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.

• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State1990 SCMR 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-27
  post-arrest bailmurderdelay in trialabsconding co-accusedseparation of trialssupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is charged with murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether an accused person can claim the concession of bail on the ground of prolonged statutory delay in the commencement of the trial when such delay is caused by the abscondance of co-accused who are closely related to the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while an accused should not be penalized for the conduct of co-accused, indefinite incarceration without prospects of an early trial constitutes hardship. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed, but the Court directed that the case of the absconding co-accused be separated from the arrested accused and that the trial against the arrested accused commence without further delay. The key principle laid down is that to prevent undue pre-trial detention where co-accused are absconding, the trial court should separate the trials rather than keeping the arrested accused indefinitely imprisoned.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be granted bail on the ground of delay in trial when the delay is caused by absconding co-accused who are close relatives?
  • Can the trial court separate the case of an absconding co-accused from the arrested accused to expedite the commencement of the trial?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without the prospects of an early trial constitute sufficient hardship to warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad Shaikh vs Ch. Muhammad Din and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 461 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25
  ejectment petitionspecified period tenancymandatory vs directorycause of actionjurisdictional defectwrit jurisdictionRent Restriction Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an ejectment order passed against the petitioner-tenant. The core legal question was whether the proviso to Section 13(3) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, which prohibits a landlord from applying for eviction before the expiry of a specified tenancy period, is mandatory or directory. The petitioner argued that filing an ejectment petition before the lease expiry was a jurisdictional defect that could not be cured. The Court held that the proviso is directory rather than mandatory. It reasoned that the statute does not explicitly declare that non-compliance results in nullity, and the primary object of the Rent Restriction Ordinance is to resolve landlord-tenant disputes expeditiously. Consequently, where the cause of action matures during the pendency of the litigation, the initial defect is cured, and dismissing the petition on technical grounds would only lead to unnecessary, repetitive litigation. The Court affirmed that the prohibition is intended for the tenant's benefit, which can be waived, and that the proceedings are valid if the condition is satisfied during the pendency of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Is the proviso to Section 13(3) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance regarding the expiry of a specified tenancy period mandatory or directory?
  • Can an ejectment petition filed before the expiry of a specified tenancy period be maintained if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Does the failure to comply with a statutory condition precedent automatically render a legal proceeding void if the statute does not explicitly state the consequence of nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad alias Gulla and another vs The State and another1990 PLD Supreme Court 820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-16
  criminal appealsentence enhancementmitigating circumstancesorigin of occurrenceshrouded in mysterylife imprisonmentpremeditation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a murder case. The convict challenged his conviction and life imprisonment under Section 302 P.P.C., while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to death, challenging the High Court's decision to reduce the sentence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence by finding the origin of the occurrence 'shrouded in mystery' despite rejecting the plea of sudden fight or self-defense. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reduction of the sentence was justified. The Court established that even if a plea of sudden fight or self-defense is rejected, a court may still find mitigating circumstances for sentence reduction if the origin of the attack remains unknown or 'shrouded in mystery.' This principle applies when attending circumstances suggest that unknown factors or ancillary causes might have influenced the occurrence, provided such a supposition is real and has a nexus with established facts rather than being purely imaginary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court reduce a sentence based on the origin of an occurrence being 'shrouded in mystery' even if a plea of sudden fight or self-defense is rejected?
  • What criteria must be met for the principle of the origin of an occurrence being 'shrouded in mystery' to be applied in a criminal case?
  • Is the absence of eyewitness testimony regarding the start of an attack sufficient to justify a finding that the origin of the occurrence is 'shrouded in mystery'?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftekhar Ali and others vs Assistant Commissioner and others1990 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30
  Displaced Persons Land Settlementexcess allotmentfraudulent allotmentCentral Record Office mistakeMukhbari applicationconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' writ petition in limine. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed Mukhbari applications under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act), 1958, alleging that the respondents' predecessor had secured excess land allotment through fraud. The Additional Settlement Commissioner initially cancelled the excess land and allotted it to the appellants, but on remand, held that the allottee acted bona fide and the mistake originated in the Central Record Office, dismissing the applications while withdrawing the excess land. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition, distinguishing prior case law. The core legal question was whether retaining excess land allotted due to an official mistake, while knowing one's actual entitlement, constitutes acting fraudulently under the Act. The Supreme Court held that taking unfair advantage of an inadvertent mistake of the Central Record Office amounts to acting fraudulently. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the High Court and Settlement Commissioner orders were set aside, and the original allotment in favour of the appellants was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does taking unfair advantage of an inadvertent mistake by the Central Record Office in land allotment amount to acting fraudulently under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Can a finding of fact by a competent authority be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction when the allottee acts in a bona fide manner?
  • Are informers entitled to relief under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 when the allottee is not shown to have acted fraudulently?
  Read full judgment →
• Idrees Chanda vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 996 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-03Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hussain and another vs The State1990 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-24
  leave to appealappreciation of evidenceinterested witnessesquantum of sentencecriminal appealmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the convictions of Ibrar Hussain and Muhammad Ayub for murder and attempted murder, while commuting the death sentence of Ibrar Hussain to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence by the High Court, specifically regarding the reliability of interested eye-witnesses and the validity of weapon recovery, as well as the complainant's challenge to the acquittal of a co-accused and the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly appreciated the evidence, duly considering the possibility of false implication and the relationship of the witnesses to the complainant. Finding no error of law or fact in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions for leave to appeal, affirming that the sentence awarded was legal and proper. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's factual appreciation of evidence where no legal error is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence where no legal error is demonstrated?
  • Can the testimony of interested witnesses be accepted if the High Court has properly scrutinized it for false implication?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal when the sentence awarded by the High Court is found to be legal and proper?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistan,Etc.PTCL 1990 CL. 118 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ibrahim Shah vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 95 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-30
  service lawante-dating promotionhigher post dutiessalary arrearspension revisionlimitation condonationcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a civil servant, challenged the refusal of the respondent department to ante-date his promotion to BPS-17, seeking salary and pension benefits corresponding to the period he performed the duties of that post before his formal promotion. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, who is qualified and performs the duties of a higher post, is entitled to the salary and benefits of that post despite not being formally promoted. The Federal Service Tribunal held that while the promotion date itself falls within the discretion of the competent authority and cannot be challenged absent seniority issues, the appellant was entitled to the pay and increments of the higher post for the period he actually performed those duties. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Tribunal affirmed that a civil servant performing duties of a higher post for which they are qualified must be compensated accordingly. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pay the appellant the salary of BPS-17 from the date he commenced those duties, fix his pay upon formal promotion accordingly, and revise his pension and retirement benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to the salary of a higher post if they are qualified and performing the duties of that post without formal promotion?
  • Can a delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal be condoned if the appellant was on leave preparatory to retirement?
  • Does the discretion of a competent authority to determine a promotion date extend to denying salary for duties actually performed in a higher grade?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs Messrs Columbia Enterprises1990 CLC 47 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-31
  arbitration agreementstay of suitarbitration clausecontract cancellationcivil revisionoctroi contractprocedural technicality
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Revision Applications filed by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation against appellate orders that had refused to stay civil suits initiated by the respondent, Columbia Enterprises. The respondent had filed suits challenging the cancellation of a contract for the collection of Octroi taxes, seeking declarations and injunctions. The Corporation sought a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, citing an arbitration clause in the parties' agreement. The lower appellate courts had denied the stay, primarily on the technical ground that the applications failed to specifically plead the nature of the dispute. The High Court held that the lower courts adopted an overly technical approach. The Court ruled that for a stay under Section 34, it is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and that the suit relates to matters covered by said agreement. The Court further held that the unilateral cancellation of a contract does not extinguish the arbitration clause contained therein, which remains operative for disputes arising from the agreement. Consequently, the Revision Applications were allowed, and the civil suits were stayed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unilateral cancellation of a contract extinguish the arbitration clause contained within it?
  • Is a formal, detailed pleading of the specific dispute required to obtain a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Can an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be rejected solely because the court previously adjudicated a similar matter differently?
  • What is the primary test for determining whether a suit should be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyder vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 70 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-03Read full judgment →
• Hyder vs The State1990 MLD 1116 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
• Hussaini vs The State1990 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-27
  triple murderdeath penaltymotiveFIR vs complaintappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Hussaini, for the triple murder of Hafiz Abaidullah, Mst. Zainab, and the appellant’s wife, Mst. Bashiran. The appellant challenged the sentence, arguing that conflicting versions of the motive—one alleging illicit relations and the other alleging a conspiracy—warranted a lesser penalty than death. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the trial court and High Court had correctly preferred the complaint version of the motive over the FIR version, which was registered by an unconnected person who later disowned it. The Supreme Court held that the conviction and death sentence were appropriate. Crucially, the Court established that even if the motive version suggesting illicit relations were accepted, the appellant’s brutal murder of his own wife, Mst. Bashiran, provided sufficient justification for the imposition of the death penalty. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it, thereby maintaining the sentence of death confirmed by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the brutal murder of a spouse justify the death penalty even if the motive is disputed?
  • Can a court prefer the motive version presented in a private complaint over the version in the initial FIR?
  • Is a death sentence appropriate when the accused kills multiple victims including their own spouse?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Khan and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1520 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bux vs Haji Yakoob and another1990 SCMR 1354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26
  eviction proceedingstentative rent orderdefault in rentstriking off defencecondonation of delayrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondents concerning a shop-cum-godown premises. A tentative rent order was passed directing the respondents to pay rent by the 10th of every calendar month. The petitioner filed an application to strike off the respondents' defence due to an alleged default in depositing rent for the month of May, 1987, which was deposited on 7-7-1987. The Rent Controller struck off the defence and ordered eviction. On appeal, the High Court reversed the order, accepting the respondents' explanation regarding the court closure in June, 1987, and condoned the delay. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in condoning the minor delay in depositing rent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion based on sufficient cause shown for a one-month default was proper. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that minor defaults coupled with reasonable explanations regarding court closures can be condoned under judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the defence of a tenant can be struck off for a minor delay in depositing rent when sufficient cause is shown?
  • Can the High Court condone a default in the payment of rent under rent laws?
  • Whether the exercise of discretion by the High Court in accepting an explanation for delayed rent deposit warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bax Shoro and others vs The State1990 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-12Read full judgment →
• Humayun Saifullah Khan vs .Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 2 others1990 PLD Supreme Court 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-18
  writ of prohibitionalternative remedyjurisdiction of election commissionpolitical parties actconstitutional petitiondefectionparliamentary partyvires of statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had issued a writ of prohibition and declared a reference under section 8-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962, invalid and incompetent, restraining the Election Commission from proceeding with it. The core legal question was whether the High Court could properly exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199 to pre-empt and decide controverted questions of fact and law exclusively entrusted by statute to the Election Commission, without determining the constitutional vires of the provision. The Supreme Court held that where a statute creates a right and provides a comprehensive machinery and exclusive forum with a right of appeal, a party must exhaust that remedy, and the High Court erred in usurping the jurisdiction of the Election Commission on factual matters not relating to any jurisdictional defect. The Court laid down the principle that High Courts should not circumvent normal statutory processes or interfere with specialized tribunals through summary writ jurisdiction where no jurisdictional excess is shown, and remanded the matter to the High Court for decision on the remaining constitutional issues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court could issue a writ of prohibition to the Election Commission when a specific provision of appeal is provided to the Supreme Court?
  • Whether the High Court could declare a reference made before the Election Commission as incompetent without evidence of fact regarding the leadership of the parliamentary party?
  • Whether the High Court could restrain the Election Commission from deciding a reference duly referred to it under section 8-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962?
  • Whether the availability of an alternative statutory remedy bars the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Hoechst Pharmaceutical Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Deputy Collector of Customs1990 PTD 516 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
• Hoechst Pharmaceutical Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. vs Deputy Collector Of CustomsPTCL 1990 CL. 840 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-1990 PTD 90 · Calcutta High Court
  doctrine of mergerrevisional jurisdictionincome-tax assessmentexchange fluctuationrevenue expenditureappellate order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding an assessment year where an exchange rate difference on a foreign loan was allowed as revenue expenditure. The core legal question was whether an assessment order merges entirely into an appellate order so as to oust the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 regarding issues not raised or decided in appeal. The Calcutta High Court held that the doctrine of merger is not absolute and only applies to the specific subject-matter considered and decided in appeal. An assessment order does not wholly merge into the appellate order for untouched issues. The key principle laid down is that the Commissioner's revisional power under section 263 extends to matters in the assessment order that were neither raised nor decided in the appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an entire assessment order merge into an appellate order when an appeal is preferred only against specific items?
  • Can the Commissioner of Income-tax exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 263 over matters not considered and decided by the appellate authority?
  • Does the doctrine of merger apply universally to all orders of inferior tribunals subjected to appellate or revisional scrutiny?
  • Does the initiation of an appeal rob the Commissioner of Income-tax of jurisdiction to correct errors on points untouched by the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah And 2 Others vs Haqnawaz And Another1990 CLC 1095 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-28
  pre-emptionamendment of written statementadditional evidencedoctrine of sinkerrevisional jurisdictionco-sharer
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit decreed in favor of the respondents on the grounds of co-sharership and contiguity. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioners sought to amend their written statement to introduce the plea of 'sinker' and requested permission to adduce additional evidence by summoning a revenue official. The core legal questions were whether a party can amend their written statement to introduce a new plea at the revisional stage, and whether additional evidence can be allowed to patch up omissions. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the application and the revision petition, holding that amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 will be refused if delayed excessively or if they introduce a new plea that improves the original case to the prejudice of the opposite party. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not intended to allow negligent litigants to fill gaps or patch up weak portions of their case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party be permitted to amend their written statement to introduce a new plea for the first time at the revisional stage?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate or revisional court allow the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to raise a specific defense at the trial stage preclude a party from raising it during subsequent appellate or revisional proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Hemco Industries Private Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 76 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Ahmad vs The State1990 MLD 138 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Hazar Khan Jatoi vs Government of Pakistan1990 PLC (C.S.) 265 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Hayat Ullah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
• Hatimbhai vs Karimbhai1990 MLD 1700 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
• Hassan Muhammad And Another vs Shaukat Ali And 10 Other1990 CLC 1955 · Board of Revenue · 1989-04-20Read full judgment →
• Hasan Din vs Muhammad Jamil and others1990 SCMR 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-27
  leave to appealocular testimonycriminal appealappreciation of evidenceperversity of findingsmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the convictions and sentences of Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Rashid for the murder of Muhammad Akram. The petitioner, Hasan Din, challenged the High Court's rejection of the ocular testimony of three prosecution witnesses. The core legal question was whether the High Court's findings, which discredited the eye-witnesses based on inconsistencies regarding their presence at the scene, the timing of their police statements, and the implausibility of the search for the deceased, were perverse or erroneous enough to warrant Supreme Court interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning for disbelieving the eye-witnesses was neither perverse nor highly erroneous. The Court affirmed that while a different conclusion might have been possible on the same evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere with factual findings unless the lower court's reasoning is fundamentally flawed or perverse. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of a High Court regarding the credibility of ocular testimony?
  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to mention specific details in their initial police statements constitute a valid ground for a High Court to doubt their testimony?
  • Is a High Court's finding that eye-witnesses were 'set up' based on the timing of their police statements considered perverse?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Kassam and anothers vs Azam Suleman Madha1990 PLD Supreme Court 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-30
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantchoice of residencestatutory interpretationSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from rent proceedings initiated by the respondent landlord seeking the eviction of the appellant tenant on the grounds of wilful default and bona fide personal requirement. While the Rent Controller dismissed the application, the High Court reversed the decision, ordering eviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the statutory shift from Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 to Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that under the 1979 Ordinance, the landlord is no longer required to prove that he does not occupy another suitable residential building or has not vacated one without sufficient cause. The Court affirmed that where a landlord owns multiple properties, the choice of which premises to reside in remains the landlord's prerogative and discretion. Neither the tenant nor the Rent Controller can dictate where the landlord must reside. Consequently, the High Court's finding of bona fide requirement was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • How does the landlord's burden of proof for personal requirement under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 differ from Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does a landlord's failure to occupy other vacant flats owned by him in a different building defeat his claim of bona fide personal requirement for a specific premises?
  • Does the tenant or the Rent Controller have the authority to determine which of his properties a landlord must reside in when multiple properties are owned?
  Read full judgment →
• Hari Dutt Bhardwaj vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Punchkula and another1990 MLD 459 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz Khan vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan1990 PLC 535 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz and 10 others vs Muhammad Yasin and others1990 SCMR 1477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-28
  leave to appealinterim orderSupreme Court of Pakistanconsolidation of petitionsappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioners, represented by counsel, sought leave to appeal by drawing a parallel to a previously granted leave to appeal in a separate case (C.P. No. 81-P of 1989), arguing that the legal points involved in the present petitions were similar, if not identical, to those in the cited case. Upon consideration of the submissions, the Court found sufficient grounds to align the treatment of these petitions with the earlier matter. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the present petitions. Furthermore, the Court directed that the interim orders previously issued in C.P.-221-R of 1989 and other related petitions shall remain in operation across all these cases pending the final adjudication of the appeals. The decision establishes the procedural approach of consolidating matters involving similar legal questions to ensure consistency in judicial outcomes and the preservation of interim relief pending appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can leave to appeal be granted based on the similarity of legal points with a previously admitted case?
  • Do interim orders in related petitions continue in operation when leave to appeal is granted in subsequent similar petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ali Qureshi vs Directorgeneral, Audit and Accounts, Works, Lahore and others1990 SCMR 1475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-02
  civil serviceseniorityprovincial disintegrationservice tribunalleave to appealallocation of civil servantspre-integration service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his claim for seniority from an earlier date. The petitioner, originally a pre-integration employee in N.-W.F.P., had requested and was granted allocation to Punjab following the disintegration of West Pakistan. Upon his transfer, his previous service was not reckoned for seniority purposes, with the authorities counting his seniority only from the date he opted for the new office rather than his initial confirmation date. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who voluntarily opts for allocation to a different province upon the disintegration of West Pakistan is entitled to retain seniority from their original service period. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having opted for the transfer at his own request, was subject to the conditions of such relaxation, which required the surrender of previous seniority. The Court affirmed the Service Tribunal's decision, ruling that the denial of seniority was in accordance with the applicable law regarding civil servants at the time of provincial disintegration. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant who voluntarily opts for transfer to another province upon the disintegration of West Pakistan retain their previous seniority?
  • Is the surrender of previous seniority a valid condition for a civil servant seeking relaxation of rules upon provincial disintegration?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameedullah Khan vs Hotel Intercontinental and another1990 PLC 542 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ahmed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 725 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ahmad Tarar vs Water and Power Development Authority1990 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-26
  WAPDASection 17(1-A)removal from serviceFederal Service Tribunalfinding of factsubstantial question of lawleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by a former employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) who had been serving as a Line Superintendent. The petitioner was removed from service by the Authority pursuant to its powers under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. Following the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the Federal Service Tribunal had examined the petitioner's record along with the material presented by the Authority, arriving at a finding of fact that sufficient basis existed for the Authority to take action under Section 17(1-A). The Court held that the petitioner sought to challenge a pure finding of fact, which did not raise any substantial question of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a challenge to a finding of fact recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal raises a substantial question of law for granting leave to appeal?
  • Whether leave to appeal will be granted by the Supreme Court where the removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act is supported by sufficient factual material?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding regarding the existence of sufficient basis for removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act in the absence of a substantial question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Cooperative Society vs Government of Sindh and others1990 MLD 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-21
  cooperative societiesanti-corruption establishmentpublic servantsanction for prosecutionjurisdiction of anti-corruptionmisappropriationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking to declare impugned notices issued by the Anti-Corruption Establishment to the petitioner Cooperative Society as illegal and without lawful authority, and to restrain the respondents from interference and harassment. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Corruption Establishment has the jurisdiction to investigate officers of a cooperative society for corruption and misappropriation without the prior sanction of the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925. The Court held that officers of a cooperative society are deemed to be public servants under the law, and offences of corruption and misappropriation fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 rather than being offences 'under this Act' restricted by Section 63(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925. Consequently, prior sanction of the Registrar is not required for investigating or prosecuting such corruption offences. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether officers of a cooperative society are deemed to be public servants under the law?
  • Does the Anti-Corruption Establishment require prior sanction from the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 to investigate cooperative society officers for corruption?
  • Do offences of corruption and misappropriation by cooperative society officers constitute offences 'under this Act' within the meaning of Section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Syed Ahmad Hussain vs Province of Punjab1990 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22
  retrospective promotionservice rulescivil servantpromotion discretionservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim for retrospective promotion. The petitioner, formerly an officiating Principal of Government Tibbia College, Bahawalpur, sought promotion to the post of Principal effective from 10-7-1980, rather than the actual date of 17-7-1986, along with associated salary and benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed a vested right to be promoted on an earlier date despite the absence of promulgated service rules at that time. The Supreme Court held that the government retains the discretion to promote civil servants at the appropriate time. Crucially, the Court observed that the relevant Service Rules governing the posts of Hakims, Lecturers, and Principals of Tibbia Colleges were not promulgated by the Government of the Punjab until 23-9-1984. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim promotion prior to that date. In the absence of any allegation of malice, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim retrospective promotion to a post before the relevant service rules governing that post were promulgated?
  • Does the government have the discretion to determine the timing of a civil servant's promotion in the absence of specific service rules?
  • Is an allegation of malice required to challenge the government's timing of a promotion decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Muhammad Bashir vs Member, Board of Revenue and another1990 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07
  Lambardari appointmentwrit jurisdictionadministrative discretioncontempt of courtleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the appointment of a Lambardar, where the petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2. The petitioner's writ petition before the High Court had been dismissed, leading to the current proceedings before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court should have interfered with the administrative discretion exercised in appointing the respondent, given that the respondent had previously been convicted and sentenced by a Civil Court for contempt of court, though he was subsequently released after offering an unqualified apology. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was valid, noting that the petitioner failed to cite any legal provision prohibiting the appointment of an individual under these specific circumstances. The Court further reasoned that since the respondent had purged himself of contempt through an unqualified apology, there was no legal or principled bar to his appointment as a Lambardar. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that the administrative discretion in such appointments remains undisturbed absent a clear legal violation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a prior conviction for contempt of court, where an unqualified apology was accepted, legally disqualify an individual from being appointed as a Lambardar?
  • Should the High Court interfere in the exercise of administrative discretion regarding the appointment of a Lambardar when no specific law has been violated?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan vs Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani and others1990 MLD 89 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-04
  mutationland revenueburden of proofpresumption of truthjamabandititlemandatory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and alternate possession regarding land in Tehsil Mansehra, wherein the plaintiff challenged a mutation of sale as fraudulent, void, and inoperative against his rights. The trial court and the district judge concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding the mutation invalid and not attested in accordance with the law. The core legal questions addressed by the Peshawar High Court were whether the provisions of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act regarding mutation proceedings are mandatory or directory, and whether a mutation creates title or carries a rebuttable presumption of truth when incorporated into the jamabandi. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the provisions of section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 are mandatory in nature, that mutations do not lay the foundation of title, and that the presumption of truth attached to a jamabandi is rebuttable and stands displaced when the underlying mutation is proved to be unlawful or non-compliant with mandatory statutory procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 regarding mutation proceedings are mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Does a mutation in the revenue record independently create or lay the foundation of a title to property?
  • Can the presumption of truth attached to an entry in the jamabandi be rebutted when the underlying mutation is proved to be in contravention of mandatory statutory provisions?
  • Where a party makes a negative assertion on oath denying participation in mutation proceedings, does the burden of proof shift to the opposite party to prove such participation?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan and others vs The State and others1990 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-02
  triple murderinterested testimonyleave to appealcriminal jurisprudencesentencing reductionocular testimonycorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a triple murder case. The primary legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the conviction of the five convicts was based on well-settled principles of criminal justice, specifically regarding the reliance on interested testimony without independent corroboration, and whether the reduction of sentences for two specific convicts by the High Court was legally justified. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the convicts' petition to examine the validity of their convictions in light of established evidentiary standards. Regarding the complainant's petition, the Court granted leave to examine the justification for the reduction of sentences for two convicts but dismissed the challenge concerning the acquittal of another respondent. The judgment reinforces the necessity of strictly scrutinizing convictions based on interested testimony to ensure they meet established criminal justice standards and affirms that appellate courts must provide valid legal grounds for modifying sentences, thereby ensuring that judicial discretion in sentencing and evidentiary assessment remains consistent with the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Does interested testimony in a criminal trial require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • Can a High Court reduce sentences of convicts without valid legal grounds?
  • Is the acquittal of an accused person subject to reversal if the prosecution fails to provide sufficient evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ghulam Hussain vs Karamat Ali and others1990 SCMR 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-08
  pre-emptionlocus standinecessary partyconsent decreevoid saleleave to appealappellate constitution
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The petitioner, claiming superior rights as a co-sharer, successfully obtained a decree for pre-emption against the respondents (vendees). During the trial, the original vendor filed a separate declaratory suit claiming the initial sale to the respondents violated Martial Law Regulation 64, resulting in a consent decree declaring the sale void. The respondents' appeal against the pre-emption decree was dismissed by the District Court, but the High Court subsequently allowed their Regular Second Appeal and remanded the matter. The petitioner contends that because the sale was declared void by consent, the respondents lost their interest in the land and consequently lacked the locus standi to file an appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner argues the appeal was improperly constituted for failing to implead the vendor as a necessary party. The Supreme Court found these contentions arguable, raising significant questions regarding the standing of a vendee in a pre-emption suit after the sale is declared void and the necessity of impleading the vendor in appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a vendee retain the right to appeal a pre-emption decree if the underlying sale has been declared void by a consent decree?
  • Is a vendor a necessary party in an appeal filed against a decree passed in a pre-emption suit?
  • Does the failure to implead a necessary party render an appeal improperly constituted?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakam Ali and another vs Iftikhar Ahmed Khan1990 SCMR 1571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-13
  pre-emption suitdecretal amountdeposit of sale priceact of courtjudicial discretioncivil revisiondefault in payment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the failure of the decree-holder to deposit the pre-emption amount within the timeframe originally stipulated by the trial court, due to pending applications and court orders, nullified the decree passed in their favour. The Supreme Court held that the decree-holder could not be penalized for the delay, as the delay was attributable to the court's own orders and the pendency of applications that deferred the decision on the deposit requirement. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, noting that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in treating the deposit as made without default. The key principle laid down is that a party should not suffer harm or be penalized due to an act of the court, and courts possess the discretion to condone delays in depositing decretal amounts when such delays arise from the court's own procedural handling of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the late deposit of a pre-emption amount necessarily nullify a decree passed in a pre-emption suit?
  • Can a party be penalized for failing to deposit a decretal amount when the delay is caused by the court's own orders or pending applications?
  • Does the court have the discretion to treat a late deposit of a decretal amount as being made without default?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ziauddin vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Walayat Khan vs Abdul Usman1990 CLC 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-25
  malicious prosecutiondamagesreasonable and probable causecriminal proceedings quashmentcivil disputerevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner. The trial court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the District Judge decreed it in favour of the respondent, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully established that his prior criminal prosecution by the petitioner was malicious and instituted without reasonable or probable cause. The Peshawar High Court held that initiating criminal proceedings for a matter that is inherently civil in nature, without reasonable or probable cause and while pursuing a parallel civil remedy, constitutes malicious prosecution. The court laid down the principle that if a person initiates criminal proceedings in a matter which a person of ordinary prudence knows does not constitute a criminal offence and falls exclusively within civil jurisdiction, such action amounts to prosecution without reasonable and probable cause, furnishing a valid cause of action for a suit for damages.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential requirements a plaintiff must establish to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution?
  • Does the initiation of criminal proceedings for a matter that is essentially civil in nature amount to prosecution without reasonable and probable cause?
  • Whether the quashment of criminal proceedings by the High Court under inherent powers establishes that the prosecution was malicious?
  • Can a suit for damages for malicious prosecution succeed if the complainant fails to withdraw the criminal complaint despite pursuing a parallel civil remedy?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Taj Din vs Sh. Taj Din and others1990 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-06
  leave to appealrent matterejectment petitionconcurrent findings of factconstitutional jurisdictionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a rent matter wherein the petitioner landlord sought eviction of the respondent tenant from a bungalow on the ground of personal and children's use. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, and the District Judge dismissed the appeals of both parties. The Lahore High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, accepted the tenant's writ petition and set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord's possession of other urban accommodation. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court could lawfully interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction could have interfered in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower rent tribunals be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Sattar Muhammad vs Muhammad Aslam and others1990 P Cr. L J 1286 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Riaz Hussain vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1299 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Riaz Ahmad Butt vs Secretary, Transport Government of Punjab1990 CLC 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Rab Nawaz vs Sikandar Zulqarnain and 8 others1990 SCMR 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20
  criminal conspiracymurderacquittalleave to appealalibiabscondenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges relating to murder and criminal conspiracy. The petitioner challenged the acquittal as well as the dismissal of his criminal revision for enhancement of sentences. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence concerning a criminal conspiracy, the reliability of uncorroborated evidence, business rivalry as motive, and the plea of alibi raised by absconding accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly acquitted most of the respondents due to lack of independent corroboration and the possibility of false implication stemming from business rivalry. However, regarding two respondents who remained absconding and raised a plea of alibi, the Court found that their case required further consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal solely against those two respondents while dismissing the petition as against the remaining respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether independent corroboration is necessary to sustain a conviction based on a criminal conspiracy where the prosecution evidence is open to doubt?
  • Does a plea of alibi raised by an absconding accused require detailed consideration by the appellate court?
  • Whether business rivalry is a sufficient motive to rule out the possibility of false implication and exaggerated number of accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Nabiullah and anothers vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. through President1990 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-02
  banking companiesbanking tribunalspecial courtjurisdictionmark-upborrower suitrecovery of loans
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge (Banking Companies), who had ordered the return of a plaint filed by the appellants for compensation against a bank, holding that since the loan was on a mark-up basis, jurisdiction vested in the Banking Tribunal. The core legal question was whether claims by a borrower regarding a loan involving mark-up fall under the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 or the Banking Tribunal under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. The Peshawar High Court held that the Special Court under the Banking Companies Ordinance has jurisdiction to entertain claims filed by a borrower against a banking company regardless of whether the loan includes mark-up, whereas the Banking Tribunal can only entertain claims filed by a banking company and not by a borrower. The court laid down that the criterion for determining the forum for a borrower's suit is the right of a borrower to sue under the Banking Companies Ordinance, and mark-up alone does not oust the Special Court's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit filed by a borrower against a banking company in respect of a loan on a mark-up basis is triable by a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 or a Banking Tribunal under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 confer any right upon a borrower to file a claim before a Banking Tribunal?
  • Is the presence of mark-up in a loan transaction the sole criterion for determining the jurisdictional forum between a Special Court and a Banking Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Murad Ali and 12 others vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue and 9 others1990 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15
  Intra-Court Appealconsolidation mattersuo motu jurisdictionBoard of Revenueleave to appealwrit petitionmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the High Court in a consolidation dispute. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against the dismissal of a writ petition in circumstances where the Board of Revenue has exercised its suo motu jurisdiction to pass an order against a party who possesses no further statutory remedy of appeal or revision. The petitioner argued that this issue is a matter of first impression with no existing precedent. Finding the question significant and requiring authoritative examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, subject to the issue of limitation regarding the initial dismissal of the petitioners' writ petition. The Court directed the parties to prepare the appeal on the existing record while allowing for the submission of additional necessary documents, and referred the stay application for consideration by a Judge in Chambers.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal competent against the dismissal of a writ petition where the Board of Revenue has passed an order in suo motu jurisdiction against a party having no further remedy of appeal or revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yaqoob vs Ch. Muhammad Nawaz and others1990 SCMR 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-29
  evictioncommercial propertytenantleave to appealinterim reliefrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a tenant against his eviction from a commercial property under the Rent Restriction law and the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the tenant's resistance to eviction and his request for minor adjustments regarding the shifting of an electric connection during the proposed reconstruction by the landlord. The Supreme Court held that since the question of the petitioner's eviction had been affirmed and concluded, and considering the petitioner's failure to vacate the premises despite the lapse of time and previous clarifications, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, and the prior interim order relating to the re-location of the electric connection was vacated in its entirety. The key principle laid down is that where an eviction order is final and the tenant delays vacating despite opportunities, leave to appeal will be refused and pending interim concessions withdrawn.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an eviction order when the tenant fails to vacate the premises and prolongs the proceedings?
  • Can interim orders regarding adjustments and electric connections be vacated when the main petition for leave to appeal against eviction is dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Bakhsh1990 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantbona fide requirementdemolition and reconstructiondefault in rentleave to appealunauthorized subletting
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant on grounds of default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, and the bona fide requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction for personal use. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the claims regarding default and subletting but ruled in favour of the landlord regarding the requirement for reconstruction, finding the landlord's plans approved and financially viable. Upon appeal, the High Court affirmed the findings against the landlord on the first two issues and reversed the Rent Controller's decision on the third issue, concluding that the demolition of the demised premises (a 'Khokha') was not necessary for the proposed reconstruction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitioner's submissions regarding the necessity of removing the demised premises for reconstruction, the alleged default in rent payment, and the unauthorized subletting raised substantial questions of law and fact requiring further consideration. The Court admitted the petition for regular hearing on the existing record.

  Questions settled

  • Does the landlord's requirement for reconstruction constitute a bona fide ground for eviction if the demised premises must be demolished to facilitate the construction?
  • Can a High Court reverse a Rent Controller's finding on the necessity of demolition for reconstruction based on an interpretation of an approved building plan?
  • Does the deposit of rent for a period of several years in a single instance constitute a default in payment of rent under the relevant Rent Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Siddique vs District Judge, Peshawar and others1990 SCMR 997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-04
  evictionpersonal requirementlandlord and tenantbona fide requirementdeath of landlordrented premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from an eviction application filed by a landlord against a tenant on the grounds of default and personal requirement of the landlord and his son. The Rent Controller accepted the application on the ground of personal requirement, which was upheld by the District Judge and subsequently by the High Court in a constitutional petition. Before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner contended that the cause of action extinguished upon the death of the original landlord, and that the son's failure to testify was fatal to the case. The Supreme Court held that where a premises is required for the personal use of the landlord's son, the requirement does not extinguish upon the death of the father. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it is not mandatory for the son to testify if the father had already supported the claim as a witness. The Court affirmed that a landlord occupying a rented premises is legally entitled to seek possession of his own property, thereby establishing bona fide requirement, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's cause of action for personal requirement of his son extinguish upon the death of the landlord during the pendency of proceedings?
  • Is it mandatory for the son of a landlord to testify in support of an eviction application if the landlord has already testified to establish the son's personal requirement?
  • Does the fact that a landlord's son is currently operating a business in rented premises negate the bona fide requirement for possession of the landlord's own property?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Shah vs Mst. Hamidan Bibi1990 MLD 597 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-25
  damages for civil suitfrivolous suitsmalicious prosecutionlitigation costsmaintainability of suitcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises out of a civil suit for the recovery of damages and litigation costs filed by the respondent against the petitioner, alleging that previous declaratory suits filed against her were mala fide, frivolous, and vexatious. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 8,000, which the Additional District Judge reduced to Rs. 5,000 on appeal. The core legal question was whether a separate civil action can be maintained in law to recover costs incurred or damages suffered on account of the institution or defence of a previous civil suit. The Lahore High Court held that no separate suit is maintainable for the recovery of litigation costs or damages for mental torture and loss of reputation arising from the institution of a previous civil suit, as sections 35 and 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure provide the exclusive remedies and mechanisms for awarding costs and special costs in such cases. The petition was accepted, and the judgments of the courts below were set aside, dismissing the respondent's suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a separate suit be maintained for recovering costs incurred in prosecuting or defending a previous civil suit?
  • Is an action maintainable to recover damages for mental torture and loss of reputation caused by the institution of a previous civil suit?
  • What is the scope of sections 35 and 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding compensation for frivolous or vexatious litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-15
  review petitiondissolution of National AssemblyArticle 58(2)(b)Article 199condonation of delayrestoration of assemblygeneral electionsconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed against the Supreme Court's order in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 1988 regarding the dissolution of the National Assembly. In the original judgment, although the Court held that the dissolution of the National Assembly on May 29, 1988, under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution was illegal, it consciously declined to order its restoration and instead upheld the holding of fresh general elections in the collective good. The petitioner sought review, contending that the Court erred regarding its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution by failing to restore the assembly, and challenged the legality of the subsequent 1988 elections and the newly elected Assembly. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that a deliberate and conscious decision on the nature of relief granted does not constitute a ground for review merely because an alternative view is presented. The Court further held that new grounds challenging the legality of subsequent ordinances or the newly elected Assembly that were not raised or decided in the original appeal cannot be entertained in review proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conscious and deliberate decision regarding the relief granted under Article 199 of the Constitution constitute a valid ground for review if an alternative legal view is presented?
  • Can questions and grounds that were neither raised nor decided in the main appeal be entertained for the first time in a review petition?
  • Does the Court's refusal to restore an illegally dissolved assembly in favor of fresh general elections justify review of the judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Nawaz vs Hussain Shah1990 SCMR 1621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-02
  pre-emptionco-ownerlimitationcondonation of delaymemorandum of appealremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court which had set aside concurrent judgments of the lower courts in favor of the pre-emptor appellant. The core legal question was whether the appellant's pre-emption suit could be sustained on alternative grounds of contiguity and easement after the right based on co-ownership was extinguished pursuant to the rule in Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1988 SC 287), which barred pre-emption decrees based on co-sharership after 31-7-1986. The Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit because the alternative grounds of contiguity and easement were not raised in the memorandum of appeal or considered in the lower forums, and mere assertion in the plaint without proof did not justify a remand. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs. The key principle laid down is that an appellant cannot raise new factual grounds for pre-emption at the apex court stage if those grounds were not urged in the memorandum of appeal or substantiated by evidence below.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay can be condoned when a petition for leave to appeal is treated as a direct appeal and becomes barred by time?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be maintained on alternative grounds of contiguity and easement if they were not raised in the memorandum of appeal?
  • Does the failure to prove alternative grounds of pre-emption at the appropriate stage justify the remand of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Latif vs Farman Ali and another1990 SCMR 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-06
  quashment of criminal proceedingscivil nature of disputeabuse of processleave to appealcriminal breach of trustcheating
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case initiated by the petitioner against his nephew, the respondent, under Sections 379, 406, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of financial misappropriation and unauthorized removal of earth. Following the trial court's rejection of the respondent's application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the subsequent dismissal of his revision petition by the Sessions Judge, the Lahore High Court allowed the respondent's application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, quashing the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings warranted interference. Upon noting that a parallel civil suit concerning the alleged loan was already pending and had been referred to arbitration, the Supreme Court held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle disputes that are fundamentally civil in character.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
  • Is it appropriate to maintain criminal proceedings for financial disputes that are already subject to pending civil litigation and arbitration?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings if the matter is purely civil?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Hussain vs S.H.O,, Police Station, Chunian and 6 others1990 P Cr. L J 1314 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Muhammad Aslam and another1990 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-12
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powers of High CourtOffence of Zinarevisional jurisdictionFederal Shariat CourtSection 561-A CrPCArticle 203-DD
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court quashing criminal proceedings initiated against respondent No. 1 under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The criminal proceedings arose from an FIR lodged by the petitioner claiming that respondent No. 1 made false allegations against him regarding the illegal detention and criminal assault of his wife. The core questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings in Hudood matters, and whether Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 barred such inherent powers. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings of fact that the allegations involved physical torture rather than Zina. The Court held that Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 confers revisional powers on the Federal Shariat Court in Hudood cases but does not bar the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings pending in a criminal court. Leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in criminal proceedings?
  • Can the High Court exercise its jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings initiated in relation to offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad and others vs Deputy Commissioner, Karachi (East)1990 MLD 923 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Mohibullah & Co. and others vs Khawaja Bahauddin1990 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-05
  rent restrictioneviction petitionbona fide needpersonal usewrit jurisdictionconcurrent findingsmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge that had rejected a landlord's eviction petition. The landlord sought possession of a godown for his son's personal use. The core legal questions were whether the landlord's failure to disclose the nature of the intended business or the possession of other properties in the eviction petition rendered the claim mala fide, and whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly intervened because the lower courts misread evidence and failed to apply established legal principles. The Court affirmed that a landlord is not legally required to disclose the specific nature of the business intended for the premises. Furthermore, while the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance requires a landlord to state they do not occupy other suitable property, failure to explicitly plead this is not fatal to the petition if bona fide need is otherwise established by evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a landlord to disclose the specific nature of the business intended for the premises in an eviction petition?
  • Does a failure to state in an eviction petition that the landlord does not occupy other suitable property automatically defeat the claim?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the appellate court?
  • Is a landlord required to specify the exact number of rooms required when the leased premises were originally rented as a single unit?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Mithu vs Muhammad Yousaf and 5 others1990 P Cr. L J 1466 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan and anothers vs Government of Sindh and others1990 MLD 155 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-08
  cattle piri fee contractpublic auctiontemporary injunctionirreparable losssupervisory powers of governmentnewspaper publicationcivil revisionlocal councils contract rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from a suit instituted by the petitioners seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the reauction of a cattle piri fee contract for 1989-90 by Union Council Ali Wahan. The trial court initially granted an ad-interim status quo order and later confirmed an interim injunction in the petitioners' favour. However, the District Judge vacated the injunction on appeal. The High Court considered whether the auction complied with mandatory statutory publicity requirements, whether the provincial government possessed the supervisory power to direct a reauction, and whether the prerequisites for granting a temporary injunction were satisfied. The High Court dismissed the revision application, holding that publishing an auction notice in a newspaper with limited circulation violated the statutory requirement of effective publicity under the Sindh Councils (Contract) Rules 1980 and Section 45 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979. Furthermore, the provincial government was fully empowered under Sections 53 and 54(1) of the Ordinance to order a reauction to safeguard public revenue. Lastly, the Court ruled that contracts involving monetary rights cannot entail irreparable loss.

  Questions settled

  • Does publication of an auction notice in a newspaper of limited or doubtful circulation satisfy the mandatory publicity requirement under Rule 6(1) of the Sindh Councils (Contract) Rules 1980?
  • Can the Provincial Government invoke its supervisory powers under Sections 53 and 54(1) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 to direct a reauction of a local council contract in the public interest?
  • Does a breach or cancellation of a contract involving monetary benefits and revenue collection constitute an irreparable loss justifying a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the general controlling provision of Section 45 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 prevail over the Municipal Committees Octroi Rules 1964 regarding local council contracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Inam Khan And 10 Others vs Sooba1990 CLC 1193 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Ibrahim Ishaq Johri vs Commissioner Ofincome Tax (West),Karachi.PTCL 1990 CL 954 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghaus Bakhsh and others vs Haji Rahim Bakhsh and others1990 SCMR 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-29
  pre-emptionagricultural landtransaction of exchangeconcurrent findingsleave to appealsettlement of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts and the High Court, which dismissed a suit for pre-emption concerning agricultural land on the ground that the underlying transaction was an exchange rather than a sale. The core legal question is whether a transaction characterized as an exchange can be treated as a sale subject to pre-emption based on the vendee's subsequent willingness to settle by accepting the market price to avoid litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, affirming the lower courts' concurrent findings. The Court ruled that a vendee's willingness to transfer land upon payment of the market price to avoid litigation does not constitute an admission that the transaction was a sale. The key principle laid down is that attempts to settle litigation or avoid disputes do not alter the true legal nature of a transaction established through evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transaction found to be an exchange can be subjected to pre-emption as a sale?
  • Does a vendee's willingness to accept market price to avoid litigation amount to an admission of a sale transaction?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of a transaction be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Chaseetu and 9 others vs Sarwar Khan1990 MLD 1368 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Behram Khan vs Abdul Hameed Khan Achakzai and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-10
  election petitionelectoral malpracticeannulment of electionRepresentation of People Actballot box tamperingdiscretionary jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an Election Commission order declaring an entire constituency election void due to irregularities. During the election, ballot boxes from two polling stations were snatched by miscreants. The Election Commission, invoking Section 103-AA of the Representation of People Act, 1976, annulled the entire election. The High Court, however, found that the missing votes were insufficient to alter the final outcome, as the leading candidate's margin was insurmountable even if all missing votes were attributed to the runner-up. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, refusing to interfere. The ratio of the judgment is that an entire constituency election should not be set aside due to localized malpractice or hooliganism if the final result remains determinable based on the remaining valid votes. The Court emphasized that annulling an entire election based on the misdeeds of supporters of losing candidates would frustrate the electorate's will and encourage tactical rigging to force re-elections.

  Questions settled

  • Can an entire constituency election be declared void under Section 103-AA of the Representation of People Act, 1976, if the result is still determinable despite localized irregularities?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order that achieves a just and fair result in an election dispute?
  • Should an election be set aside due to the misconduct of supporters of losing candidates if the missing votes cannot change the final outcome?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmad vs Mst.Riaz Elahi and others1990 SCMR 835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-09
  recovery of dowryconsent decreeexecution proceedingssatisfaction of decreeconcurrent findings of factconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts. In a suit for the recovery of dowry, a consent decree was passed, and during execution proceedings, the judgment-debtor claimed to have satisfied the decree by delivering a cheque for Rs. 60,000 to the decree-holder. The executing court framed issues and found that the petitioner failed to prove the payment. This finding was affirmed upon revision by the Additional District Judge, and subsequently upheld by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted the absence of evidence regarding the delivery or encashment of the cheque. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on available record do not warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming that factual determinations regarding the satisfaction of a decree cannot be disturbed without cogent proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the payment of a decretal amount can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a judgment-debtor bear the burden of proving the satisfaction of a decree through the alleged delivery and encashment of a cheque?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the lower courts have meticulously examined the evidence and concluded that payment was not proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Arsala Khan vs Dr. Abdus Sattar Khan1990 MLD 2404 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Amanullah Khan vs Sahibzada Fateh Ullah Khan And Other1990 CLC 674 · Election Tribunal · 1988-04-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad Khan and 3 others vs The State1990 MLD 643 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdullah Khan vs The State1990 MLD 1544 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdullah Halepota vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.1990 MLD 532 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Kasim vs Builders Incorporated and others1990 MLD 712 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Karim vs S.H.O., P.S. Mithiani and 2 others1990 PLD Karachi 485 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Aziz and others vs Muhammad Akram Bhatti and others1990 SCMR 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-16
  writ jurisdictionlandlord and tenantconcurrent findings of factevictionconstitutional petitionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller and affirmed by an Additional District Judge, which was subsequently set aside by the Lahore High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the High Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution, was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the identity of the disputed property. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the eviction order. The Court reasoned that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is not designed to function as an appellate forum to correct decisions merely because they might be considered wrong. Furthermore, the High Court proceeded on a ground—the identity of the property—that was not in controversy between the parties, as the respondent had previously conceded the property number. The key principle laid down is that a High Court cannot interfere with the findings of inferior tribunals in writ jurisdiction simply to re-evaluate evidence or decide issues not raised by the parties, particularly where concurrent findings of fact exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by inferior tribunals in exercise of its writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 equivalent to that of a full-fledged appellate court?
  • Can a High Court set aside an order based on a ground that was never in controversy between the parties before the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider and anothers vs The STATEOpponent1990 MLD 1172 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-28Read full judgment →
• Hafizullah vs Haji Hussain Bakhsh1990 CLC 603 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-21
  promissory noteadhesive stampseffectual cancellationstamp dutyremand orderadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant to recover Rs. 3,000 based on a Promissory Note and receipt. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the Promissory Note adequately stamped and cancelled. However, the appellate court reversed this finding, holding that the Promissory Note was deficiently stamped, the stamps were not effectually cancelled under Section 12 of the Stamp Act 1899, and remanded the case for oral evidence. The core legal question before the High Court was whether drawing lines across adhesive stamps constitutes an "effectual cancellation" under Section 12 of the Stamp Act 1899. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the remand order, and held that drawing lines across a stamp is a valid and effectual mode of cancellation. The Court laid down the principle that the test for effectual cancellation is whether an ordinary conscientious person would conclude the stamp has already been used, and it is not required to make reuse a physical impossibility.

  Questions settled

  • Whether drawing a line across adhesive stamps constitutes an effectual cancellation under Section 12 of the Stamp Act 1899?
  • Is it legally required under the Stamp Act 1899 that a stamp be cancelled in such a manner that its reuse is a physical impossibility?
  • What is the legal criterion for determining whether an adhesive stamp has been sufficiently cancelled to prevent its reuse?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Sabahuddin Jamy vs Obaidur Rehman Khan and 4 others1990 SCMR 854 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-13
  seniority disputegovernment servicereinstatementservice tribunalleave to appealEstablishment Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his seniority status in government service. The petitioner, who was senior to the respondents in Grades 17, 18, and 19, was dismissed from service in 1976 but subsequently reinstated with full benefits and back pay. During his absence, the respondents were promoted to Grade 20, and the petitioner was promoted to the same grade later in 1978, but placed junior to them. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's seniority should have been restored based on the Establishment Code provisions regarding delayed recommendations by the Selection Board/DPC, and whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of these rules. The Supreme Court found that the points raised by the petitioner regarding the applicability of the Establishment Code and the relevance of previous case law required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the petitioner's seniority was correctly determined upon his reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Establishment Code provision regarding delayed Selection Board recommendations apply to a civil servant reinstated after dismissal?
  • Whether a civil servant's seniority is preserved when they are promoted to a higher grade after being reinstated with full back benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Naeem Butt and others vs Mst. Rashida Begum and another1990 SCMR 1003 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Hussain vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 827 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Arif Dar vs Income Tax OfficerPTCL 1990 CL. 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-07
  writ jurisdictionalternate remedyincome tax assessmentFederal Ombudsmanhighhandednessjudicial reviewtax recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an income tax assessment order before the High Court, which dismissed the petition in limine on the ground that the petitioner had already availed of an alternate remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Upon seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the Court reviewed the department's conduct regarding the assessment of property value and the alleged fictitious nature of the vendors involved in the petitioner's property purchase. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition, reiterating the principle that relief under the writ jurisdiction is generally unavailable when an adequate alternate remedy exists. However, the Court observed that where departmental authorities act with highhandedness, taxpayers are not without recourse. The Court held that the Federal Ombudsman provides an effective, quasi-judicial forum for such grievances, noting that the Ombudsman is not constrained by the same procedural technicalities or the 'alternate remedy' bar that limits the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, with the petitioner directed to approach the Ombudsman.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of an alternate statutory remedy preclude the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Is the Federal Ombudsman a competent forum to provide redress against highhandedness by tax authorities?
  • Does the Federal Ombudsman's jurisdiction suffer from the same 'alternate remedy' limitation that applies to the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Luqman vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 988 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-05Read full judgment →
• Hafeezuddin vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others1990 SCMR 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18
  service lawmedical retirementleave to appealfactual findingsmedical boardappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the retirement of the petitioner, an Assistant Typist with the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, on medical grounds. The petitioner, diagnosed with schizo-affective psychosis, had been retired following a Medical Board's recommendation that he was unfit for service due to the progressive deterioration of his condition and poor prognosis. The petitioner contended that subsequent medical certificates suggested he was responding to treatment and improving, thereby rendering the retirement order unjustified. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the determination of the petitioner's fitness for service was a question of fact. Finding no evidence of bias or mala fides on the part of the Medical Board, and noting that the Corporation had made reasonable efforts to provide medical treatment, the Court held that it would not interfere with factual findings in its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the medical fitness of an employee is a factual determination not suitable for re-examination by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is the determination of an employee's medical fitness for service a question of fact?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with factual findings regarding an employee's medical fitness in an appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Textile Mills Ltd. vs Deputy Collector Excise and Taxation, Mirpur and 2 others1990 MLD 2351 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-07-30Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ahmad vs The State1990 MLD 190 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Hadi Bux and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through the Secretary to Government of Sindh and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 727 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
• Hadi Bux & Two Other vs Province of Sindhh, through the SecretaryK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 61 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Habiburrehman and others vs Ziarat Gul and others1990 SCMR 1706 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-26
  adverse possessionrevenue recordtenant-at-willproperty titlecivil revisionconcurrent findingsdeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' civil revision regarding a dispute over property ownership. The petitioners, who had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claimed ownership based on revenue records, arguing that their status as 'Ghair Dakhilkar' implied ownership. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners had established title to the disputed land and whether they had proven adverse possession. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which determined that the petitioners were tenants-at-will rather than owners. The Court held that revenue record entries designating the petitioners as tenants-at-will must prevail, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence to support the claim of adverse possession. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the petitioners failed to prove their title or displace the findings of fact made by the courts of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an entry in the revenue record designating a person as a tenant-at-will prevail over claims of ownership in the absence of contrary evidence?
  • Can a party claim adverse possession when they are recorded in the revenue records as tenants-at-will?
  • Does the inclusion of a negligible area (min khafeef) from a larger Khasra number into a disputed Khasra number establish ownership rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullaii vs The Superintendent of Police and others1990 SCMR 1472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-30
  service lawlimitation periodcondonation of delaydepartmental appealmercy petitionpolice servicePunjab Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from the dismissal of a police constable from service following allegations of involvement in narcotics trafficking. After his departmental appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, the petitioner was acquitted in criminal proceedings and subsequently filed a representation to the Inspector-General of Police, which was rejected. He then appealed to the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal as time-barred. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the 720-day delay in filing the appeal, specifically whether time spent in criminal proceedings and pursuing a mercy petition should be excluded from the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Deputy Inspector-General was final under the relevant rules, and a mercy petition does not lie as a matter of right. Consequently, the limitation period commenced upon the dismissal of the departmental appeal. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, establishing that pursuing an unauthorized mercy petition does not toll the limitation period for filing a service appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a mercy petition to a superior authority extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • When does the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal commence after a departmental appeal is dismissed?
  • Is a mercy petition filed before an Inspector-General of Police considered a legal right that tolls the limitation period for service appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1295 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Nafees Ahmad and 3 others1990 SCMR 470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-01
  leave to appealdismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of appealsuit for declarationappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff against an order of the High Court. The underlying dispute originated in a suit for declaration, which was initially decreed in the petitioner's favour by the trial court. Subsequently, the respondents' appeal against this decree was dismissed by the District Court for non-prosecution, and the District Court further refused to restore the appeal. The respondents then challenged this refusal before the High Court, which accepted their appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with legal principles when it accepted the respondents' appeal against the order refusing to restore their original appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction and committed no error of law or principle in its decision to accept the appeal on merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's authority to adjudicate the matter on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to accept an appeal against an order of a District Court refusing to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Can the High Court decide an appeal on its merits after the lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Khan vs District Education Officer (Male), Bhakkar1990 PLC (C.S.) 699 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-20Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Khan and others vs Saadat Khan and others1990 MLD 355 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-02
  customary lawlimited estatetermination of life estateMuslim Personal Law Shariat Application Actinheritanceadverse possessionhearsay evidencerelationship by blood
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three connected Regular First Appeals arising from a civil court decree concerning the inheritance of properties left by Fazalur Rehman, who died in 1922 under customary law. The core legal questions involved the determination of the legal status of female limited estates under customary law, the applicability of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, the admissibility of pedigree and relationship evidence under the Evidence Act 1872, and issues of limitation and adverse possession. The Peshawar High Court held that female heirs under custom only held limited life estates which terminated upon the enactment of the 1962 Act, causing the estate to revert and open for succession under Muslim Personal Law to the shari heirs of the last full owner. The Court affirmed that possession referable to a lawful title such as a customary life estate does not become adverse, and upheld the trial court's findings regarding the shares of the parties, dismissing all three appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether female heirs holding property under customary law as limited owners acquire absolute ownership or merely a life estate?
  • Does limitation for a suit for possession start running against reversioners during the subsistence of a female limited life estate?
  • Are statements regarding family relationship made by deceased persons admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule under the Evidence Act?
  • What is the effect of the enactment of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 on female limited estates held under custom?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and 4 others vs Sakhi Muhammad and 2 others1990 SCMR 631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14
  inheritancerevisional jurisdictionfindings of factMuslim Family Laws Ordinancepre-deceased sonleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision dismissal by the High Court regarding a dispute over inheritance and possession of land. The petitioners claimed to be the sole heirs of the deceased, Muhammad Ali, excluding the respondent, Sakhi Muhammad, who asserted his status as the son of Muhammad Ali's pre-deceased son. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction regarding findings of fact made by the appellate court. The trial court initially dismissed the respondent's suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the respondent to be a rightful heir under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The High Court upheld this, ruling that the dispute involved pure questions of fact without any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that no error of law or principle existed in the lower courts' findings of fact. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that revisional jurisdiction is not attracted when findings of fact are properly rendered.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court's revisional jurisdiction extend to re-evaluating findings of fact where there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, does a child of a pre-deceased son inherit the share that would have gone to the father?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Roz Gujar vs Janatul Haq and 7 others1990 MLD 80 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
• Habib Jute Mills Limited vs Ghulam Hussain1990 PLC 743 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Habib Insurance Co, Ltd. And Another vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central, Karachi_PTCL 1990 CL. 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  income taxinsurance businesstax exemptionstatutory interpretationnotional incomeFirst Scheduleassessment years
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave concerns the tax assessment of an insurance company whose income was computed under the special provisions of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether such an assessee is entitled to claim tax exemption for income derived from newly constructed house property under Section 4(3)(xii) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the exemption provided by Section 4(3)(xii) is exclusively applicable to income chargeable under the specific head 'Income from property' as defined in the Act. Because the income of an insurance company is computed on a notional or artificial basis under the First Schedule, which operates to the exclusion of the ordinary heads of income, the specific exemption for property income cannot be extended to it. The Court affirmed that the First Schedule provides an exhaustive code for computing insurance business profits, rendering the standard exemptions for property income inapplicable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the principle that special statutory regimes for insurance taxation override general exemptions not expressly incorporated into that regime.

  Questions settled

  • Is an insurance company whose income is computed under the First Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1922 entitled to claim exemption for income from newly constructed property under Section 4(3)(xii)?
  • Does the First Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1922 provide an exhaustive method for computing the profits and gains of an insurance business to the exclusion of other provisions?
  • Can the exemption for 'Income from property' under Section 4(3)(xii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 be applied to income calculated on a notional or artificial basis?
  Read full judgment →