Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Farman Ali vs Muhammad Yousuf Ali1990 CLC 1936 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two applications seeking restoration of a civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution on 13-11-1988, alongside condonation of delay. The petitioner submitted that a new counsel had been engaged whose power of attorney was mislaid by the office, causing his name to be omitted from the cause list. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the previous counsel's statement of 'no instructions' automatically terminated his Wakalatnama, requiring notice to be sent directly to the petitioner.
The Lahore High Court held that a revision petition dismissed in default can legally be restored, following Supreme Court precedent and rejecting contrary authority. However, on the merits, the Court ruled that under Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a counsel's statement of 'no instructions' does not automatically terminate the power of attorney, which remains in force until formally determined with leave of the Court or upon death/completion of proceedings. Furthermore, the omission of one counsel's name from the cause list does not constitute sufficient cause for restoration when the case number, parties' names, and co-counsel's name were correctly published. The applications were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a civil revision petition dismissed in default for non-prosecution be restored by the High Court?
- Does a counsel's statement of having 'no instructions' automatically terminate their power of attorney under Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the omission of a newly engaged advocate's name from the cause list constitute sufficient cause for restoration when all other case particulars and co-counsel's name are accurately listed?
- Farman Ali and others vs Muhammad Ismail and another1990 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerned a seniority dispute between two groups of Police Inspectors. The appellants, initially recruited temporarily after release from the Army, were regularized in 1983, while the respondents, though recruited later, had their appointments regularized in 1980 after fulfilling Public Service Commission requirements. The Service Tribunal had ruled in favor of the respondents, determining that their earlier regularization date entitled them to seniority. The core legal question was whether the executive authority could grant retrospective regularization to direct recruits to the detriment of the seniority of others already in service. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that in the absence of a specific law authorizing retrospective regularization, the executive cannot assign a seniority date earlier than the date of selection in accordance with the law. The Court affirmed that seniority is determined by the date of regular appointment, and since the respondents' regular appointment preceded that of the appellants, the respondents were rightfully senior.
Questions settled- Can executive authority grant retrospective regularization to direct recruits to the detriment of existing civil servants' seniority?
- Does the date of regular appointment determine seniority for Police Inspectors under the Police Rules?
- Is the seniority of civil servants affected by the date of their initial ad hoc appointment versus their date of regular appointment?
- Farid vs Mst. Manzoqran and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal concerning the interpretation of Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 regarding inheritance shares of grandchildren whose mother predeceased the grandmother. The core legal question is whether the predeceased child's share, inherited through the legal fiction created by Section 4, devolves entirely upon their sole child or is further subject to distribution amongst other reversionaries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to provide an authoritative decision due to a conflict between divergent views held by the Lahore High Court and the Peshawar High Court. The Court held that leave should be granted to resolve the conflict of interpretation regarding Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, while granting interim relief subject to security.
Questions settled- Whether a predeceased daughter's share under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 goes entirely to her children or is subject to further distribution among reversionaries?
- How should Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 be interpreted when conflicting High Court judgments exist?
- Farid through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Inayatan and 2 others1990 MLD 1598 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
- Farid Khan and others vs Mushtaq Ilahi1990 SCMR 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for seeking leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding an appellate court order that granted a status quo order in favor of the respondent in a suit for permanent injunction concerning unpartitioned land. The core legal question involves the propriety of granting temporary injunctions against co-owners or lessees operating a brick kiln on unpartitioned land recorded as Ghair Mumkin Bhatta. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed the same, holding that given the special circumstances where the land was already characterized as Ghair Mumkin Bhatta at the time of the sale to the lessor, the trial court's order dismissing the injunction application was correct. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, restored the trial court's order dated 15-9-1988, and directed the lower court to decide the main case within six months.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary injunction can be granted to restrain a lessee from operating a brick kiln on unpartitioned land?
- Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and set aside concurrent interlocutory orders?
- Farhat Mahmood Lodhi vs Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 3 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 241 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-08Read full judgment →
- Faqir Ullah and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad- vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others1990 PLC 255 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-11Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs District Magistrate, Gujranwala1990 P Cr. L J 571 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-03Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs Akhtar Ali And Other1990 CLC 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad Sohail Afghani vs Services and General1990 PLC (C.S.) 671 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-07-12Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad Sohail Afghani vs Services and GeneralK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 29 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad Khan vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue and 51990 MLD 575 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-20Read full judgment →
- Faqir Mohammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1990, Labour & Service Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-11Read full judgment →
- Faqir Hussain and others vs Qurban Hussain and another1990 SCMR 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing their constitutional petition in limine, which challenged the lower courts' refusal to treat the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before recording evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court was bound to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue prior to other issues when it involved a factual controversy. The Supreme Court held that where an issue of jurisdiction involves a factual controversy regarding the nature of the suit land, it cannot be decided without recording evidence, and the lower courts rightly deferred its determination. The key principle laid down is that jurisdictional questions requiring factual inquiry through evidence need not be decided as preliminary issues and may be adjudicated along with other issues after recording evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the question of jurisdiction must be decided as a preliminary issue when it involves a factual controversy?
- Can a trial court defer the decision on jurisdiction to be decided along with other issues after recording evidence?
- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order refusing to treat jurisdiction as a preliminary issue?
- Faq1r Mohammad vs Bashir Ahmad Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 169 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
- Faoir Muhammad And Another vs Shah Muhammad1990 CLC 242 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher vs Sachal and another1990 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a procedural correction regarding the issuance of bailable warrants in an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question addressed is whether the Court can rectify an inadvertent omission in a previous judicial order regarding the issuance of warrants for a respondent's appearance. The Court held that it possesses the inherent authority to correct clerical or inadvertent omissions in its prior orders to ensure that the intended judicial directions are properly executed. Consequently, the Court ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against respondent-1 in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, returnable through the Sessions Court, Nawab Shah, to secure the respondent's appearance before the Supreme Court. The principle laid down is that the Court retains the power to rectify accidental slips or omissions in its orders to reflect the actual judicial intent expressed at the time of granting leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court rectify an inadvertent omission in a previous order regarding the issuance of bailable warrants?
- Does the Court have the authority to correct clerical errors in its judicial orders?
- Falak Sher Nawaz vs The State1990 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony provided by witnesses, who were related to the deceased and resided in a different village, was sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the convictions were sound. The Court determined that the eye-witnesses provided a satisfactory explanation for their presence at the scene of the occurrence, and there was no evidence of enmity between the witnesses and the petitioners that would suggest perjury. Furthermore, the Court held that it would not reappraise the evidence in the absence of a valid foundation laid by the petitioners. The key principle established is that related eye-witnesses are credible if their presence is satisfactorily explained and no motive for false implication is demonstrated, and that the Court will not re-examine evidence without a sufficient legal basis.
Questions settled- Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained based on the testimony of witnesses who are related to the deceased?
- Is the testimony of eye-witnesses from a different village inherently unreliable?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal?
- Falak Naz vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 798 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition involves a challenge to the validity of a pardon tendered to the petitioner under section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the investigation of a murder case, and seeks the quashment of proceedings and release of the petitioner. The core legal questions addressed are whether an approver who attempts to resile from a confessional statement retains that status, and whether criminal proceedings can be quashed where there is an absence of corroborative evidence and no prospect of a successful prosecution. The Lahore High Court held that official acts of recording a confessional statement and granting pardon carry a presumption of regularity under section 114 of the Evidence Act 1872, maintaining the petitioner's status as an approver despite subsequent retractions, but ultimately quashed the proceedings as an abuse of the process of the court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because the prosecution lacked any corroborative evidence to support the approver's statement. The key principle established is that criminal proceedings may be quashed at an early stage when there is a total absence of corroboration and evidence, making the continuation of the case an abuse of the court's process.
Questions settled- Whether a person who has accepted a pardon under section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 loses the status of an approver upon subsequently resiling from their confessional statement?
- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings at the investigation stage under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where there is no corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution's case?
- Does a presumption of correctness and regularity attach to the recording of a confessional statement and the tendering of a pardon by a Magistrate under section 114 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of the court when the conviction or acquittal of the accused is a foregone conclusion due to a lack of evidence?
- Fakir Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 72 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-03Read full judgment →
- Faizullah vs Gulsher1990 CLC 1887 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-11Read full judgment →
- Faizulhaq and anothers vs Abdus Salam and 3 others1990 MLD 106 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1243 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad vs Hidayat Khan and 9 others1990 SCMR 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the acquittal of nine respondents by the Lahore High Court, which had overturned their convictions for offences under sections 148, 302, 325, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s conclusion—that the prosecution’s version of events was improbable and doubtful while the defence’s version was more probable—was based on safe principles of criminal justice. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the prosecution witnesses had made material improvements and contradictions regarding the motive and the nature of injuries sustained. The Court held that the High Court had conducted a careful appraisal of the evidence, and that a mere difference of opinion regarding the assessment of evidence does not constitute a valid ground for interference in an acquittal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal based on a sound, reasoned appraisal of evidence simply because a different assessment might be possible.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal solely based on a different assessment of the evidence?
- Does a material improvement in a witness's testimony regarding the nature of injuries justify rejecting the prosecution's version?
- Is the High Court's preference for a defence version over a prosecution version grounds for setting aside an acquittal if the appraisal of evidence is careful?
- Faiz Muhammad and others vs Allah Ditta and others1990 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order restoring an original land allotment to displaced persons. The core legal question was whether land allotted based on an initial verification under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, should be cancelled due to a subsequent, lower verification by the Central Record Office, and whether informers (Mukhbars) were entitled to the alleged excess land. The Supreme Court held that the initial verification stands, and subsequent verifications conducted without notice to the allottees are to be ignored to prevent the disturbance of settled displaced persons. The Court affirmed that the original allotment was valid and that, in any event, the occupants were entitled to purchase the land under the provisions of Act XIV of 1975. The principle established is that initial claim verifications under the 1956 Act are final and binding, and subsequent administrative re-verifications cannot be used to disturb settled allotments, ensuring equitable treatment for displaced persons.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent verification of claims by the Central Record Office override an initial verification made under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956?
- Are informers entitled to claim land deemed as excess based on a subsequent verification when the initial allotment was made in good faith?
- Can an occupant without title be offered land for sale under Section 3 of Act XIV of 1975?
- Faiz Bakhsh vs Dr. Gulsher Khan, B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 833 · Service Tribunal · 1989-10-19Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad vs The State1990 MLD 663 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Development Authority vs Munir Ahmad1990 PLC 491 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
- FAHEEMUDDINPetitioncr vs Sabeeha Begum and another1990 SCMR 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of criminal proceedings. The petitioner, a previously married man, contracted a second marriage without obtaining prior permission from the Arbitration Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. The second wife subsequently filed a criminal complaint against him before the Ilaqa Magistrate for offences including violation of Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. The core legal question examined is whether a second wife has the locus standi as an aggrieved person to file a complaint under Section 6 of the said Ordinance, given the contention that the provision is intended to protect the rights of the first wife. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question of first impression and ordered the suspension of further trial proceedings meanwhile.
Questions settled- Whether a second wife has the locus standi to file a complaint under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 against her husband for contracting a second marriage without permission?
- Does Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 intend to protect the rights of the first wife exclusively or does it extend to subsequent wives?
- Can criminal proceedings initiated by a second wife for unauthorized polygamy be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Export Processing Zones Authority, Karachi vs The StateK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 38 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
- Executive Director and 2 others vs Moatabar Khan and 3 others1990 PLC 798 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
- Evergreen Industries vs Assistant Director, Labour, West Division and 2 others1990 PLC 750 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
- Evacuee Trust Property Board, Lahore and anothers vs Syed Abdus Saleem and others1990 SCMR 143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Evacuee Trust Property Board appealed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court under Section 4(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, which had reversed the Settlement Commissioner's decision declaring 21 properties attached to the 'Sitla Mandir' estate as evacuee trust properties.
The core legal questions were whether an inquiry under Section 4(3) of the Act is purely administrative or quasi-judicial, whether the status of property as trust property depends on formal proof of initial dedication, and what weight should be given to pre-independence civil suit decrees establishing public trust status under Section 92 CPC where the appeal against such decree abated.
The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 4(4) are quasi-judicial given the right of appeal. It ruled that Section 4 focuses on the actual user and factual status of the property at independence, rather than strict legal proof of dedication at inception. Since pre-independence civil suits had adjudicated the properties as public trust properties and a receiver was managing them at independence, the High Court erred. The appeal was allowed, High Court judgment set aside, and Settlement Commissioner's order restored.
Questions settled- Are proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner under Section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 purely administrative or quasi-judicial?
- Is the determination of whether a property is evacuee trust property under Section 4(3) dependent on strict legal proof of initial dedication or its factual status and use at the time of independence?
- Does a pre-independence judgment declaring property as a public trust under Section 92 of the CPC hold evidentiary value regarding its status even if the appeal abated?
- Eruch Maneckji and another vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi1990 PTD 572 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-29Read full judgment →
- Employees Union vs Messrs Ahmed Vegetable Oil and Ghee Mills Ltd. and another1990 PLC 296 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
- Emirates Bank International Ltd. vs Super Drivein Ltd. and 8 others1990 MLD 538 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns applications for leave to defend in recovery suits filed by a bank against principal debtors and guarantors. The defendants challenged the bank's merger, the authority of the bank's attorneys to institute proceedings, the limitation period, and the validity of the verification of the plaints. The court held that the merger of the foreign banks was valid and that the bank's attorneys were duly authorized under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Regarding limitation, the court determined that the period commenced when the contract was breached, not when the goods were released. Crucially, the court ruled that following the amendment to the Oaths Act by Ordinance XXVII of 1981, a Muslim must verify pleadings on oath rather than solemn affirmation; thus, the existing verification was defective. Consequently, the court granted the defendants conditional leave to defend, provided they furnish security for the claimed amounts and rectify the verification of the plaints within one month. The judgment clarifies procedural requirements for corporate litigation and the mandatory nature of oaths for Muslim deponents in pleadings.
Questions settled- Is a Muslim required to verify pleadings on oath rather than solemn affirmation following the amendment to the Oaths Act?
- Does the limitation period for a suit against a guarantor commence from the date of the breach of contract?
- Is a resolution of the Board of Directors strictly necessary to authorize an attorney to file a suit on behalf of a corporation under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Emirates Bank International Ltd. vs Messrs Oosman Brothers and 91990 MLD 1779 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for recovery of money filed by a bank against defendants based on a foreign judgment obtained in Dubai, with an alternative claim under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a suit based on a foreign judgment is maintainable in Pakistan, and whether the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, apply to such a suit. The Court held that a decree-holder has three options upon obtaining a foreign judgment: executing it under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (if applicable), filing a suit based on the foreign judgment as a cause of action, or filing a suit on the original cause of action. The Court determined that the plaintiff could pursue both the foreign judgment and the original cause of action simultaneously. Finding that the defendants were duly served and failed to appear or seek leave to defend, the Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, establishing that a foreign judgment does not preclude a suit on the original cause of action.
Questions settled- What are the three courses of action available to a decree-holder upon obtaining a foreign judgment?
- Does a foreign judgment extinguish the original cause of action?
- Can a suit be filed simultaneously on the basis of a foreign judgment and the original cause of action?
- Does the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 apply to a suit based on a foreign judgment?
- Elahi Bakhsh And Another vs Sher Muhammad1990 CLC 1762 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
- Ejaz Hussain alias Ejaz Ahmed and another vs Messrs Hotel Jabees Ltd.1990 PLC 643 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution petition challenged an order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the termination of the petitioners' services by the respondent establishment. The core legal question was whether the employer complied with the 'last-in-first-out' principle mandated by Standing Order 13 during retrenchment, specifically concerning the categorization of employees across multiple business units. The High Court held that the Tribunal misinterpreted the evidence. Admissions by the respondent's witness confirmed that room-bearers, waiters, and bearers across the employer's various business concerns (Hotel Jabees, Funland, Playland, and Kababish) belonged to the same category. Consequently, the employer failed to comply with Standing Order 13 by not retrenching the junior-most employees across all these units before terminating the petitioners. The Court established that for retrenchment purposes, all employees of a specific category within an establishment must be treated as a single body, regardless of their specific work location. Furthermore, the Court held that an illegal termination cannot be legalized by a subsequent offer of re-employment. The impugned order was set aside, and the Labour Court's reinstatement order was restored.
Questions settled- Does the principle of 'last-in-first-out' under Standing Order 13 require an employer to consider all employees of a specific category across all business units of an establishment for retrenchment purposes?
- Can an illegal termination of service be cured by a subsequent offer of re-employment under Standing Order 14?
- Whether an employer can treat employees at different business branches as separate categories to avoid the 'last-in-first-out' rule when those employees perform the same nature of work?
- Ehsanulhaq vs Shahnaz Begum and 2 others1990 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Ehsan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
- Edulji Dinshaw Limited. vs Income-Tax OfficerPTCL 1990 CL. 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the validity of notices issued by an Income-tax Officer under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, seeking to reopen past tax assessments of the appellant-company. The core legal question was whether the Revenue could reopen assessments based on a mere change of opinion regarding whether the appellant's property sales constituted business income or capital gains, despite full disclosure of all material facts in previous returns. The Supreme Court held that the notices were illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court ruled that where an assessee has fully disclosed all relevant facts and the Income-tax Officer has consciously completed the assessment, the Revenue cannot reopen the matter under Section 65 merely by re-evaluating the same evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that assessment orders passed after the issuance of a stay order by the Supreme Court are nullities in law. The key principle established is that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish that a transaction is a venture in the nature of trade, and a change of opinion on previously disclosed facts does not justify reopening assessments.
Questions settled- Can an Income-tax Officer reopen an assessment under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, based solely on a change of opinion regarding previously disclosed facts?
- Does the burden of proof lie on the Revenue to establish that a transaction constitutes a venture in the nature of trade?
- Are assessment orders passed by an Income-tax Officer after the issuance of a stay order by the Supreme Court valid?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the issuance of a wrongful notice under the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Edulji Dinshaw Limited vs Incometax Officer1990 PLD Supreme Court 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against notices issued under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, seeking to reopen past assessments for ten years. The core legal issues were whether the revenue could reopen completed assessments under Section 65 based on a mere change of opinion where all facts had been disclosed, whether the sale of family properties and receipt of government acquisition compensation constituted taxable business income or capital gains, and whether assessment orders passed in violation of a Supreme Court stay order were valid. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that where an assessee fully discloses all relevant material and the tax authority consciously completes assessments under Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, Section 65 cannot be invoked to reopen proceedings based on a mere change of opinion without new information showing income escaped assessment. The Court held that property sales and compulsory acquisition proceeds constituted capital gains rather than business profits, and affirmed that assessment orders passed after a stay order is issued by the Court are a nullity in law.
Questions settled- Can tax assessments be reopened under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, on a mere change of opinion where all material facts were fully disclosed in original tax returns?
- Whether the realization of proceeds from sales of long-held family immovable properties and compulsory acquisition compensation constitutes taxable business income or non-taxable capital gains?
- What is the legal effect of an assessment order passed by an authority after a stay order has been granted by the Supreme Court?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 be invoked against the issuance of an illegal or jurisdictionally defective tax notice prior to exhausting alternative remedies?
- Edulji Dinshaw Limited vs Income-Tax Officer1990 PTD 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Constitution Petition filed by a family property-holding company challenging notices issued under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 to reopen past tax assessments covering nine years. The Income-tax Officer alleged concealment of income derived from property trading. The appellant contended that all transactions were fully disclosed in past returns, permissions had been routinely obtained, previous assessments under Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 treated receipts as capital gains, and no properties had been purchased from outsiders or dealt in as business stock-in-trade. The core legal questions were whether the tax department could reopen closed assessments based on a mere change of opinion without new material or suppression of facts, and whether real property realization receipts constituted taxable business income or capital gains. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's dismissal. The Court held that reopening assessments under Section 65 requires actual concealment or new material, not a mere change of opinion on fully disclosed facts. Furthermore, the burden rests on the tax department to prove that realization of real estate assets constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade rather than capital gain.
Questions settled- Can tax assessments be reopened under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 on a mere change of opinion on facts already fully disclosed?
- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable against notices issued without legal authority or jurisdiction despite the existence of statutory remedies under tax laws?
- Does the realization or sale of immovable properties by a property holding company constitute taxable business income or capital gains?
- On whom does the onus of proof lie to establish that a real estate transaction constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade?
- Eastern Federal Insurance Co. vs Muhammad Iqbal1990 PLD Karachi 307 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
- Eastern Arms Co. vs Plat and others1990 PLC 597 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Dubai Bank Ltd., Faisalabad vs Joint Director, Labour Welfare, Faisalabad and 9 others1990 PLC 501 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-10Read full judgment →
- Dr.Capt. Munawar Tahir Hussain vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Health Department, Civil Secretariat and another1990 SCMR 1470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a service appeal by the Service Tribunal, which had upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, a Medical Officer, following disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner, who was charged with failing to attend to a female convict who subsequently died, contended that the inquiry proceedings were conducted ex parte without proper notice to him. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the Tribunal's reliance on an inquest report prepared by a Magistrate. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had correctly determined that the petitioner had no justification to avoid the inquiry proceedings and that the inquiry officer was not biased. The Court further noted that the Tribunal's decision was primarily based on the inquiry report after a thorough consideration of the petitioner's defense, rather than solely on the Magistrate's inquest report. Consequently, the Court held that there was no merit in the petitioner's contentions and refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner for his professional negligence.
Questions settled- Can a public servant challenge disciplinary proceedings on the ground of lack of notice if they deliberately absented themselves from the inquiry?
- Is a Service Tribunal's decision vitiated if it considers an inquest report alongside an inquiry report in a disciplinary matter?
- Does the failure of a medical officer to attend to a patient in custody constitute sufficient grounds for compulsory retirement?
- Dr. Zebun Nisa vs Pakistan Medical and Dental Council1990 MLD 1816 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
- Dr. Syed Javed Hussain Zaidi vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Lahore and another1990 SCMR 528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the punishment of censure imposed upon the petitioner, a doctor, by the Director, Health Services, and subsequently confirmed by the Secretary, Health. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were marred by any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by the Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had acted in an irresponsible manner unbecoming of the medical profession and had been dealt with leniently by the authorities. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal flaw or procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him. Consequently, the Court determined that the case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal, thereby affirming the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal and the underlying disciplinary actions taken against the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal where no illegality or irregularity is shown in disciplinary proceedings?
- Is the punishment of censure against a doctor for irresponsible behavior sustainable when procedural fairness is maintained?
- DR. Syed Inamur Rehman Other vs Chief Secretary, Govt of Sindh and 2K.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 196 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Dr. Sikandar Hayat vs Wali Dad and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
- Dr. Sher Zaman vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1990 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the proper implementation of a previous Service Tribunal judgment regarding the petitioner's seniority as a Deputy Secretary and the consequent refusal of the department to grant him promotion to B-20 despite reaching the maximum of his pay scale, purportedly due to an indifferent service record. The Supreme Court considered submissions that juniors were placed above the petitioner, that rules were misapplied retrospectively to block his promotion, and that no adverse remarks existed in his Annual Confidential Reports. The Court held that the points raised in support of the petition deserved consideration, thereby granting leave to appeal and allowing the petition for a full hearing on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant is entitled to consequential promotion upon the fixation of his seniority by the Service Tribunal?
- Can promotion be blocked on the basis of an indifferent service record when no adverse remarks have been communicated to the civil servant?
- Whether the implementation of a Service Tribunal judgment regarding seniority warrants the granting of leave to appeal when consequential promotion is refused?
- Dr. S.S. Naeemul Hamid vs Pakistan Medical and Dental Council through Secretary, PMDC and 2 others1990 MLD 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
- Dr. Naseer Mahmood Akhtar and anothers vs Dr. Mah Mood Ali Malik1990 PLD Supreme Court 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerned a seniority dispute between two doctors, Dr. Naseer Mahmood Akhtar (appellant) and Dr. Mahmood Ali Malik (respondent), regarding their promotion to Professor in the Punjab Health Department. The appellant was promoted earlier in surgery (1971) than the respondent in medicine (1973), leading to the appellant being shown as senior. The Service Tribunal, applying Explanation I and Explanation III to Rule 10 of the Punjab Health Department Medical Educational Institutions (Class I) Service Rules, 1971, had declared the respondent senior. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correct application of seniority law. The Court held that as both promotions occurred before the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the 1971 Service Rules governed. It clarified that Explanation III, a protective provision, applies only when both junior and senior officers were eligible and considered for promotion; it does not benefit an officer who was ineligible or unqualified at the time of the junior's promotion. The Court emphasized that public interest in specialty-specific promotions prevails over individual interest. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Service Tribunal's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's original appeal, affirming the appellant's seniority.
Questions settled- When a junior officer is promoted earlier due to specialty-specific vacancies, does Explanation III to Rule 10 of the Punjab Health Department Medical Educational Institutions (Class I) Service Rules, 1971, apply to grant seniority to a senior officer who was ineligible for promotion at that time?
- Does public interest in specialty-specific promotions override an individual's claim for uniform seniority across different specialities?
- Are the Punjab Health Department Medical Educational Institutions (Class I) Service Rules, 1971, applicable for determining seniority if promotions occurred before the enforcement of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Is seniority a vested right in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary?
- Dr. Naeem-Ul-Zaman vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and 31990 PLC (C.S.) 25 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by Dr. Naeem-ul-Zaman challenging his removal from service by the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, seeking reinstatement with full back benefits. The core legal questions involved whether the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, whether the master and servant principle applies to its employees, and whether the failure to follow the regular inquiry procedure mandated under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 vitiates the disciplinary proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the Commission performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, that its service matters are regulated by statutory rules precluding the master and servant rule, and that once an inquiry committee is constituted, the mandatory procedure under Rule 6 must be followed. The court laid down the principle that an authorised officer cannot abandon a regular inquiry once initiated in favour of a shorter procedure, and that vague show-cause notices without necessary particulars violate due process.
Questions settled- Whether the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employees of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission?
- Can an authorised officer switch from a regular inquiry procedure under Rule 6 to a shorter procedure under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 after initiating an inquiry committee?
- Whether vague show-cause notices lacking necessary particulars vitiate disciplinary proceedings against a public employee?
- Dr. Muhammad Younis Noorwala vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 21990 PLC (C.S.) 239 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Siddique vs Additional District Jduge, Faisailabad And 31990 CLC 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two connected writ petitions challenge the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from commercial premises due to rent default. The core legal questions concerned whether the Rent Controller could order the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 when the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted in pleadings, whether a third-party co-owner was a necessary party to the proceedings, and whether the failure to comply with a tentative rent assessment justified striking off the defense. The High Court held that the petitioners' clear admissions of tenancy in their written statements bound them, rendering their subsequent denial of the landlord-tenant relationship and attempts to pay rent to third parties legally ineffective. The Court affirmed that the Rent Controller’s tentative assessment of rent was a valid exercise of discretion and that the petitioners' failure to comply with the deposit order constituted willful default. Consequently, the Court upheld the striking off of the defense and dismissed the petitions, emphasizing that summary rent proceedings require expeditious resolution.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller order the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 when the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted in the pleadings?
- Does the failure to comply with a tentative rent assessment order by a Rent Controller constitute willful default justifying the striking off of a tenant's defense?
- Is a co-owner a necessary party to ejectment proceedings when the relationship of landlord and tenant is already established between the petitioner and the respondent?
- Dr. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Rana vs Government of the Punjab and others1990 PLD Lahore 88 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the government's refusal to promote the petitioner to an upgraded post (NPS-19) following the upgradation of his existing post (NPS-18) as Principal, Agricultural Training Institute. The core legal question was whether the incumbent of a cadre post automatically moves to a higher grade upon the post's upgradation, or if such upgradation necessitates a new selection process under amended service rules. The Court held that while the post was indeed upgraded and redesignated, the petitioner did not automatically move to the higher grade. Since the post was a cadre post and the petitioner's seniority was maintained within the Extension Wing of the Agriculture Department, he could not claim the upgraded post by superseding senior officers. The Court established that the principle of automatic movement upon upgradation applies only to specific, specialized, or ex-cadre posts. Where a post is part of a service cadre, the incumbent must comply with the prescribed method of recruitment, and the government may validly amend rules to require merit-based selection for upgraded cadre posts.
Questions settled- Does the upgradation of a cadre post automatically entitle the incumbent to the higher grade?
- Can the government amend service rules to require merit-based selection for an upgraded post?
- Is the principle of automatic promotion upon upgradation applicable to cadre posts?
- Dr. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Rana vs Government of the Punjab and others (Copy)1990 PLC (C.S.) 156 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mrs. Suraya Durrani vs Secretary, Government Punjab, Health1990 PLC (C.S.) 313 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order of compulsory retirement passed by the Government of the Punjab against a civil servant. The core legal question was whether the 'Authority' could unilaterally impose a major penalty when the 'Authorised Officer' had recommended exoneration, and whether the procedural requirements of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, were satisfied. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority. It established that the 'Authority' and 'Authorised Officer' possess distinct, exclusive jurisdictions. Where an Authorised Officer proceeds via show-cause notice under Rule 6(3) and concludes that no major penalty is warranted, the Authority lacks the jurisdiction to impose such a penalty. The Authority’s jurisdiction is only triggered when the Authorised Officer formally recommends a major penalty after complying with procedural requirements, including obtaining the accused's explanation regarding the proposed major penalty. Additionally, the Court noted that the government had already paid the petitioner's salary for the period of alleged absence, effectively negating the grounds for the penalty. Consequently, the retirement order was declared void.
Questions settled- Can the 'Authority' impose a major penalty under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, if the 'Authorised Officer' has recommended exoneration?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding service matters if the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction and is coram non judice?
- Is the 'Authority' empowered to impose a major penalty without the 'Authorised Officer' having first obtained the accused's explanation regarding the proposed major penalty?
- DR. Mohammad Altaf Kazi, Medical Officer, Civilhospital, Sukkur vs The Secretary Health Department, Govt. of Sindh AndanotherK.L.R. 1990 Labour and Service Cases 157 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Dr. Ma.A. Aziz, Exassistant Director, Health Services, Punjab, Lahore vs Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and others1990 SCMR 1535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a retired civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal in limine as time-barred. The petitioner claimed he was entitled to be considered for promotion from 1973 onwards, alleging that junior officers were promoted instead. The Service Tribunal held that the grievance related to events dating back to 1973 and 1980, and since the petitioner had not approached the tribunal within the prescribed limitation period, the appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court examined the merits, noting that the petitioner had previously opted to remain in a specific post, thereby waiving his right to be considered for promotion alongside colleagues on the provincial list. The Court held that the petitioner's claim was not only time-barred, as the last cause of action arose in 1980, but also substantively meritless due to his prior refusal to be considered for promotion. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that no question of law of public importance existed to warrant further examination.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant who previously opted to remain in a specific post and refused consideration for promotion later claim a right to be considered for promotion?
- Does an appeal to a Service Tribunal filed years after the cause of action arose, based on a belated claim for pro forma promotion, satisfy the requirements of limitation?
- Is a claim for consideration for promotion maintainable when the petitioner had previously unequivocally stated they would only decide on promotions if and when offered?
- Dr. Iqbal Ahmad Choudhry vs Muhammad Inayat and another1990 MLD 767 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. Iftikharul Haq vs The State and others1990 P Cr. L J 1677 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ghulam Akbar Khan Niazi vs Secretary, Establishment Division and others1990 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 28-2-1990, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding a seniority dispute. The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Education Adviser on the recommendation of the Federal Public Service Commission, challenged the retrospective absorption and resultant seniority of private respondents who were brought on deputation and absorbed into service. The core legal questions concern whether the President can deal with a group of civil servants under section 23 of the Civil Servants Act in a manner that adversely affects another civil servant, and whether a civil servant's appointment can be regularized from a date prior to the approval of the Federal Public Service Commission. The court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions.
Questions settled- Can the President deal with a group of civil servants in exercise of powers under section 23 of the Civil Servants Act in a manner that adversely affects another civil servant?
- Whether the appointment of a civil servant can be regularised from a date earlier than the date from which the Federal Public Service Commission approves his name?
- Dr. Capt. Rizwan Qadir vs Naeemullah Hashmi and another1990 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondent of a murder charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had overturned the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, primarily on the reasoning that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the complainant knew the accused prior to the incident, and that no presumption of prior acquaintance could be drawn. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred in its assessment, arguing that the identification parade was unnecessary because the incident occurred in broad daylight and the accused was clearly identified by the deceased's son. The Supreme Court, finding that the petitioner's contention regarding the identification of the accused requires further examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court also ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the respondent to ensure his presence for the appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a complainant to explicitly state they did not know the accused previously create a presumption of prior acquaintance?
- Is an identification parade mandatory when an accused is allegedly identified by a witness in broad daylight?
- Dr. Asaf Hussain Jafri vs K. B. Bhutto, ADVOCATEContemner1990 PLD Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves contempt proceedings initiated against an advocate (the alleged contemner) upon a complaint by his client alleging that the advocate improperly consented to a remand order in a rent appeal without authorization. The core legal questions concern whether the advocate committed contempt of court through a letter explaining the background of the consent order to his client, and whether the communication enjoyed privilege as a confidential professional communication. The Sindh High Court held that the contempt charge was not established, as the advocate acted under a genuine misunderstanding of the proceedings and the letter did not scandalize the court or impute improper motives, but merely provided a factual explanation to his client. Furthermore, the court emphasized that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal, requiring all doubts to be resolved in favor of the accused, and that courts should not be used by litigants to settle private scores or vendettas against their counsel. The key principles laid down include that private correspondence between an advocate and a client explaining judicial proceedings in good faith does not constitute contempt, and the benefit of doubt in quasi-criminal contempt matters must be extended to the alleged contemner.
Questions settled- Whether an advocate's letter to a client explaining the circumstances of a consent order amounts to contempt of court?
- Should the benefit of doubt in quasi-criminal contempt proceedings be extended to the alleged contemner when divergent versions exist?
- Are private communications between an advocate and a client protected as confidential under the law of evidence?
- Can contempt proceedings be utilized by a litigant to settle private grievances or vendettas against their counsel?
- Dr. Ali Gul and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 393 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-05Read full judgment →
- Dr. Akhtr Hussain vs S.M. Hanif and 2 others1990 MLD 1652 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for specific performance, possession, and cancellation of documents filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The plaintiff had previously filed a suit regarding the same property but omitted the prayer for specific performance, despite having knowledge of the breach of contract and the defendants' subsequent sale of the property to a third party. The plaintiff subsequently withdrew the first suit unconditionally without seeking permission to file a fresh one, while the current suit was already pending. The core legal question was whether the present suit for specific performance is barred by law due to the plaintiff's failure to include this relief in the previous suit and the subsequent unconditional withdrawal of that suit. The Court held that the suit is barred under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The ratio establishes that a plaintiff must include the whole claim arising from a cause of action in a single suit. Failure to do so, or withdrawing a suit without leave to file a fresh one, precludes the plaintiff from subsequently suing for the omitted relief, as per the principles of res judicata and the mandatory joinder of claims.
Questions settled- Does the unconditional withdrawal of a suit without permission to file a fresh one bar a subsequent suit for the same cause of action?
- Is a plaintiff required to include all claims arising from a single cause of action in one suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a plaintiff sue for specific performance in a second suit if they omitted that relief in a previous suit concerning the same transaction?
- Under what circumstances is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Dr. Abu Baker Mumal vs Karachi Gymkahana Club through (President)1990 MLD 1708 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. Abdul Sattar vs Abdur Rahim and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 630 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-13Read full judgment →
- Dr. Abdul Jabbar Khattak and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1708 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings pending against the applicants under sections 120-B, 121, and 124 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court could legally take cognizance of these offences without a formal complaint authorized by the Central or Provincial Government pursuant to sections 196 and 196-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and in the absence of a police report for non-cognizable offences. The Sindh High Court held that the offences were non-cognizable, the police investigation and submission of challan without proper sanction and complaint were illegal, and the taking of cognizance was ab initio void. The court laid down the principle that mandatory statutory bars regarding sanction and complaint for offences against the State must be strictly adhered to, and non-compliance goes to the root of the entire matter, rendering proceedings null and void. Additionally, the court noted that dragging the accused through a protracted trial for nearly a decade without examining a single witness warrants quashment without reserving liberty for fresh proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a court take cognizance of offences under Chapter VI of the Pakistan Penal Code without a formal complaint authorized by the Central or Provincial Government?
- Whether an investigation conducted by the police into a non-cognizable offence without statutory sanction is a nullity in the eye of law?
- Does the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the entire proceedings ab initio void?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of inordinate delay and protracted trial lasting nearly a decade without progress?
- Dr. Abdul Halim vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab and others1990 SCMR 1430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner challenged adverse entries recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1982. After his departmental representation was rejected, he approached the Tribunal with a delay of 58 days, explaining that he was mistaken about the limitation period. The Tribunal found the explanation unsatisfactory and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The core legal question is whether the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay in filing the service appeal gives rise to a question of law warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a case for condonation of delay is made out on facts falls within the exclusive domain of the Tribunal, and its decision thereon does not raise any question of law. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that factual findings on limitation by the Tribunal are final.
Questions settled- Whether the determination of a case for condonation of delay by the Service Tribunal gives rise to a question of law?
- Is a mistaken belief regarding the limitation period a sufficient ground to interfere with the Service Tribunal's finding on delay?
- Dr. Abdul Ghani Sidduqui vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Local Bodies, Housing '& Town Planning and others1990 MLD 773 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. a, Razzak Kazi vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hyderabad1990 PTD 810 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-17Read full judgment →
- Dostain and 2 others vs The State1990 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order regarding bail, which the Supreme Court of Pakistan converted into an appeal. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the appellants to post-arrest bail in a criminal case. Upon review, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. Specifically, the Court granted bail to the appellant Dostain, subject to the furnishing of sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the trial court. Conversely, the Court dismissed the appeal of the other two appellants, thereby denying them bail. The judgment establishes the principle that while bail may be granted based on the material available at a specific stage, such an order is not absolute; the prosecution retains the liberty to seek the cancellation of bail before the trial court should sufficient evidence be gathered against the accused during the ongoing investigation. The trial court is mandated to adjudicate any such subsequent application for cancellation in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can the prosecution apply for the cancellation of bail if sufficient evidence is collected against an accused after bail has been granted?
- Does the conversion of a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal allow the appellate court to grant bail to an accused?
- Dost Muhammad vs Mst. Ramzan Bibi and 9 others1990 MLD 1667 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-12Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad and others vs Ghulam Nabi and others1990 MLD 164 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-06Read full judgment →
- Dodo vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2019 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-24Read full judgment →
- Diwan Anwarulislam vs Settlement Commissioner and others1990 SCMR 1575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave of the court arises from the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition by the High Court in an urban settlement matter concerning the auction and purchase of an evacuee property (Dilshad Talkies, Pakpattan). The core legal question examined was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner possessed the inherent jurisdiction or authority to rectify a mistake in the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) regarding the extent of land purchased, and whether the appellant had acquired 100% or only a 1/3rd share of the land. The Supreme Court held that upon examining the auction record and payments made, the appellant had only bid for and purchased a 1/3rd share of the entire property, including 1/3rd of the land. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, laying down the principle that the extent of property transferred in an auction is strictly limited to what was actually put up for auction, bid for, and paid for by the purchaser.
Questions settled- Whether settlement authorities have the inherent jurisdiction to rectify a mistake in a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Can a purchaser claim a 100% share in land when the auction bid and payment covered only a 1/3rd share of the property?
- Whether the High Court erred in holding that the Permanent Transfer Deed could not be amended by the Additional Settlement Commissioner?
- Divisional Transportation Officer, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and 21990 PLC 703 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Transport Officer and others vs Punjab Labour Court and others1990 PLC 748 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-06Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur and 3 others vs Abdul Ghaffar1990 PLC 448 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi vs Muhammad Sharif and 2 others1990 PLC 684 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and another1990 PLC 492 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan and 2 others vs Rahim Bakhsh1990 PLC 713 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Muhammad1990 PLC 498 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-07Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Muhammad1990 PLC 715 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Abdul Majeed1990 PLC 500 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-12Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent Railways vs The Chairman Sindh Labour1990 PLC 350 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- District Manager, KTC, Karachi vs Mukhtar Ahmad and another1990 PLC 44 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-03Read full judgment →
- District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation vs Shamshul1990 PLC 438 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation vs Rajuddin and 31990 PLC 669 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-01-17Read full judgment →
- District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation vs Fareed Khan1990 PLC 137 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-15Read full judgment →
- District Manager, K.T.C. and others vs Sharafatullah1990 PLC 140 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
- District Evacuee Trust Committee, Hyderabad vs Mustafa Ahmad and another1990 SCMR 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding the status of a property in Hyderabad. The appellant, the District Evacuee Trust Committee, sought a declaration that the property was a 'Tikano' and thus constituted Evacuee Trust Property, relying solely on an extract from the City Survey Record. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had previously dismissed the application, finding the evidence insufficient and inconclusive. The core legal question was whether a property could be declared as attached to a religious or charitable trust based merely on an extract from the record of rights or City Survey Record in the absence of a trust deed. The Supreme Court held that the appeal failed because the evidence relied upon by the appellant contained inconsistent entries, specifically describing the property as a 'Tikano' while citing 'inheritance' as the origin of title, which remained unexplained. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower authorities' findings that the evidence was insufficient to establish the property's status as a trust property.
Questions settled- Can a property be declared as Evacuee Trust Property based solely on an extract from the City Survey Record without a trust deed?
- Does an entry in the City Survey Record describing a property as a Tikano suffice to establish its status as a religious or charitable trust if the origin of title is listed as inheritance?
- District Evacuee Trust Committee, Hyderabad vs Ismail and 4 others1990 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by special leave, challenged a High Court judgment affirming the Chief Settlement Commissioner's rejection of a reference by the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The Board sought a declaration that four properties were evacuee trust properties, relying solely on entries in Local Property Register Cards which stated "Trust Property belonging to Primusingh Tikano" and "by inheritance." The Chief Settlement Commissioner and the High Court found these entries vague, inconclusive, and unsupported by other evidence, noting the significant delay in filing the reference. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while public records generally carry a presumption of correctness, this rule does not apply to records containing self-contradictory entries. The Court observed that if properties belonged to a 'Tikano' (trust), their origin of title could not be 'inheritance.' As the appellant Board failed to reconcile these inconsistent entries, the lower forums were justified in not relying on them to establish the properties as trust properties. The appeal was also deemed improperly constituted for three deceased respondents whose legal representatives were not impleaded.
Questions settled- Does a presumption of correctness attach to public records containing self-contradictory entries?
- Can entries in Property Register Cards alone establish a property as an evacuee trust property if they are vague or contradictory?
- What is the effect of significant delay in filing a reference under Section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Is an appeal properly constituted if legal representatives of deceased respondents are not impleaded?