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.

• Ch. Muhammad Aslam vs Amanullah and others1990 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-10
  mala fideconstitutional petitioncorporate law authoritynepotismadministrative lawstock exchangenatural justicevoid order
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses three consolidated Constitutional Petitions challenging the Corporate Law Authority's refusal to grant the petitioners permission to establish a stock exchange at Islamabad, while simultaneously granting such permission to a respondent group. The core legal question was whether the Minister of State’s decision to favor this specific group, ignoring the Authority’s recommendation for a joint venture, was vitiated by mala fide, nepotism, and procedural irregularities. The High Court held that the Minister of State’s order was tainted by mala fide and favoritism, as it was designed to benefit his business associates and relatives rather than serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned order and all subsequent actions taken pursuant to it as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court established that a mala fide act constitutes a fraud on the statute and is inherently without jurisdiction. Furthermore, when a public functionary exercises power for collateral or ulterior purposes, the resulting order is void, and any subsequent orders or rights built upon such a void foundation must necessarily collapse.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mala fide administrative order constitute a fraud on the statute?
  • Can a court set aside subsequent orders that are founded upon an initial void order?
  • Is an administrative decision taken for collateral or ulterior purposes subject to judicial review?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae protect rights acquired through a mala fide administrative act?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 347 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-31
  quashment of proceedingsarms ordinanceunlawful possessiondelivery of armsinterlocutory interferenceabuse of process of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the applicant under section 16(b) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The applicant's nephew inadvertently carried the applicant's licensed revolver in their luggage through an airport screening counter without the applicant's knowledge or voluntary delivery. The Magistrate had previously refused an acquittal application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that it was premature before framing a charge. The core legal question is whether temporary, unwitting carriage of a licensed weapon by a third party constitutes delivery and unlawful possession under section 16(b) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, and whether proceedings can be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the temporary and innocent possession by a relative without intent or voluntary delivery does not constitute an offence under the Ordinance, and the Magistrate erred in holding that section 249-A cannot be invoked before framing a charge. The court laid down the principle that High Courts will interfere at an interlocutory stage to quash proceedings when allegations are groundless and constitute an abuse of the process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before a formal charge has been framed?
  • Does the temporary and unwitting carriage of a licensed firearm by a third party constitute delivery of arms under section 16(b) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965?
  • When will the High Court interfere under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at an interlocutory stage of criminal proceedings?
  • Does temporary possession of a weapon without intent to use it divest the licensee of legal possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Arshad and 8 others vs Government of Punjab through Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and 3 others1990 SCMR 1494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-29
  service promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeeage relaxationad hoc appointmentright of hearingcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court that allowed a revision petition and dismissed the petitioners' civil suit, thereby reversing the concurrent findings of the two lower courts. The core legal question concerned whether promotions granted by the Commissioner without the intervention of the Departmental Promotion Committee and in violation of age relaxation embargoes created vested rights requiring a pre-decisional hearing before being set aside. The Supreme Court held that an order of appointment or promotion can only clothe an appointee with rights if it is competently passed. Since the Commissioner lacked the competence to grant age relaxation and bypass the Departmental Promotion Committee, the promotions were tainted and amounted merely to ad hoc appointments, which could be substituted by regular ones without requiring a prior hearing to the beneficiaries. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an incompetent promotion order create a vested right requiring a prior hearing before being set aside?
  • Can a Commissioner grant age relaxation in promotions contrary to government embargoes?
  • What is the legal status of a promotion made without routing the case through the Departmental Promotion Committee?
  • Is a representation regarding the legality of a promotion barred under Section 21 of the Civil Servants Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Anwar vs Maqsoodul Hassan and others1990 SCMR 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-17
  criminal appealmurderacquittalappreciation of evidenceinterested witnesscorroborationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a criminal trial for murder and attempt to murder. The core legal question involves whether the High Court erred in acquitting one of the co-accused and whether the conviction and sentence adjustments of the other accused were justified. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly evaluated the evidence, noting that the acquitted accused was implicated by a single interested witness without corroboration, whereas the convicted accused's participation was established by reliable evidence. Consequently, the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's reappraisal of evidence in an acquittal or conviction appeal unless there is a patent or latent error of law or fact resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the reappraisal of evidence and acquittal by the High Court in the absence of a patent or latent error resulting in a miscarriage of justice?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a single interested witness?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused are tried upon distinguishable evidence and testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Alsam vs Government of Pakistan and others1990 SCMR 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-12
  service lawseniority listcause of actionlimitationres judicatacivil servantFederal Service Tribunalpromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant in the Central Excise and Land Customs Department, challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner sought correction of his date of induction into the Customs-Excise Group, claiming that a revised seniority list issued in 1984 provided a fresh cause of action, despite a previous appeal regarding his promotion date having been dismissed as time-barred. The Tribunal held that the issuance of a subsequent seniority list did not create a fresh cause of action, as the core grievance remained the original notification regarding his promotion date. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that the principle of res judicata did not apply because his first appeal was not decided on merits and that the new seniority list established a new cause of action. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the publication of a seniority list constitutes a fresh cause of action for a civil servant whose previous challenge to promotion status was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a revised seniority list provide a fresh cause of action to a civil servant whose previous appeal regarding promotion status was dismissed as time-barred?
  • Can a service appeal be barred by res judicata if the previous appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation rather than on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ali And 66 Others vs Ghulam Ghaus1990 CLC 1972 · Board of Revenue · 1985-09-04Read full judgment →
• Ch. Maqsood Ahmad vs Khalid Pervaiz1990 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02
  ex parte decreesummary procedurelachesspecial circumstancescondonation of delaywrong advice of counselcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed under the summary procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner sought to set aside the decree, arguing he was not served with summons and that the decree was a nullity. The respondent raised preliminary objections regarding laches, noting the petitioner had pursued incorrect remedies based on counsel's advice, and argued that the application failed to disclose 'special circumstances' required under Order XXXVII, rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the revision petition was barred by laches, affirming that wrong advice of counsel is no longer a valid ground for condoning delay, as such condonation would prejudice the opposite party's vested rights. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a mere allegation of non-service of summons does not constitute 'special circumstances' under Order XXXVII, rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. To succeed, an applicant must demonstrate substantial grounds justifying the right to defend the suit, which the petitioner failed to do. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the wrong advice of counsel constitute a valid ground for condoning delay in filing a revision petition?
  • What constitutes 'special circumstances' under Order XXXVII, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a summary decree?
  • Is a mere allegation of non-service of summons sufficient to set aside an ex parte decree passed under the summary procedure?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a revision petition where no specific limitation is prescribed?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Irshad Ahmad vs Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division1990 MLD 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ijaz Ahmad vs The State1990 SCMR 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-19Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ijaz Ahmad Siddique vs Muhammad Ashraf Thekedar and 4 others1990 SCMR 1174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-23
  election petitionLocal Council Electionsannulment of electionviolation of rulesconstitutional petitionleave to appealvoting pattern
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court in an election dispute concerning Local Council Elections. The Election Tribunal had set aside the entire election and ordered fresh polls after finding violations of relevant rules. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, contending that although rules were violated, no evidence demonstrated that the voting pattern was prejudiced thereby. The Supreme Court considered whether the violation of rules materially affected the election results. Upon examining the voting pattern at the relevant polling stations, the Court found that the rule violations indeed materially affected the outcomes. Consequently, the Court held that findings of fact concluding prejudice warranted the annulment of the election as a whole. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the concurrent findings of the tribunals and the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the annulment of an election as a whole requires proof that rule violations prejudiced the election result?
  • Can findings of fact regarding the effect of rule violations on voting patterns justify the refusal of leave to appeal?
  • Whether an Election Tribunal is justified in ordering fresh elections upon finding material violations of rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ghulam Shakeel vs S.H.O., Naulakha1990 P Cr. L J 587 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ch. Bashir Ahmad and 4 others vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Sargodha and 4 others1990 MLD 986 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-17
  Order XLIII Rule 3 CPCinterlocutory orderlimine stageadmission of appealactus curiae neminem gravabitcivil procedurenotice of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition addresses whether an appeal, once admitted to regular hearing, can be dismissed for non-compliance with the notice requirements of Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their appeal by the appellate court, which had been dismissed post-admission due to the failure to serve notice upon the respondents prior to filing. The Court examined the interpretation of the term 'entertain' in the context of the Supreme Court's ruling in Mrs. Dino Manekji Chinoy v. Muhammad Matin. It held that the purpose of Order XLIII, Rule 3 is to facilitate the preliminary (limine) stage, allowing respondents to contest the appeal's admission. Once the court has admitted the appeal, the procedural lapse regarding notice is rendered irrelevant. Applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, the Court concluded that an appellant should not be penalized for the court's error in admitting an appeal without prior notice. Consequently, an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-compliance with Order XLIII, Rule 3 after it has been admitted to regular hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after it has been admitted to regular hearing?
  • Does the requirement of giving notice under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend beyond the preliminary stage of an appeal?
  • Does the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit apply when an appellate court admits an appeal without the appellant having complied with the notice requirements of Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Akhtar Hussain and 2 others vs Election Commissioner of Azad1990 PLD Azad J&K 61 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
• Cawas A. Noshirwani vs MRs, Meher S. Mobed1990 MLD 846 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Captain (Retd.) Muhammad Yunus Jaffar vs Government of Pakistan1990 SCMR 657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-07
  service lawpromotionseniorityante-dated promotionDepartmental Promotion Committeecivil serviceESTACODE
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment concerning the effective date of the petitioner's promotion to Grade B-18. The petitioner, a civil servant, sought to have his promotion ante-dated to 4-10-1979, the date he completed five years of service in Grade B-17. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to this retrospective seniority based on service completion or the date his batch was first considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Service Tribunal had applied the ESTACODE principle, deeming the DPC recommendation to have occurred on the date the batch was originally considered (10-8-1980), but rejected the claim for further ante-dating. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no merit in the petition. The Court affirmed that retrospective promotion cannot be granted in a manner that disrupts the seniority of batchmates who were appointed with immediate effect, nor can an individual claim seniority over those who were senior to them but were not granted retrospective promotion upon completing five years of service.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim promotion ante-dated to the date of completion of five years of service?
  • Does the principle of deemed recommendation apply when a Departmental Promotion Committee defers a candidate's case for reasons beyond their control?
  • Can retrospective promotion be granted if it disrupts the seniority of batchmates who were appointed with immediate effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Capt. Rizwan Ahmed vs m.v. Al Aida and 2 others1990 MLD 1205 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board Karachi Labour Union vs Registrar of Trade1990 PLC 398 · Labour Court · 1988-11-10Read full judgment →
• Caltex Oil (Pak.) Ltd. vs Mian Ashiq Muhammad Faiz1990 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
• Caltex Employees Union vs Messrs Caltex Oil (Pak) Ltd., Karachi1990 PLC 433 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Calicut Trading Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 653 · Kerala High Court · 1989-02-10Read full judgment →
• Calicut Tea Mart, Tea Dealers and Commission Agents vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 74 · Kerala High Court · 1989-01-28Read full judgment →
• C.I.T. Central Zone `A', Karachi vs Messrs Eastren Federal Union1990 PTD 409 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-29Read full judgment →
• C.I.T. Central Zone a, Karachi vs Messrs Royal Insurance Co.1990 PTD 402 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
• Buxal and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2001 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-24Read full judgment →
• Buland Khan and anothers vs The State and others1990 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealmurder convictionsolitary witnessmedical evidencematerial contradictionsappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, Sarfraz Khan, and the attempted murder of others, following an incident involving trespassing cattle. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the High Court maintained the conviction while reducing the sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained based solely on the testimony of a single eye-witness when that testimony was materially inconsistent with the medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was rendered doubtful due to significant contradictions between the eye-witness's trial testimony and his earlier statement under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Specifically, the witness's description of the injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons was directly contradicted by the medical report, which identified those injuries as blunt force trauma. Consequently, the Court ruled that the solitary witness was unreliable, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The principle laid down is that where a solitary witness's testimony is materially contradicted by medical evidence, it cannot safely form the basis for a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness when that testimony is contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Does a material discrepancy between an eye-witness's trial testimony and their statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their evidence unreliable?
  • Is a conviction for murder sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the specific weapon used for the fatal injury due to contradictory witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Budhay Khan vs Shamsuddin and 13 others1990 PLD Revenue 16 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
• Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation1990 MLD 905 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-16Read full judgment →
• Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited and others vs Sind Employees' Social1990 SCMR 175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-03
  production bonuswagessocial security contributionEmployees' Social Security Ordinancedefinition of bonusincentive allowancestatutory interpretationlabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court addressed whether 'production bonus' falls within the definition of 'bonus' under sub-clause (d) of clause (30) of Section 2 of the Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, thereby exempting it from being treated as 'wages' for social security contributions. The High Court had previously held that for a payment to qualify as 'bonus' and be excluded from 'wages', it must be irregular, lack a direct nexus with actual work performance, be a reward/gift/gratuitous payment, and not be claimable as a right. Applying this test, the High Court found 'production bonus' deficient for exemption. The Supreme Court upheld this view, distinguishing between a bonus dependent on enterprise profitability (which is excluded from wages) and one related to individual or group effort and work, which is certain, definite, and earned by achieving targets irrespective of profit. The Court concluded that 'production bonus' is an additional emolument directly linked to performance and thus constitutes 'wages' for social security purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Does 'production bonus' fall within the meaning of 'bonus' as defined in the Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • What characteristics must a payment possess to be excluded from the definition of 'wages' under the Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Is 'production bonus' considered 'wages' for the purpose of calculating social security contributions?
  • What is the distinction between a bonus dependent on enterprise profitability and one related to individual work effort?
  • Does the term 'wages' under the Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, include payments linked to individual performance and target achievement?
  Read full judgment →
• Brij Lal State of Punjab vs Prem Chand and others Prem Chand1990 MLD 465 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate vs Syed Khalid Mahmood1990 SCMR 1369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-31
  malicious intermeddlingexamination resultslimitationconcealment of factscivil suit for damagesmala fidepublic body liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding a decree for damages against the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for malicious intermeddling with a student's examination results. The core legal questions involved whether the civil suit was barred by statutory provisions, whether the claim was time-barred, and whether the Board’s actions constituted actionable malice. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that the Board acted with mala fide intent by intentionally declaring the respondent failed despite his success, and by maintaining forged records. The Court held that where a public body actively conceals facts and maintains inconsistent records, the plea of limitation is inapplicable under Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that technical defects in pleadings cannot shield a public body from liability when the evidence establishes a clear lack of good faith and malicious conduct causing injury to an individual.

  Questions settled

  • Does the concealment of facts by a defendant prevent the running of limitation against a plaintiff under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a civil suit for damages be maintained against a statutory board for the malicious withholding of examination results?
  • Is a plea of limitation available to a defendant who has actively concealed the true state of affairs from the plaintiff?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, and others vs Muhammad Tariq1990 SCMR 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-28
  disciplinary proceedingsacademic interestwrit jurisdictionexamination misconductvague chargesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, a candidate for the Intermediate Examination, was penalized by the Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for creating disturbances, quarrelling with staff, and refusing to provide a written explanation regarding his conduct at the examination centre. Following the dismissal of his appeal by the Committee of Appeal, the respondent challenged the disciplinary action via a writ petition. The High Court accepted the petition, ruling that the charges against the respondent were vague and thus the disciplinary orders were without lawful authority. The Board subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the period of disqualification had already expired, rendering the matter academic. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal. However, the Court explicitly disagreed with the High Court's finding that the charges were vague, noting that there was sufficient basis for the disciplinary action taken against the respondent. The petition was dismissed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petition become purely academic when the period of disqualification imposed by an educational board has already expired?
  • Can a High Court declare disciplinary orders of an educational board to be without lawful authority on the ground that charges were vague?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Sargodha vs Shahid Latif1990 SCMR 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  quashing of resultnatural justiceopportunity of hearingdelegation of powersadministrative lawexamination board
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of the respondent's intermediate examination result and subsequent medical college admission due to a discrepancy in reported marks. The core legal questions involved the interpretation and application of paragraph 18 of Chapter 5 of the Board's Calendar regarding the power to quash examination results, and whether an appearance before an enquiry committee satisfies the requirements of a reasonable opportunity of being heard without a further hearing by the Board itself. The Supreme Court held that where a committee is merely appointed to submit a report for action by a competent authority, the final decision-making authority—namely, the Board—must afford the affected candidate a personal opportunity of being heard before passing an adverse order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board can quash an examination result without providing a direct opportunity of being heard to the candidate?
  • Does an appearance before an enquiry committee appointed to submit a report constitute sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice before the competent authority passes a final order?
  • Can a statutory board act upon unverified information to cancel a candidate's result without adhering to prescribed procedural safeguards?
  Read full judgment →
• Bitoni Lamps Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 664 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• Bilawal and another vs Abdul Razzak1990 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-10
  petition for leave to appealsale-deed executionproof of executionattesting witnessminority of vendorconcurrent findings of factRegistration ActIncumbered Estates
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' second appeal and upheld the lower appellate court's decision in favor of the respondent concerning a suit for declaration and injunction regarding a shop. The core legal questions involved the validity of a registered sale-deed, the minority or majority status of the vendor at the time of the transaction, the proper proof of execution of a document under the law of evidence, and the effect of registration under the relevant registration statute. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent factual findings regarding the vendor's majority status were well-supported by evidence, including the testimony of the vendor's mother, and that the execution of the sale-deed was validly proved by examining an attesting witness pursuant to the Evidence Act. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the first appellate court's holding limiting the validity of the sale to the vendor's actual share remained intact since no cross-appeal was filed. The key principle laid down is that the execution of a document may be legally proved by examining an attesting witness, and concurrent findings of fact on the vendor's age based on credible oral and documentary evidence will not be disturbed in leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the age and majority status of a vendor can be disturbed by the High Court in second appeal?
  • Can the execution of a registered sale-deed be proved by examining an attesting witness under section 68 of the Evidence Act 1872 when the executant did not appear before the Sub-Registrar?
  • Whether registration of a document ordered by the Registrar under the Registration Act amounts to proper registration in the absence of the original order on record?
  • Does the dismissal of a second appeal filed against a first appellate court judgment leave the unreversed portions of the first appellate decree operative?
  Read full judgment →
• Bikkar Singh vs State of Punjab1990 MLD 1323 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
• Bibi Rani Etc. vs The Additional Commissionar (Revenue) Lahore, Etc.K.L.R.1990 Revenue Cases 122 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
• Bheeloo vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 186 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
• Bhagwandas vs The Returning Officer and others1990 SCMR 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-20
  election petitioninterlocutory ordercompetency of appealrepresentation of the peopleelection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two appeals filed under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 against an interlocutory order of the Election Tribunal of Sindh, Karachi, which dismissed the appellant's application for the dismissal of an election petition and allowed the respondent's application for amendment of the petition and verification of annexures. The core legal question is whether an appeal lies under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 against an interlocutory order passed by an Election Tribunal during the pendency of an election petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in limine, holding that the appeals were incompetent because only orders enumerated under section 67(1) of the Act are appealable. The key principle laid down is that appeals under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are restricted to final or specific orders enumerated in section 67(1) and do not lie against interlocutory orders passed during ongoing proceedings before the Election Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Are appeals maintainable under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 against interlocutory orders passed by an Election Tribunal?
  • Which types of orders are appealable before the Supreme Court under section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Bengal Oil Mills Ltd. vs Messrs Hussaini Company1990 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contractual guaranteesale of goodsbreach of contractquality specificationburden of proofcommercial disputedamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two civil appeals arising from suits for damages filed by respondent firms against the appellant manufacturer regarding the sale of decorticated cottonseed cake expellers. The respondents alleged that the goods supplied were deficient in oil and albuminoid content, contrary to assurances given, and claimed damages for losses incurred upon export to the United Kingdom. The core legal question was whether the percentage of oil and albuminoid content was contractually guaranteed by the appellants and whether the appellants were aware the goods were intended for export. The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to establish their case. The Court found that the sale notes explicitly stipulated an unpercentage guarantee, and evidence from the broker and the respondents' own correspondence confirmed the absence of any such guarantee. Furthermore, the respondents failed to provide evidence that the appellants were informed the goods were for export. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgments and dismissed the suits, establishing that explicit contractual terms regarding quality guarantees prevail over alleged oral assurances or trade usage claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does a written contract containing an explicit 'unpercentage guarantee' clause preclude claims based on alleged oral assurances regarding product quality?
  • Is a seller liable for damages based on the intended export of goods if the buyer fails to prove the seller had knowledge of such intended use at the time of the contract?
  • Can trade usage or practice override express terms in a written sale note regarding the quality of goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Beg Um Anwar Sultana vs Associates Ltd., Faisalabad and 6 others1990 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-11
  leave to appealwinding upcompany assetstax recovery proceedingsintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the sale of a factory belonging to a company under winding-up proceedings. The core legal question involves the legality and protection of a sale of company assets conducted by the Income-tax Recovery Officer during winding-up proceedings, and whether the High Court correctly adjudicated upon setting aside or upholding the said sale under the Companies Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the High Court's adjudication, directing that the security be deposited and the limited stay already granted to continue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court correctly adjudicated the matter regarding the sale of company assets by the Tax Recovery Officer during winding-up proceedings?
  • Can an application be maintained under section 183(5) of the Companies Act for the quashment of notices concerning company property sold during tax recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Before Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ In re: Reference Made by Sessions Judge,1990 P Cr. L J 1687 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-22
  territorial jurisdictionvenue of trialjail trialprovincial government powersSessions Judgetransfer of casescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a reference by the Sessions Judge, Larkana, seeking High Court permission to conduct the trial of a dangerous prisoner, Hasoo alias Muhammad Hassan, within the District Jail, Khairpur, due to administrative directives from the Home Department. The accused faced 18 pending cases, with territorial jurisdiction split between Larkana and Shikarpur. The core legal question was whether the High Court's intervention is required to transfer cases or set the venue of trial in jail for an accused across different territorial jurisdictions. The Court held that no High Court intervention is necessary because the Provincial Government possesses the statutory authority to determine the venue of trial, including holding court sittings within jails, and to nominate Sessions or Additional Sessions Judges to try cases outside their standard territorial jurisdiction. Relying on Sections 9, 178, and 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court affirmed that the Provincial Government is fully empowered to issue notifications for such arrangements, provided they do not conflict with High Court transfer orders under Section 526.

  Questions settled

  • Is the High Court's intervention required to set the venue of a trial inside a jail for an accused facing cases in multiple districts?
  • Does the Provincial Government have the authority to direct that a Court of Session hold its sittings at a specific place, including a jail?
  • Can the Provincial Government nominate an Additional Sessions Judge to try cases outside their territorial jurisdiction?
  • What are the limitations on the Provincial Government's power to order cases to be tried in different Sessions divisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Before Muhammad Mazhar Haji Ghulam Hussain vs The State and anotherOpponents1990 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-01Read full judgment →
• Beeroo vs Mst. Said Bibi1990 CLC 164 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
• Batoor Khan and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1155 · Special Appellate Court Customs · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• Batoor Khan And Other vs The StatePTCL1990 CL. 276 · Special Appellate Court CustomsRead full judgment →
• Bata Pakistan Ltd. vs Deputy Collector Central Excise and Land Customs, KarachiPTCL 1990 CL. 761 · Collector Appeal Customs and Excise Southern Zone, Karachi · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
• Bashiran Bibi vs The District Magistrate, Kasur1990 P Cr. L J 913 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public ordercriminal chargespendency of criminal casesnon-application of mindsecret enquiryhabeas corpus
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kasur, under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 against the petitioner's son on the basis of numerous past criminal cases and secret enquiries. The core legal question was whether past criminal cases and pending prosecutions can form a valid basis for ordering preventive detention, and whether a detention order relying on unverified secret enquiries and past cases is sustainable. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and held that criminal charges for which a person is facing trial or has been prosecuted cannot form a reasonable basis for preventive detention, as the administration must make a choice between prosecution and detention. The Court further laid down that mechanical acceptance of police recommendations without independent application of mind, and reliance on unsubstantiated secret enquiries, vitiates the detention order. Consequently, the impugned order was declared without lawful authority and the detenu was ordered to be released.

  Questions settled

  • Can past criminal cases or pending prosecutions form a valid and legal basis for ordering preventive detention under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  • Does the mechanical acceptance of police recommendations by a District Magistrate vitiate an order of preventive detention?
  • What is the legal effect on a detention order if one of its grounds is found to be non-existent or bad in law?
  • Whether an unsubstantiated ground regarding secret enquiries into a detenu's nefarious activities can sustain an order of preventive detention?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ullah and others vs The State1990 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-24
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubteyewitness credibilityfalsus in uno, falsus in omnibuscorroborationmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which partly allowed an appeal, acquitting nine co-accused while maintaining the convictions and modified sentences of the appellants for murder and related offences. The prosecution alleged that thirteen accused persons ambushed the complainant party due to an election dispute, resulting in the deaths of two persons and injuries to another. The trial court convicted all accused, but the High Court acquitted nine, disbelieving their participation and the alleged motive, yet maintained the convictions of the remaining appellants based on the testimony of an injured witness. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the testimonies of eyewitnesses, having been found completely unreliable and false regarding nine co-accused and the motive, could safely sustain the convictions of the appellants without independent corroboration. The Court held that the eyewitnesses were totally unreliable and their testimonies, having been discredited as to the co-accused and the motive, required independent corroboration to sustain convictions against the appellants. Since no such corroboration existed, the Court laid down that appellants were equally entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses found to be false regarding several co-accused can be relied upon to convict remaining accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is the absence of an established motive a ground for acquittal when eyewitness testimony is otherwise found unreliable?
  • Does medical evidence contradicting ocular testimony regarding the nature of injuries inflicted by specific accused persons warrant extending the benefit of the doubt?
  • Whether convictions for murder can be sustained on uncorroborated eyewitness accounts when the foundational prosecution case regarding the genesis and motive of the crime is rejected?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Masih vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir and others vs Fateh Shah and others1990 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21
  pre-emption suitlimitationmutationpossessionKhasra Girdawarifindings of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court arising out of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question for consideration was whether the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The sale was entered in the mutation register on 20-4-1964, attested on 28-4-1964, and the suit was instituted on 26-4-1965. The vendees contended that they had obtained possession under the sale on 20-4-1964, rendering the suit time-barred. The courts below repelled this contention based on revenue entries including Khasra Girdawari, holding that the question of notice was not required and that entries regarding change of possession were mutilated and suspected. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the courts below regarding possession and limitation cannot be upset by this Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit filed within one year of the attestation of mutation is barred by time when vendees claim prior possession?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding revenue entries and possession be upset by the Supreme Court?
  • Whether mutilated and suspected entries in Khasra Girdawari can establish change of possession for limitation purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 549 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-10Read full judgment →
• Bashir alias Boota vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 780 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Nizamani vs The Chief Secretary Govt of Sindhh and OtherK.L.R 1990 Labour & Service Cases 135 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed and 2 others vs The State and 6 others1990 SCMR 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20
  leave to appealculpable homicidecorroborationmisreading of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal concerning a criminal case of culpable homicide involving multiple accused. The complainant party filed a petition against the acquittal or relief granted, while two convicts, Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq, sought leave to appeal against their conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carried a sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court heard the contentions of the parties at length. The Court held that Muhammad Rafiq's participation was established by strong independent corroboration of the eye-witness account, and accordingly refused leave to appeal to him. However, regarding Bashir Ahmad, the Court found that his case stood on a different footing due to contentions concerning the lack of acceptable corroboration and potential misreading of evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to Bashir Ahmad for re-examination of the evidence and directed that the complainant's petition be heard along with the ensuing appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal can be granted when contentions regarding the misreading of evidence and lack of corroboration require re-examination?
  • Is independent corroboration of the eye-witness account sufficient to refuse leave to appeal to a convicted accused in a homicide case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs WAPDA through Chief Engineer (Coordination) and another1990 SCMR 796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-29
  service lawlimitation periodtime-barred appealcontinuing grievancedepartmental appealWAPDA employee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former WAPDA employee, sought leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his appeal as time-barred. Following his compulsory retirement, the petitioner filed departmental appeals, resulting in a modified order that reduced his grade and pay. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's ongoing reduction in pay constituted a continuing grievance that could bypass statutory limitation periods for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s grievance arose from the specific departmental order substituting his retirement with a reduction in grade and pay. Because this order was the operative cause of the reduction in emoluments, it required a timely challenge before the Tribunal. The Court affirmed that the mere fact of ongoing pay deprivation does not constitute a continuing wrong sufficient to extend the limitation period. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the petitioner's failure to challenge the specific order within the prescribed time rendered his claim barred. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a reduction in pay resulting from a departmental order constitute a continuing grievance that extends the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Is a specific departmental order reducing an employee's grade required to be challenged within the statutory limitation period to claim remuneration?
  • Can the mere deprivation of pay justify an extension of the limitation period for an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1375 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Yunus and others1990 P Cr. L J 1035 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-24
  bail cancellationfurther inquiryinvestigation reporttentative assessmentmurder casealibi
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Muhammad Yunus, by the Sessions Judge, Okara, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the accused, based on conflicting police investigation reports regarding his innocence and participation, should be cancelled, particularly when superior police officers disagreed with the findings of local investigators. The Court held that the bail order did not warrant interference. It reasoned that the existence of conflicting police reports, where some officers found the accused innocent based on material evidence, created a situation of further inquiry under the law. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is permissible, while the final evaluation remains the prerogative of the trial court. The key principle laid down is that where investigation reports are contradictory, the benefit of such conflict, at the tentative bail stage, should be resolved in favor of the accused, provided the finding of innocence is not entirely unsupported by the record.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict in police investigation reports regarding the innocence of an accused constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a court cancel bail granted by a lower court when superior police officers disagree with the findings of local investigators?
  • Is a tentative assessment of evidence sufficient to justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Imtiaz Ahmad and another1990 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-18
  leave to appealbail cancellationunlawful assemblymurderindiscriminate firingbailable warrantsshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 3 December 1989, whereby respondent No. 1 was granted bail. According to the First Information Report, respondent No. 1, along with seven other persons, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and attacked the complainant party, resulting in the death of Muhammad Aslam. A specific role of being armed with a rifle and resorting to indiscriminate firing that hit the deceased was attributed to respondent No. 1. The petitioner contended that the High Court failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The Supreme Court observed that the contentions raised by the petitioner required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court issued notice to respondent No. 1 to show cause why the bail order should not be recalled and directed the issuance of bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 50,000 against him.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective when granting bail to an accused assigned a specific role of firing in a murder case?
  • Whether notice to show cause and bailable warrants should be issued against an accused respondent where a prima facie case for recalling a bail order is made out on leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Tahir vs WAPDA through its Chairman1990 SCMR 1465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-13
  removal from serviceWAPDAservice tribunalmisconductdisciplinary actionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Bashir Ahmad Tahir against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, a Line Superintendent in WAPDA, was removed from service under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 by an order dated July 31, 1982. The core legal question was whether the establishment of a formal charge of misconduct or inefficiency is a prerequisite for taking action under section 17(1-A), or whether disciplinary proceedings are mandatory. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that establishment of a charge is not necessary for passing an order under section 17(1-A), and if the competent authority is of the opinion for good reasons that the continuance of an employee in service is undesirable, such an order is legally justified. The key principle laid down is that section 17(1-A) operates independently of formal disciplinary proceedings, and the Authority may terminate service without proving specific misconduct if the employee's continuation is deemed undesirable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the establishment of a charge is necessary for passing an order under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958?
  • Can disciplinary action be mandated instead of termination under section 17(1-A) when an employee is alleged to have committed misconduct?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal order upholding removal under section 17(1-A) in the absence of an error of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Siddiqie vs General Manager, Hyesons Sugar Mills Ltd.1990 PLC 533 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Salak vs Director, Soil Fertility Survey and Soil Testing1990 SCMR 812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-24
  civil servantdisciplinary proceedingsdismissal from serviceforgeryex parte inquiryservice tribunalleave to appealprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, filed by a civil servant challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which upheld his dismissal from service. The petitioner, a Senior Clerk, faced disciplinary proceedings for forgery. The core legal questions addressed were whether the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated by procedural irregularities, specifically regarding the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and the competence of the Authorised Officer, and whether the petitioner could raise these factual objections for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to participate in the inquiry despite being afforded opportunities for personal hearing by both the Authority and the Appellate Authority. The Court ruled that factual objections regarding the conduct of an inquiry must be raised during the inquiry proceedings to allow for a determinative finding by the department. As the petitioner failed to do so and the petition raised no question of law of public importance, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant raise factual objections regarding the conduct of a disciplinary inquiry for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Is an ex parte disciplinary inquiry valid if the accused civil servant refuses to participate despite being afforded opportunities for personal hearing?
  • Does a petition challenging a Service Tribunal judgment regarding disciplinary proceedings necessarily raise a question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 581 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And Others vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd.1990 CLC 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-15
  limitation periodcondonation of delayspecial lawbanking recoverytime-barred appealSection 5 Limitation Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Special Judge Banking, Lahore, in a recovery suit. The appellants sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, contending that the decree was obtained through fraud against a deceased partner. The core legal question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to appeals filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, and whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 could be invoked to extend the limitation period. The Court held that the appeal was barred by time, as the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 is a special law prescribing a specific limitation period of 30 days. Consequently, by operation of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908, the provisions of Section 5 are inapplicable to such appeals. Furthermore, the Court determined that Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies only to suits and applications, not appeals. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the appellants to pursue other legal remedies regarding the alleged fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to appeals filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Is Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to appeals?
  • Does Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908 exclude the application of Section 5 when a special law prescribes a different period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs Ch. Nawab Din and others1990 SCMR 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-17
  right of first refusalremand of caseforfeiture of tenancydenial of titlesuit for possessionpreliminary issuesfair triallease agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over a plot of land involving a lease agreement with a right of first refusal. Following the lessor's sale of the property to a third party, the lessee contested the transaction, leading to a suit for possession. The trial court initially dismissed the suit on preliminary issues regarding jurisdiction and maintainability. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, holding that the lessee had forfeited his tenancy by denying the landlord's title in prior rent proceedings, and subsequently decreed the suit. The High Court affirmed this judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the lower appellate courts erred by decreeing the suit on merits without conducting a proper trial or framing issues regarding the substantive defenses raised by the lessee. The Court emphasized that the lessee was denied the opportunity to lead evidence on critical controversies, such as the alleged forfeiture of tenancy and the validity of the purchase offer. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower judgments and remanded the case for a fresh trial on all relevant issues.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court decree a suit on merits after reversing a decision on preliminary issues without remanding for a trial on substantive issues?
  • Does a tenant's denial of a landlord's title in separate rent proceedings automatically constitute forfeiture of tenancy without a proper trial on that specific issue?
  • Is a court justified in disposing of a suit based on existing record material when the pleadings raise substantive factual controversies that have not been framed as issues?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and another vs The State1990 SCMR 1397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16
  supreme court appealpetition dismissedcriminal petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question involves the sustainability of the lower court's decision in light of the grounds urged by the petitioners. The court held that the petition lacks merit and accordingly dismissed it. The key principle governing the matter is that a petition failing to disclose sufficient grounds for interference by the apex court must be dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be dismissed when it lacks sufficient grounds?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts without valid justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And 4 Others vs Muhammad Rafiq1990 CLC 2005 · Board of Revenue · 1990-07-01Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And 13 Others vs Maula Bakhsh And 24 Other1990 CLC 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-30
  civil revisionres judicatadismissal in defaultconsolidation authoritiesmaintainability of suitjurisdiction of civil courtcause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners, claiming ownership and possession of land and challenging entries in the Revenue Record made by Consolidation Authorities. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed this dismissal, primarily citing a lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable given a previous dismissal of an identical suit for the same cause of action, and whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to challenge the Consolidation Authorities' orders. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, upheld the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the suit was barred under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 because the petitioners had previously filed an identical suit that was dismissed in default under Order 9, Rule 8, thereby precluding the filing of a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order 9, Rule 9. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plaint failed to provide specific particulars of alleged fraud, rendering the reliance on case law regarding fraud inapplicable. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a previous suit under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 preclude the filing of a subsequent suit on the same cause of action?
  • Is a suit challenging the orders of Consolidation Authorities maintainable in a Civil Court without specific particulars of fraud being pleaded in the plaint?
  • Can a Civil Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to interfere with concurrent findings of fact when the suit is barred by procedural law?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad alias Mannu and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1431 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad alias Kala vs Khuda Bakhsh and others1990 SCMR 914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-19
  evacuee propertysettlement authoritiestransfer of propertycompensation poolcivil suitsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant petition arose from a dispute over a plot of land comprising two khasra numbers in Jhang, which the petitioner had obtained transferred in his favour in 1973 from a Deputy Settlement Commissioner upon representing it as evacuee property. The respondents challenged the transfer through a civil suit, which resulted in mixed decrees by the trial court, subsequently modified by the District Judge who ruled in favor of the respondents regarding both khasras. The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the competency of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to transfer the plot without evidence of it being evacuee property or part of the compensation pool. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit as there was no documentary evidence showing the plot was owned by a non-Muslim or treated as evacuee property, rendering the transfer incompetent. The Court laid down the principle that property not forming part of the compensation pool or lacking proof of evacuee character cannot be legally transferred by settlement authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Deputy Settlement Commissioner is competent to transfer a plot without documentary evidence showing it as evacuee property?
  • Can a petitioner claim land is a graveyard to defeat a respondent's claim after having previously obtained its transfer as evacuee property?
  Read full judgment →
• Basher Ahmad and others vs Chairman, Town Committee and others1990 PLC 480 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• Basara and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 311 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
• Barkatullah and another vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 993 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
• Barkat vs Muhammad Sadiq And Other1990 CLC 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-19
  regular second appealres judicataagreement to sellevacuee propertyspecific performancebar of suitpermanent transfer deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a suit for declaration of title regarding an evacuee plot of land. The appellant claimed ownership based on an alleged agreement to sell, while the respondents asserted superior title through a Permanent Transfer Deed issued by the Settlement Department. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the appellant's suit, citing failure to prove payment of consideration or transfer of possession, and noting the suit was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to an earlier suit for permanent injunction where the relief of declaration or specific performance was omitted. The High Court affirmed these findings, emphasizing that the appellant failed to produce evidence of payment. Furthermore, the Court held that the present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata because a previous suit for possession involving the same property and parties had been decreed against the appellant, and that judgment had attained finality. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on both merits and procedural grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to claim relief for declaration or specific performance in an earlier suit for permanent injunction bar a subsequent suit for declaration regarding the same property under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a final judgment in a previous suit for possession between the same parties regarding the same property operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit for declaration of title?
  • Can a plaintiff claim ownership of property based on an agreement to sell without proving the payment of the full consideration amount?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Ghulam Rasul And Other1990 CLC 1965 · Board of Revenue · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
• Baqar Ali Khan vs The Government of SindhK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Services Cases 150 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-02-23Read full judgment →
• Baqar Ali Khan vs The Government of Sindh and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 390 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Bannu Sugar Mills (Private) Limited vs Inspector Customs and Central1990 CLC 569 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-21
  excise dutyexemption withdrawalvested rightconstitutional petitionaggrieved personalternative remedysugar manufacturingduty clearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved three writ petitions filed by sugar manufacturing industries challenging a Federal Government notification that withdrew an earlier exemption from excise duty on sugar and re-imposed duty at Rs.2 per kilogram. The petitioners contended they had acquired a vested right to exemption for sugar manufactured during the exemption period but not yet cleared. The Peshawar High Court first addressed preliminary objections regarding the availability of alternative remedies and the petitioners' standing as aggrieved persons. The Court held that the remedies under Sections 35, 35-A, and 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, were inadequate as the challenge was to a Federal Government notification, not an officer's order, and a civil suit was also not appropriate. However, the Court ruled that no vested right to exemption existed for sugar manufactured during the exemption period but not cleared before the exemption withdrawal, clarifying that under Section 3-C of the Act, duty is realized at the time of clearance. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioners, as manufacturers, were not "aggrieved persons" under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the incidence of excise duty is ultimately passed on to the consumer. Consequently, all three writ petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Are the remedies provided under Sections 35, 35-A, and 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, adequate for challenging a notification issued by the Federal Government?
  • Does a vested right to exemption from excise duty arise for goods manufactured during an exemption period if they are not cleared before the exemption is withdrawn?
  • Are sugar manufacturers considered "aggrieved persons" under Article 199 of the Constitution when excise duty is re-imposed, given that the incidence of duty is passed on to consumers?
  • When is excise duty leviable and realizable on excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  Read full judgment →
• Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. vs The Banking Tribunal for Sindh and Balochistan and 2 others1990 MLD 309 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-19
  Banking Tribunaljoinder of necessary partyOrder 1 Rule 10 CPCconstitutional jurisdictionArticle 199pre-judging issuebanking suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Banking Tribunal for Sindh and Baluchistan, whereby the Tribunal declined the joinder of an alleged beneficiary as a party to a banking recovery suit. The core legal question was whether the Banking Tribunal erred in refusing the application for impleading a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that doing so would amount to pre-judging an already framed issue. The Sindh High Court held that the Tribunal acted illegally and with material irregularity, ruling that the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the Tribunal, that non-joinder of parties should not defeat a suit, and that the framing of an issue regarding a necessary party does not preclude their subsequent joinder. The key principle laid down is that judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals are duty-bound to implead necessary parties for complete adjudication, and a refusal to do so is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings before the Banking Tribunal?
  • Does the framing of an issue regarding the absence of a party preclude the subsequent joinder of that party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Does the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to a person who was not a party to the previous suit?
  • Is the refusal of a sub-constitutional tribunal to join a necessary party amenable to correction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. vs Messrs1990 MLD 130 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-24
  amendment of judgmentaccidental slip or omissionmortgage suitbanking recoverypreliminary decreeprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff bank filed a suit for the recovery of a loan under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 read with Orders 34 and 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking a money decree along with a preliminary decree for the sale of mortgaged properties. The trial court partially decreed the suit for the monetary amount but inadvertently omitted to grant the relief concerning the mortgaged properties in the judgment. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking an amendment of the judgment and decree to include the relief relating to the mortgages. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the omission was intentional and that the plaintiff should file a fresh suit. The court held that an accidental slip or unintentional omission by the court in failing to grant a relief clearly prayed for and warranted by the circumstances can and should be corrected under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that parties should not suffer due to an oversight of the court. Consequently, the application was allowed and the judgment and decree were amended.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court amend its judgment and decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to include a relief claimed in the plaint that was omitted due to an oversight?
  • Whether the omission to grant a relief prayed for in the plaint is to be treated as an implied refusal or an accidental slip correctable by the court?
  • Does the power of the court under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct accidental slips or omissions carry any time limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Banaras Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 670 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
• Bald Gaum Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 79 · Rajasthan High Court · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
• Balagamwala Oil Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs Shakarchi Trading A.G. and 2 others1990 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-05
  Mareva injunctionattachment before judgmentinterim injunctionunliquidated damagesletter of creditinherent powerscivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's applications for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for unliquidated damages arising from a breach of contract. The core legal questions before the court were whether an interlocutory or Mareva-style injunction can be granted in respect of unliquidated damages, whether the court can issue such injunctions beyond the strict confines of Order XXXIX using inherent powers or Section 94(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether payments under letters of credit can be restrained. The Sindh High Court held that while the court possesses inherent powers under Section 151 and Section 94(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to issue interlocutory orders in the interest of justice beyond the strict provisions of Order XXXIX, the appellant failed to make out a proper case. The court held that unliquidated damages cannot form the basis of a Mareva injunction and that payments under negotiable letters of credit cannot be restrained without grave cause or established fraud. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant an interim injunction under its inherent powers or Section 94(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in circumstances not strictly covered by Order XXXIX?
  • Whether a Mareva injunction can be granted in a suit claiming unliquidated damages where the exact amount due is yet to be adjudicated?
  • Can the court restrain the operation of a negotiable letter of credit or stop bank remittances between international trade counterparts on account of a contractual breach regarding different transactions?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Nasir vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1990 PLC 791 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-04Read full judgment →
• Bakht Nasar vs Messrs Karachi Port Trust and another1990 PLC 55 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-08Read full judgment →
• Bakhshal and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21
  split judgmentocular evidenceinterested witnesscorroborationrecovery of crime weaponsearch mashirmotivebenefit of doubtdeath reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns a criminal appeal and death reference arising from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Khairpur, convicting three appellants under Section 302/34, PPC and sentencing them to death for the murder of Atta Muhammad, alongside related convictions under Section 13(E) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and Section 324, PPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellants forcibly dragged the deceased out of a residence, shot him, stabbed him, and struck him with a lathi over a past murder vendetta. The Sindh High Court delivered a split decision. Sajjad Ali Shah, J. acquitted all three appellants by extending the benefit of doubt, finding the ocular testimony contradictory, uncorroborated, and compromised by delayed statements and procedural non-compliance under Section 103, Cr.P.C. Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J. agreed only to acquit the lathi-wielding appellant (Shah Wali) on benefit of doubt, but upheld the conviction and death sentences of Bakhshal and Jani, holding their guilt proved via prompt FIR and reliable ocular testimony. Due to the split opinion, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice for nomination of a referee Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of interested eye-witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the recovery of crime weapons?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording a witness's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their testimony unreliable?
  • How is a criminal appeal resolved when a two-judge High Court bench differs on the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahawal Sher vs Sajawal Khan and 4 others1990 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14
  horse-breeding tenancyland allotmentrevenue authoritiesadministrative discretionwrit jurisdictiontenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition regarding the allotment of horse-breeding tenancy land. The petitioner, claiming to be an heir of the deceased tenant with a good horse-breeding record, argued that he was entitled to the allotment in preference to outsiders, citing a notification dated 19th February 1952. The core legal question was whether the revenue authorities were bound to allot the tenancy to the petitioner based on his status as an heir with a good record, or whether the Collector possessed the discretion to determine the suitability of the allottee. The Supreme Court held that the revenue authorities are the best judges regarding the suitability of individuals to hold allotments under the horse-breeding tenancy scheme. Finding that the Collector's choice had been consistently upheld through the appellate and revisional hierarchy, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that administrative discretion in such tenancy matters remains with the competent revenue officials.

  Questions settled

  • Are revenue authorities the final arbiters regarding the suitability of applicants for horse-breeding tenancy allotments?
  • Does an heir of a deceased tenant have an absolute right to the allotment of horse-breeding land regardless of the Collector's assessment of suitability?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahawal Bakhsh and 4 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Ali vs The State and another1990 MLD 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-24Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Ali vs Syed Ghulam Sabir Gilani1990 MLD 588 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-21
  promissory notenegotiable instrumentpresumption of considerationprocedural irregularityrecording of evidenceCode of Civil Proceduresummary suitvitiation of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal challenged a trial court judgment and decree in a summary suit for the recovery of Rs. 30,000 based on a promissory note. The appellant contended that the promissory note was actually a bond, that the suit was without consideration, and that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 18, Rules 8 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the recording of evidence, thereby vitiating the proceedings. The Court held that the promissory note was not a bond and that the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 remained unrebutted by the appellant. Regarding the procedural objection, the Court ruled that the provisions of Order 18, Rules 8 and 14 are directory rather than mandatory. Non-compliance with these rules constitutes a curable irregularity rather than an illegality, provided no prejudice is caused to the parties. As the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or inaccuracy in the record, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to comply with Order 18, Rules 8 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the recording of evidence vitiate the entire proceedings?
  • Is the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 applicable to a promissory note until the contrary is proved?
  • Does non-compliance with procedural rules that are directory in nature constitute an illegality or merely an irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1893 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
• Badaruddin Sabri vs Messrs Pearl Continental Hotel1990 PLC 638 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-03-22Read full judgment →
• Badar Din vs Muhammad Sharif and 5 others1990 SCMR 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-04
  leave to appealpre-emptioncivil revisionconcurrent findings of facttenancy claimdiscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee and defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld a pre-emption decree passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. During the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the petitioner's conduct in filing two separate civil revisions against the same judgment and decree without disclosing the earlier dismissal. The Supreme Court refrained from addressing the preliminary objection and instead examined the case on its merits. The petitioner's counsel argued on the question of fact relating to a claim of tenancy, but both the appellate court and the High Court had already rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. Finding no justification to interfere with these concurrent factual findings, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact rendered by lower courts regarding a claim of tenancy in a pre-emption suit?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be refused when a petitioner fails to make out a case on the merits of factual determinations?
  Read full judgment →
• Badal and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 31 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-13
  statutory baildelay in trialthird provisonon-bailable offencecriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, based on the statutory entitlement to bail for an accused detained for over two years in a case involving capital punishment. The core legal question is whether an accused is entitled to mandatory bail under this provision if the trial delay is partially attributable to the accused's own actions, such as seeking adjournments or filing transfer petitions. The Court held that the third proviso does not create an absolute right to bail if the accused has contributed to the delay. While acknowledging that some courts have allowed for the condonation of 'good faith' delays, the Court affirmed that the slightest delay attributable to the accused can disqualify them from the mandatory benefit of the third proviso. Ultimately, the Court declined to grant bail, directing the applicants to approach the trial court to assess the overall delay and conduct in the context of the trial's progress. The key principle established is that the third proviso is not an arithmetic rule; any delay caused by the accused, even if seemingly justified, necessitates a careful, case-specific evaluation rather than automatic entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant an absolute right to bail after two years of detention regardless of the reasons for trial delay?
  • Can an accused be granted bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they have contributed to the delay in trial proceedings?
  • Is a bail application based on the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 required to be heard by the same judge who rejected a previous bail application on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-21Read full judgment →
• Azrar Ahmad Butt alias Pappu vs The State1990 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-30
  suspension of sentencecriminal appealcompromisebail pending appealcompensationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the refusal of the High Court to suspend the sentence of the petitioner convicted under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during the pendency of his appeal. The core legal question concerned the suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal in view of an out-of-court compromise between the parties. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, confirming the interim bail previously granted to the petitioner. The holding establishes that where parties have effected a genuine compromise, the injured complainant has forgiven the accused, and adequate compensation has been paid, interim bail granted during the pendency of an appeal against conviction may be confirmed, particularly when the State raises no objection.

  Questions settled

  • Can interim bail be confirmed during the pendency of an appeal when the parties have reached a compromise?
  • Whether the payment of adequate compensation to the injured person influences the confirmation of bail in a criminal case?
  • Does the lack of objection from the State affect the confirmation of interim bail upon a compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Azmat Ali Afridi vs Auditor-General of Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 152 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-09-21Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Khan and another vs Haji Ghulam Sarwar1990 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Kaiian and Other vs Haji Ghulam SarvarK.L.R.1990 Revenue Cases 106 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →