms, the executive authority may exercise its equitable powers under Section 23 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 to prevent hardship where the employee is not entirely at fault.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a period of contract employment can be counted towards pension and combined with surrounding ad-hoc appointments without specific terms or regularization?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to exercise plenary and residual dispensing powers reserved for the President under the civil servants law?
  • Can contract employment earn a right to pension or be merged with service rendered in another capacity in the absence of enabling conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamala and another vs The State1990 SCMR 1312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16
  Summary & questions settled

  The judgment provided is an order of the bench without accompanying reasoning or factual background. As the text consists solely of the phrase 'ORDER OF THE BENCH' without any discussion of the nature of the matter, the legal questions involved, or the court's holding, it is impossible to provide a substantive summary of the proceedings, the ratio decidendi, or the principles laid down by the Court.

  Read full judgment →
• Jamal Din vs The State1990 MLD 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
• Jamal Din and others vs Additional District Judge, Jhang and others1990 MLD 1934 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
• Jamadar Khan Bahadur and others vs Saeed Ahmad and others1990 SCMR 201(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-10
  Mukhbari applicationDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Actcoram non judiceallotment cancellationdeceased respondentwrit jurisdictionfraud and misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners had filed a Mukhbari application under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, alleging that the deceased respondent, Siraj Din, had obtained an allotment of land in excess of his verified claim through fraud. The Additional Settlement Commissioner had partially cancelled the allotment. However, the High Court allowed the respondents' writ petition, holding that the Mukhbari application was incompetent because it was initiated against a deceased person, and that this fundamental defect could not be cured by impleading his son. Furthermore, the High Court found that the petitioners failed to establish any fraud or misrepresentation by the deceased, rendering the cancellation order arbitrary. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that proceedings initiated against a dead person are coram non judice and void ab initio. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, confirming the lack of authority of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to proceed in such circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings initiated against a deceased person considered coram non judice?
  • Can an application filed against a deceased person be cured by impleading their legal representative?
  • Does the lack of evidence of fraud or misrepresentation render an order of land cancellation arbitrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalla and 3 others vs Muhammad Shafi and another1990 MLD 748 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-07Read full judgment →
• Jalalabad, Lineman Driver, Peshawar Division vs Gul Rehman, Technician, Telegraph Sub-Division and others1990 PLC 245 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-10-03Read full judgment →
• Jalal alias Jala vs District Magistrate, Kasur and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 1529 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-12
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public ordernexus between past conduct and detentionliberty of citizenmalafide or without lawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition challenging a preventive detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kasur, under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether a citizen can be detained preventively on the basis of past criminal cases, particularly where the detenu had already been acquitted in older cases and pending challans existed for recent ones, without establishing a clear nexus between past conduct and future apprehension. The Lahore High Court held that preventive detention is precautionary rather than punitive, represents a serious inroad on liberty, must be construed strictly, and cannot be utilized to punish a person for past acts. The Court ruled that the detaining authority lacked proper material and failed to establish a legal nexus between the detenu's activities and the necessity of detention. Consequently, the petition was accepted, the detention order was declared without lawful authority, and the detenu was ordered to be released forthwith.

  Questions settled

  • Whether preventive detention can be ordered on the basis of past criminal conduct resulting in acquittals?
  • Is it necessary to establish a nexus between past activities and the necessity of precautionary detention?
  • Can the law of preventive detention be used for the purpose of punishing a person for past acts?
  Read full judgment →
• Jai Narain vs Sri Ram Narain by Legal Heirs and others1990 MLD 420 · Allahabad High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Mirza, Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore and anothers vs Government of Pakistan, through Secretary, Establishment Division and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-18
  senioritycivil servicelateral entryPolice Service of Pakistanvested rightservice tribunalappointment by transferArmed Forces induction
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals challenged a Service Tribunal judgment concerning the seniority of Armed Forces personnel inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP). The appellants, regular PSP officers, contended that the induction of Army officers without Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) consultation was illegal and that these inductees should not be granted seniority from their initial induction dates. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the induction of Armed Forces personnel was within the competence of the appointing authority. The Court ruled that the FPSC Act, 1973, did not prohibit such appointments, and any potential procedural irregularities were cured by the validation provided under Ordinance No. LI of 1980. Crucially, the Court determined that seniority is not a vested right under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, permitting the competent authority to establish seniority rules. Furthermore, the subsequent promulgation of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985, conclusively settled the seniority list in question, thereby precluding the appellants' grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Can the appointing authority make appointments to the Police Service of Pakistan without consulting the Federal Public Service Commission?
  • Is seniority a vested right for civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the failure to frame specific rules render a statutory power to make appointments nugatory?
  • Can the competent authority retrospectively validate appointments of Armed Forces personnel to civil posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Akhtar vs Inayat Ahmed And 2 Other1990 CLC 1053 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-02-28
  rejection of plaintcause of actionperpetual injunctioncivil revisionmunicipal committeeinterim injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from the concurrent orders of the lower courts rejecting the petitioner's plaint in a suit for perpetual injunction under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner had filed a suit alleging that the defendants were attempting to demolish a shop constructed by him on a site rented from the Municipal Committee. The trial court and the district judge rejected the plaint after examining evidentiary documents like rent receipts and site plans, concluding that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action and proof of ownership. The core legal question was whether a court can evaluate evidence and defense pleas to reject a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. The High Court held that while determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, a court must presume all allegations in the plaint to be true and cannot rely on evidence or defense merits to dismiss the suit at the threshold. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the lower orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for disposal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can examine evidence or documents appended to a written statement to reject a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the correct legal test for determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the evaluation of a plaintiff's proof form a valid ground for the rejection of a plaint at the initial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahandad and 6 others vs President's Special Military Court No.88, Sector 1 Zone 'B' c_o Home Secretary Government of N,W.F.P. Peshawar and 3 others1990 PLD Peshawar 63 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-21Read full judgment →
• Jahana and others vs Sadiq and others1990 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-28
  tenancy rightsGrow More Food Schemelimitation periodintra-court appealBoard of Revenuecolonization of government landscondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab. The core legal question concerned the validity of the Board of Revenue's order regarding the cancellation of tenancy rights under the Grow More Food Scheme, specifically whether it violated statutory provisions governing the colonization of government lands. The High Court had held that the Board's order was violative of Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and was therefore without lawful authority. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. Regarding the first petitioner, the Court upheld the dismissal of the Intra-Court Appeal due to the expiration of the limitation period and lack of sufficient cause for condonation. Regarding the second petitioner, the Board of Revenue, the Court dismissed the petition on the procedural ground that the Board failed to file an Intra-Court Appeal against the single Judge's order. The Court affirmed that no question of law of public importance existed to warrant further examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Intra-Court Appeal be entertained if filed after the expiration of the limitation period without sufficient cause?
  • Is an order by the Board of Revenue that violates Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, legally maintainable?
  • Does a government authority have standing to file a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment if it failed to file an Intra-Court Appeal against the underlying single-judge order?
  Read full judgment →
• Jaffer vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1321 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-10Read full judgment →
• Ittehad Chemicals through its Managing Director vs Punjab Labour1990 PLC 227 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-21
  workman definitionsupervisory capacitylabour lawreinstatementwrit jurisdictionindustrial relationsnature of duties test
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the orders of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had reinstated an employee (Respondent No. 3) with back benefits. The core legal question was whether the respondent, employed as a Senior Foreman (Civil), qualified as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in their assessment. The court ruled that the respondent was not a 'workman' because his primary duties were supervisory in nature. The court established that an employee's designation is not conclusive; the essential test is the 'pith and substance' of the duties performed. Where an employee's main function is supervisory, the performance of incidental manual or clerical tasks does not qualify them as a 'workman.' Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the impugned orders were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the designation of an employee determine their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is an employee whose primary duties are supervisory considered a 'workman' if they perform incidental manual or clerical tasks?
  • Does the lack of power to hire and fire employees automatically qualify a supervisor as a 'workman'?
  Read full judgment →
• Ittefaq Foundry vs Federation of Pakistan1990 PLD Lahore 121 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-27
  delegated legislationjudicial reviewtax exemptionequal protection of lawfreedom of tradearbitrary taxationdiscriminatory classification
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a private steel foundry, challenged the Federal Government's notifications imposing differential Excise Duty and Sales Tax on 'Billets' compared to 'Ingots,' arguing these products are functionally identical. The core legal question was whether the government's delegated legislative power to grant tax exemptions was exercised arbitrarily, unreasonably, and in violation of fundamental rights, specifically the right to equality and freedom of trade. The Court held that the impugned notifications were discriminatory and lacked a rational basis, as the government failed to justify the differential treatment of Billets and Ingots. Consequently, the Court declared the levies illegal and directed the government to reconsider the exemption policy. The judgment establishes that delegated legislative power, even in tax matters, is subject to judicial review for reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. It emphasizes that the government must demonstrate that any classification between similar products is based on relevant, substantial differences, and failure to provide such justification renders the action violative of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of law under the Constitution of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Can the court exercise judicial review over delegated legislative powers regarding tax exemptions?
  • Does the government's failure to provide a rational basis for classifying similar products for tax purposes violate the constitutional right to equality?
  • Does the repeal of an Ordinance under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 automatically revive a previous notification that was substituted by the repealed Ordinance?
  • Is the grant of tax exemption a matter of absolute executive grace, or is it subject to the test of reasonableness?
  Read full judgment →
• Ittefaq Foundries(Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1990 CL. 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ittefaq Foundries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pakistan Railways through its Chairman1990 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Ittefaq Foundries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pakistan Railways and others1990 PLD Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
• Itbar Khan vs The State1990 MLD 1043 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
• Israr Muhammad Khan and others vs Senior Civil Judge, Lahore and others1990 SCMR 693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-03
  partition of propertypublic auctioncompromise decreeindivisible propertycivil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a long-standing property dispute concerning a house on G.T. Road, Lahore, originally subject to a compromise agreement in 1966 where both parties agreed to own the property in equal shares and dispose of it. Following failed attempts to partition the property through civil litigation, the Senior Civil Judge ordered a public auction of the property, with proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that the property should have been partitioned rather than auctioned. The core legal question was whether the court was justified in ordering a public auction of the disputed property when the parties could not agree on a partition arrangement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the property was effectively indivisible and no feasible agreement could be reached between the parties, the order for public auction was appropriate. The court affirmed that allowing the petitioners to participate in the auction to purchase the respondents' share provided a fair mechanism for resolution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order a public auction of a property when the parties fail to agree on a partition arrangement?
  • Is a court justified in ordering a public auction when a property is deemed indivisible?
  • Does the right of a party to participate in a public auction satisfy the requirements of equitable distribution in a partition suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Israr Ahmad Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1990 SCMR 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30
  service appealadverse remarkscondonation of delaylimitation periodbona fide mistakeservice tribunalexpunction of remarks
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, a civil servant, sought the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his annual performance report. After his initial representation was rejected, he filed a second representation (review), which the government entertained and subsequently rejected on merits. The Service Tribunal later dismissed his appeal, holding that the second representation was incompetent and did not provide a fresh cause of action, thus rendering the appeal time-barred. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Court held that where a litigant acts under a bona fide mistaken view of the law—a mistake shared by the government itself in entertaining the review petition—the delay should be condoned. The Court established the principle that when both the government and the aggrieved party share a bona fide, albeit mistaken, understanding regarding the competency of a review petition, it constitutes a fit case for the condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of an incompetent second representation against adverse remarks provide a fresh cause of action for a service appeal?
  • Should a delay in filing an appeal be condoned when the appellant acted under a bona fide mistake of law shared by the government?
  • Is a Service Tribunal required to decide an appeal on its merits if the delay in filing was caused by a bona fide misunderstanding of the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail through Legal Heirs and others vs Registrar, Cooperative1990 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-23
  co-operative housing societyarbitration awardconstitutional jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefperpetuation of illegalityremand orderjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These five appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of plots among members of a co-operative housing society. The dispute was referred to a Board of Arbitrators, which dismissed the claim of respondent No. 2. The respondent's subsequent appeal under Section 56 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 was dismissed as incompetent by the Deputy Registrar. The respondent then filed an application under Section 54-A of the Act, which the Deputy Registrar also dismissed solely on the ground that the previous appeal had been rejected. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, subsequently set aside the Deputy Registrar's order and remanded the case. The appellants challenged the Registrar's order in the High Court via a constitutional petition, arguing it was passed without jurisdiction. The High Court declined to interfere under its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction, finding that doing so would perpetuate the Deputy Registrar's illegal refusal to exercise jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised to perpetuate an illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if doing so would perpetuate an illegal order?
  • Can a statutory authority refuse to entertain a competent revision petition under Section 54-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 solely because a previous appeal under an inapplicable provision was dismissed as incompetent?
  • Does the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have the jurisdiction under Section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 to revise or set aside an order passed by a Deputy Registrar acting as a delegatee?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail and anothers vs Ghulam Qadir and others1990 SCMR 1667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-13
  inheritanceMuslim Personal LawCustomary Lawlimited ownerretrospective effectlimitationreversionersgift
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an inheritance dispute directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appellants' regular second appeal. The core legal questions involved whether Muslim Personal Law or Customary Law governed the matter, whether the plaintiffs' suit was within time, and whether an adoption affected the inheritance rights. The Supreme Court held that following the promulgation of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983) and Section 2-A thereof, interpreted with strong retrospective effect, the property devolved under Muslim Personal Law rather than custom. The Court ruled that the widow held the property as a limited owner and could not validly gift excess area, making the plaintiffs entitled to their shares as residuaries. Furthermore, the Court held that the property devolved instantaneously on the heirs, rendering the suit within limitation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing principles regarding the retrospective application of Shariat succession laws, limitation in co-sharer inheritance claims, and the elimination of customary law limitations on inheritance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Muslim Personal Law or Customary Law governs succession matters in light of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)?
  • Does Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983) have a strong retrospective effect?
  • Whether a suit challenging an alienation by a limited female owner under custom is within limitation when property devolves instantaneously under Muslim Personal Law?
  • Does adoption under customary law affect an heir's right to seek a share from the inheritance of another collateral under Muslim Personal Law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail and another vs Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement1990 SCMR 947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22
  leave to appealland settlementbogus allotmentfraudulent allotmentinformantmukhbari applicationzaira-maufi land
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition, which had challenged the cancellation of their land allotment and its subsequent transfer to respondent No. 2. The petitioners originally obtained 29 kanals of land against 'zaira-maufi' land abandoned in India, which was subsequently cancelled under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, following a mukhbari application. The core legal question involved whether the resumed land could be allotted to an informant under section 14(1A) of the Act when the initial allotment was allegedly not bogus or fraudulent, and whether the information came to light through the informant or the department's own inspection. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the submissions raised by the petitioners regarding the applicability of the statutory provisions concerning informants and fraudulent allotments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of resumed land can be made to an informant under section 14(1A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, if the original allotment was not obtained fraudulently or bogusly?
  • Does the retention of land known to be in excess constitute fraud for the purposes of attracting section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Is an informant entitled to the allotment of resumed land when the irregular allotment was already within the knowledge of the department through an inspection team rather than the informant's disclosure?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail A. Rehman vs Muhammad Sadiq and 3 others1990 PLD Karachi 286 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-11
  double jeopardyautrefois acquitautrefois convictissue estoppelparallel prosecutionstay of proceedingscustoms offencesprevention of corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 were filed seeking to quash parallel criminal proceedings initiated by different agencies against the petitioners before two distinct special courts based on the same set of facts, evidence, and property. The petitioners contended that simultaneous prosecution before the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) and the Special Judge (Central) violated the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act 1897. The High Court held that to invoke the constitutional bar under Article 13 or Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an accused must demonstrate that a trial before a competent court has concluded in conviction or acquittal. Pending proceedings do not trigger double jeopardy. However, to prevent conflicting findings and serve the interest of justice, the Court ordered that the proceedings pending before the Special Judge (Central) be stayed until the final disposal of the case before the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation).

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar simultaneous pending prosecutions for offences arising out of the same set of facts before different courts?
  • Is a prior final verdict of conviction or acquittal required to plead double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a High Court stay criminal proceedings in one special court to prevent conflicting decisions where parallel prosecutions are pending on identical facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamia University, Bahawalpur through its ViceChancellor vs Khadim1990 MLD 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationinterestRibalocus standireference court
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple regular first appeals arising from an award of the reference court dated September 21, 1987, concerning the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land for Islamia University, Bahawalpur. The core legal questions involved whether the university and landowners had the right to file appeals, whether compensation was correctly assessed, whether the provisions for interest under sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are repugnant to the Islamic injunctions against Riba, and whether landowners were barred from challenging the award for failing to file objections under section 9. The court held that the university, as a beneficiary and stranger to the acquisition proceedings, had no locus standi to file an appeal under section 54 of the Act. Furthermore, the court held that interest awarded under sections 28 and 34 of the Act is in the nature of compensation or damages for the wrongful deprivation of land and does not constitute Riba. The key principles laid down include that a beneficiary entity lacks locus standi to appeal an acquisition award, and that statutory interest in compulsory land acquisition represents compensatory damages rather than prohibited interest.

  Questions settled

  • Does a beneficiary university or local authority have the locus standi to file an appeal against an award of the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Whether the interest awarded under sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam regarding Riba?
  • Are the provisions of section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 mandatory such that failure to file written objections precludes landowners from seeking a reference under section 18?
  • What constitutes proper market value and potentiality when assessing compensation for agricultural land compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood and another vs The State1990 SCMR 1306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-01
  leave to appealcriminal convictionbenefit of doubtcommon intentioninterim bailsentencing consistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioners for an offence under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were originally tried by a Magistrate for firing shots at the complainant and dragging him from his premises. While the trial court convicted all accused, the High Court acquitted one co-accused, Tariq, granting him the benefit of doubt, while maintaining the convictions of the petitioners but reducing the sentence of one petitioner, Muhammad Saleem. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the primary petitioner, Khalid Mahmood, was armed and fired at the complainant, justifying his conviction. However, regarding petitioner Muhammad Saleem, the Court observed that his attributed role—dragging the complainant while empty-handed—was identical to that of the acquitted co-accused, Tariq. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to Muhammad Saleem to further examine the consistency of his conviction, while simultaneously granting him interim bail pending the final disposal of his appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency require the acquittal of a co-accused if their role is identical to that of an already acquitted co-accused?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted to a petitioner whose role is indistinguishable from an acquitted co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Islam Din vs Allah Nawaz and others1990 SCMR 768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  limitationcondonation of delaypre-emption suitgood faithwrong forumgross negligenceappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner, a defendant vendee, challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed his civil revision. The central legal issue concerned whether the delay in filing an appeal in the wrong forum—which was initially condoned by the District Judge—could be legally excused under the Limitation Act, 1908. The High Court had reversed the District Judge’s condonation, ruling that filing an appeal in the wrong forum due to a lawyer's mistake did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the remedy for a lawyer's negligence lies against the counsel, not in the condonation of time-barred appeals. The Court reiterated that for Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 to apply, an appellant must demonstrate good faith, defined as acting with due care and attention. Since the relevant law regarding the appellate forum was unambiguous, the filing in the wrong court was deemed gross negligence rather than a bona fide mistake, thus precluding the condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can a delay in filing an appeal caused by a lawyer's mistake in choosing the wrong forum be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the filing of an appeal in the wrong forum due to a lawyer's error constitute 'good faith' under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is a finding of gross negligence in selecting the appellate forum sufficient to deny the condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishfaq Hussain vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture, Punjab and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 179 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• Ishfaq Ahmad and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
• Ishfaq Ahmad and another vs The State1990 PLD Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-04
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayretrialcontinuation of trialmurder trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a bail application filed by under-trial prisoners charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, seeking post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delayed trial under the third proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the statutory period of detention for the purpose of bail after an order of remand for retrial should be calculated from the original date of incarceration or from the date of receipt of the file by the trial court following the remand order. The Peshawar High Court held that a retrial is a continuation of the original trial rather than a fresh proceeding, and therefore the period of detention must be counted from the initial dates of arrest. Consequently, the court ruled that exceeding the statutory period entitles the accused to bail, provided the delay is not attributable to the petitioners. The petition was accepted and bail was granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retrial is considered a second trial or a continuation of the same trial for the purpose of calculating the statutory period for bail?
  • From which date should the period of detention be calculated under the third proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a case has been remanded for retrial?
  • Does an accused person become legally entitled to bail under the statutory delay provisions if they have completed more than five years in jail and the delay is not caused by their own conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ullah and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 920 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
• Irshad Hussain vs Mst. Rabia and another1990 MLD 1151 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
• Irshad Hussain Bokhari vs Bashir Ahmad And Other1990 CLC 658 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmad and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 374 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Masih vs The Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal and 2 others1990 SCMR 666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19
  service appealnon-prosecutiondismissal of appealdeposit of securitydiscretionary jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal for non-prosecution and the subsequent dismissal of his restoration application by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The dismissal occurred due to the petitioner's failure to deposit the requisite security in accordance with the rules and practice of the Tribunal, coupled with a lack of appearance. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal was legally bound to exercise its discretion in favor of granting time for depositing security or restoring the appeal, and whether the impugned orders violated any governing rules. The Supreme Court held that the decision to dismiss for non-prosecution and the refusal to grant an extension of time fall within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and no rule was shown to support the petitioner's claim of entitlement. Furthermore, upon examining the merits of the petitioner's dismissal for misconduct, the Court found no force therein. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal is bound to exercise its discretion in favor of restoring an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Does a failure to deposit security in accordance with the rules justify the dismissal of a service appeal?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary orders of the Service Tribunal regarding the grant of extension of time for depositing security?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs Abdul Sattar and another1990 PLD Supreme Court 758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-01
  bail cancellationmurderfurther inquiryself-defencesudden fightprima facie casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the High Court's grant of bail to the respondent in a murder case. The High Court had granted bail primarily on the grounds that the case required 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. due to the existence of two versions and the presence of injuries on the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misapplied the law, noting that the mere possibility of further inquiry does not automatically entitle an accused to bail; the court must form a prima facie opinion on the merits. The Supreme Court further found that the injuries sustained by the accused were insignificant and consistent with a scuffle during the incident, rather than supporting a plea of self-defence. The Court emphasized that even if a 'sudden fight' or 'free fight' were established, the offence could still fall under Section 302 P.P.C., punishable by death or life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court misread the record and erred in law, leading to the cancellation of the respondent's bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possibility of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can bail be granted solely on the ground that the prosecution has not explained injuries on the accused if those injuries are consistent with a scuffle described in the F.I.R.?
  • Is the existence of two versions of an incident sufficient to grant bail in a murder case without a prima facie assessment of the merits?
  • Does the presence of minor injuries on an accused person necessarily establish a prima facie case of self-defence at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspectorgeneral, Frontier Corps, Balochistan, Quetta vs The Superintendent, Central Jail, Mach and 3 others1990 MLD 2258 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
• Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore vs Muhammad Ameer1990 SCMR 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-25
  service lawnatural justicevested rightsrescission of orderspolice serviceadministrative lawdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, against a Service Tribunal judgment that reinstated police officers whose out-of-turn confirmation orders were unilaterally rescinded by a successor Inspector-General. The core legal question was whether a successor authority could rescind a predecessor's order of confirmation on grounds of propriety and fairness without providing notice or a hearing to the affected officers. The Supreme Court held that where rights have vested, an order passed by a competent authority cannot be unilaterally rescinded on grounds of propriety or fairness alone. The Court affirmed the Service Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the rescission of such orders without notice violated the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. The key principle laid down is that once an order is passed by a competent authority and rights have vested, it cannot be rescinded unilaterally by a successor authority based solely on administrative propriety or fairness without adhering to due process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a successor authority unilaterally rescind a predecessor's order of confirmation on grounds of propriety and fairness without notice to the affected party?
  • Does the rescission of a regular appointment order, which also affects probation status, require adherence to due process?
  • Is an order passed by a competent authority that creates vested rights subject to unilateral cancellation by a subsequent administrative authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspectorgeneral of Police vs Muhammad Akbar and another1990 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-13
  service lawsuperannuationdate of birthcivil servantinduction into serviceschool leaving certificatefraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service appeal regarding the determination of a civil servant's date of birth and subsequent retirement upon reaching the age of superannuation. The core legal question is whether a civil servant can rely on a school-leaving certificate to alter their recorded date of birth after the fact, particularly when such documentation was not submitted at the time of induction into service. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal erred in treating a school-leaving certificate as a Matriculation Certificate and failing to recognize that the respondent did not provide the relevant birth date documentation at the time of his appointment. The Court held that it is the primary duty of a civil servant to volunteer and produce documentary evidence of their date of birth at the time of induction. Failure to do so, or the late production of such documents, raises concerns regarding the authenticity of the records or potential fraud. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the Tribunal's judgment, emphasizing the obligation of the employee to provide accurate records upon entry into service.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant required to volunteer documentary evidence of their date of birth at the time of induction into service?
  • Can a civil servant rely on a school-leaving certificate to alter their date of birth record after the commencement of their retirement proceedings?
  • Does the failure to disclose a date of birth certificate at the time of induction into service constitute a ground for denying relief in a service appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspectorgeneral of Police and anothers vs Ahmed Mustafa1990 SCMR 1238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-20
  service tribunaljurisdiction of high courtterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petitioncivil servantreversion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court whereby a writ petition filed by the respondent challenging his reversion and show-cause notice was accepted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a constitutional petition before the High Court was competent in a matter involving the terms and conditions of a civil servant, or whether jurisdiction was barred in favour of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the matter pertained strictly to the terms and conditions of service and, pursuant to Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, as the exclusive remedy lay before the Provincial Service Tribunal. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition before the High Court is competent in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters?
  • Whether an order of reversion and issuance of a show-cause notice to a civil servant can be challenged before the High Court instead of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Murtaza Flour1990 PLD Karachi 420 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-22Read full judgment →
• Indus Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1990 CL. 721 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Indriyas Gill vs The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education1990 SCMR 1461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-16
  condonation of delaylimitationService Tribunalremandcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a judgment of the Service Tribunal where the petitioner's application for the condonation of delay was not considered. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal is required to consider and decide an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 before disposing of the main matter. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and noting the concession of the Advocate-General that the application ought to have been considered, converted the petition into an appeal and allowed the same. The Court held that the Service Tribunal must explicitly consider and dispose of an application for condonation of delay in accordance with the law. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for a proper determination of the limitation issue.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Service Tribunal required to consider and decide an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can an order of the Service Tribunal be sustained if it fails to address a pending application for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• India Jute Co. Ltd, vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 1124 · Calcutta High Court · 1989-02-24Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Khan vs The Chairman Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another1990 PLC 19 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Khan vs North-West Frontier Province1990 PLC (C.S.) 272 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-10-02Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Chaudhry and others vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir1990 PLC (C.S.) 598 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-03-12
  service seniorityad hoc appointmentPublic Service Commissionmandatory rulescivil servantsrules of businessretrospective appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  These four consolidated appeals before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir arose from a judgment of the Service Tribunal regarding the inter se seniority of Assistant Engineers in the Electricity Department. The core legal questions involved whether periods of ad hoc service or initial appointments made without mandatory consultation of the Public Service Commission could be counted towards seniority, whether review petitions against appellate orders were competent, and whether the provisions governing Public Service Commission consultation in the Rules of Business were mandatory or directory. The Court held that mandatory consultation requirements under the Rules of Business are imperative, that ad hoc service or appointments made without proper Public Service Commission approval cannot be counted for seniority, and that regular appointment dates govern the fixation of seniority. The key legal principles laid down include that non-compliance with mandatory statutory rules for recruitment invalidates regular status from that date, that ad hoc service confers no seniority rights, and that the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government retains broad equitable powers under the Civil Servants Act to pass just orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a period of ad hoc appointment be counted towards seniority in civil service?
  • Whether the provisions regarding consultation with the Public Service Commission under the Rules of Business are mandatory or directory?
  • Does an appointment made without the approval of the Public Service Commission confer regular status?
  • Whether a review petition is competent against an order passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under the relevant service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam Ullah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 529 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting versionscommon intentionmurderbenefit of doubtinvestigation report
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Inam Ullah, in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when the investigation had produced three mutually contradictory versions of the incident, thereby casting doubt on the prosecution's case. The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that the existence of three conflicting versions of the occurrence, as presented by different investigating officers, rendered the case one for further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that where the prosecution's case is riddled with significant contradictions regarding the accused's presence and role, and where the investigation itself is inconsistent, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage, as the matter requires further probe by the trial court. The court emphasized that each criminal case must be decided on its own peculiar facts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of multiple, conflicting versions of an incident during the investigation constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation reports are inconsistent regarding their presence at the scene of the crime?
  • Can the court grant bail if the prosecution's version of the incident is contradicted by the medical evidence on record?
  Read full judgment →
• In re: Mst. Seema Baqai vs Not1990 MLD 323 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
• In re: Colony Textile Mills Limited vs N/APTCL 1990 CL. 1145 · Corporate Law Authority · 1990-10-11Read full judgment →
• In re: Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoofri vs Not1990 SCMR 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-07
  leave to appealmurder convictioneyewitness credibilitybenefit of doubtcriminal appealgeneral amnesty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Abdul Ghafoor, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court which confirmed his conviction and sentence for murder. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, allegedly motivated by a prior theft case. The core legal question was whether the conviction, based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, was sustainable despite discrepancies regarding the recovery of weapons and the specific nature of injuries. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings, noting that the High Court had already acquitted a co-accused due to lack of blunt weapon injuries and adjusted the sentence of another co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the petitioner was based on credible eyewitness evidence, which remained reliable despite the background of the prior theft case. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the conviction and the sentence, which had been commuted to life imprisonment due to a general amnesty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained based on eyewitness testimony when the recovery of the alleged weapon is disbelieved?
  • Does the existence of a prior litigation between the accused and the deceased automatically render eyewitness testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained if the medical evidence contradicts the specific nature of injuries attributed to one of the co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• In re : Petition for Letters of Administration of the Property and1990 MLD 997 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Gohar Etc. vs Addl: Commissioner Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 154 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Gohar and others vs Additional Commissioner and others1990 MLD 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-16
  ejectment suitsAdditional Commissionerjurisdictiondelegation of judicial powerrevision petitionLand Reforms RegulationsRevenue Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the jurisdiction of an Additional Commissioner to hear revision petitions under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977. The petitioners challenged orders passed by an Additional Commissioner, arguing that the statutory power to hear revisions under Rule 7 of the Ejectment Rules is vested personally in the Commissioner and cannot be exercised by an Additional Commissioner. The Court examined whether the Additional Commissioner possessed the requisite authority under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, or the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972. The Court held that the power of revision under the Ejectment Rules is a personal, judicial power conferred specifically upon the Commissioner. It concluded that an Additional Commissioner, appointed under Section 9 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, does not automatically possess the Commissioner's powers under other enactments unless expressly provided by law. Consequently, the Court declared the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, establishing that statutory judicial powers designated to a specific authority cannot be delegated without express legislative authorization.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Additional Commissioner competent to hear revision petitions under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977?
  • Does the power of an Additional Commissioner under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, extend to exercising the powers of a Commissioner under the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972?
  • Can a judicial power conferred by statute upon a specific authority be delegated to another officer without express legislative provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmad Chatha vs Kalimullah and another1990 P Cr. L J 643 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-04Read full judgment →
• Imran vs The State1990 MLD 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• Imran Bashir Faroooi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 677 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-10-19
  retracted confessionmurder referencejudicial confessionextra-judicial confessionpolice investigationZinaHudood Ordinanceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and Zina, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution relied on a retracted judicial confession, alleged extra-judicial confessions, and circumstantial evidence. The Federal Shariat Court found that the investigation was tainted by dishonesty, including falsified police records and manipulated remand applications. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges, noting that the medical evidence regarding the ligature marks on the deceased's neck was consistent with suicide rather than homicide. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a retracted confession, especially one obtained under duress or without ensuring its voluntary nature, cannot form the basis of a conviction. The Court reaffirmed that in cases under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, a confession must be recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction to be effective. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted confession, standing alone and uncorroborated, form the basis of a conviction?
  • Does a confession recorded by a Magistrate satisfy the requirements for a confession under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • What is the legal effect of a police officer falsifying investigation records on the prosecution's case?
  • Is a confession voluntary if the accused was held in police custody without sleep and subjected to duress?
  Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1661 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh Malik vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Labour, Lahore and others1990 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10
  service senioritypromotionrecruitment formulaservice tribunalpublic service commissionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the fixation of his seniority. The petitioner, initially appointed as an Assistant and later promoted to Manpower Survey Officer, sought seniority against specific vacancies filled by other officers. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to seniority against the posts occupied by respondents Nos. 3 and 4, given the established recruitment formula. The Supreme Court examined the recruitment rules, which mandated that 75% of Manager vacancies be filled by initial recruitment, 20% by Manpower Survey Officers, and 5% by Superintendents. The Court found that the vacancy in question was filled by initial recruitment, as per the prescribed formula, and that the Public Service Commission had correctly determined the petitioner was not entitled to the promotion he sought. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal’s decision was correct and found no grounds for interference. The principle affirmed is that seniority claims must strictly adhere to the statutory recruitment and promotion formulas established for the service.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to claim seniority against a post filled by initial recruitment when the recruitment rules mandate a specific quota for departmental promotion?
  • Does the Supreme Court have grounds to interfere with a Service Tribunal decision that correctly applies the recruitment formula to a seniority dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh and another vs The State1990 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25
  petition for leave to appealsudden fightright of self-defencereappraisal of evidencemurderculpable homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the conviction and sentence of the first petitioner, Imam Bakhsh, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering the conviction of the second petitioner, Hussain Bakhsh, from section 302 to section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reducing his sentence. The core legal question involved whether the petitioners acted in the exercise of the right of self-defence and whether the evidence warranted reappraisal or interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no case for interference was made out as the accused sustained no injuries, no right of self-defence was established, and the evidence could not be reappraised at the leave stage. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal, and the plea of self-defence cannot be sustained without supporting evidence of injury or imminent threat on the side of the accused during a sudden fight.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can reappraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the lower courts?
  • Does a sudden fight involving a trivial matter automatically establish a right of private defence for an accused who caused a fatal firearm injury without sustaining any injury themselves?
  • Whether section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is applicable in a case of a sudden fight where the element of common intention is missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din vs Mst. Hussain Bib! and 3 others1990 SCMR 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-04
  civil revisionspecific performanceagreement of salecollusive salenon-joinder of partiesIslamic Lawleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court. The underlying suit involved a claim to enforce an agreement of sale and to seek the annulment of a subsequent sale by the same vendors to a third party, which the plaintiffs alleged was collusive and without consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit primarily on procedural grounds, specifically that it was presented in the wrong form. This dismissal was upheld by the appellate court and subsequently by the High Court, which additionally cited the non-joinder of necessary parties as a ground for dismissal. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the petition raised significant questions of law warranting further examination. Specifically, the Court identified the need to determine whether principles of Islamic Law regarding the duties of a vendor are applicable to such disputes and, if so, the legal effect of those principles. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues, ordering that the appeal be heard alongside another related case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles of Islamic Law regarding the duties of a vendor are applicable to suits involving the enforcement of an agreement of sale and the challenge of a subsequent sale?
  • What is the legal effect of applying Islamic Law principles to a dispute concerning the duties of a vendor in a sale agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din and others vs Muhammad Sharif and others1990 SCMR 1642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-12
  land exchangemutation cancellationconsolidation proceedingsindivisible transactionrevenue authoritiesrestitution of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding an exchange of land between the parties in 1959, which was subsequently challenged during consolidation proceedings due to violations of Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The core legal question concerned the validity of revenue authorities' orders that cancelled one mutation of the exchange while leaving another intact, resulting in an anomalous situation where one party retained land without fulfilling the reciprocal exchange. The Supreme Court addressed the inconsistency where the Board of Revenue failed to treat the exchange as a single, indivisible transaction. The Court held that the revenue authorities erred by maintaining the legality of one mutation while undoing the other, as the exchange was a singular agreement. The principle laid down is that where an exchange transaction is indivisible, it cannot be examined or partially invalidated in segments; if the transaction is found illegal, the parties must be restored to their original positions to prevent one party from unjustly retaining land while avoiding the reciprocal obligation. The appeal was disposed of based on the respondent's undertaking to surrender the land they had obtained in exchange.

  Questions settled

  • Can an exchange transaction involving multiple mutations be partially invalidated by revenue authorities?
  • Does the cancellation of one part of an exchange transaction necessitate the restoration of parties to their original positions?
  • Is it legally permissible for a party to retain land obtained through an exchange while simultaneously avoiding the reciprocal obligation of the same transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikhlaq Ahmad vs Executive Engineer, SheikhupuraK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 25 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ikhlaq Ahmad vs Executive Engineer, Sheikhupura Division (E) WAPDA1990 PLC (C.S.) 145 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1975 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Akhtar vs The Secretary, Punjab Public Service CommissionK.L.R 1990 Labour & Service Cases 339 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ijaz Akhtar vs Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 749 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-09
  constitutional petitionage relaxationgovernment servantdisabled personsstatutory interpretationbeneficial legislationpublic service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the Punjab Public Service Commission’s decision to reject the petitioner’s application for the post of Extra-Assistant Commissioner on the grounds of being overage. The petitioner, a government servant with over four years of service, sought to combine the 35-year age limit prescribed for government servants under the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, with the 10-year age relaxation for disabled persons provided by the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976. The core legal question was whether applying both provisions constituted impermissible double relaxation. The Court held that the 35-year limit for government servants is the prescribed age limit under the 1964 Rules, not a relaxation. Consequently, the 10-year disability benefit is an addition to the base age limit, not a second relaxation. The Court established that beneficial legislation must be interpreted benevolently, and since the petitioner was not claiming multiple relaxations but rather applying a specific age limit to a disability benefit, the rejection was unlawful. The petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 35-year age limit for government servants under the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, constitute a relaxation of the upper age limit?
  • Can a government servant who is also a disabled person claim the 10-year age relaxation provided by the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976, in addition to the age limit prescribed for government servants?
  • How should beneficial legislation be interpreted when determining eligibility for public service recruitment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad and others vs Mst. Deeba Nawaz and others1990 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-23
  fraudulent allotmentvendee noticeevacuee propertyinformant rewardoccupant prioritycancellation of allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, vendees of agricultural land purchased from an allottee in 1967, challenged an order cancelling the underlying allotment on the ground of fraud, passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, holding that a vendee deriving title from a fraudulent allottee is not entitled to notice. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the rule denying notice to a vendee of a fraudulent allottee is not universally applicable and admits of exceptions. The Court noted that under Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, persons in continuous occupation for four harvests preceding Kharif 1973 have a preferential right to purchase, which potentially conflicts with the rights of informants under section 14 of the Displaced Persons and Land Settlement Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that a pre-1973 occupant-vendee was entitled to notice to determine priority between competing statutory claims. The petition was accordingly converted into an appeal and the matter remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bona fide vendee from a fraudulent allottee is invariably not entitled to notice before the cancellation of an allotment?
  • Does a person in continuous occupation of agricultural land prior to Kharif 1973 have a preferential right under Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 over an informant obtaining cancellation for a fraudulent allotment?
  • Whether failure to afford a hearing to an occupant-vendee of resumed land vitiates cancellation proceedings where competing statutory priority rights are involved?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad and 2 others vs The Government of Punjab through Secretary, Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 4 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 697 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-16
  service matterexclusive jurisdictionlacheswrit petitionPunjab Service TribunalLaw Reports Actdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the termination of the petitioners' services as Malis and a Chaukidar in the Education Department, seeking a declaration that the termination order dated 28-2-1989 is illegal and void. The core legal questions are whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a service matter where the petitioners failed to exhaust departmental remedies or approach the Punjab Service Tribunal, and whether the petition is barred by laches due to a delay of over one year. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the Punjab Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over such service matters under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petition is barred by laches due to the unexplained delay in filing. The Court also clarified that unreported judgments cited by the petitioners are not binding, emphasizing that under Section 3 of the Law Reports Act, 1875, courts are not obligated to treat non-authorized case reports as binding authority. The judgment affirms the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies and adhering to limitation periods in service-related litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a service matter where the petitioner has not approached the Punjab Service Tribunal?
  • Is a delay of over one year in filing a petition regarding a service matter sufficient to constitute laches?
  • Are unreported judgments binding on the High Court under the Law Reports Act, 1875?
  Read full judgment →