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.

• Allah Rakha vs Resident Engineer and another1990 PLC 482 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha Masih Bhatti vs The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communications & Works Department, Lahore1990 SCMR 1451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-26
  service tribunaldepartmental inquiryefficiency and discipline rulesarbitration awardcivil servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal against a departmental penalty of stoppage of an annual increment without future effect. The petitioner faced departmental proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules for allowing unsatisfactory work and approving it for payment, and for permitting a five-mile lead instead of the three-mile lead permissible under the contract. The core legal question was whether an arbitrator's award justifying the petitioner's actions exonerates him from departmental liability. The Supreme Court held that arbitration proceedings concerning contract execution have no direct bearing on a civil servant's departmental accountability, and an unauthorized deviation from contract terms cannot be condoned by subsequent rectification or arbitration awards. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitrator's award absolve a civil servant from departmental liability arising from the unauthorized execution of a contract?
  • Can subsequent rectification of defective work protect an employee from departmental proceedings?
  • Whether leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 should be granted against the dismissal of a service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal in a disciplinary matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Jiwaya vs Judge Family Court, Ahmadpur Sharqia and another1990 MLD 239 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17
  dissolution of marriageKhulawrit jurisdictionrecording of evidenceFamily Courtmisdescription of courtreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a judgment and decree of a Family Court that dissolved a marriage on the grounds of Khula. The petitioner raised several legal objections, primarily contending that the trial proceedings were vitiated because evidence was recorded by the Reader rather than the Presiding Officer, and that the court had incorrectly described itself as a Civil Court instead of a Family Court. Furthermore, the petitioner sought a reappraisal of evidence regarding the parties' inability to live together. The High Court held that Rule 10-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965 permits the recording of evidence by others under the Presiding Officer's supervision. Regarding the misdescription of the court, the Court applied the maxim Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocat, ruling that since the judge possessed the requisite powers of a Family Court, the misdescription did not invalidate the decree. Finally, the Court affirmed that writ jurisdiction does not extend to the reappraisal of evidence absent proof of misreading, and dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the lower court's conclusions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of evidence by a Reader under the supervision of the Presiding Officer vitiate trial proceedings in a Family Court?
  • Does the misdescription of a Family Court as a Civil Court in a decree invalidate the judgment if the presiding judge holds both powers?
  • Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction reappraise evidence to determine the correctness of a Family Court's factual findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State1990 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-20
  right of private defencemurder convictionappreciation of evidencecriminal trespassleave to appealplea of self-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court for offences under Sections 302 and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and death sentence. The prosecution alleged the petitioner trespassed into the deceased's house and attacked him with a knife, causing fatal injuries. The petitioner admitted to inflicting the wounds but claimed the right of private defence, asserting the deceased attacked him first during a dispute over unpaid wages. The Supreme Court examined the plausibility of the petitioner's version. The Court noted the absence of evidence supporting the claim of unpaid wages, the unlikely timing of the visit, and the physical evidence contradicting the petitioner's claim of being the victim of an initial assault. The Court held that the lower courts correctly rejected the defence version, as the petitioner's injuries were consistent with those sustained while attacking the deceased rather than defending against an assault. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of self-defence can be accepted when the accused fails to provide evidence supporting the alleged provocation?
  • Does the presence of minor injuries on an accused person necessarily corroborate a claim of self-defence against a deceased victim?
  • Is the timing of an alleged confrontation a relevant factor in assessing the credibility of a defence version?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Ali Muhammad and another1990 SCMR 1577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-12
  allotment of government landcolonization of government landsconcurrent findings of facttransfer of tenancy rightscivil court jurisdictionsecondary evidenceeviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted a revision petition and set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the respondent's suit regarding an Ihata allotted to the appellant by the Collector. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent established a valid allotment and title under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to prove any valid written allotment order or prior official permission for intermediate transfers as mandated by statute, and that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent factual findings without any showing of misreading or blatant misappreciation of evidence. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the District Judge's judgment dismissing the suit was restored, laying down the principle that a claim to government land tenancy requires strict proof of a written order by the Collector and authorized possession under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person claim tenancy or title in government land without a written order passed by the Collector and authorized possession under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
  • Whether transfer of tenancy rights without the prior permission of the Collector is void under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
  • Is the jurisdiction of civil courts barred under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 in matters concerning land allotment?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact arrived at by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Bhatti Etc vs Abdul Aziz and OtherK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 228 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Bhatti and others vs Abdul Aziz and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 755 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2080 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs The State1990 SCMR 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25
  post-arrest bailleave to appealjudicial custodytrial delaycriminal proceduremurder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the accused against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had rejected their application for post-arrest bail in a murder case. The petitioners were charged under sections 307, 379, 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) for the murder of Faiz Bakhsh. The trial court had previously denied bail, citing that adjournments were repeatedly sought on behalf of the accused, thereby delaying the proceedings. The High Court affirmed this decision, noting that the trial was ongoing with a specific date set for evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the High Court's order. The Supreme Court found no reason to deviate from the High Court's view, particularly as the trial court had already scheduled the next hearing for evidence. Consequently, the Court held that no valid grounds were established for the grant of leave to appeal, and the petition was dismissed, maintaining the status quo of the petitioners' judicial custody.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with a High Court's order denying bail when the trial is actively proceeding?
  • Does the seeking of repeated adjournments by the accused constitute a valid ground for the denial of bail?
  • Is leave to appeal granted when the trial court has already scheduled a near-term date for the recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta And Others vs Allah Wasaya1990 CLC 1818 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Dawaya And Others vs Ghulam Mustafa And Other1990 CLC 1990 · Board of Revenue · 1990-01-01
  redemption of mortgagelimitation periodevacuee propertymortgagee rightsrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing an application for the redemption of mortgaged land originally created in 1895. The core legal question is whether the application for redemption filed on 21 April 1986 was barred by limitation, considering the impact of the migration of evacuee mortgagees in 1947, the repeal of evacuee laws, and provisions of the Limitation Act. The court held that the 60-year limitation period expired in 1955 before the acknowledgment relied upon, and although time had frozen under section 5 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 from 1947 to 1957, the subsequent repeal of evacuee laws caused the limitation clock to revert. Accounting for the remaining statutory period, the redemption application filed in 1986 was hopelessly time-barred. The key principle laid down is that upon the repeal of evacuee laws, the temporary freeze on limitation periods under evacuee legislation ceases to apply, reverting the computation of time under ordinary law for mortgage redemptions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for the redemption of a mortgage created in 1895 and barred before the advent of evacuee laws is maintainable when filed in 1986?
  • Does the repeal of evacuee laws revert the limitation clock to the position existing prior to 1 March 1947?
  • Whether the exclusion of time under section 13 of the Limitation Act 1908 saves a redemption application filed decades after the expiration of the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Mehmood Shah1990 CLC~ 33 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Feroze Khan1990 CLC 1920 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-12-06
  res judicataOrder II Rule 2suit for possessionperpetual injunctioncause of actioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns the maintainability of a subsequent suit for possession of land following the dismissal of a prior suit for perpetual injunction. The appellant had previously sought an injunction, but the trial court dismissed the claim regarding a portion of the land, finding the appellant was not in possession. The core legal question was whether the subsequent suit for possession was barred by the principle of res judicata under Section 11 or the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent suit was maintainable. The Court reasoned that the cause of action for a suit for possession is distinct from that of a suit for injunction. Where a plaintiff is denied an injunction due to a lack of possession, a new cause of action arises for the recovery of possession. Consequently, the bar under Order II, Rule 2 does not apply, as the causes of action in the two suits are not identical.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a suit for perpetual injunction due to lack of possession bar a subsequent suit for possession of the same land?
  • Does Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when the cause of action in a subsequent suit is different from the previous suit?
  • Can a plaintiff file a suit for possession after a previous suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Banda vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Banda vs Mst. Khurshid Bibi And 2 Other1990 CLC 1683 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28
  Talaq-e-BadieMuslim Family Laws Ordinancetriple talaqrepugnancy to IslamObjectives Resolutionconstitutional petitiondivorce effectivenessHanafi Fiqah
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the District Magistrate dismissing a revision petition regarding the effectiveness of a divorce (Talaq). The petitioner, a Sunni Muslim, had executed a written divorce deed against his wife, respondent No. 1, which he later claimed was forged or obtained under duress. The Arbitration Council had declared the Talaq effective. The core legal question was whether a 'Talaq-e-Badie' (triple Talaq pronounced at once) dissolves a marriage immediately, and whether Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which mandates a 90-day waiting period for the effectiveness of Talaq, is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam under Article 2-A of the Constitution. The Court held that the petitioner had voluntarily divorced his wife and that, under Hanafi Fiqah, a triple Talaq dissolves the marriage immediately. Following the precedent in Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum, the Court ruled that Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, is repugnant to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, as it attempts to suspend the immediate effect of a valid Islamic divorce. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Badie) pronounced in one sitting dissolve a marriage immediately under Hanafi Fiqah?
  • Is Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, repugnant to the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah?
  • Can the superior courts strike down statutory provisions that are found to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam under Article 2-A of the Constitution?
  • Does the institution of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights automatically amount to the revocation of a previously pronounced Talaq?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 548(1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Mst. Shamshad Begum and 2 others1990 MLD 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-28
  arbitration awardpending civil suitarbitration without court interventionrevisional jurisdictioncompromise or adjustment of suitconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application to make an arbitration award the rule of the court. The core legal questions involve whether an arbitration agreement and award are valid when executed while civil suits regarding the same subject matter are pending without court intervention, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of the arbitration agreement can be interfered with in revision. The Lahore High Court held that any reference to arbitration without the intervention of the court where a suit regarding the same subject matter is pending violates sections 21, 23, and 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, rendering the award a nullity for the purpose of making it a rule of the court, unless utilized as a compromise or adjustment with the consent of all parties under the proviso to section 47. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the lack of a valid arbitration agreement warrant no interference in revisional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can an arbitration award be made the rule of the court if the reference to arbitration was made without the intervention of the court while civil suits regarding the same subject matter were pending?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the execution of an arbitration agreement open to interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Under what circumstances can an arbitration award obtained during a pending suit be utilized as a compromise or adjustment of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Allah Bakhsh and 5 others1990 SCMR 1568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-27
  pre-emptionproprietary rightsevacuee propertyallotmentmortgagesettlement authoritiesco-sharer
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a decree for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the vendor, having received land as an allotment in lieu of previously mortgaged land, possessed full proprietary rights to allow for pre-emption, given that the mortgage money had allegedly not been paid. The trial court initially held that full rights were not acquired without payment of mortgage money. However, the appellate court and the High Court found, based on mutation records and Jamabandi entries, that full proprietary rights had been conferred upon the vendor under the relevant settlement laws. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the question of the vendor's proprietary status was a factual determination already settled by the lower courts. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's own admission during cross-examination confirmed the vendor's ownership status. The principle affirmed is that where proprietary rights have been formally conferred by settlement authorities, the underlying status of the land as previously mortgaged cannot be used to challenge title in civil proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the allotment of land in lieu of mortgaged land preclude the acquisition of full proprietary rights until the mortgage money is paid?
  • Can the civil court go behind the formal conferment of proprietary rights by settlement authorities to investigate the underlying mortgage status of the land?
  • Is a party's admission in cross-examination regarding the vendor's ownership sufficient to establish title in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Abdul Aziz1990 MLD 230 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17
  civil procedureservice of summonsleave to defendpromissory noterecovery suitremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the trial court in a suit for recovery of Rs. 21,000 filed on the basis of a promissory note, which was decreed after the appellant's application for leave to defend was dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the summons were properly served upon the defendant in accordance with the law, thereby justifying the computation of the limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend. The Court held that service of summons was defective as the process-server failed to deliver or tender a copy of the summons as mandated by law. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the case back for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that strict compliance with the prescribed mode of service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory before penal consequences such as the dismissal of an application for leave to defend can be visited upon a defendant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of summons is legally valid when the process-server fails to deliver or tender a copy of the summons to the defendant?
  • Can an application for leave to defend be dismissed as time-barred if the defendant was not properly served with summons?
  • What is the proper procedure for the service of summons under Order V Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh And 3 Others vs Mst. Bakht Bhari And Another1990 CLC 2027 · Lahore High Court · -
  gifthibarevocation of giftdeclaratory suitcompulsory registrationconcurrent findingscivil revisionIslamic Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which declared the respondent, Mst. Bakht Bhari, the owner of land gifted to her by her father, Muhammad Zaman, via a written deed. The petitioners, claiming ownership through a subsequent mutation, alleged the gift was invalid and collusive. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the gift deed, whether it required compulsory registration, and whether the respondent was required to invoke Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge the petitioners' decree. The Court held that the gift was valid, as the three essential ingredients—declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession—were proven. It further held that a gift deed is not compulsorily registrable and that the respondent was not obligated to utilize Section 12(2) because her suit was already pending when the petitioners obtained their decree. The Court affirmed that under Islamic Law, a gift to a relative within prohibited degrees, once possession is delivered, is irrevocable. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a written gift deed compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act 1908?
  • Can a donor revoke a gift after the delivery of possession to a donee who is within the prohibited degrees of relationship?
  • Is a plaintiff required to invoke Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge a decree if their own declaratory suit regarding the same property is already pending?
  • Do concurrent findings of fact by lower courts warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction absent a showing of material irregularity or misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachaya vs The State1990 PLD Lahore 499 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2063 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Rehman And Others vs Haji Muhammad Suleman Amd Other1990 CLC 11 · Peshawar High Court
  pre-emptioncompromiseestoppelwaiverpartial pre-emptiontalabsrevision petitionapprobate and reprobate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two revision petitions arising from a consolidated pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involve the validity and binding effect of a compromise reached between the vendees and one pre-emptor, the consequences of withdrawing pre-emption money, and the maintainability of a partial pre-emption claim. The court held that a party who enters a compromise with full knowledge and accepts benefits cannot later repudiate it, as the doctrine of estoppel and waiver applies. Furthermore, the court affirmed that under Section 23(5) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, the withdrawal of pre-emption money results in the dismissal of the suit. Regarding the second pre-emptor, the court held that a claim for partial pre-emption is incompetent when the plaintiff could have claimed the entire property, and failure to perform the requisite Talabs under Shariat precludes a decree. Consequently, the court modified the lower court's decree to reflect the compromise and dismissed the second pre-emptor's revision. The principle established is that parties cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting benefits of a compromise while repudiating its burdens.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party to a pre-emption suit repudiate a compromise after accepting benefits arising from it?
  • Does the withdrawal of pre-emption money by a plaintiff result in the dismissal of their suit under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
  • Is a suit for partial pre-emption maintainable when the plaintiff could have legally enforced their right over the entire property?
  • Does the doctrine of estoppel and waiver apply to a party attempting to challenge a compromise they previously entered into?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz Shidi vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.1990 PLC 314 · Labour Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Rahmatullah1990 SCMR 913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-21
  recovery suitmortgage debtwithdrawal of suitfresh suitfailure of evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for recovery of money based on an alleged mortgage and subsequent tenancy. The petitioner, claiming to be a mortgagee, sought recovery of a mortgage debt and compensation for use and occupation of a house, but failed to produce the mortgage deed or rent note during the trial. The trial court, appellate court, and revisional court concurrently dismissed the suit due to this lack of evidence. The core legal question addressed is whether a plaintiff can be permitted to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh one when the failure to produce essential evidence was due to their own omission during trial. The Supreme Court held that permission to file a fresh suit cannot be granted merely because the plaintiff failed to lead necessary evidence during the trial. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that procedural indulgence to withdraw and reinstitute a suit will not be granted to cure a party's failure to adduce foundational evidence during the original proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff be permitted to withdraw a suit with permission to file a fresh one when the plaintiff failed to produce essential evidence during the trial?
  • Whether permission to file a fresh suit can be granted merely because the plaintiff omitted to lead necessary evidence before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Anwar and others1990 P Cr. L J 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-19
  quashing of criminal proceedingsmala fide prosecutionabuse of process of courtcivil decree executionconstitutional petitioninherent powers of High Courtfalse F.I.R.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 sought the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to an F.I.R. The petitioners had successfully obtained a civil decree for property possession, which was formally executed by a court bailiff. Subsequently, the complainant, related to the judgment-debtor, filed an F.I.R. alleging illegal dispossession and theft. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings initiated maliciously to circumvent a civil court decree and harass the successful party should be allowed to continue. The Court held that the prosecution was clearly mala fide, intended to avenge defeat in civil litigation, and constituted an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings initiated with mala fide intent to harass or circumvent civil court orders constitute an abuse of the process of the court, justifying the exercise of the High Court's constitutional and inherent powers to quash such proceedings, regardless of the availability of alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings initiated with mala fide intent to circumvent a civil court decree?
  • Does the availability of a remedy under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to quash mala fide criminal proceedings?
  • Is a criminal prosecution initiated to harass a party after they have successfully executed a civil decree considered an abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan vs The Principal, Government Vocational PolyK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 111 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan alias Nabi Khan and 2 others vs The Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Lahore Division, and 2 others1990 SCMR 786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-19
  evacuee propertyinheritance disputewrit jurisdictiondiscretionary powerfindings of factAdditional Commissionerleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding an inheritance dispute over evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) possessed the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed by the Collector, and whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the Additional Commissioner's finding of fact regarding the familial relationship of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Commissioner was competent to hear the appeal against the Collector's order. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is discretionary and that the High Court correctly refused to re-examine findings of fact that were supported by sound and cogent reasons. The key principle laid down is that the High Court, in the exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, will not interfere with findings of fact arrived at by a competent authority where such findings are based on a conscious application of mind and supported by cogent reasons, especially when the petitioner fails to substantiate the merits of their claim.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) competent to entertain an appeal against an order passed by a Collector?
  • Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in the exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction when those findings are supported by cogent reasons?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to re-investigate questions of fact in a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan vs The State1990 MLD 2076 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan and 2 others vs Sardar Khan and others1990 PLD Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Bahadur vs The State1990 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-07
  murderdeath sentenceocular accountabscondencecriminal petitionappraisal of evidencecommutation of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a jail petition filed by Ali Bahadur against his conviction and death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (on three counts) and section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on the ocular testimony, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon, and abscondence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence was convincing, natural, and corroborated, rendering the defence plea irrelevant and baseless. The Court affirmed the conviction while noting that the death sentence had already been commuted to imprisonment for life pursuant to a general order of the President. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of guilt based on consistent eyewitness accounts supported by medical evidence and corroborative circumstances warrant the maintenance of conviction in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony of an injured witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder and attempt to murder?
  • Does the plea of alibi and alternate version presented by the accused without substantiation warrant setting aside concurrent findings of lower courts?
  • Whether the recovery of the weapon and abscondence of the accused immediately after the incident serve as corroborative circumstances to support a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar and another vs The State1990 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-06
  criminal appealconcurrent findingseyewitness testimonyconvictionleave to appealsentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for their involvement in a violent altercation resulting in the death of one individual and injuries to another. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the petitioners' guilt, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence, were sustainable in law. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, specifically the consistent testimonies of the injured witness and independent witnesses, and found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' assessment of the facts. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the petitioners' culpability through credible direct evidence. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the petitioners were ordered to be taken into custody to serve the remainder of their sentences. The judgment reinforces the principle that where concurrent findings of fact are supported by consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony, the appellate court will not disturb the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when based on consistent eyewitness testimony?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali alias Wali and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 283 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ali Aksar Shah vs Banaras and another1990 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-24
  post-arrest bailcross-casesfurther inquiryleave to appealmurder casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the High Court's order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent accused in a murder case. The High Court had granted bail primarily on the basis that the existence of cross-cases between the parties necessitated further investigation to determine which party initiated the occurrence. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the High Court misapplied the provisions of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the mere existence of cross-cases does not automatically satisfy the legal requirements for bail under Section 497(2), which requires a finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence but sufficient grounds for further inquiry. The Supreme Court found that the contentions regarding the misapplication of Section 497(2) and the sufficiency of the grounds for bail required deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the existence of cross-cases constitutes a valid ground for bail under the relevant statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of cross-cases between parties automatically constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a specific finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offence but sufficient grounds for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar Shah vs Banaras and others1990 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-19
  post-arrest bailunexplained injuriescross versionsfurther inquirymurderSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court granting bail to the respondent Banaras, who was implicated in a murder case along with other co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was the propriety of granting bail in circumstances involving cross-versions of the incident and unexplained injuries on the accused party. The Supreme Court held that since the accused party also sustained multiple injuries, including incised wounds on the skull that remained unexplained in the complainant's First Information Report, the case fell within the purview of further inquiry as to who was the aggressor. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's order. The key principle laid down is that the existence of unexplained injuries on the person of the accused in a cross-version case creates a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted when the accused persons have sustained injuries that remain unexplained in the complainant's First Information Report?
  • Does a cross-version case involving mutual injuries warrant further inquiry into the identity of the aggressor for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the High Court's order granting bail on the ground of determining the aggressor open to interference when the opposite party's injuries are unaddressed in the initial report?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad Khan vs The Postmaster General, Northern Punjab and AJK, Rawalpindi and another1990 SCMR 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-19
  civil serviceseniorityselection gradeservice tribunaladministrative rectificationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the seniority assigned to a colleague (respondent No. 2). The core legal question was whether a civil servant, who was promoted to a selection grade but delayed in assuming duties due to the department's failure to relieve him from his previous post, could be granted seniority retrospectively from the date of his original promotion. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the respondent's delay in joining the new cadre was not due to his own fault but rather the department's failure to relieve him. Consequently, the Court held that the competent authority acted correctly in rectifying the situation and restoring the respondent's seniority, as the respondent was legally entitled to the position. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law was raised, as the department's action was a valid administrative rectification of a wrong, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be granted seniority retrospectively if the delay in assuming a promoted post was caused by the department's failure to relieve them?
  • Does an administrative rectification of a seniority list based on departmental error raise a substantial question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Aleemuddin vs Muhammad Yaseen1990 PLD Lahore 42 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-09
  ejectment petitionrent defaultburden of proofpersonal needlandlord-tenant disputeCantonments Rent Restriction Actappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a first appeal under Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, challenging the dismissal of an ejectment petition by the Additional Rent Controller. The appellant-landlord sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on grounds of rent default, personal need, and subletting. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, finding no default, no bona fide personal need, and no subletting. The High Court held that the Rent Controller’s order was legally deficient, being laconic and failing to properly discuss the evidence. Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the Court found the respondent had failed to prove payment of rent after the landlord denied receipt, shifting the burden of proof to the tenant. Furthermore, the Court held that the landlord’s personal need for the premises was established and unrebutted. The Court set aside the Rent Controller's order and accepted the ejectment petition. The key principle laid down is that once a landlord denies receipt of rent on oath, the burden of proof shifts to the tenant to affirmatively prove payment through cogent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the tenant to prove payment of rent once the landlord denies receipt on oath?
  • Is a Rent Controller under an obligation to provide a reasoned order discussing the evidence led by the parties?
  • Can a tenant adjust unauthorized renovation costs against arrears of rent without prior permission from the landlord or Rent Controller?
  • Does the personal need of a landlord for business purposes constitute a valid ground for eviction under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  Read full judgment →
• Aleemuddin and another vs Muhammad Aslam and others1990 SCMR 916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-17
  leave to appealejectment applicationtransfer of propertypart performancelandlord and tenantagreement of salepossession protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition regarding an ejectment order. The dispute arose when the respondent, who had been transferred the plot in question by Settlement Authorities, filed an ejectment application against the petitioners. The petitioners, who were in possession of the plot, contested the application by denying the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting they had executed an agreement of sale with the previous occupant and had paid the full amount before the plot was surrendered. Relying on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, the petitioners argued that their possession was protected against dispossession. While the Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, ordering the petitioners to vacate. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court, finding that the contention regarding the protection afforded by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 required further examination, granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement of sale in favour of a tenant in possession protect them against dispossession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamzeb vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1899 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
• Al-Badar Corporation and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others1990 PTD 565 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →
• Al Badar Corporation. And Mian Akhtar And Company vs Federation Of PakistanPTCL 1990 CL. 558 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
• Akram Khan and 2 others vs The State1990 SCMR 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20
  confiscation of vehicleshow cause noticeSection 382-B CrPCProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979criminal revisionremandnarcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, convicted under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for transporting a large quantity of Charas in a truck, sought relief from the Supreme Court. In the first petition, the petitioners did not contest their conviction and sentence but requested the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of their imprisonment. The State did not oppose this request, and the Court granted the benefit. In the second petition, the owner of the confiscated truck challenged the confiscation order, arguing he was denied an opportunity to show cause. The Federal Shariat Court had previously rejected his appeal as incompetent. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should have been treated as a revision and that the law requires notice and a hearing for the owner before a vehicle can be confiscated. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the Federal Shariat Court to be disposed of as a revision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
  • Is it a legal requirement to provide notice and a hearing to the owner of a vehicle before ordering its confiscation?
  • Can an incompetent appeal be treated as a revision by the appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhto Jan vs Gul Ahmad And 8 Other1990 CLC 1232 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Akhtarul Islam vs K.D.A. through M.A. Jamil Siddiqui, Project Director1990 PLC 61 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Munir vs Messrs J&P Coats (Pak.) Ltd.1990 PLC 568 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-20Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1963 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-21Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Iiird Additional Sessions Judge, Okara and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 925 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Hussain vs Regional Manager, A.D.B.P., Muzaffargarh and 21990 PLC 736 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Akbar Shah and anothers vs The State1990 MLD 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Muhammad Khan And Other1990 CLC 1828 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-17
  Pre-emptionCivil revisionLimitationLachesDelay condonationPunjab Pre-emptions Act 1913Co-sharerRevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application stemmed from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff, a co-sharer, sought to pre-empt a sale of land. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff estopped and the suit time-barred. An appeal was dismissed without touching merits, citing Supreme Court judgments. The High Court, while acknowledging that a recent Supreme Court decision (Ahmad v. Abdul Aziz PLD 1989 SC 771) supported the petitioner's claim that 'talabs' could not be engrafted on statutory pre-emption qualifications under the Punjab Pre-emptions Act, 1913, ultimately dismissed the revision. The dismissal was based on the application being filed beyond the customary 90-day period for revisions, with no satisfactory explanation for the significant delay. The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, requiring prompt action, and that a 'wait and see' policy for changes in legal views does not justify laches, which creates equities for the vendee.

  Questions settled

  • Can 'talabs' be engrafted upon statutory qualifications for pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emptions Act, 1913?
  • What is the customary period of limitation for filing a civil revision application in the High Court?
  • Is a 'wait and see' policy for changes in Supreme Court views a valid explanation for delay in filing a civil revision?
  • Does delay in filing a pre-emption claim or revision create equities in favour of the vendee?
  • Can a civil revision application filed beyond the customary 90-day period be entertained without a satisfactory explanation for the delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1697 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Malik Navidul Zafar, Additional District Judge, Kasur and others1990 SCMR 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-29
  leave to appealevictionsublettingrent disputerent receiptsconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition against an appellate order setting aside his shop's eviction order. The core legal question concerns whether the appellate court erred in holding that the ground of subletting was not established. The Supreme Court held that where the landlord himself issued rent receipts in the name of the alleged sublessee following the surrender of the original tenancy, the finding that subletting had not been established is unexceptionable and free from infirmity. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual findings supported by documentary evidence regarding the identity of the tenant will not be interfered with.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the finding of an appellate court regarding subletting can be interfered with when supported by rent receipts issued in the name of the alleged sublessee?
  • Does the issuance of rent receipts in the name of a person other than the original tenant negate the ground of subletting?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent factual findings of lower forums regarding tenancy status?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and others vs Mst. Rashida Mi and others1990 SCMR 1616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-15
  land allotmentsettlement authoritiesconcurrent findings of factfraud and forgeryconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal through leave of the Court arises out of a property and land allotment dispute under settlement laws. The core legal question involved whether the High Court rightly declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud and forgery in land allotments. The Supreme Court held that since concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding fraud and forgery in obtaining the disputed land allotment were upheld through previous judicial tiers and no question of law was involved, the High Court correctly refused to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact pertaining to fraud and forgery established by competent settlement authorities cannot be disturbed under the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding fraud in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a party that has procured a land allotment through a forged order possess a preferential right for allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and others vs Ghulam Hussain and others1990 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-22
  civil suitmortgage redemptionownership claimburden of proofleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit regarding the ownership of approximately 32 kanals of land in village Bakhianwala, Tehsil Daska. The petitioners claimed ownership based on the assertion that they were original mortgagees of the land and that the mortgage had not been redeemed for over sixty years, thereby extinguishing the mortgagor's rights. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could substantiate their claim of being mortgagees of the specific land in dispute. Both the trial court and the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit, finding no evidence to link the disputed land to the alleged mortgage. Before the High Court, the petitioners' counsel conceded that they could not establish the identity of the land as the subject of the mortgage. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners failed to prove the foundational fact of their status as mortgagees, their claim to ownership necessarily failed. Consequently, the Court found the petition meritless and refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a claim of ownership based on unredeemed mortgage fail if the identity of the mortgaged land cannot be established?
  • Is a concession by counsel regarding the failure to prove the identity of disputed land binding on the petitioners in revision proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsanuz Zaman vs Muhammad Saleem and others1990 SCMR 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-13
  landlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenanteviction petitiondefault in payment of rentnotice of attornmentdispute of titlespecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning proceedings under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, specifically addressing the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The petitioner occupied a shop purchased by respondent No.1 from a previous owner, to whom the petitioner had previously paid rent. Upon receiving a notice of attornment, the petitioner admitted his tenancy under the previous owner but demanded proof of sale, later resisting eviction on the ground that the land belonged to the Central Government while he owned the structure. The Rent Controller, Additional District Judge, and the High Court concurrently found against the petitioner, establishing the tenancy and ordering eviction for default in rent payment. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the tenancy were supported by sufficient evidence, including the petitioner's own admissions and past rent payments. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, leaving the petitioner at liberty to agitate the question of title before a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties based on the tenant's admission and previous rent payments?
  • Does a tenant who admits tenancy under the previous owner can demand proof of sale before accepting the new landlord?
  • Can a question of title to the rented property be resolved in rent proceedings or should it be raised before a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 350 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Fahim Mughal vs Muhammad Saleem Khan, District Magistrate1990 PLD Karachi 474 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-23
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderobjective satisfactionjudicial reviewvague grounds of detentionhabeas corpusdetention order quashed
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, a P.C.S. Officer serving as Private Secretary to the erstwhile Prime Minister of Pakistan, challenging his order of detention dated 12th August 1990 passed by the District Magistrate (South), Karachi, under section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding public safety and maintenance of public order requires objective verification and sufficient material support before the High Court in judicial review. The Sindh High Court held that the satisfaction required under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 is not absolute or whimsical but must be objective in nature, supported by sufficient material and specific instances rather than vague allegations. The key principle laid down is that detention orders passed without material support, adequate particulars, or in the absence of a counter-affidavit rebutting the claims in the petition are unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed under judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the satisfaction of the detaining authority under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 is subjective or objective in nature?
  • Can a detention order be sustained when the grounds of detention are vague and unsupported by any material or specific instances?
  • Does the High Court have the power in judicial review to insist on the disclosure of materials upon which an executive detention order is based?
  • What is the legal effect when respondents fail to file a counter-affidavit denying the facts alleged in a detention challenge petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar vs Amir and another1990 P Cr. L J 1859 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 917 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 551 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Authority under Payment of Wages Act1990 PLC 26 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-03
  Constitutional jurisdictionPayment of Wages ActAlternate remedyMaintainability of writ petitionCondition precedentStatutory appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition challenged an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, which directed the petitioner to deposit wages for its employees. The petitioner argued that the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should be invoked because the statutory appeal provided under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act required a pre-deposit of the disputed amount, rendering the remedy inadequate and inefficacious. The Court examined whether the existence of this conditional right of appeal barred the maintainability of the writ petition. The High Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It affirmed that the requirement to deposit the amount as a condition precedent for an appeal does not destroy the efficacy of the statutory remedy. The Court emphasized that Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot be utilized to circumvent clear legislative provisions or to nullify statutory requirements. Consequently, as the impugned order was not challenged on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or patent illegality, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the necessity of exhausting the provided alternate remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Constitution petition maintainable when an adequate alternate statutory remedy exists?
  • Does the requirement to deposit a disputed amount as a condition precedent for an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act render the appellate remedy inefficacious?
  • Can Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan be used to circumvent statutory provisions regarding appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sher vs Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others1990 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-25
  leave to appealregular second appealevacuee propertyconcurrent findings of factmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The petitioner claimed ownership of an evacuee property measuring 2 Kanals 7 Marlas, alleging the respondents occupied it as licensees and refused to vacate, prompting a suit. The respondents also filed a separate suit claiming rights and possession over a portion of the land. The lower forums and the High Court rendered concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. The core legal question examined was whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts suffered from misreading or non-consideration of evidence to warrant interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence without any misreading or omission, and thus refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a clear case of misreading or ignoring important evidence is established.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of misreading of evidence?
  • Can a licensee's refusal to vacate evacuee property give rise to a valid claim for possession?
  • Does the misreading of evidence justify granting leave to appeal against concurrent judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Shah vs Mst. Bibi Sakhian and anothers1990 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-19
  constitutional petitionlandlord-tenant relationshipevictionCantonments Rent Restriction Actquestion of titleres judicatabenami transactionappellate jurisdictionrent controlstatutory tenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, who, exercising appellate authority under Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963, set aside the Rent Controller's dismissal of an eviction petition and ordered the petitioner's eviction. The core legal questions concerned whether mere occupation constituted a landlord-tenant relationship under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963, and the applicability of the rule from Rehmat Ullah's case regarding complex title disputes in rent proceedings. The High Court held that the definition of 'tenant' in the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 is not of wider connotation and is limited to persons inducted into tenancy by agreement or statute, not mere occupation or trespassers. It further ruled that where a complex question of title creates genuine doubt, the Rent Controller or appellate authority should direct the landlord to the Civil Court for title adjudication. The Additional District Judge's order, having failed to follow this principle, was declared without lawful authority and set aside, restoring the Rent Controller's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere occupation of premises is sufficient to create a landlord and tenant relationship under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963?
  • Can an appellate authority under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 decide a complicated question of title in an eviction petition?
  • What is the effect of the rule laid down in Rehmat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCM R 1064 on rent proceedings involving title disputes?
  • Does a finding on an incidental question of title by a Rent Controller or appellate authority operate as res judicata if leave to approach a Civil Court is not granted?
  • Is the definition of 'tenant' in the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 wider than in other rent laws, such as the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 or the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-27
  consolidation schememinister jurisdictionvoid ab initiocoram non judicestatutory functionaryBoard of Revenueleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's acceptance of a constitutional writ petition filed by the respondents, challenging orders re-opening a confirmed consolidation scheme. The petitioner, dissatisfied with a consolidation scheme confirmed under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, approached the Consolidation Minister, who ordered re-opening of the case. Consequently, the Member, Board of Revenue, ordered fresh consolidation pursuant to the Minister's direction. The High Court declared the Minister's order void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction and set aside all subsequent orders. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that the Minister for Consolidation is not a statutory functionary under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, and possesses no jurisdiction to interfere with confirmed schemes. The Court ruled that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, and any subsequent order passed by a statutory functionary acting under such void direction or without independent judgment is similarly tainted, void, and incapable of curing the initial defect.

  Questions settled

  • Does a executive Minister have jurisdiction to interfere with or re-open a consolidation scheme confirmed under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960?
  • Can a void ab initio order passed by a non-statutory authority be cured by a subsequent order of a competent statutory functionary?
  • Does an order passed by a statutory authority under the directions of a Minister rather than through its own independent judgment render the resulting order a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Khalid Mehmood and 2 others1990 MLD 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-03Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan and 3 others vs Muhammad Akram and 5 others1990 P Cr. L J 580 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 719 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Ghulam Muhammad1990 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-05
  specific performanceconcurrent findings of factjoint propertyagreement to sellleave to appealcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding a suit for specific performance of a contract. The petitioner sought the enforcement of an agreement to sell concerning a shop, claiming the respondent had agreed to sell the property and facilitate the transfer of title from other joint owners. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance when the property was held to be joint property and the agreement to sell was found to be unproven. The Supreme Court held that since all three lower courts had reached concurrent findings of fact that the property was jointly owned and that the agreement to sell was not proved, there was no ground for interference. The court reaffirmed the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership status of property and the validity of contractual documents are generally not subject to reappraisal in a petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for specific performance be decreed against one co-owner for the sale of property that is jointly owned by multiple parties?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court in a civil revision?
  • Is a contract for the sale of property enforceable when the document evidencing the agreement is held not to be proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Bashir Ahmad and 2 others1990 MLD 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bin Saleem vs The State and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 838 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-29
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictioncriminal and civil proceedingsfraud and forgerybona fide purchaserstay of criminal proceedingsprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a trial court under sections 420, 447, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from allegations of impersonation, forgery, and fraudulent transfer of a plot. The core legal questions addressed are whether criminal proceedings should be quashed when a civil suit concerning the same subject matter is pending, and whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should be invoked at an early stage to halt a prosecution where prima facie evidence exists. The Sindh High Court held that the inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be used to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure or stifle prosecution when a prima facie case is disclosed, and established that the mere pendency of civil litigation or concurrent civil proceedings does not operate as an automatic bar to the continuation of criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a prima facie case is disclosed against the accused?
  • Does the mere filing or pendency of a civil suit operate as an absolute bar to the continuation of a criminal case involving similar subject matter?
  • Should criminal proceedings be automatically stayed or postponed until the final disposal of concurrent civil litigation between the same parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh and others vs The State1990 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14
  leave to appealself-defenceabatementcriminal convictionappreciation of evidenceright of private defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. One petitioner, Ahmad Bakhsh, passed away during the pendency of the proceedings, resulting in the abatement of the petition regarding him. For the remaining petitioners, the core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in its summary rejection of the plea of self-defence. The petitioners contended that the High Court failed to provide specific, cogent reasons for rejecting their defence version, merely observing that the story did not ring true. The Supreme Court found that this contention required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to specifically consider whether the plea of self-defence was properly considered and appreciated by the High Court, establishing that a defence version cannot be rejected summarily without adequate reasoning.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a petitioner during the pendency of a petition for leave to appeal result in the abatement of the petition qua that petitioner?
  • Can a plea of self-defence be rejected summarily by an appellate court without providing specific and cogent reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and another vs The Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 21990 PLD Lahore 425 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-10
  constitutional petitionfraud and misrepresentationconsent decreelimitationappealabilitycivil procedurerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which had accepted an appeal and set aside a trial court order dismissing an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal questions involved whether an appellate court can decide an appeal without recording a finding on a crucial issue of limitation decided against the appellant by the trial court, and whether an order passed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is appealable. The Lahore High Court held that the Additional District Judge acted illegally by ignoring the issue of limitation and that an order dismissing an application under section 12(2) is not appealable under section 104 or Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court laid down the principles that an appellate court must adjudicate upon all foundational findings of the trial court, particularly limitation, and that an incompetent appeal cannot be deemed a revision without a conscious exercise of discretion by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can accept an appeal without reversing the trial court's finding on the issue of limitation?
  • Is an order passed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 appealable under section 104 or Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Can an incompetent appeal be treated as a revision without a conscious exercise of discretion by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs Inspectorgeneral, Punjab Police and 2 others1990 SCMR 1450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-01
  Service TribunalLimitation periodCondonation of delayIncompetent revision petitionService appealLeave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed two separate petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking leave to appeal against judgments of the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed their service appeals as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing incompetent revision petitions before the Inspector-General of Police could be condoned or excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeals. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that since the petitioners had no legal right to file a revision or second appeal to the Inspector-General of Police, the time consumed in those proceedings could not be legally excluded or condoned for the purpose of extending the limitation period prescribed for filing appeals before the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision and refused to grant leave to appeal, establishing that pursuing an incompetent remedy does not toll the limitation period for statutory appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent revision petition before a departmental authority be condoned for the purpose of filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the filing of a revision petition, where no such right exists, extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Syed ALl Shah vs Arbab Muhammad Tariq and 3 others1990 SCMR 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-20
  election petitionballot papercross markvalid votelocal councils electionconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside an Election Tribunal's decision and restored the respondent as the elected Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Peshawar. The election was challenged on the ground that two ballot papers cast in favour of the respondent contained a plus (+) mark instead of the standard multiplication cross (x), leading the Election Tribunal to exclude them and declare the petitioner the winner. The Peshawar High Court reversed this decision, holding that the votes were valid. The core legal question was whether a plus mark on a ballot paper rendered it invalid under the relevant local council election rules and instructions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the instruction regarding a cross mark was illustrative rather than exhaustive, and that a 'cross' includes various forms such as the Latin cross. The court established that disenfranchising voters requires clear language and stronger grounds, and minor variations in marking a ballot do not invalidate the vote unless they compromise secrecy in reality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a ballot paper marked with a plus (+) sign instead of a multiplication cross (x) is invalid under the North-West Frontier Province Local Councils (Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1979?
  • Can instructions issued by an Election Authority alter or curtail the well-understood meaning of a statutory term such as a 'cross'?
  • Whether the High Court can exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to correct an incorrect view of the law taken by an Election Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Rafiq Ahmed vs The Secretary,Food Deptt.,Govt of Sindh,KarachiK.L.R 1990 Labour and Service Cases 99 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Afzal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 540 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-19Read full judgment →
• Afzal Shah vs Land Acquisition Collector and others1990 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-29
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensation enhancementpotential valuerevenue recordcompulsory acquisitionSection 9 notice
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act concern the determination of fair compensation for land acquired for industrial clay procurement. The core legal questions involved the proper classification of the acquired land and the assessment of its market value, specifically whether potential future use and the time elapsed between the notification under Section 4 and the final award should influence compensation. The Court held that while the classification of the land as 'Maira' based on revenue records was correct, the compensation required enhancement. The Court established that the factors for determining market value under Section 23 are not exhaustive and must account for the land's potential future use and the inflationary gap between the initial notification and the award. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the bar under Section 25(2) against claiming higher compensation does not apply where the acquiring authority fails to prove service of the mandatory notice under Section 9. Consequently, the compensation was enhanced based on the average market value of similar land during the relevant period.

  Questions settled

  • Are the factors for determining market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act exhaustive?
  • Can the potential future use of land be considered when assessing compensation under the Land Acquisition Act?
  • Does the bar under Section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act apply to claims for enhanced compensation if notice under Section 9 was not served?
  • Should the time gap between the Section 4 notification and the final award be considered in determining land compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Mehdi vs Chief Secretary to the Govt.of SindhK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 104 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-03-30Read full judgment →
• Afzal Ahmad vs WAPDA1990 SCMR 1466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-01
  service lawWAPDA Actremoval from serviceshow-cause noticenatural justiceFederal Service Tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal of the petitioner, a Meter Reader for WAPDA, from service. The petitioner was removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the removal was unlawful due to the failure to issue a show-cause notice or conduct a formal inquiry prior to the termination order. The petitioner further contended that the absence of such procedural safeguards rendered the removal un-Islamic, relying on the precedent established in Pakistan v. Public-at-large. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dictum laid down in the cited precedent was inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the Court found no substance in the petitioner's arguments regarding the necessity of a show-cause notice or inquiry under the specific provisions of the WAPDA Act, thereby affirming the validity of the removal order without the requirement of prior procedural formalities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the removal of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act require a prior show-cause notice?
  • Is a formal inquiry mandatory before removing an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
  • Does the absence of a show-cause notice in a WAPDA service termination render the action un-Islamic?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Khalid Shaikh vs Ali Ghulam and another1990 MLD 1733 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao, President of Pakistan Peoples Party, N.W.F.P. vs The Governor, N.W.F.P. and others1990 PLD Peshawar 192 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-26
  dissolution of provincial assemblyconstitutional petitionjudicial reviewdiscretionary powerprior approval of the presidentrestoration of assemblyobjective grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by the former Chief Minister of the North-West Frontier Province challenging the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly and the dismissal of the Provincial Cabinet by the Governor. The core legal questions involved the justiciability of the dissolution order, whether the objective conditions required under Article 112(2)(b) existed, whether the prior approval of the President was duly obtained and on proper advice, and whether the consequential relief of restoring the Assembly ought to be granted. The Peshawar High Court held that the dissolution order lacked relevant objective grounds, failed to demonstrate prior presidential approval, and was unconstitutional and without lawful authority. By a majority, the Court ruled that the illegally dissolved Provincial Assembly and Cabinet must be restored, distinguishing the circumstances from prior precedents where relief had been denied. The key principle laid down is that the discretionary power of the Governor to dissolve a provincial assembly must be founded on objective facts directly related to a constitutional breakdown, and such executive actions remain fully subject to judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the order of the Governor dissolving a Provincial Assembly is subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the exercise of discretionary power by the Governor to dissolve the Provincial Assembly require objective grounds showing a breakdown of constitutional mechanism?
  • Is the prior approval of the President mandatory for the dissolution of a Provincial Assembly under Article 112(2)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the superior courts can grant the relief of restoring a provincial assembly and cabinet when its dissolution is found to be unconstitutional?
  Read full judgment →
• Afsar Khan vs Mir Dad Khan and others1990 SCMR 1710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-11
  election disputeUnion Council electionpolling interruptionright of franchiseelection tribunallocal council election rulespresiding officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an election dispute regarding a Union Council seat. The Election Tribunal had initially declared the respondent's election void, citing procedural irregularities concerning a one-hour polling interruption and the non-participation of female voters. The High Court subsequently reversed this decision, upholding the election. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Presiding Officer's resumption of polling violated Rule 26 of the North-West Frontier Province Local Council Election Rules, 1979, and whether the absence of female voters invalidated the result. The Court held that the polling interruption did not invalidate the election as no prejudice was demonstrated, and candidates had actively participated in the resumed polling without objection. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the non-participation of female voters did not invalidate the election absent evidence that they were actively prevented from exercising their franchise. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the election was valid and that the procedural challenges raised by the appellant were without legal merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a temporary interruption of polling by a Presiding Officer automatically invalidate an election under Rule 26 of the North-West Frontier Province Local Council Election Rules, 1979?
  • Does the non-participation of female voters in an election invalidate the result if there is no evidence they were prevented from voting?
  • Can an election be declared void on the basis of procedural irregularities where no prejudice to the voters or candidates is demonstrated?
  Read full judgment →
• Afroz Ilahi and 2 others vs KARAcHl Metropolitan Corporation and another1990 MLD 828 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-05Read full judgment →
• Accountant General, Balochistan, Quetta vs Abdul Majeed Babar and others1990 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-28
  service tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceexclusive jurisdictionconstitutional petitioncivil servantdepartmental authoritypay slip
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examined whether a dispute regarding the pay and terms and conditions of a civil servant, arising from the refusal of the Accountant-General to issue a pay slip in Basic Pay Scale 21, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the High Court. The respondent, originally a federal civil servant belonging to the District Management Group and subsequently appointed as Chairman of the Balochistan Public Service Commission, sought a higher pay scale through provincial notifications, which the Accountant-General objected to on the ground that only the Federal Government was the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the dispute substantially related to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, making the Service Tribunal the exclusive forum under Article 212 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and directed the respondent to seek his remedy before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding the pay scale and terms and conditions of a civil servant fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition in respect of matters to which the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal extends?
  • Does the Accountant-General qualify as a departmental authority when refusing to issue a salary slip based on the validity of an order?
  • Can a civil servant seek remedies before the Service Tribunal in respect of matters arising during their period of service after superannuation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar vs The State1990 MLD 56 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Abid Arif Nomani and others vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Lahore and others1990 PLD Revenue 12 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
• Abdus Salam vs Muhammad Munir and 2 others1990 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-06
  writ petitionevictioncompromise agreementleave to appealtenancysolemn agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant challenging an order of the High Court, which disposed of a writ petition regarding eviction based on a compromise agreement. The core legal question was whether a tenant, having entered into a solemn compromise before the High Court after detailed negotiations to vacate premises by a specific date in exchange for continued possession, could subsequently resile from that agreement on the grounds of improper legal advice or potential irreparable loss. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no justification for the petitioner to back out of a binding agreement. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had already secured the benefit of retaining possession of the suit premises for approximately nine months through this compromise. The key principle laid down is that a party who has entered into a solemn compromise before a court, particularly after detailed negotiations and with the assistance of counsel, cannot unilaterally resile from such an agreement, especially after having already enjoyed the benefits derived from that settlement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party resile from a compromise agreement reached before the High Court after having already obtained the benefit of continued possession?
  • Is a compromise agreement regarding eviction, entered into with the assistance of counsel, binding upon the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Salam And Others vs Collector And Other1990 CLC 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Abdul Hafeez and another1990 SCMR 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-25
  ejectmentpersonal needlandlord and tenantleave to appealconstitutional jurisdictiondiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdur Rehman against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the eviction order passed against him by the Additional District Judge on the ground of personal need of the landlord, reversing the Rent Controller's dismissal of the ejectment application. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the eviction order based on personal need and the tenant's entitlement to discretionary relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no case on merits regarding the personal need of the landlord and further noted that the petitioner's conduct in seeking and accepting four months' time from the High Court to vacate the premises disentitled him to any further discretionary indulgence by the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant who avails time granted by the High Court to vacate premises is entitled to seek further indulgence from the Supreme Court?
  • Does an eviction order based on the personal need of the landlord warrant interference when examined concurrently by the appellate court and the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq vs The State1990 MLD 184 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
• Abdur Raziq and anothers vs The State1990 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21
  conviction maintainedeye-witness testimonyfirearms expert reportSection 382-B CrPCmurderattempted murdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose against the judgment of the High Court, which affirmed the trial court's conviction and life imprisonment sentences of the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that after an initial scuffle over liquor, the appellants returned armed with shotguns, fatally shooting the deceased and injuring eye-witnesses. The defence completely denied the occurrence, alleging false implication following an altercation involving their sister. The primary legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the ocular evidence supported by forensic ballistic reports was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 ought to be granted. The Supreme Court held that the eye-witness accounts were consistent, trustworthy, and fully corroborated by the Fire-arms Expert report. While maintaining the convictions and sentences, the Court extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellants, directing that their period of pre-trial custody be computed towards their terms of imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular evidence corroborated by a positive firearms expert report is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Whether the Supreme Court may grant the statutory benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where lower courts omitted to do so?
  • Whether a general plea of false implication can displace consistent and corroborated eye-witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf and 8 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1694 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid and 2 others vs The State1990 SCMR 499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13
  counterfeiting currencyleave to appealspeedy trialssearch and seizureviolation of section 103 Cr.P.C.criminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  These three petitions for leave to appeal arise from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners for counterfeiting currency notes under sections 489-A, 489-C, and 489-D, P.P.C. The petitioners were tried by the Special Court for Speedy Trials, convicted, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fines, while certain co-accused were acquitted. Their subsequent appeal to the High Court resulted in the acquittal of some co-accused but the dismissal of the petitioners' appeals. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, it was strenuously urged that the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been flagrantly violated, vitiating the trial. The Supreme Court held that the question raised regarding the violation of search and seizure provisions was of general public importance requiring consideration, and accordingly granted leave to appeal to examine all questions raised.

  Questions settled

  • Does the flagrant violation of the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a criminal trial?
  • Whether the conviction for counterfeiting currency notes under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when search and recovery witnesses are not associated in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs Maroof Shah1990 CLC 1607 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-23Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 469 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-03Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Haji Abdul Ghani1990 MLD 2284 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →